29^TH NOVEMBER 1999

Welcome to the 10th edition of our newsletter. In our last newsletter we clearly revealed how PADA had dishonestly fabricated and concealed evidence relating to the 'poison issue'. No doubt realising they have been caught out, in its latest posting PADA avoids answering any of our previous points, and instead radically changes tack. PADA now directly accuses me of complicity in the murder of my Spiritual Master; and on top of that participating in a heinous cover-up ! Such a desperate and erratic diversion only emphasises the fact that PADA is unable to answer any of the points we made. Further, in any case, as we will now reveal, PADA has made a very grave blunder in accusing me of having heard Srila Prabhupada speak about the poisoning. Please read on.

1. PADA claims that I had a 'role' in Srila Prabhupada's alleged poisoning.

Once again PADA is in error. Only this time the error is made not only to make the case that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, but to also incriminate me. PADA pins everything on one word I am supposed to have said : "yes". I am alleged to have said this in response to the idea that Srila Prabhupada had said he had been poisoned:

etc. etc.

In fact PADA avoids answering any of our points by stating 51 times that the only point is that I said one word yes - and therefore somehow that is supposed to invalidate all the points regarding mis-translations and fabrication of evidence etc. that we make, and which PADA is unable to respond to. Leaving aside this evasive tactic, there is one serious and fatal flaw in PADA's argument.....

I NEVER SAID IT!

That is, I never heard nor agreed that Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned.

Says who? - Why, PADA's own source of knowledge - the book 'Kaviraja' by Nityananda Das. If one goes to page 46, and again to page 216 where the transcripts of the tapes are given, it is Bhakti-Caru who says Yes, NOT me. Thus PADA, having been defeated on their central argument, decided to pin everything on one last desperate hope - my having said the word "Yes". Unfortunately that last hope has now evaporated. Not only does PADA's own source of the tape transcripts say it wasn't me, but anyone who hears the tape, as I have done, will confirm that it is not me.

Indeed if PADA had stopped to think, it would have been obvious it was not me, but most likely Bhakti Caru Swami as Nityananda's book claims - for Bhakti Caru has just spoken, has been speaking throughout, whereas I never appear at all in the conversation. In any case everyone is free to hear the tape and it will be verified that it is not me saying 'yes, just as Nityananda's book reveals.

Thus PADA's case is in complete ruins.  

2. Please note some of the snide innuendo PADA has made against me on the basis of this false evidence:
   
    

etc, etc.

I n total there are 28 statements from PADA accusing me in one way or another of having deliberately lied and participated in the cover-up of Srila Prabhupada's murder to benefit the culprits. We will present all of these statements at the end of this newsletter as a permanent testimony to the level of argumentation that PADA has presented on this issue, and let the reader decide whether in light of the true facts, I deserved such a character assassination, and what, if any, credibility PADA has left.

In a more recent posting PADA claims to be my friend, but what kind of friend would make such horrible accusations on the basis of such flimsy and false evidence. At the very least PADA could have consulted me first with regards the conversation. That is what a real friend would do, not just publicly accuse me of assisting and covering the murder of my own beloved Spiritual Master.  

3. PADA may claim it had made an honest mistake since the FOLIO mistakenly does have me answering 'yes' instead of Bhakti-Caru.

 However PADA's source has always been Nityananda's book. The Vedabase could have had no role to play since the translated transcripts only appear in Nityananda's book - which is what the debate is about. It beggars belief that PADA, who used Nityananda's book all along, and does so again to quote the translated portions of the conversation, would switch to folio for the rendition of just one word, unless it was with the sole intention of trying to incriminate me. We had not previously bothered pointing out the mistake on folio since Nityananda's book which was the reference source for the poison theorists had the corrected transcript not once but - twice - and I never dreamed someone would become so desperate as to try and use this one word as proof that I am an accomplice to murder and perverter of the course of justice. Obviously I was wrong. Or maybe PADA does not read books anymore than he reads what I write - even though he is supposed to be answering it.

T hus I am accused of the most horrendous crime seemingly so PADA can change the subject and try to cover over the fact that he has failed to answer any of our previous arguments.  

4. As a very 'junior' devotee at the time, I was not usually at the bedside with Srila Prabhupada, but much further back since I was only in the room as the assistant to the Kaviraja. 

Thus I would simply wait to be given instructions. I definitely could not hear much of what Srila Prabhupada was saying, since he was speaking softly due to his illness, and thus only those in close proximity could hear what Srila Prabhupada was saying. However as I have previously testified, both in a previous newsletter, and over a year ago when this investigation first started, I do remember hearing the kaviraja talking about poisoning and that Srila Prabhupada had spoken about this. Thus having heard the Kaviraja say this, I took it up with him later, at which point he clarified his remarks and stated that it was due to bad medicine. Thus I was very concerned when I heard the Kaviraja mention the word 'poison', and only let the matter drop when I had discussed it with the Kaviraja personally. Further I had no reason to doubt the Kaviraja since Srila Prabhupada stated that Krishna had personally sent the Kaviraj and told him about this Kaviraj in a dream - please see folio for references to this.

