22^ND NOVEMBER 1999

Welcome to the 9th edition of our newsletter. I In our last newsletter we pointed out how the 'poison' issue had been promoted using a mis-translation of a phrase spoken by Srila Prabhupada. Those of you who have taken the trouble to actually read our paper will know that this was our main and only contention. Indeed even the title of the paper made this clear - 'Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory'. The title of the paper, was not for instance - "Srila Prabhupada Was Not Poisoned". Unfortunately in a bout of what we can only assume was extreme frustration, PADA has used what we do not say as an excuse to launch a furious attack on the IRM paper on the Poison issue and myself. However his paper does not actually refute a single statement that we actually make. Rather his reply uses the same techniques that the GBC papers use when they are unable to answer the actual arguments which are put forward. Please read on.

1. Introduction
2. PADA Makes Up What We Say

3. PADA Hides Evidence That Refutes Its Case
4. Contradictions
5. PADA Denies Context By Fabricating Translation
6. Our Translation Remains Unchallenged
7. PADA Makes Personal Attack
8. Context Created by Srila Prabhupada's Words Ignored
9. PADA Bases Context on Authority of Tamala Krishna
10. Building a Case on Bluff
11. Building a Case On Speculation
12. Case For 'Whispers' Built on 5 Layers of Speculation
13. Conclusion

In our original paper on the poison issue, we had actually made it very clear from the opening of the paper, what it was that we were setting out to do:

So its very clear that we are only addressing one specific issue - what Srila Prabhupada actually said - that's all. And we also make it very clear that we are not in any way addressing whether or not Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. We are simply clearing up some erroneous conclusions that have been promoted on the basis of what Srila Prabhupada is said to have claimed, due to false translations been given.

We will now see that PADA does not in any way challenge the central point presented in our paper. Rather being unable to answer what we actually say PADA resorts to the tried and trusted technique employed by the GBC whenever they try to reply to a paper by ourselves:

1. PADA simply 'makes up' statements, attributes them to us, and then attacks that - the very things we do not say - this is known as a 'straw man' argument. Most of PADA's paper is full of such arguments.
2. Also when someone is unable to answer the actual arguments that are presented - they instead will attack a person, to try and deflect from the fact that they are not actually answering the arguments presented, and to try and make the reader think that such a personal attack compensates for the inability to actually answer the argument presented. This is known as an 'argumentum ad hominem'.  

Also for good measure PADA adds in the following techniques that are also a common feature of GBC replies:

3. Fabricates evidence  
4. Omits evidence that does not support his case.
5. Contradicts himself.
6. Tries to prove what Srila Prabhupada must have said and meant by using the words of his disciples. (Please note the GBC's Guru hoax practically rests on this cheating technique).
7. Presents his own speculation as evidence.
8. Presents 'evidence' that he is unable to substantiate.  

I ndeed in all the years of answering GBC papers, we have yet to see one that is as blatant in its mis-representation of our arguments as the latest issue of PADA.

We will now demonstrate from start to finish how PADA is full of only the above deceitful techniques, and does not refute a single point that we made in our paper. All the quotes from PADA shall be in quotation marks thus " ", and our reply shall follow underneath.  

I never make such a statement. On the contrary, as I quoted in the introduction, we do not even discuss whether or not Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, only what he actually himself said on the subject:

Adri never says this. Adri only argues that we must accept whatever the statements actually say, and not pretend they say something else.

Since the paper makes it clear that we are only discussing one issue, we can not be accused of 'discounting' something that is not relevant to that which we are discussing - which is what exactly did Srila Prabhupada say.

Simple - Adri does not say that Srila Prabhupada has 'not been shot'. In fact Adri makes it clear that this is the one thing that his paper does not say - that Srila Prabhupada was not poisoned.

I never state this. Yet another 'straw man' argument. PADA confuses what Srila Prabhupada does say, which is all our paper deals with, - to what he would have to say to prove he was poisoned - a totally different subject that we make clear our paper does not even address.

I never say this. Another fabrication from the fertile imagination of PADA. As already pointed out, I make no statement on whether or not there was any poisoning - only on what Srila Prabhupada directly says on the subject.

I never say the 'appt tape' was a 'mysterious enigma'. Only that the poison theorists should not mis-interpret the words of Srila Prabhupada, just as the GBC do with the 'appt tape'. On the contrary obviously we must think that the 'appt tape' is 'clear' since we have given a very detailed 'line by line' explanations of it in the 'Final Order' and many other papers - something which incidentally PADA has never attempted.

I never say this. The paper in fact never deals with what Srila Prabhupada 'meant' to say - only what he does say.

