Reply to Jaya Krishna’s Letter
to IRM


Dear Jaya Krishna Dasa,

3 February 2002 - Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Thank you for your letter below. The following is the official reply to it from the IRM.

Your comments shall be enclosed in speech marks thus ""& boxed, with our reply following underneath. Since you have circulated your paper quite widely, we would hope that in the interests of fairness you will at least have the decency to circulate our reply to the same parties. Thank you.

You say:

"I beg the reader to forgive my lack of scholarship, confident that the severity and urgency of the issues addressed will be taken to heart, rendering scriptural referencing non-essential."

Unfortunately as well as not quoting from scripture, you have not quoted from the IRM either. This has meant, as will be seen, that most of your criticisms of the IRM are either 'straw-man' arguments or already answered in previous articles, thus rendering your paper a futile exercise. Unfortunately re-cycling already answered and 'straw-man' arguments is a technique also used by the GBC when they write papers attacking us.

You say:

"The July 9th letter was clarifying a crucial polarization:
1. those who accept Srila Prabhupada as the current diksa-guru (at least in ISKCON), and
2. those who do not. Unfortunately, instead of group #1 compassionately embracing each other as sincere god-brothers trying, however imperfectly, to serve the father, major disagreements and dissentions, often over trivial differences in implementation, continued unabated, making it painfully obvious that a more spiritually mature approach, transcendental to our limited, conflicting viewpoints, will be required to achieve true unity."

Unfortunately you have contradicted yourself here since you have admitted that this paper of yours is itself an exercise in disagreeing with the IRM over minor differences. You have stated that your paper's "sole motive" is to "distinguish, even slightly, reality from illusion,", and later on you say that for the IRM to be 'mostly parampara' will not 'suffice'.

Thus you are clearly stating that to accept the July 9th letter is not enough. Hence by writing and circulating your paper widely you are therefore afflicted with the very disease you claim you are trying to cure, namely the lack of spiritual maturity which prevents unity between those who accept the July
9th letter due to minor disagreements.

You say:

"Why do IRM newsletters present seemingly biased accounts, leaving out important developments? For example, why was Adri Dharana's expulsion from ISKCON Calcutta not reported?"

This point has already been answered here.
Adri has not been expelled, but the situation is currently in the courts and cannot be commented on for legal reasons until it is resolved, since the matter is sub-judice, and anything we say on the issue can be used by our opponents in court, and thus we prefer not to take a risk. Instead of asking an already answered question you should have pointed out the defect in the answer already given, if you were not satisfied.

You say:

"Why was Kapindra Swami totally ignored by the spokesperson, Krsna Kant dasa, when introduced at the first IRM meeting in New York? Why wasn't he respected with proper etiquette? Did (and does) IRM expect maharaja to suddenly renounce the well-established Prabhupada Sankirtan Society, which has been preaching “Prabhupada is the guru” for over a decade?"

In all good faith we had previously invited Kapindra Swami to the IRM meeting in Alachua, since he had expressed a desire to work together with us. However we found out later from Brahmabhuta and Mother Vani who were then traveling with him, that he instructed them that they were going to this meeting only to steal people for his PSS and that there is no question of working with the IRM because they are bogus. That their attending the IRM meeting in a mood of co-operation was simple a 'front' to get a foot in the door. Obviously aware of his intentions, we were not about to facilitate him in his fiendish schemes again when he turned up to the next IRM meeting in New York.
If he wishes to promote his PSS organization he is welcome to organize his own meeting to do it. Since he had already expressed his desire that the IRM was 'bogus', he obviously was attending the IRM meeting for a mischievous purpose, and thus he was dealt with appropriately.

You say:

"At the New York Ratha-Yatra, we observed, to our horror, Adri Dharana prabhu with his arm around Jayadwaita “Swami,” joking around with “the most dangerous elements in human society.” Why does Adri prabhu neglect the sastric injunctions? Does he think he can convert demons?"

Firstly we filmed our participation in this year's New York Ratha Yatra. On the video Adridharana is seen talking to Jayadvaita, but not with his arm around him. Secondly if it is an offence just to be talking to these personalities, why did Kapindra Swami speak with Prithu Das, the infamous ISKCON Guru and virulent anti-ritvik, when he visited New York?

