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 me.”
(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:

Well, guess what - this IS what Srila Prabhupada states!

“That talk …            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, were saying.

2)    In respect of the following conversation:

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?
(13 second pause, Srila Prabhupada remains silent and does not answer)
(S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana)

Mukunda states the following:

To support his argument, Mukunda quotes Srila Prabhupada saying the following:

"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 accepting.”

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 statements made:

“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:
 

Mukunda states:

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 means:
 

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 NOT 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:

a)    Something that someone other than Srila Prabhupada states.
b)    Something 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.