Fighting Lies With Truth - Not More Lies


23RD APRIL 2000

The IRM 's mission is to represent the *truth* of Srila Prabhupada's instructions. We can see that the fiasco of the last 23 years can ultimately all be traced to the GBC having *lied* continually about Srila Prabhupada's instructions, and in this way misled our society onto its present path of deterioration. In the IRM we maintain that we can only fight lies with truth - not more lies. That's why it is stated on the mast-head of Srila Prabhupada's 'Back To Godhead'-

"Godhead is light. Nescience is darkness. Where there is Godhead there is no nescience."

Unfortunately Puranjana das (PADA), in seeing that we will not compromise over this adherence to fighting only on the basis of proven facts, has decided to viciously attack the 'ISKCON Revival Movement' (IRM) with as much venom as he has directed at those he accuses of actually having murdered Srila Prabhupada:

"Thus Adri and KK are looking like total fools since they are still tethered to CHAKRA, ok the poisoners of Prabhupada crew, the molesters crew, and you know what else as well, [...] The CHAKRA weasels are their lineage of authority? OK fine." (PADA, 31 March, 2000)

He has done this using the same pattern of behaviour that he claims he is fighting in the GBC - lying and distortion of evidence. We would like to think that he is not deliberately lying, yet this is hard since when we previously pointed out some of his distortions he failed to either apologise or retract his demonstrably false claims. In this article we will point out nine such occasions where Puranjana has lied and misrepresented in order to achieve his objectives. This is a distraction from our real work of re-instating Srila Prabhupada's orders, but the lies directed at the IRM are so serious and repeated so many times, that they must be buried once and for all. Though Puranjana must be complimented on having correctly pointed out many of the current faults of the GBC, lying and falsely attacking others does not help his cause. Indeed it renders him no different to the GBC he is claiming to overthrow. In short he appears to have lost the plot - which is to replace 'nescience with godhead', 'Lies with Truth' - not peddle more of the same lying and cheating we have had for the last 23 years. We have had enough of this. We do not need any more.

(To those who are supporters of Puranjana and PADA we ask you not to take the following article as a personal attack on Puranjana, but more of an essential defence of Srila Prabhupada. After all the acronym PADA stands for 'Prabhupada anti-defamation association'. How is it conceivable that anyone who has misled, lied and distorted the truth on such a scale still believe they are defending our Founder-Acarya ?)

The Nine Lies of Puranjana On the 15th November 1999 the IRM put out an article that simply pointed out some factual inaccuracies regarding the translation of statements that Srila Prabhupada made about the subject of his poisoning, which were to be found in Nityananda's book - "Someone Has Poisoned Me". At no point did we say that Srila Prabhupada was NOT poisoned, nor criticise those who were propagating the poison issue. We simply stated that Srila Prabhupada himself had never directly said he was poisoned, and advised IRM members to be cautious until some solid evidence came to light.

Lie 1 - Puranjana Omits Contradictory Evidence.

Puranjana could easily have challenged our translations and put us straight if we had made a mistake. Unfortunately, being unable to do that, he resorted to distortion of the evidence. In the original IRM article we reproduced in chronological order the *4* exchanges where the subject of poisoning was discussed by Srila Prabhupada, labelling them clearly 'Exchanges 1 to 4'. In his reply where Puranjana reproduces verbatim all these exchanges, he curiously misses out exchange no 3. Puranjana even *re-labels* our 'exchange 4' *as* 'exchange 3' in what could be construed as a clumsy attempt to cover his tracks. We'd like to think the mistake was genuine, yet as we said, even after pointing it out he neither apologised nor retracted his article. The following is the 'Exchange 3' that he misses out:

Tamal Krishna:

Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you... that it is said that you were poisoned?:

Srila Prabhupada:

No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, *not that I am poisoned*.

Tamal Krishna:

 Did anyone tell you that, or you just know it from before?

Srila Prabhupada:

I read something.