In never say this. On the contrary I say that the words 'someone has poisoned me' need to be understood in the context of the other words spoken before them.

T he only thing which is 'mysterious' here is PADA's inability to read, for the 'whispers' are mentioned, as we shall now show by quoting from the paper:

'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).'

('Does Srila Prabhupada Support Poisoning Theory', IRM position paper on 'poison' issue)

As well as clearly 'mentioning' the 'whispers' we also point out the obvious fact that the 'whispers' themselves are not valid evidence to determine whether poisoning itself took place. They also have no relevance to what Srila Prabhupada himself actually spoke - the subject of this paper (since Srila Prabhupada did not utter the so-called 'whispers').

I never challenged that Srila Prabhupada spoke these words - on the contrary we make it clear that Srila Prabhupada did say these words - so why is PADA trying to point out that I am 'confirming' something which I had never doubted?

Above we quote PADA's analysis of our comments on the first exchange - which took place on November 9th - where Srila Prabhupada first mentions about the poisoning. (There are 4 exchanges in all). Unfortunately PADA's whole analysis of this exchange which goes on at some length (below we will only given the key phrases) is all based around a faulty supposition - that I say this exchange refers back to a 'previous conversation'. This a complete fabrication. I never say this:

The only time I mention a 'previous' conversation is when analysing the last exchange - the 4th one - which occurred on November 10th - and which contains the key phrase 'someone has poisoned me'. So PADA has written a whole rebuttal regarding the 1st exchange, based on what I said about a completely different exchange!

W e apologise for the length of this section, but we had to detail the sheer extent of PADA's lies and mis-representation. Such misrepresentation is simple proof that PADA could not answer what we actually do say, otherwise he would not need to devote such a large portion of his paper attacking what I don't say. We are all prone to the odd mistake. But we can see that PADA has systematically misrepresented my arguments continuously throughout his whole article. And the use of quotation marks and the phrase 'Adri says' emphasises that this was no accidental mistake. Misrepresentation on such a large scale as this can only happen if one is deliberately cheating, or one is totally incompetent and has problems with basic reading. We will let the reader decide which. In either case, it is clear that PADA does not have clue what it is talking about.

In its reply PADA also does something very underhand and deceitful. In the original IRM paper we reproduced the 4 exchanges, in chronological order, where Srila Prabhupada speaks on this issue, and we label them 'Exchange 1 to 4'. I n his reply PADA reproduces and attempts to analyse all these exchanges, except exchange no 3. PADA even re-labels our 'exchange 4' as 'exchange 3' to cover up this cheating, giving the impression that 'Exchange 3' has not been missed out.

The following is the 'Exchange 3' that PADA misses out, and tries to cover-up that it has been missed out:

We will now show why this exchange has been left out - because it would directly change the meaning of many points made by PADA:

Look at the above exchange. Here Tamala also asks about Srila Prabhupada having been poisoned. And Srila Prabhupada does say - "not that I am poisoned". And the second time Tamala asks, which is what Puranjana refers to here, Srila Prabhupada does not say "someone is poisoning me". Srila Prabhupada simply does not answer. So the above statement by Puranjana gives an incomplete picture, which is aided and abetted by him having left out the above exchange.

Again the statements from Srila Prabhupada that PADA has omitted would again destroy what PADA is saying here, because after step (2) of the analogy, PADA would have to add the following clarification from Srila Prabhupada: "He said that I have the symptoms, not that I have been shot (poisoned) - (because Srila Prabhupada also says - 'not that I have been poisoned'. This totally takes the punch out of PADA's 'analogy'. 

This point is also destroyed by the 'missing' exchange since now that 'someone' also says - 'not that I am being poisoned', which again smashes PADA's argument here.

By the omitted exchange, the above statement by PADA becomes a death certificate for its own case, because if the 'symptoms' are not on the same level as being 'shot', then the statement - "These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned" - means that by PADA's own words Srila Prabhupada is saying he is not shot.

T hus we can see that in a desperate attempt to prop up his false arguments PADA resorts to cheating by 'hiding' a key statement by Srila Prabhupada on this subject, even going so far as to give the label of this exchange to another exchange. However this cheating has been caught.

In common with the GBC, PADA also insists on contradicting itself, revealing either a very confused mind, or the mind of someone who is willing to say any nonsense as long as it serves his purposes:

When our paper first came out, PADA sent us a very short analysis of our paper on 15/11/99. In this it says:

Please notice how this statement contradicts the statements which we quoted in the last section where we showed how PADA had ignored that 'there was no one saying he was being poisoned'. To cover up this contradiction is another reason why he has also had to 'hide' the exchange where this statement was made. I t is interesting to note how when he first read our paper, he was honest enough to admit that 'there was no one saying he was being poisoned'. But as soon as he was called upon to refute our paper, he deliberately 'forgets' this point that he has just conceded, and also for good measure 'hides' the conversation where it is made!

