CHAPTER 73:
BHAKTICHARU SWAMI

“One day an unusual, young Bengali man came to Mayapur. Named Kishore Bhattacharya, he was a Vaishnava from birth and obviously intelligent. He spoke impeccable English and was also fluent in German because he was a [chemistry] student in a German university. With simply a little coaxing, he surrendered to Srila Prabhupada and quickly got initiated, receiving the name Ksira-cora-gopinatha dasa. On several occasions he kindly translated conversations between Pisima and me. Months later, Srila Prabhupada awarded this cultured young man sannyasa, changing his name to Bhakticharu Swami.” (Mahamaya dasi, Prabhupada Is Coming!)

From the time he joined ISKCON in early 1977, Bhakticharu was closely associated with Tamal and Bhavananda, who were both major influences on him. His first years in ISKCON were under the direct tutelage of both Tamal and Bhavananda. He took over Bhavananda’s room in the Lotus Building after Bhavananda left in 1987. He would sometimes visit with Tamal in Dallas. During Srila Prabhupada’s last nine months, Tamal was Srila Prabhupada’s personal secretary, and Bhakticharu was Tamal’s assistant for the last eight months, always present by bringing meals, drinks, medicines, and so on. Bhakticharu translated the Bengali and Hindi conversations of the day for Tamal, and acted as a nurse, caretaker, servant.

Bhakticharu Swami was trained and nurtured by Tamal as a little brother, as a protégé, as a confidant and assistant. There is no doubt Tamal had Bhakticharu, a fresh new recruit, completely in his control and had an overwhelming influence on him. From Bhakticharu’s 2016 book Ocean Of Mercy, pgs. 89, 101, 126, and 153:

“…but [Tamal Krishna] Maharaja insisted that I stay with him, and I was delighted… to follow his wish.” “Tamal Krsna Maharaja asked Srila Prabhupada many questions- some about management and some on spiritual topics. I was amazed at how he would ask them, and I didn’t think I would ever be able to question Prabhupada in such a manner. One day I was sitting in Maharaja’s office chanting while he was editing letters that he’d typed on Prabhupada’s behalf. When he finished, he looked up and saw that I had been watching him, and he just smiled. I was already feeling deep appreciation for him, and when he smiled at me I couldn’t contain myself. ‘You are so brilliant,’ I said. ‘Whatever you do is so perfect.’”

Bhakticharu and Tamal were together in all things. Bhakticharu is Tamal’s “made man.” When Tamal passed away in Mayapura in 2002, and as was witnessed by many devotees including Prahladananda Swami, Bhakticharu Swami was sobbing and cried again and again, “It’s all over now… It’s all over now.”

When Srila Prabhupada returned to Bombay from London, Tamal immediately called for Bhakticharu to come from Vrindaban to help him as one of the “trusted caretakers.” Tamal wanted those to help him that he trusted, and that was Bhakticharu. Since we have found Tamal guilty of poisoning Srila Prabhupada beyond a reasonable doubt, it is incriminating for Bhakticharu that he was recalled by Tamal on October 3, ’77.

In 1970 Bhakticharu was a student at a university in Hamburg, Germany, studying chemistry. One of his Indian friends at this Hamburg university joined the movement before he did and was initiated as Sarvabhavana das. Bhakticharu went to the ISKCON Hamburg temple for some time. Years later Bhakticharu joined at Mayapur at the invitation of Sarvabhavana das, and they have been close friends through the years. In 2002 Sarvabhavana das was privately recorded by Sakshi Gopal das stating the following:

This is the first person claiming that Bhakticharu Swami knew about Srila Prabhupada being poisoned. Whether Sarvabhavana das will confirm this again is dubious, as he has much at stake with definite repercussions from ISKCON leadership if he were to publicly make such a statement. But this is what he reluctantly told a former member of the private investigation committee in India around 2003.

