LETTERS TO THE VOID-# 10 Posted July 27 2004 |
Praghosa Das (GBC-
Chairman) writes: sent: 8/5/04 >>The purpose
of the resolution was not to initiate action, at least not for the GBC to initiate
action.<< BIF writes: 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
not! Nonsense. YS BIF end...... Praghosa Das (GBC-
Chairman) writes: sent: 10/5/04 >>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.<< BIF writes: 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”?).
And again: 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. YS BIF |
© Copyright 2003-2004 Bhaktivedanta Investigation Force