Firstly PADA admits that we encourage people to look to the 'Balavanta report':

Then he says that we are trying to avoid the report:

How can we be trying to avoid the reality, when PADA admits we are asking everyone to look to the very thing which PADA claims is 'closing in on this issue'!

Here PADA equates the words of the GBC with the words of sastra. He says that Srila Prabhupada referred to sastra many times by saying "it is said". And that therefore whenever he said this, it must be a fact. But he admits here that the "it is said" refers to the statements of the GBC 'poison killers'. How can then he argue that in this case the "it is said" must be equal to "it is a fact", when he admits that the source is the GBC. "It is said" - yes - but by the GBC - not sastra - so why must what is "said" by the GBC have to be a "fact"? Surely the key is WHO Srila Prabhupada is quoting - but PADA is arguing that here this is irrelevant and that the GBC are just as an infallible source as sastra - but he has always argued the opposite - that the GBC are not infallible. By Puranjana's logic, anything that Srila Prabhupada quotes from any source - must be true - i.e. the phrase "it is said" will always refer to "facts" whether it is referring to sastra or some GBC 'killers'. This is absurd and merely reveals just how desperate PADA is to make an argument.

Originally in his first report on our paper, PADA thought that the 'friends' who were telling Srila Prabhupada about the possibility of his poisoning was actually 'Krishna'.

However 3 days later PADA thinks that actually the friends were the GBC 'whisperers' who were supposed to have murdered him!:

From the Supreme Personality of Godhead to the GBC 'poison killers' in 3 days - that's an amazing about turn even for PADA!  

Also why Srila Prabhupada would refer to the persons who were murdering him as 'friends' is a mystery. Especially when PADA also claims that the same 'friends' are referred to as 'Ravana' later on by Srila Prabhupada in relation the conversation to do with going on parikrama:

"The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama."
(Conversation, 11/11/99)

In other words according to PADA, the word 'friends' could mean either Rama (Krishna) or the GBC poisoners (Ravana). So when Srila Prabhupada says above that: "The Ravana will kill and Rama will kill" Srila Prabhupada could in theory refer to both of them in the same way, since the word 'friends' is equally applicable to both Ravana and Rama! This again demonstrates the absurd lengths to which PADA will go to make an argument.

Initially to support his case, PADA argues that we must take into account all the tapes that are hidden, and therefore for me to reach a conclusion that Srila Prabhupada was referring to the known previous day's conversations without taking these missing tapes into account is 'wrong':

(Referring to my analysis that 'someone has poisoned me' refers to the previous days' conversations)

Later on when it suits him to only take the known conversations before us, he insists we must ignore any 'missing' tapes (something with which incidentally we agree):

So after having tried to discount our analysis by saying that we have to take into account the missing tapes, he then tells us 3 times that for the purpose of his analysis we need not worry about these missing tapes when reaching a conclusion!

As those of you who have read our paper will know (from the above it is clear that Puranjana has not read our paper), our one and only point was a simple one. On November the 10th Srila Prabhupada is asked a simple question - 'What is the cause of your mental distress'? With the following correct translation, the answer is a simple one:

"That same discussion .... That someone has poisoned me"

The answer given is -'That same discussion' - and t he phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is clearly linked, as indicated by the word 'that', to this 'same discussion'. The second phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is therefore just an elaboration on the first phrase -'That same discussion' - and is used simply to identify 'that same discussion'. Please note that it does not even matter if as Puranjana argues that we cannot be sure which conversation is being referred to - because the fact still remains that the words someone has poisoned me are being used to identify some conversation - which is our key point - they are not a statement in of themselves from Srila Prabhupada, as is being claimed.

We saw that previously this clear meaning was distorted because of a mis-translation that was originally there - whereby the words 'I said' had erroneously been added.