Thus, at no point did I hear, nor agree that I heard Srila Prabhupada directly say he was being poisoned .

I hope PADA will not make this accusation again, and have the decency to withdraw all its malicious remarks, and more to the point either show that our corrected translation of Srila Prabhupada is wrong or concede that Srila Prabhupada did not directly say he was poisoned. Even the letters that PADA has quoted in 'support' of him, have all stated that Srila Prabhupada did not state directly that he was being poisoned  

5. PADA also cheats again in its efforts to convince us that Srila Prabhupada directly said he was poisoned:  
   
    

Even by PADA's demonstrably low standards this has to be a most desperate attempt to con his readers. Just as we uncovered evidence hidden by PADA in our previous newsletter, below we reproduce the full exchange which PADA has conveniently omitted:  

Please note the following:  

1. When the Kaviraja asks "to whom", the question is asked after Srila Prabhupada has just said:

"Someone says that I've been poisoned. It's possible"

" someone says that someone has given poison"

He has said this twice already, that he is simply repeating the claim of someone else.  

2. Thus the Kaviraja is clearly asking about the claim of poisoning made by this "someone" else.
3. This is confirmed by the next question the Kaviraja asks:

"who said"

and Srila Prabhupada replies:

"These all friends"  

4. Thus the whole exchange involves Srila Prabhupada simply reporting what someone else has said, as this is made clear both before and after Srila Prabhupada said 'mujhko'.
5. By saying 'mujhko' - 'to me' - Srila Prabhupada is repeating what he has already said:

"Someone says that I've been poisoned. It's possible"

Thus this 'mujhko' is not some new revelation, but just a repeat of what Srila Prabhupada has already said - 'I've been poisoned'. But it is clear that the remark 'I've (to me) been poisoned' is made by this 'someone' else - not by Srila Prabhupada himself as his own conclusion.

This is just as we originally stated.

We can see PADA has done the same thing here as they did before with the phrase 'someone has poisoned me' - which is to just plain ignore the context that is created by the other surrounding words spoken by Srila Prabhupada. This is called cheating. Please note that once the full transcript is provided - which by the way is taken directly from the book 'someone has poisoned me' and thus is not under dispute - PADA's lies are very easily exposed. No wonder they do not provide the full transcript.

How dumb does PADA think we are? What could possibly be gained from such obvious cheating? This is why we warned in our last newsletter that by such blatant cheating PADA is doing the greatest discredit to the poison theory issue. Th e poison theory will never be proven through such dishonest tactics as employed by PADA. All such an approach demonstrates is a strong tendency to cheat and lie.  

6. As stated in our original article, our only concern is what Srila Prabhupada himself said about his supposed poisoning. 

Th e fact remains, regardless of what others may or may not have said in 1977, Srila Prabhupada himself never directly stated that he had been poisoned. This is a simple fact, and the only point we were trying to make, and it still stands. To demonstrate what Srila Prabhupada states you need to quote him - not everyone else in the room. PADA cannot produce such a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada, so instead tries to prove its case through the words of the GBC:  

Please note the bizarre reasoning above. According to PADA, Srila Prabhupada must have said something because of what the GBC said. In other words, PADA cannot quote Srila Prabhupada saying it, but still baselessly insists he must have said it because of what other people said! This is exactly what the GBC do with the appointment tape.

It should be noted there are only 4 exchanges where the issue of poisoning is ever referred to by Srila Prabhupada.

1. Exchange 4 was the one that was mis-translated and PADA has not been able to refute the correct translation. Nor has PADA had the basic integrity to admit a mistake.
2. Exchange 1, as we have exposed above, does not support PADA's claim either.
3. Exchange 3 definitely does not support PADA's claim, hence its ridiculous and futile attempt to hide it in its last article through false labelling.
4. This only leaves Exchange 2, which in PADA's previous article it admitted, only has Srila Prabhupada speaking of the 'symptoms' of poisoning' being spoken of by this 'someone' else.

Above we see PADA's options, in terms of potential direct evidence from Srila Prabhupada supporting deliberate poisoning, are closed. With the evidence currently available, it is clear Srila Prabhupada never directly stated he had been poisoned. And that is the only point we have been trying to make. We are not saying Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned, nor that there should not be an investigation. We are only pointing out a simple fact, that Srila Prabhupada never directly said he had been poisoned.

