LETTERS TO THE VOID #10
Posted July 27 2004
Praghosa Das (GBC- Chairman) writes:
>>The purpose of the resolution was not to initiate action, at least not for the GBC to initiate action.<<
There can be little doubt in this statement from Praghosa das, that the GBC will continue to act irresponsibly. This attitude is very much like a criminal who says "I reserve the right to remain silent on the grounds that what I say may be taken down in evidence against me, and used in a court of law". Good. They have nowhere to go from here. This is where they stay.....and pay the piper.
>>The purpose of the resolution was that if there is new credible, substantial, objectively reviewable information then the GBC would not be opposed to further investigation.<<
A requisition for credible, substantial, objectively reviewable information is an age old ploy used by suspects in a sub-juris situation. By placing the onus of proof on others, they hope that the burden of expense, time and effort, coupled with the possibility of failure and counter suits, will deter the pursuit. But our situation is that evidence does already exist (documented in statements made by the deceased, confirmed by forensic analysts, and in written assessments by lawyers), and although everyone involved is presumed innocent until proven guilty, they are suspect until proven innocent. Besides, the GBC, whose obligation it is to see this matter through, has never handed over the existing evidence for professional assessment. So they are compelling others, under the GBC mantle of "ultimate authority", to accept lies and deceptions published in their book- Not the I am Poisoned. As a result, Bhakti Caru, Jayapataka, Bhavananda and the GBC itself, remain sheltered and free from interrogation. Also by the same decree, the GBC expects that the unequivocal evidence in existence be dumped in the trash can. In which case, even if we produced a smoking gun, it would be the GBC deciding whether it was in fact a lethal weapon or a cap gun. We have had dealings with this group over many years: their decisions and conclusions have resulted in one catastrophe after another. If it was funny, we would call them clowns, but it isn't funny at all.
>>Which of course is fully in line with the requests of the GBC on this issue prior to their AGM.<<
We complied with the GBC request by demonstrating to them that the existing evidence was never investigated to a conclusion. They insisted on keeping the matter internal, without professional intervention, and even then they cheated by closing down the investigation and producing a book of deception to cover the facts. So prior to the AGM, the GBC were deceptive, and they have continued in that vein, post AGM.
>>In other words no-one ever mentioned that they expected the GBC to initiate action, just that they would not block further legitimate investigation.<<
Utter nonsense! Our request for ACTION was posted to the GBC thru direct mail in a document entitled "Demand to Redress" (D2R). We uploaded the D2R onto our Front Page at www.b-i-f.com (it is still there), we posted it on the PADA Newsletter, and sent it to every Vaisnava cyber gazette. If we were sure the GBC could read it, a plane would have written it across the sky.
Here is an excerpt:
...In light of the above, we request you to reconsider your position, the gravity of the situation, and comply with our demand to reopen the investigation into the alleged poisoning of his Divine Grace...[....]...
However, and with respect to your heavy work schedules, we must insist the declaration be made no later than the Mayapura meetings....
That is all we demanded in the way of action, and the GBC wouldn't even do that. Not only did they knock back a simple request, but also the resolution passed on the 'poison issue' at the AGM (2004), was not published along with the other minutes. A second resolution was passed to hide it away in the 'unpublished minutes'. Not only was this action in direct opposition to our only demand, but it shows once again a concerted effort by the GBC to conceal the issue from the world; an act that has been carefully noted by us.
>>So the GBC body have agreed to that request.<<
No! They have
>>Your servant, Praghosa dasa.<<
Praghosa Das (GBC- Chairman) writes:
>>I am not so inclined to get into this via e mail for a variety of reasons. Not least that the discussion could be endless.<<
From the few points you address in this reply, it becomes quite apparent what you mean.
>>In short we are all aware that Srila Prabhupada has referred to being poisoned that is not in dipute.<<
This is a serious affirmation of culpability no matter how one perceives it, given that Srila Prabhupada's plaint was never reported to the appropriate authorities. In contest, the episode was buried for two decades under the decision of suspect 'inheritors' who were not qualified to make an educated judgement one way or another.
