Arguments from Mukunda
Struggling with any evidence, either forensic or from Srila Prabhupada
stating that he has been poisoned, Mukunda tries to prove his case
based not on what Srila Prabhupada states, but on what someone else
states, and what Srila Prabhupada does NOT state!
Prabhupada: “That same talk … that
someone has poisoned me.”
(Room Conversation, November
Regarding the above statement made by Srila Prabhupada in HINDI (the
above is just a rough translation), Mukunda states the following:
[Srila Prabhupada uses the word
HAS poisoned me. If the issue of Srila Prabhupada's poisoning was still
only a possibility, His Divine Grace would have said something like "
That same thing … that someone says I've been poisoned" or " That same
thing … the talk of someone poisoning me" Therefore even accepting the
I.R.M. concoction that Srila Prabhupada is identifying the previous
discussion, he is now clearing the doubts by saying "Someone HAS
A more accurate translation of the above phrase spoken by Srila
Prabhupada in Hindi, as given by the authors of the book “Judge For
Yourself”, which is the ‘bible’ of the poison theorists, is:
“That talk (that) someone has poisoned
(Translation as given by authors of ‘Judge For Yourself’)
Mukunda does not speak Hindi, yet the above translation is agreed on by
Hindi speakers in BOTH the IRM and the poison camp. Hence the fact that
Srila Prabhupada states that “someone HAS poisoned me”, is irrelevant
since he is referring to what some others have said. That is in the
TALK which Srila Prabhupada is referring to, it was stated, that
“someone has poisoned me”. With the above correct translation, we are
able to defeat Mukunda’s point using his OWN words, for Mukunda states:
[If the issue of Srila
Prabhupada's poisoning was still only a possibility, His Divine Grace
would have said something like "That same thing … that someone says
I've been poisoned]
Well, guess what - this IS what Srila Prabhupada states!
that someone has poisoned me” (actual translation)
has the same meaning as:
“That same thing … that someone
says I HAVE (I’ve) been poisoned”
(what Mukunda states should
have been said if poisoning was still only a possibility)
Since "that talk" refers to what some others, and not Srila Prabhupada,
2) In respect
of the following conversation:
Sastriji says that there must be some truth to it if you say that. So
who is it that has poisoned?
(13 second pause, Srila Prabhupada remains silent and does not answer)
(S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana)
Mukunda states the following:
[Tamal Krsna asks Srila
Prabhupada a very clear question "So who is it that has poisoned?" He
doesn't ask "Have you being poisoned ?" because that is already cleared
by Srila Prabhupada's statement "That same thing … that someone has
poisoned me" The question now is who has poisoned. Therefore Srila
Prabhupada's silence means he's accepting what Tamal says.]
To support his argument, Mukunda quotes Srila Prabhupada saying the
"If we remain silent, then whatever he
says, that means we are accepting."
[S.P. Discussion about Guru Maharaji August 13, 1973, Paris]
This refers to Srila Prabhupada stating that we must make propaganda
against Guru Maharaji’s statement that he is God:
“But what proof he can give that he’s
God, that we shall accept him God? Simply he shows some light. We have
to make some propaganda. That will be our (indistinct). And he has to
be... If we remain silent, then whatever he says, that means we are
But Tamal simply asks a question. He does not STATE any facts or
arguments, which are accepted as a result of Srila Prabhupada’s
silence. Via silence, one indirectly accepts the arguments and
“Since Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu could
not escape Sanatana Gosvami’s argument, He remained silent on this
point and thereby indirectly accepted Sanatana’s statement.”
(CC., Madhya, 20.365)
“If I say, “You are rascal, you are
thief,” and if you don’t reply that means you accept it. Maunam”
(Morning Walk, December 28th, 1976)
However by being silent in respect of a question, there is no
conclusion, statement or argument that can be said is being accepted by
Srila Prabhupada. The only conclusion is that Srila Prabhupada, for
whatever reason, chose not to answer a question.