As we see exchange 3 directly contradicted many of Puranjan's points, like the one below:

"(Tamal) asks, "Who is it who poisoned you Srila Prabhupada," and Srila Prabhupada does not say, "Oh that is not what I am saying." No, that is what he is saying, "Someone is poisoning me," and this was understood by those present." (PADA)

In considering Puranjana's claim look again at exchange 3 above, the one he curiously omitted. Here Tamala also asks about the suggestion that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. And Srila Prabhupada *does* say - "not that I am poisoned". And when Tamala actually asks 'who is it who poisoned you Srila Prabhupada', which is what Puranjana refers to here, Srila Prabhupada does *not* say "someone is poisoning me", he simply does not answer. So the above statement by Puranjana gives a completely false picture, aided and abetted by him having left out exchange 3. It is almost as if, to Puranjana, exchange 3 never occurred. This in spite of the fact that it is in his poison Bible-Nityananda's book, and the IRM paper he is supposedly answering. On top of that he mis-labels it.

Lie 2 - He adds words to transcripts that were never spoken.

On November the 10th Srila Prabhupada is asked a simple question - 'What was that all about, mental distress? With the following *correct* translation, the answer is a simple one:

Srila Prabhupada:

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

The answer given is - 'That same discussion' - and the phrase 'that someone has poisoned me' is clearly linked, as indicated by the word 'that', to this 'same discussion'. Please note, it makes no difference if, as Puranjana argues, 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 and of themselves from Srila Prabhupada, as is claimed in Nityananda's book. We had previously pointed out that Nityananda's book had mistranslated the words 'that same discussion' as being 'I said' , which gave the false impression that Srila Prabhupada was making a statement himself about his poisoning, rather than just referring to some previous discussion where the issue had arisen (and where Srila Prabhupada also never claims to have been poisoned). Thus the clear and simple meaning of the above passage had been distorted through this mis-translation. Being unable to refute our point on Nityananda's mistranslation, Puranjana, when reproducing the transcript to analyse, resorts once more to distortion of the evidence by conveniently inserting the word 'and' into the transcript:

"Translation: 'That same discussion *&* that someone has poisoned me'."

We can see he has deliberately *added* an 'and' to separate the 2 phrases. This one word makes all the difference, since now by separating the 2 phrases Puranjana can make the phrase - 'that someone has poisoned me' - look like an 'answer' to the question asked (about the cause of the mental distress), rather than simply identifying a previous discussion, as it actually does. 

Lie 3 - He falsely attributes words to people that they never spoke.

Having had these distortions exposed (and once more not apologising or retracting the offending articles) in his very next posting he changes tack. Being unable to answer the arguments, he now decides to distract attention by accusing Adridharana Das of agreeing that Srila Prabhupada *had* said directly that he was being poisoned. He claims that Adri says 'yes', when Tamal states that Srila Prabhupada is saying that someone has poisoned him.
In what appears a manic attempt to distract his readers from the simple and undeniable fact that Nityananda's book is inaccurate, Puranjana makes his point about Adri saying 'yes' to Tamal a staggering * 51* times, in just one article. 
E.g . :

"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." 

Leaving aside the transparency of his evasion, there is one serious and fatal flaw in Puranjana's argument.....


That is, Adri *never* said this word 'yes' to the suggestion from Tamal that Srila Prabhupada was saying that he was poisoned. Says who? - Why, Puranjana's *own* poison Bible - the book 'Someone Has Poisoned Me' by Nityananda Das, which is what was being debated, and which was consistently used by Puranjana. 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 Adri. Thus Puranjana's own source of the tape transcripts said it wasn't Adri, but he was happy to say it was, in a desperate attempt to shift attention away from the fact that he could not answer our simple point regarding the inaccuracy of Nityananda's book.

Lie 4 - He accuses people of being an accessory to murder on the basis of false evidence.

He then uses this false allegation that Adri said 'yes' to accuse him of being an accessory to the murder of Srila Prabhupada - the gravest charge that can be made against a disciple. In all he makes * 28 * statements incriminating Adri in the plot - here are just some of them:

"Even when he knows who the "someone" is, he is in denial still, just like he is here in 1977. [...] You knew he was saying he was being poisoned and you did not act for reasons as yet unknown to us? [...] And this leads us to question, who(m) are you trying to protect by your lies? [...] Yet now you try to deny that conclusion and say "no," which by the way benefits some very corrupt GBC members? [...] 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. [...] 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? [...] 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? 
[...] And you said yes to Tamal's statements? Hmmm, what are you hiding Adri?
[...] You understood that he had said that someone is giving me poison and you covered it up for 20 years. [...] Again, this looks like a cover up.
[...] And by the way, his previous testimony is one piece of the puzzle that incriminates him in, at least, a cover up."