Another point: Srila Prabhupada did not simply refer to his being poisoned, as you so casually put it. He, and his close attendants ALL believed he WAS poisoned. Here is the proof (again) taken from the BBT publication- Conversations with Srila Prabhupada, Volume 36. and transcribed conversation tapes T-44,45,46---
Kaviraja: "Yeh Maharaja, yeh kotha aap kaise bola aaj ki koi bola hi ki poison diya hai?........"
Translation: Maharaji, You know how you said today that someone said that (you) have been given poison?....." (So here is confirmation No: 1, of Srila Prabhupada's complaint) (pg-354, line 23)
Kaviraja: "Dekhye, bat hi hai, ki koi rakshas ne diyo ho."....
Translation: Look, this is the understanding, some rakshasa may have given (him poison). (Here is acceptance, and confirmation No: 2) (pg-367, line 29)
Kaviraja: "Yeh bolte hai to isme kuch na kuch satya he. Isme koi sandeha nahin."....
Translation: If this is said (that he is being poisoned) there must be some truth to it. There's no doubt. (Here is acceptance, and confirmation No: 3) (pg-367, line 37)
Bhakticaru: "SOMEONE GAVE HIM POISON HERE." (Acceptance and confirmation No: 4, and from a different source. (pg-367, line 29)
Tamala Krsna: Srila Prabhupada, Sastriji says that there must be some truth to it if you say that. So who is it that has poisoned?
(Acceptance and confirmation No: 5, and from yet another source) (pg-368)
Tamal Krsna: "Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him." (Acceptance and confirmation No: 6) (pg-367, line 32)
Bhakticaru: "YES." (Confirmation No: 7) (pg-367, line 33)
Bhakticaru: "He said that when Srila Prabhupada was saying that (He was being poisoned) THERE MUST BE SOME TRUTH BEHIND IT." (Confirmation No: 8) (pg-367, line 38)
"We asked Srila Prabhupada later what was the cause of his mental disturbance. Prabhupada disclosed his thoughts that someone has poisoned him." TKG's Diary, 340 p.
>>What is in dispute is what he actually meant by it.<<
The documented evidence shows no dispute. Anyway, if there was/is some dispute, and those suspect were/are unable to resolve the dispute, why was/is qualified secular authority kept out of the equation? Is it not a civil obligation to report such matters promptly to law enforcement?
>>In other words was he referring to the medicine poisoning him etc., etc.?<<
Now you are baffling me. Medicines cure, where poisons kill. Are you saying that medicines poisoned him? Then who administered the medicine/poison? Who supplied the medicine/poison? Why was there no prosecution undertaken? Was an antidote sought to remedy the negligence? What is the name of the medical authority contacted when the discovery was made? Where are the filed reports?
Related Indian Law:
Section 299. Culpable Homicide.
Explanation 1 -- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2 -- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
>>When Srila Prabhupada was further questioned on this and realising that the devotees were thinking that he was saying that he had been poisoned by an illegal substance, that was when he said "Not that I am poisoned"<<
With all due respect to your abstract analysis, the persuasion that Srila Prabhupada said "Not that I am poisoned", is a poorly devised misinterpretation of fact. I am truly amazed that you are not aware of this. Here below, I will present for you the reasons why no informed person could concur with such a contrivance. FYI., please take time to read it. Thank You.
(Excerpt from- Judge for Yourself, 25 p)
Here below, we deal with the title of the GBC book- Not That I am Poisoned (NTIP), and examine the claim made by its author (Hooper).
(NTIP page 48) " Srila Prabhupada gives an unequivocally straightforward answer to a straightforward question, "No...not that I am poisoned." No amount of word jugglery now or in the future can take away the clear and simple fact that Prabhupada himself denied that he was poisoned." And then again on Page-51, para-4, Hooper tells us: "....In contrast the phrase, "Not that I am poisoned," is a direct reply to Tamala Krishna Maharaja's question asking Prabhupada, "Did you say you were poisoned?"
We have searched through all the available information on the "Conversations" to try and validate Hooper's claims. Nowhere can we find the question/answer being referred to by Hooper. Besides, it is grammatically unacceptable. Here, try it on for size:
Tamal Krsna (TK): DID YOU SAY YOU WERE POISONED?
Srila Prabhupada (SP): NOT THAT I AM POISONED.