Further please note:

5. PADA has not even attempted to answer all the points we made in regards to his fabricating and mis-representing evidence.
6. PADA's attempt to avoid the issue by quoting Tamala and trying to incriminate me does not change the basic fact that Srila Prabhupada does not directly say he was poisoned.  
7. Plus PADA's attempt to incriminate me was in any case based once more on false evidence.  
8. H e also offers the absurd argument that since an argument is posted on CHAKRA it must be wrong, and that because I simply asked that the arguments put there must either be taken seriously or rebutted, that I am a follower of the GBC. This is the same mind-control that the GBC practices - if something is coming from a source that we do not like it must be wrong and one can not read it. Why doesn't PADA just admit he cannot answer the arguments presented therein? Further he quotes Narayana Maharaja as one of his 'evidences' that the poison theory must be right since Narayana Maharaja also agrees that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. We simply ask for arguments to either be defeated or accepted, whereas PADA cites the Gaudiya Matha as some sort of authority. Who is really lining up with who here?  

So far PADA's case against the official IRM position has rested on lies, misrepresentations, fabrications and ghastly smears and innuendo. We can barely imagine what depths PADA will stoop to next. No doubt he will conjure up some other nonsense such as that since I was in the room I am still responsible and that I should have 'known' that the Kaviraja, even though sent by Krishna, was 'lying' and that Srila Prabhupada was being 'poisoned' etc.etc. In fact while he is at it, maybe he will put me down for having covered up the JFK assassination as well !

Meanwhile all our points remain unanswered and PADA still does not have a single statement from Srila Prabhupada were Srila Prabhupada directly states that he is being poisoned.

Appendix :

1. "Therefore, if there is some trickery going on here, you are the prime culprit." 
2.  "You knew he was saying he was being poisoned and you did not act for reasons as yet unknown to us? "  
3. "And yet --now-- you have become the star defence attorney for the GBC's case, and you are citing the GBC's and CHAKRA's arguments as your evidence? This all looks very odd Adri, at best."  
4. "Adri, you are either compromised for diplomacy or you are one of them posing as one of us. Either way it looks very bad."  
5. "Adri your own previous affirmation: "Yes," he is saying that someone is giving him poison, is proof that you are if nothing else a liar."
6. "And this leads us to question, who(m) are you trying to protect by your lies?" 
7.  "Yet now you try to deny that conclusion and say "no," which by the way benefits some very corrupt GBC members?"  
8. "You are therefore contesting yourself Adri, fighting your own shadow and former testimony. Technically, this is called perjury. Of course we at pada are not so sophisticated so we call it lies."  
9. "Adri, you are now proving yourself to be simply: a liar."  
10. "The only thing you are proving now by your denial is that you are a liar."
11.  "And this makes us wonder, why have you never brought out this information earlier and so on?" 
12. "It is a good thing we have evidence of your statement already, "yes," Srila Prabhupada says he is being poisoned, or you would lie forever."  
13. "We are sorry, but you have been caught with your hand, forearm, elbow, and upper torso, firmly in the cookie jar of defending the poisoners."  
14. "Why are you trying to cover up and change the evidence pertinent to the case?"  
15. "You are avoiding the whole point here, and which looks no small amount of suspicious to us."
16. "Now you say no, when it benefits a corrupt crew?"
17. "Again, this looks like a cover up."  
18. "Now you are saying something else, or trying to cast doubts, so you are one hundred percent a liar."  
19. " And by the way, his previous testimony is one piece of the puzzle that incriminates him in, at least, a cover up."  
20. "You were silent for 20 years and only mention this at all since we bring it up. And your statements tend to defend the bad guys in this issue."  
21. "Adri you are a liar, so the next question is, who benefits from your lies and who has benefited from your lies for 20 years?"
22. "You understood that he had said that someone is giving me poison and you covered it up for 20 years."
23. "No, we are going to ask you about your own words Adri. You are the one under trial here."
24. "Anyway, we want to know why you said someone is giving him poison, and those tapes seem to be missing? What is your role in this?"
25. " And you said yes to Tamal's statements? Hmmm, what are you hiding Adri?"
26. "And now for the final nail in Adri's coffin, he admits he is a CHAKRA-anuga. A Tamal whipping boy."  
27. " Adri, you are a CHAKRA-ite posing as a reformer."
28. "Except that it is you who said yes he was being poisoned by someone and since you are recanting like this you look very suspicious yourself."  

Thank you for taking the time to read this newsletter, and please keep your letters, and e-mail addresses of other devotees who should be added to our list, flowing in. A hard copy of our main position paper 'The Final Order' is available on request.

If you would like to receive any of the back issues of the Newsletter please let me know.

No1.   Invitation to Srila Prabhupada's Vyasa Puja

No2.   GBC Lose First Round of Court Case

No3.   The Story VNN Refused to Publish

No4.   Poison Theorists Accuse Adri of Complicity

No5.   Iskcon Continues to Promote Child Abusers

No6.   Invitation to Malaysia

No7.   United World Body Formed

No8    Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory?

No9.   Refutation Of PADA’s Attack On IRM Position