Please note that Puranjana clearly states here that Adri was supposed to have KNOWN that Srila Prabhupada was being poisoned (murdered), and that Adri :

a.       Did nothing at the time, even though he supposedly knew a crime was being perpetrated; 

b.       And that he has tried to cover this crime up for the past 20 years.

As any lawyer will tell you this behaviour is known technically as being an 'accessory during and after the fact' of murder.

Lie 5 - He then denies that he ever made such accusations, even though he sent them out in his newsletter to the entire world.

Having falsely accused Adri of being an accessory to murder, and then having been exposed, he lies some more:

"Prabhu, I never blamed Adri for anything in regards to the poison. I rather agree with you that he was a new devotee at the time and he did not suspect anything was amiss. " (E-mail to Nara-Narayana Vishvakarma, 7th March,  2000)

Please note Puranjan's use of the word 'anything', and please compare that with the many statements we have just reproduced above.

Lie 6 - He falsely claims that the IRM promote CHAKRA as their authority.

Having been thoroughly discredited on the actual SUBSTANCE of the Poison issue, Puranjana is left with no room to maneuver and so he starts to lie about something else. This time he claims the IRM accept the authority of, as he delicately puts it - the 'anal-raping' Guru-lineage of CHAKRA:

"And don't forget that Adri's CHAKRA team's idea of guru lineage is men who are having anal raping sex of children. [...] The boys are 'going down' and CHAKRA's gurus are having their weenies sucked by these poor boys while they are down, is what they are really saying, i.e. they are even joking that they have raped children in the name of Vishnupada.The boys are going down?
And Adri wants to list these folks as our representatives and authorities? Jokers. And don't forget that Adri's CHAKRA team's idea of guru lineage is men who are having anal raping sex of children. And this team is Adri's authorities? [...] Cheerio, Srila Prabhupada was poisoned and we are sticking with the anal sex raping of children guru lineage and their weasel siddhanta, and in sum, Adri is laughing at us too? [...] He's laughing just like the GBC is laughing. I'm disgusted, and so are all the rest of the people who discovered that he was hiding his allegiance to CHAKRA while trying to fool us that he had left them. All of the people who laugh at Srila Prabhupada being poisoned are going to be lucky to become weasels in their next body. That will be like a heavenly planet." 
( PADA, 1/4/00)

All this and much much more, and yet all we did was point out that one person had posted articles on CHAKRA that pointed out flaws in Nityananda's book, and that naturally we would expect these arguments to be answered if the book's authority is to be taken seriously. This is all we said:

"The above (articles posted on CHAKRA) has not been responded to by Nityananda Das and until it is we can only assume he has no answer to this apparent expose of most of the claims for 'evidence' made in his book."
(PADA Attacks IRM Position)

These counter-poison-theory arguments were also printed on VNN, the Gaudiya Matha website that Puranjana was promoting at the end of each of his newsletters until just a few weeks ago. So by simply ASKING that very technical arguments regarding the effects of arsenic are responded to, Puranjana calls the IRM followers of the GBC's 'anal sex' program, and that we are laughing at Srila Prabhupada being poisoned! Please compare our simple and reasonable request to have opposing arguments answered to the allegations that Puranjana has levelled, and you will see he inhabits a wild and wacky fantasy world, where his maliciousness knows no bounds.

Lie 7- He falsely accuses others of stealing his ideas.

Finally having lied about the poison issue and our connection to CHAKRA - he reveals his real motive - his desire for recognition. He starts lying that Krishnakant prabhu simply plagiarized his work.

"In 1984 we wrote Our Living Guru, [...] And that is how "Our Living Guru" acted, Krishnakant read it some years later and became convinced and he repackaged it." (7/3/00 - E-MAIL to Nara-Narayana Vishvakarma)

1.       But the 'Our Living Guru' paper in circulation that was read by Krishnakant and others, was actually not even written until 19th June 1993. It says so in the document itself and which Krishnakant (KK) did not even receive till the end of 1993. Puranjana knows very well that this is the document that KK read, since he personally sent copies of it to him, having only contacted him for the first time 2 years earlier.