Doesn't make any sense, does it? You may try the longer version if you like....the result will be the same. Here we go:
TK: SRILA PRABHUPADA? YOU SAID BEFORE THAT YOU...THAT IT IS SAID THAT YOU WERE POISONED?
SP: NOT THAT I AM POISONED.
The truth is, Srila Prabhupada never said 'Not that I am Poisoned" as a statement in itself. The excerpt was taken from a twenty-one-word communication that appears in its entirety on page 47 of the book NTIP. When we get to page 48, sixteen words from the twenty-one word statement are missing, leaving us with: NO...NOT THAT I AM POISONED. By the time we reach page 51 of the book, the NO and three dots denoting a pause have also been axed leaving us with: NOT THAT I AM POISONED. This desecration of the statement serves no purpose. Because if, as the book claims, Srila Prabhupada had said "Not that I am Poisoned," Tamal Krsna would have believed it, the kaviraja would have believed it, Bhakticaru would have believed it. But they didn't, and here is the proof. ("Conversations with Srila Prabhupada." Vol 36. Page-359) (our comments in blue) :-
SP: NO THESE KIND OF SYMPTOMS ARE SEEN WHEN A MAN IS POISONED. HE SAID LIKE THAT. NOT THAT I AM POISONED.
TK: DID ANYONE TELL YOU THAT OR YOU KNOW IT FROM BEFORE (Know what from before...that he was NOT POISONED?)
SP: I READ SOMETHING (Read what...that he was NOT POISONED?)
TK: AH, I SEE. THAT'S WHY ACTUALLY WE CANNOT ALLOW ANYONE TO COOK FOR YOU. (Why would Tamal want to stop "anyone" from cooking for SP, is it because SP said he was NOT POISONED?)
Directly after SP was supposed to have admitted (according to NTIP) that He was not being poisoned, here's the kaviraja:-
("Conversations with Srila Prabhupada." Volume 36, page-367. Translated from Hindi)
KAVIRAJA: "LOOK, THIS IS THE THING, THAT MAYBE SOME RAKSHASA GAVE HIM POISON." (Why didn't the kaviraja believe SP when he said “NOT THAT I AM POISONED”?).
KAVIRAJA: "IF HE SAYS (THAT HE'S BEEN POISONED) THERE MUST BE SOME TRUTH TO IT. THERE'S NO DOUBT. (If no one present at the time, believed that SP had said “NOT THAT I AM POISONED” as a statement in itself, how can the GBC ask us to believe it now?)
Just for good measure, we'll throw in Bhakticaru's 'disbelief,' spoken after the (NOT THAT I AM POISONED) quote: - ("Conversations with Srila Prabhupada." Volume 36, page-367)
BHAKTICARU: (to Bhavananda and others) HE'S SAYING THAT SOMEONE GAVE HIM POISON (Well, well. It appears that Bhakticaru doesn't believe the GBC endorsed version of events)
TAMAL KRSNA: PRABHUPADA WAS THINKING THAT SOMEONE HAD POISONED HIM (Tamala Krsna definitely doesn't believe it)
BHAKTICARU: YES. (But now, in the new GBC version of events, Bhakticaru says "No.")
TAMAL KRSNA: THAT WAS THE MENTAL DISTRESS? (Why mental distress when there's no poisoning?)
BHAKTICARU: YES (But now Bhakticaru says "No.")
So here's the statement made by Srila Prabhupada that was edited to give us- NOT THAT I AM POISONED:
TK: SRILA PRABHUPADA? YOU SAID BEFORE THAT YOU...THAT IT IS SAID THAT YOU WERE POISONED?
SP: "NO. THESE KIND OF SYMPTOMS ARE SEEN WHEN A MAN IS POISONED. HE SAID LIKE THAT, (Right. that's what "He" said) NOT THAT I AM POISONED." (“HE" (the informant) said that SRILA Prabhupada had the symptoms seen when a person is poisoned. He didn’t say directly that SP was poisoned.)
end of excerpt....
Srila Prabhupada never said he was Not Poisoned, as claimed in the GBC book. To the contrary.....
I seriously hope this helps you gain a clearer perspective of the documented evidence, which, to date, appears to have been in the hands of those who failed to fully research it and, for reasons yet to be determined, falsified whatever little they did research.
� Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force