The theory that Srila Prabhupada was deliberately and fatally poisoned has been propagated mainly on the strength of the words 'someone has poisoned me', spoken by Srila Prabhupada during his final weeks in Vrindavan. So important is this alleged revelation from Srila Prabhupada that this emotive phrase has been used as the title for a book on the entire subject. To use Srila Prabhupada's own words is a powerful and convincing approach since every devotee knows the strongest possible evidence are the words of the acharya. Such directly revealed evidence is conclusive since it is beyond the four defects. Even supposedly water-tight forensic evidence has to take second place to the words of the acharya, since so called scientific evidence will naturally fall prey to those four defects.

Conversely if it can be shown that Srila Prabhupada did not directly confirm the fact that he was deliberately poisoned, then this will mean depending on less reliable sources such as ordinary witnesses and scientific analysis. These other less dependable sources might still validate the theory that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, but that is not the subject of this paper.

The purpose of this paper is to study the actual words of Srila Prabhupada only on the subject of his poisoning. Naturally, we can only rely on the actual words Srila Prabhupada spoke on this issue to determine whether he himself believed that he was deliberately poisoned. Thus the views and opinions of others who were in the room with Srila Prabhupada are of no relevance to us. Neither do we need to consider other subjects Srila Prabhupada discussed that were not directly to do with the issue of his poisoning.

We must stress that this paper does not prove, nor even attempt to prove, that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned. Nor are we saying that the issue should not be investigated. The GBC themselves felt the available evidence was sufficient grounds on which to launch a detailed investigation. We fully support such an investigation. Our only point here is that we must deal with facts rather than feelings brought on, quite understandably, by this highly charged subject. Thus we shall carefully look at what Srila Prabhupada himself said, rather than what feelings or suspicions his words might invoke in devotees minds and hearts.

Please note, there are in fact only 4 separate exchanges where Srila Prabhupada himself discusses the subject of his poisoning. The first 3 of these take place at different points in the same conversation, on the 9th of November, and the last exchange takes place the next day on the 10th November.
(Note: The above chronology is taken from the book 'Someone Has Poisoned Me'. The folio actually has all 4 exchanges taking place in the same conversation on the 8th November.)

3 out of the 4 exchanges involve Srila Prabhupada speaking in Hindi and Bengali. For the relevant Hindi and Bengali translations we will use those supplied by His Grace Naveen Krishna prabhu in the book 'Someone Has Poisoned Me' . We will refer to each of these exchanges as Exchange 1, 2 etc., with the appropriate translation from the book given directly underneath the transliteration in Hindi or Bengali.

1. Srila Prabhupada refers to others stating that he has been given poison. Srila Prabhupada does not himself confirm this, only adding that 'It's possible'.
2. At no point does Srila Prabhupada himself state that he has been given poison - he only reports the words of someone else.  

We have put these exchanges together because Srila Prabhupada simply repeats to Tamala Krishna in English what he has just told the Kaviraja in Hindi. Here Srila Prabhupada clarifies the fact that the statement by others regarding his poisoning was not even a direct statement that he has been poisoned; but only that he showed the symptoms of poisoning, and that that this was something which is written in a book, and that Srila Prabhupada had himself read such things.

Thus this exchange, as well as yielding no evidence from the mouth of the acharya himself agreeing that he has been poisoned, states that the other sources are not even themselves stating that Srila Prabhupada himself has been directly poisoned.

These 3 exchanges all take place on the same day.

1. Srila Prabhupada himself never refers to himself being poisoned.
2. Srila Prabhupada brings up the issue of 'someone' having 'poisoned' him as having being put forward by someone else, and continues to refer to it simply as someone else's idea - an idea he only stated is 'possible'.
3. He further clarifies that this 3rd party is only saying that symptoms of poisoning are being displayed - not even that he was poisoned. Srila Prabhupada further confirms that he himself has read this.

Thus we still have no evidence from the acharya himself, where he states that someone has given him poison.

Please note therefore that there has been a discussion and talk on the topic of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned by someone:

These were the phrases that started the whole discussion off - Srila Prabhupada is stating that someone else is saying that effectively 'someone has poisoned me'.

This is the context to the final exchange that takes place the next day.

We have left the translation of the first phrase blank because in the book 'Someone Has Poisoned Me' it is mis-translated; a fact admitted by Naveen Krishna prabhu - the translator himself, who has stated that the translation used is not his final translation but was only a very first rough draft.

The book translates the phrase:

As any Hindi speaker will confirm, the phrase 'vahi bat' means only 'that same discussion/talk', and that is all. 'Vahi' means 'that same', and 'bat' means 'discussion' or 'talk/subject'. Further it can be noted that:

1. The 'I said' part can easily be shown to be wrong. The words 'I' and 'said' are used nowhere in the Hindi. They have been added.  
2. In any case Srila Prabhupada had not said previously that he had been poisoned, as the analysis of our previous exchanges proves - he had only stated that someone else had discussed him being poisoned, and even then only showing the symptoms of poisoning, not that he had been poisoned.  
    