2.       However, way BEFORE KK had received 'Our Living Guru' he had already written 'Become Srila Prabhupada's Disciple' - a pre-cursor to 'The Final Order', which he mailed to Puranjana in the first half of 1993. Indeed in a lecture given in 1995 to a packed temple room in Bhaktivedanta Manor, Siva Rama Swami testifies that KK was preaching ritvik to him in *1984*, at the height of the zonal acharya regime.

3.       Thus any 1984 'draft' of 'Our Living Guru' that Puranjana claims he wrote is irrelevant to this discussion, not just because it was not seen by KK or others, but also because in any case it would have been substantially different to the distributed version of 1993. 'Our Living Guru' begins on page 5 and goes to page 63, yet pages 11, 15, 20, 21, 24, 32, 35, 43, 46, 49, 50, 55 all refer to events that took place way after 1984. Clearly most of the material was put together in 1993.

So KK had developed his conclusions well before he even read 'Our Living Guru', and you will never once find anywhere in writing KK boasting about his achievements the way Puranjana does. Indeed he is very much project rather than ego based, and perhaps that is why his preaching has been so successful. We will now see an even more powerful reason why it would have been impossible for KK to have 'stolen' Puranjana's ideas - they were not even the same!

Lie 8 - He falsely claims to have clearly promoted Srila Prabhupada as ISKCON's sole diksa guru from 1984 onwards.

He continues his lies by stating that it is his 'diksa guru arguments' which have been 'taken up' by the IRM :

"In 1984 we wrote Our Living Guru, that Srila Prabhupada is the diksha guru, and in 1994 (?) Adri finally caught up to what that was all about, and agreed. [...] So, we got no help or little help, and then Adri took up our diksha argument, and now he is biting us?" (7/3/00 - E-MAIL to Nara-Narayana Vishvakarma)

1.       The reason that Adri and most others that he knows have accepted 'The Final Order' and the other IRM papers, which has in turn led to the explosion in accepting Srila Prabhupada as the diksa Guru, is because it clearly presents the idea that Srila Prabhupada is:

a.       The diksa Guru EXACTLY as he was when he was physically present. AND 

b.       That he would be the diksa Guru for all time in ISKCON.

Persons such as Adri had rejected the 'soft-ritvik' ideas of the 'Prabhupadanugas' and VVR ('Vedic Village Review) because they taught that we must all await a new 'self-effulgent' Guru. This always struck them as little different to the GBC and Gaudiya Matha ideas. Srila Prabhupada still gets replaced as the diksa Guru for ISKCON, but instead by somebody other than the current pack of jokers. Thus we simply have a time-delayed MASS system. And this is the very conclusion Puranjana's 'Our Living Guru' paper presents:

"The Reality: Srila Prabhupada's statements and written orders, especially in his last months, are that official initiation ceremony, in his society, is to be conducted through the officiating acharya system. This is an interim system where the ceremony of initiation could continue, for the foreseeable future, until such time as more fully realized souls appeared."
('Our Living Guru' - Page 24)

Notice Puranjana clearly says the ritvik system is ONLY an INTERIM system. This is 'soft ritvik' and is bogus since, once more, it is not supported by the evidence.

2.       Plus 'Our Living Guru' is not even consistent in this false conclusion.
Other times in the document, Puranjana also puts forward ideas similar to the GBC regarding initiation:

a.       He never refers to Srila Prabhupada as the diksa Guru but rather the 'eternal preceptor guru', and 'primary guru', the EXACT SAME terms used by the GBC to justify their current 'de-emphasised diksa guru' (DDG) siddhanta.

b.       Then he distinguishes the 'eternal preceptor guru' FROM the diksa guru by giving examples in the concluding chapter of 'eternal preceptor guru who is not physically present or someone other than one's own diksha guru' .(Our Living Guru, page 56)

c.       For good measure in the same concluding chapter he also throws in the Gaudiya Matha's 'siksa parampara' idea, (describing Bepin Behari Goswami as the diksa Guru of Bhaktivinoda Thakura), as well as Bhakti Vikasa Swami's 'pancaratrika guru' idea, and uses all these examples to support the notion that therefore it is 'bona fide' to 'accept' Srila Prabhupada as 'one's primary guru'.