PADA being now unable to refute this straight-forward meaning of the phrase 'That someone has poisoned me' has resorted to the same technique of mis-translation which was there originally. For PADA translates the above phrase as:

W e can see that he has added an 'and' to separate the 2 phrases. This is no mistake since PADA is supposed to be reproducing verbatim the translations that were in our original paper. Thus this 'and' has been deliberately added. Indeed this word 'and' is not even in the original bogus translation given in the book 'someone has poisoned me'. What makes this cheating even more deceitful is that since PADA is supposed to be presenting the translations from the original paper, unless the reader checked back with the original paper, they would not even have noticed this rogue addition of the word 'and'. However this one word makes all the difference, since now by separating the 2 phrases PADA can attempt to make the phrase - 'that someone has poisoned me' - as being an 'answer' to the question asked. Thus PADA then attempts to peddle the following incorrect explanation by building on this bogus translation:  

A s we can see the only 'atom bomb' here is the trickery of PADA in adding a bogus word to change the meaning. Then it can attempt to say that the 'mental distress' is caused by the fact 'that someone has poisoned me' - since it has decoupled this phrase from the real answer to this question - 'That same discussion' - and therefore made it appear that 'someone has poisoned me' is also the answer to the question asked. In this way the phrase 'someone has poisoned me' again gets turned into a direct statement from Srila Prabhupada, as it was under the previous bogus translation. However by keeping the translation correctly in line with how the phrases appear on the tape, where they are separated by a pause only, the 'that someone has poisoned me' phrase remains linked only to 'that same discussion' phrase just as we originally presented it.

This proves conclusively that PADA is unable to refute the one and only claim of our paper - that Srila Prabhupada does not directly state that he has been poisoned - since it has had to resort to the trickery of adding a bogus word to try and make its case, just as was done originally with the bogus addition of the words 'I said'.

Please note the similarity between this trickery and that used by the GBC when explaining the 'appt tape' for they also attempt to make the phrase 'disciple of my disciple' appear as the answer to the opening question about how initiations will be conducted in the future, 'particularly when you are no longer with us'. The GBC attempt to bypass the real immediate answer - 'officiating acarya - ritvik' - and instead say that 'disciple of my disciple' is the real answer to the opening question, even though it is spoken last on the tape. PADA has done the same here by pretending that the phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is the answer to the question asked, instead of the phrase 'that same discussion', to which it is linked . A nd similarly this is achieved by the addition of the bogus word 'and', just as the GBC change - 'His grand-disciple' - to - 'He is Grand-disciple' - even though only one word is clearly spoken on the 'appt tape'.

PADA also tries to throw doubt on our translation, by claiming that:  

Though significantly PADA is not able to produce even one of these several Hindi etc. speakers who disagree with our scholarly translation, nor can it say where and how our translation is wrong and what the correct translation is. These would surely be the very things one would have thought PADA would have produced. Instead as we have shown it has produced pages and pages of rubbish, but not found any space to even once give the 'correct' translation - which is the key issue.

Rather it goes on to make what is probably the most bizarre claim ever made:

Has it ever occurred to PADA just how I am supposed to make a case to defeat all these non-existent Hindi speakers, with their non-existent translations! By this logic PADA could defeat anyone:  

In desperation PADA even tries the following:  

Well at a recent meeting in London, Navayogendra Maharaja in front of witnesses agreed with us on our explanation of the poison issue in relation to what Srila Prabhupada actually says. Further he also admitted that he has carried on initiating and was caught at a program preaching the same philosophy on initiation as the GBC - so I guess he is not a member of the IRG either.

In sum PADA merely succeeds in offering no argument, but plenty of bluff.

PADA also makes many statements to do with my character. Again this is all irrelevant to the issue at hand. Whether I am naive, or 'in denial' etc. etc., it makes no difference to the arguments. I can be the biggest rascal in the world - but that does not change the fact that the arguments presented are still correct. Making so many statements about me is again a nasty technique designed to discredit what is being said, since the actual arguments themselves cannot be faulted. This technique is one that the GBC have perfected. They will undermine someone to try and discredit what is being said, since they cannot answer what is actually being said. Such personal statements have no place in a discussion over the merits of what Srila Prabhupada actually said. They have been used many times against Puranjana himself, where instead of replying to his points, they will instead remind everyone that he was in the 'Gopi Bhava club' etc. etc. Thus we are surprised to see Puranjana engaging in such behaviour. No matter what my failings are, they cannot change the validity of the arguments presented. Thus the following statements by PADA are all in vain, for they have zero relevance to the actual arguments presented by us, and thus should not have been made in the first place:  

Please note that all these remarks were completely unnecessary to the discussion at hand, which was - what exactly did Srila Prabhupada say? However by putting them mainly at the beginning of the paper before any discussion of the issue begins, Puranjana is trying to 'soften up' the audience so that they will all take what he has to say more seriously. Further he tries to imply that our paper may have only been written because 'I failed the test', and therefore am in some way responsible for the supposed poisoning of Srila Prabhupada. These techniques would be worthy of the GBC, but they still do not change the fact that PADA is not able to refute a single statement made in the IRM paper.