Just to have further confirmation, we were given the following translation from Dr. M. Kapoor, the Principal of Jalan High School, who has a Phd in Hindi:

Thus the correct translation, both from the literal meanings of the words used, and from the context of the discussion is - 'That same discussion'.

Thus the correct translation is:

Thus when Srila Prabhupada states 'someone has poisoned me', he is simply identifying the discussion which has led to the 'mental distress'. The talk on the previous day, as we have seen, was indeed in reference to 'someone has poisoned me'. Thus the phrase, 'someone has poisoned me', because it is prefaced with 'that same discussion', is used simply to refer back to the previous discussions in question. A previous discussion in which someone else had spoken of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned, or more accurately, displaying the symptoms of someone being poisoned.

In other words:

1. Srila Prabhupada is asked a question - 'what was that all about, mental distress'?
2. Srila Prabhupada answers initially - 'that same discussion'.
3. He then clarifies which discussion he is referring to by adding - 'that someone has poisoned me'.

Thus though Srila Prabhupada does speak the words - 'someone has poisoned me' - he only states them to identify the series of talks, which were to do with Srila Prabhupada being poisoned - but in which Srila Prabhupada himself never states that someone has poisoned him. The removal of the words 'I said' completely changes the meaning of the phrase 'that someone has poisoned me':

(1) The same thing, I said .... That someone has poisoned me.

(2) That same discussion ... That someone has poisoned me.

In case (1) due to the presence of 'I said', the word 'that' links the phrase 'someone has poisoned me' to 'I said'. This makes it appear that the phrase 'someone has poisoned me' was actually a statement from Srila Prabhupada himself.

In case (2) by removing the words 'I said', we have a completely different meaning. The linking word 'that' now simply links 'someone has poisoned me' directly to 'that same discussion'. This renders the phrase 'someone has poisoned me' into being simply the 'same discussion' referred to - where the idea of Srila Prabhupada being poisoned (or more accurately displaying symptoms of being poisoned) is actually stated by someone else, an idea which Srila Prabhupada does not confirm, but only says is 'possible'.

Thus this exchange does not yield any evidence from Srila Prabhupada agreeing that he had been poisoned. He merely confirms that the previous discussions, which themselves do not yield this evidence either, were the cause of his 'mental distress'. (We put the phrase 'mental distress' in inverted commas, because the term was not used by Srila Prabhupada himself). To conclude anymore than this - such as the fact that Srila Prabhupada had 'mental distress' proves that he must have thought he was poisoned - is speculation of the highest order since it involves trying to directly understand the mind of the Acharya. We may have grounds to investigate further, but that is all - we do not have any evidence that Srila Prabhupada agreed he was being poisoned.  

Please note that there is an interesting parallel here with the May 28th 1977 'appt tape'. Just as in the 'appt tape' Srila Prabhupada also speaks the words 'grand-disciple', and 'disciple of my disciple', the meanings of these words can only be understood by looking at the words next to them, such as 'when I order'. Similarly in this case, the phrase 'someone has poisoned me', has to be understood by examining the prefacing phrase. Supposing the words preceding 'someone has poisoned me' were 'I don't think that...'. In such a case it would be folly to insist that we only take the latter part of the sentence into account. In effect this is almost what has happened with the poison theory book due to the misleading mistranslation. If it is acceptable and proper to take an isolated phrase without considering its context, then the phrase 'grand-disciple' (on the May 28th tape) alone is just as much evidence of Gurus being appointed as the words 'someone has poisoned me' is evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. Or conversely, if the GBC continue to insist as they do that the words 'grand-disciple' and 'disciple of my disciple' are evidence that Srila Prabhupada appointed gurus, then they must equally accept that Srila Prabhupada is directly stating someone had poisoned him. And if Srila Prabhupada is stating that, then there is no need for the GBC to conduct an investigation into whether or not Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, since it is an open and shut case - since the words of the acharya are infallible. If Srila Prabhupada states that he was poisoned, then he was. The GBC must simply hunt down the culprits. 

We can see therefore how the GBC, after 20 years of cheating and mis-interpreting the words of Srila Prabhupada, have now been trapped by their own deceitful technique of only taking half of what Srila Prabhupada says. Such cheating, it seems, is coming back to haunt them. And for this we must thank those who have pushed the whole poison issue, because it has highlighted how, if the GBC are to be consistent with the way in which they use Srila Prabhupada's words, they must accept either that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, or drop perpetuating the doctrine that Srila Prabhupada authorised diksa gurus on the 'appt tape'. To ignore prefacing words is just blatant cheating, and will not convince anyone who is a little intelligent and unbiased.  

One final nail in the coffin of the idea that Srila Prabhupada is himself revealing that he is being poisoned is found in the following. After the last exchange Adri Dharan das, who was present at the discussion, asked the Kaviraja, whom Srila Prabhupada was supposedly revealing all this to, what Srila Prabhupada had been referring to when he spoke of poison. Even though in the previous conversation the Kaviraja immediately jumps to the conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of some malicious poisoning, he later reveals to Adri Dharan that Srila Prabhupada was actually only referring to the effects of poison having been administered via bad medicine.