He had earlier justified this 'siksa over formal diksa idea' by quoting from AJAMILA DASA's paper in which Ajamila was arguing that one did not need to get re-initiated because accepting Srila Prabhupada as our siksa Guru was sufficient. Yes - this is the same Ajamila dasa who we defeated on CHAKRA recently. And here we have Puranjana quoting him as his authority. So who is the *real * 'CHAKRA' supporter!

Thus it can be factually ascertained that what the IRM have 'taken up' is not the hodge-podge - Soft Ritvik/GBC/Gaudiya Matha/CHAKRA - Ajamila mixture - of Puranjana. It is these confused and unclear presentations that have kept us all in the dark for so long. It is the clarity and logic of The Final Order that has sparked the revolution, and this is what lies at the root of Puranjana's anger we fear. Envy is not an attractive quality. We must root it out from within our own hearts if we ever want to effect positive change in others.

Lie 9 - Once he gets going in artificially inflating his role, there is no stopping him.

"And Adri has also accepted the ritvik issue after our weak arguments given in Our Living Guru (1984) The Betrayal (1990) VVR (1986-1991) which were merely repackaged by Krishna Kanta." 
(2nd March, 2000)

The Betrayal was not even written till 1994, not 1990 as he falsely claims here. How do we know? It says so right in the beginning of the document itself ! :

"Completed on February 14, 1994: The auspicious appearance day of Sri Advaita Acharya. 500 copies first printing 1994" 
(The Betrayal, Introduction)

The document also describes events that occurred right up until 1993. Just how dumb does Puranjana think everyone is?


It seems ironic that just when so many persons are trying to move out of the past era of GBC untruth and onto the path of truth by joining the IRM, Puranjana is moving in the opposite direction as he progressively degenerates into a vicious circle of lies and more lies. (Please note here that we have only analysed a very small section of his writings. We dread to think what more lies we may find if we were to dig deeper). We may have all lied and cheated in the past whilst we were in the illusion of the GBC's bogus program, but Puranjana is doing it NOW in the name of Prabhupada and reform, and he claims to never have been in illusion.

Puranjana does deserve credit for having over the years made many valid criticisms of the GBC and its deviant philosophies. He sees, quite rightly, the current guru system as bogus. However if we claim to want to reform ISKCON, yet indulge in the same type of lying, distortion and egotism we accuse the GBC of, then how will we actually succeed in our efforts, or indeed improve anything (even if we did succeed in our efforts)? It will simply be a case of the 'same wine, in a new bottle'. He needs to consider that the rapid success of the IRM has indeed been due to this attempt to adhere to the evidence and truth in all circumstances, even when it may not appear to benefit us in the short-term. Ultimately it will be truth that will power us to victory, not any short-term expedient measures. We hope this article will inspire Puranjana to look deeper within himself and work on self-reform, and edit the anarthas that he sees so clearly in the GBC, out of his own life. In doing so he will be much more effective in his campaign, and a valuable asset rather than just another variation of the GBC lying machine. Puranjana clearly wants to see the current Guru system dismantled. The IRM is dedicated to doing just this, and is currently engaged in a legal battle, as well as many other measures, to bring about the necessary changes. We hope Puranjana will be able to assist this battle once he has been able to suitably re-orientate himself back towards the path of truth.

In conclusion we wish to state that we have no desire to enter into any more discussions on this issue. We will let the matter rest here and get back to our real work of re-instating Srila Prabhupada's orders. It should be very clear to everyone by now where the IRM stands and where PADA stands. We are not concerned with whatever new fabrications that Puranjana may try and 'hit back' with. He has been caught well and truly here with his hands in the cookie jar, and exposed as lying, and no amount of further mud-slinging at the IRM will ever change that. We hope his well-wishers will urge him to see sense and give up such attacks. Even in Kali-Yuga it is said that the 'last leg of religion' - 'truthfulness' - is still standing. It seems ironic that vaisnavas are unable to maintain even this minimum level of religiosity.

Satyam ki vijayate!

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada, IRM 

Please chant: Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Hare, Hare,
Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama, Rama, Hare, Hare.
And be Happy!