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'."
(PADA)
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."
(PADA)
Leaving aside the transparency of his evasion, there is one serious
and fatal flaw in Puranjana's argument.....
ADRI NEVER SAID IT!
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