This testimony would be consistent with a conversation that was held just 12 days before the above exchanges. In this Bhakti Caru Swami gives the following diagnosis from the doctors:

It seems from this that:

1. Srila Prabhupada had been taking arsenic, either via the Makara-dhvaja or other medicine;
2. and that the doctors stated this arsenic administered via medicine was acting as poison.

This may explain why 12 days later Srila Prabhupada reported how a 3rd party had noticed that Srila Prabhupada was showing the symptoms of someone who had been poisoned.

However without further solid evidence we cannot reach a conclusion, and therefore we would strongly urge the investigators to translate the Hindi conversations in the above conversation, to see if they provide extra clarification.  

Also from the above analysis of Srila Prabhupada's actual words, we have disproved two other notions that have been erroneously propagated. That Srila Prabhupada was hesitant to reveal the truth because he was afraid of his disciples, or that he only revealed the truth in Hindi or Bengali. Analysis of the exchanges has shown that: 

1. Srila Prabhupada states the same points in English to Tamal Krishna, as he does in Hindi to the Kaviraja.
2. Srila Prabhupada also spoke everything to the Kaviraja always in the presence of Bhakti Caru Swami, who could understand every word spoken in Hindi and Bengali, and who has now admitted that any poison could only have been adminstered via him, since all food and drink passed through his hands only. And Bhakti Caru Swami could easily have revealed every word Srila Prabhupada spoke to the Kaviraja, to Tamal Krishna in any case.

In this connection it should also be noted that the following conversation is used erroneously by some to support the notion that Srila Prabhupada feared being poisoned by his closest disciples:

Please note Srila Prabhupada is agreeing that outsiders and guests should be prevented from cooking for him - not his closest disciples:

Since Tamala Krishna clearly mentions only stopping 'anyone else' from being allowed to cook, and clearly speaks of the cooking being done only by 'their own men'.

It is very significant to note that yet again we have a mis-leading transcript. In the book 'Someone Has Poisoned Me', Tamala is actually shown as saying 'That's why actually we cannot allow anyone to cook for you' -i.e. the word 'else' is missing. By leaving out the word 'else', the book 'someone has poisoned me' has completely changed the true meaning - which is that only others outside of the disciples who were already cooking for Srila Prabhupada should be prevented from cooking for Srila Prabhupada - to everyone should be prevented from cooking for Srila Prabhupada. Anyone who listens to the tape in question will clearly hear the word 'else' being spoken by Tamala Krishna Maharaja, and indeed "anybody else" is the transcript given by the Bhaktivedanta Archives on the Srila Prabhupada Veda Base (folio).  

As stated at the outset of this paper, Srila Prabhupada's words have currently been used as the main evidence to push the poisoning theory. Other evidence such as the presence of arsenic in Srila Prabhupada's hair, witnesses etc., has been mooted, but not yet produced. Until it is we have no actual evidence on which to comment. The so called 'whispers' can only be used as supporting evidence once poisoning has itself been proven. Thus they have no role to play yet. (It is also worth noting that in any case the poison proponents themselves admit that the forensic tests on the whispers have a margin of error of up to 20%. Please note that in standard scientific tests that can be put forward as any sort of proof, such as DNA testing, the margin of error is usually as low as 0.0001%, or one chance in a million).  

On the currently available evidence:

1. Srila Prabhupada never himself confirmed that he was being poisoned.
2. Srila Prabhupada only stated that 'someone else' had stated that he was showing the symptoms of someone who had been poisoned.

Therefore there is no evidence from the infallible source of the acarya that he was being deliberately poisoned. Thus the answer to the title of this paper has to be 'no'.  

We do not hold the author of the book 'someone has poisoned me' responsible for deliberately perpetrating falsehood, even though the mis-translation reported makes a significant difference to the strength of the case for deliberate poisoning,. The author appears to have genuinely relied on the translation work of others, even though it was made clear to him that the translation provided to him was not to be taken as accurate. All we would say is that the title of his book should have been 'It's Possible', for these are the only words Srila Prabhupada himself offers on the subject of his poisoning.

Also the GBC themselves have mis-translated the phrase in exactly the same way. In the case of the GBC this is just another example of the intellectual sloppiness that is the hallmark of their work, as anyone who has read their position papers on the Guru issue will know. It is remarkable, but not surprising, that even when desperately trying to defend the reputations of some of their most senior supporters they should display such poor attention to detail. For it is precisely such poor attention to detail - adding an extra word here and there, and minimising other words - that has led them to perpetrate the Guru hoax in ISKCON for so long.

Thus in essence, unless some other evidence has yet to be revealed, there is no case on the present available evidence. As already mentioned, in this regard it may be instructive to translate all the Hindi and Bengali conversations which are on the tapes in the archives, to see if there is any evidence to support the poisoning theory.

Over 20 years ago we made a huge mistake by accepting, without analysis and supporting evidence, the alleged purport of some discussion that took place on a supposed 'appointment tape'. This led to the disastrous Guru system that has now brought ISKCON practically to its knees. Let us not make a similar mistake, by again accepting some discussion and whispers on a tape, without sufficient analysis and evidence.

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