We saw earlier how PADA attempted to refute our claim that Srila Prabhupada does not directly say he is being poisoned by resorting to the trickery of mis-translation. In other places throughout its article it just simply point-blank ignores the context created by the words - "That same discussion - that" - in front of the phrase 'someone has poisoned me'. These prefacing words clearly create the context that renders the words 'someone has poisoned me' as simply referring to the 'same discussion' in question. PADA however just pretends they are not there and just continues to repeat the false claim that Srila Prabhupada has directly stated that someone has poisoned him:  

etc. etc.

Just as the GBC have continued repeating 'disciple of my disciple' for the last 20 years, and just ignored the prefacing words of 'when I order'. we can see that PADA is trying to do the same. It just keeps repeating 'someone has poisoned me' and ignores the prefacing words of 'that same discussion - that' hoping no one will notice. How long does it think it can keep up this bluff?

As well as just ignoring the real context which is created by the words of Srila Prabhupada, like the GBC, PADA also tries to substitute this real context based on Srila Prabhupada's words with the context which is created by the words of his disciples.

For years the GBC have tried to prove their understanding of the 'appt tape' - that Srila Prabhupada appointed Gurus - by taking the context that is created by the statements made by the disciples rather than the context created by the statements made by Srila Prabhupada. Thus the IRM argues that Srila Prabhupada said the words 'when I order' before the phrase 'disciple of my disciple', and that is all that matters - the context created by the words of Srila Prabhupada - since you can only determine what Srila Prabhupada said and meant by reference to his words only - not the words of Tamala etc. (Quite obvious when you think about it). However the GBC argue that we must understand what Srila Prabhupada said and meant by the replies given by Satsvarupa and Tamala - the context created by the statements of the disciples -which confirm that Srila Prabhupada was speaking of Gurus for the future, not ritviks. Of course this analysis is absurd, because if one wants to understand what Srila Prabhupada says, one has to arrive at that by analysing his words, not the words of his disciples or others in the room , for they may or may not have understood and repeated correctly what Srila Prabhupada said and meant. However the GBC refuse to do that because then they are left with troublesome phrases such as 'ritvik, yes', and 'when I order'. In fact so desperate are the GBC to advance the context provided by the statements of the disciples rather than the context created by the statements of Srila Prabhupada that they have even quoted an academic theory to justify it. In the paper 'The Minutes of Timeless Order' by Hari Sauri Das, they use an English Professor (who also happens to be a disciple of HH Hrdyananda Swami) to put forward the following analysis of the 'appt tape':  

Thus rather than take the context created directly by Srila Prabhupada's words, which supports the appt of ritviks only, they have invented a reason to take the context created by the words of the disciples, which supports the appt of Gurus.

Similarly in this instance we have taken the meaning of the words Srila Prabhupada speaks directly from the context created by his own words:

"That same discussion ... That someone has poisoned me."

PADA however has ignored the context created by the words of Srila Prabhupada, and instead like the GBC's, argued that we must understand what Srila Prabhupada said from the authority of the words of his disciples like Tamala:  

1. Please note how Tamal is now a star 'eye-witness' as well as a one of the suspected murderers! Maybe this is the missing witness they have were looking for. It looks as if PADA has found the eye-witness for us!
2.  Please note the argument that one can conclude what Srila Prabhupada must have said based on what Tamal said, is exactly what the GBC claim when interpreting the 'appt tape' - for they say that the statements of Tamala and Satsvarupa 'confirm' that Srila Prabhupada must have been speaking of 'Gurus'.
3. Please note that all of the above are the words of everyone except Srila Prabhupada. And therefore PADA simply again proves our case - that the poison theorists are unable to substantiate their case by using the words of Srila Prabhupada. If they could then PADA could have produced them instead of quoting masses of words from everyone except Srila Prabhupada . 

If you want to prove that Srila Prabhupada said something there is only one way to prove it - quote Srila Prabhupada saying it! Its really quite obvious and simple. The words of Tamala prove nothing except that that is what he actually said - not what Srila Prabhupada said. For that you need to examine the words of Srila Prabhupada (again quite obvious). We have done that and he only says:

"That Same discussion ... that someone has poisoned me"  

4. In any case, the exchanges themselves prove that those in the room did not understand what Srila Prabhupada was actually saying and meaning, for 2 out of the 4 poison conversations are simply Srila Prabhuipada correcting the understanding of those in the room:  
   
    

(Exchanges 2 & 3, November 9th)

The irony of all this is that as we showed earlier it is PADA who falsely claimed that I was trusting Tamala :