3) In respect
of the following conversation:
||Srila Prabhupada, can
you tell us why you want to go on the parikrama? [Visisting holy places]
||This seems like
suicide, Srila Prabhupada, this program. It seems to some of us like
||And this is also
|| Hm. Prabhupada
said, "And this is also suicide." Now you have to choose which suicide.
||The Ravana will
kill and Rama will kill. Better to be killed by Rama. Eh? That
Marica--if he does not go to mislead Sita, he'll be killed by Ravana;
and if he goes to be killed by Rama, then it is better.
[S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana]
[In the next quote we find the
final and irrefutable evidence from Prabhupada's mouth confirming his
killing by his Judas disciples [Ravana followers]]
Here Mukunda claims that Srila Prabhupada referring to being killed by
Ravana must refer to being killed by his disciples, with whom Srila
Prabhupada will be surrounded if he does not go on Parikrama.
And Srila Prabhupada referring to "killed by Rama", Mukunda claims
[Better to be killed by Rama."
That means he is saying it is better to be amongst his real disciples
on Parikrama (good paddy - where he will regain his health or as his
Divine Grace clearly said "But i think i shall be cured") and die there
than stay with demons and be poisoned to death.]
So being "killed by Rama" means to die on parikram, in the company of his
real disciples. But there is no evidence that if Srila Prabhupada was
to go on parikrama, a group of disciples different to those who where
with him at the time (and with whom he would be if did not go on
parikrama), would accompany him.
Rather, it is stated in the conversation that all the devotees will go
with Srila Prabhupada on parikrama,
and definitely his secretary, Tamal Krishna Goswami, and all the
leading men who are alleged to be the poisoners, would be going. Hence
since the supposed poisoners will also be accompanying Srila Prabhupada
on the parikrama, Mukunda is
again defeated by his own words, when he claims that Srila Prabhupada
will be "killed by Rama" because he will be amongst his real disciples
on parikrama, because these
are the SAME persons whom Mukunda calls the ‘Judas’ disciples who are
supposed to kill Srila Prabhupada. In other words, according to
Mukunda, Rama and Ravana will be the same persons!
Mukunda here has confused two different things. One is that there are
different devotees DISCUSSING whether or not Srila Prabhupada should go
on parikram. The other is the
fact that when it comes to actually going on parikrama or staying with Srila
Prabhupada, both these groups are UNITED, since all these "senior men"
such as Tamal Krishna, Bhavananda, Bhakti Caru etc., who were looking
after Srila Prabhupada, would also be going with Srila Prabhupada on
parikrama the next day, regardless
of what advice they were giving regarding whether or not Srila
Prabhupada should go. For as Tamal Krishna states in the conversation:
Tamala Krsna: "Ultimately what
Prabhupada decides, we will do."
He does not state he will boycott the parikrama;
rather he takes charge of making the arrangements for the
parikrama (to be expected since he
was Srila Prabhupada’s secretary and therefore would be in charge of
organising everything and going everywhere with Srila Prabhupada), and
later on in the conversation discusses the details of going on
parikrama in depth.
Therefore whatever Srila Prabhupada was referring to in his
‘Rama-Ravana’ metaphor, according to Mukunda’s explanation he could
be referring to two distinct and separate groups of devotees, who could
be divided into the ‘good disciples’ and the ‘Judas disciples’.
Mukunda’s ‘evidence’ for Srila Prabhupada being poisoned rests on:
that someone other than Srila Prabhupada states.
that Srila Prabhupada does not say.
c) A metaphor
to Rama and Ravana.
Even on the surface this is hardly damning proof for murder, and when
we investigate even further as done above, we find there is nothing at
all to suggest that Srila Prabhupada is stating that his disciples are
poisoning him. Such evidence may indeed exist. But it has not yet been
presented, either by Mukunda or anyone else. And to further to make
this non-existent evidence the whole basis of a campaign that the IRM
is full of ‘demons’ is extremely dishonest and reprehensible.