You say:

"Why do IRM newsletters, despite claiming neutrality, consistently interpret, minimize or ignore Srila Prabhupada's repeated complaints of poisoning, torture, and other shocking abuse directed towards him? Will the IRM place more value on their empiric investigations and semantic arguments than the infallible words and indications of the acarya? I was astonished yesterday when a Bangalore brahmacari said he had never heard Srila Prabhupada emanate “Better to be killed by Rama, etc.” Why are such well-publicized, heart-rending statements of the guru being covered up?"

The IRM is the only body that has given a CORRECT translation of the words which Srila Prabhupada spoke, that's all. We would like to see evidence of IRM newsletters actually 'consistently' 'interpreting, minimizing and ignoring' Srila Prabhupada's complaints of poisoning, torture etc. We have noted how Jaya Krishna's paper is conspicuous by its lack of a single quote from the IRM newsletters backing up any of his baseless claims. As for the IRM 'placing more value on their empiric investigations', you are confused. The IRM is actually being criticised for NOT carrying out 'empiric investigations'. Also there are many copies of Nityananda's 'Someone Has Poisoned Me' book circulating in Bangalore temple. Every brahmacarya cannot be expected to instantly recall or even know of all conversations related to the poison issue.

You say:

"Adri Dharana prabhu denied, to me personally, any 'early' knowledge of Srila Prabhupada's poisoning complaints. Yet, surprisingly, the IRM's version of these 1977 conversations show not only Adri prabhu's presence, but his active participation. How can such blatant contradictions inspire confidence?"

The IRM actually pointed out how the versions of the tape containing Adri's presence were incorrect, a fact now accepted by all sides. In an earlier IRM newsletter we had commented on an incorrect transcript from some other party. It was not our transcript.

You say:

"Why do IRM newsletters claim “no confidence” regarding statements about poisoning by those other than Srila Prabhupada, then cite the opinion of a kaviraja (who contradicts his own earlier reaction, “there must be some truth to it…”) as “the final nail in the coffin” to “refute” allegations of willful poisoning? Obviously, if statements by those present are accepted as hard evidence, any judge or jury will conclude, beyond any doubt: “intentional poisoning.”"

The statements of the Kaviraja are relied on by the 'poison theorists' as evidence for the willful poisoning of Srila Prabhupada. We simply pointed out that the Kaviraja has later given a contrary statement which cancels out his earlier statement. So by the 'poison theorists' own standard of accepting as 'hard evidence' the statements of those present, their theory is severely undermined. We simply pointed this out. Also if as you claim that the 'statements by those present are accepted as hard evidence', then the whole poison theory is in trouble, because virtually everyone who was present - Bhakti Caru, Tamala Krishna etc. - are giving other statements which minimize what they said at the time. These testimonies a Judge and Jury will also take into account. If one gives credence to what they said at the time, one cannot simultaneously discredit everything else they say. No court will accept such selective testimony. One cannot pick and choose what they wish to accept from a 'witness'. This is the danger of relying on the statements of anyone other than Srila Prabhupada.

You say:

"Why is the IRM, despite clearly identifying the culprits who have knowingly orchestrated so many huge deviations within ISKCON, reluctant to utilize the well-documented and compelling poison evidence as a means of uprooting the enemy? Why doesn't the IRM initiate a murder trial? Who are they trying to protect? Why this “weakness of heart” in fighting our corrupt “brothers and teachers”? And why is the cakra website-a well-known 'rtvik opponent'-linked to the IRM website?"

Why doesn't the supposedly well-established PSS initiate a murder trial? Why this weakness of heart from them? Who are they trying to protect? Indeed Kapindra Swami's only contribution to the 'poison campaign' has been to dis-associate himself from Mukunda Das, the only member of the PSS that was speaking out about the poison issue. The CHAKRA web-site is not linked to the IRM web-site. We have merely given the addresses of some CHAKRA arguments which should be rebutted in order to advance the poison theory, and the 'poison theorists' have taken our advice and began rebutting these articles.

In conclusion Jaya Krishna Das would do well to check his facts and present evidence in support of his claims, which as we have shown he has singularly failed to do in this current presentation.

Thank you, IRM