In 2003 an ISKCON devotee from Holland reported that a close friend, initiated by the elder Puri Maharaja, had been told by the new head of that matha (organization) that some years earlier Bhakticharu Swami had approached Puri Maharaja confidentially. Supposedly Bhakticharu Swami sought counsel in distress- he knew of Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning and was unsure of what to do, now that it had become a public issue. This report is unsubstantiated and is technically “hearsay,” just a rumor. However, we find there is so much hearsay or indirect evidence that it all adds up to a lot of smoke, and where there’s smoke, there’s often fire, so further verification and investigation is warranted.

Then, from Bhakticharu himself, a statement was made in Europe around 2001: "It's just natural when you get such shocking complaints from Srila Prabhupada, who is very dear to you and he just happened to be the person you thought you were serving lovingly, then suddenly, the food you gave him might have been poisoned!" Here Bhakticharu Swami is acknowledging his understanding in 1977 that Srila Prabhupada was speaking to him about being poisoned, and he thought it would be through the very food that he was giving to Srila Prabhupada. He did not say it was due to bad medicine as he and the ISKCON leaders now claim.

Also, on Nov.10, 1977, when Srila Prabhupada again said that someone had poisoned him, Bhakticharu exclaimed aloud to the others in the small room: “Someone gave him poison here!” And when Tamal asked him, “Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him?” and Bhakticharu replied, “Yes.”

However, in 2000 Bhakticharu had decided much differently about Srila Prabhupada’s 1977 statements."When I first heard about this allegation (poisoning) I considered it to be so absurd that I did not think it deserved any response. I could not even imagine that anyone with a rational mind would give any credence to such an allegation." Would Srila Prabhupada’s 1977 allegations of poisoning be also considered absurd by Bhakticharu Swami?

Also in 1999, Bhakticharu Swami told Nityananda das that he did not take srila Prabhupada’s statements about poisoning seriously because he though those who were poisoned turned blue…!

RECAP: 1977: poisoning acknowledged. 1999: did not take Srila Prabhupada seriously as he did not turn blue. 2000:poisoning idea is absurd. 2001: the food he gave to Srila Prabhupada may have been poisoned.

Below we will comment piece by piece the statement made in the GBC denial, cover-up book (2000):

COMMENT: Now, years later, we know that the primary poison administered was actually cadmium, and that the arsenic was somehow secondary. The cadmium levels are extremely high, much more so than the arsenic. We see that right at the start of his statement that he is more concerned about the supposed accusations against the senior men, of which he is one, than he is about whether Srila Prabhupada was really poisoned, or what Srila Prabhupada meant when he himself several times spoke of being poisoned. And, yes, anyone with half a head would naturally suspect those who were serving Srila Prabhupada. Or should we start by looking in the Himalayas or Africa first? Obviously the servants had a strong motive as they stood to inherit the society and guruhood as soon as Srila Prabhupada departed. Further, it is not a book that threw suspicions upon Srila Prabhupada’s servants, it was the evidence that was contained in the book.

COMMENT: But in 1977 no one thought the issue that Srila Prabhupada himself had raised about how he thought he was being poisoned was absurd. Why in 2000 does Bhakticharu think it has become absurd? Why did Tamal ask Srila Prabhupada, “So who is it that has poisoned?” rather than saying, “Srila Prabhupada, you are being absurd with these statements of being poisoned!” Bhakticharu asked in 1977 with these words: “Who said, Srila Prabhupada?” He did not think the matter absurd then. How is it that Bhakticaru cried out on tape on Nov. 11, 1977, "Someone has poisoned him!” and then became silent until Hari-Sauri's call-to-action 23 years later? Does he deny that he confessed his concerns about Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning to Sarvabhavana Prabhu?

COMMENT: Rather than discussing the value of Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned, where the heavy metals came from that were in Srila Prabhupada’s hair, or the whispers about poisoning while he is feeding Srila Prabhupada milk, and which have been forensically verified by numerous forensic analysts to be about homicidal poisoning, Bhakticharu tries to divert us to an emotional appeal about how Tamal loved Srila Prabhupada. When Bhakticharu heard the kaviraja in late 1977 say, “Some demon has given him poison,” did he protest, “No, this is impossible because everyone loves Srila Prabhupada”? Also there are questions about the “deep love” for Srila Prabhupada: “ati bhakti corera lakshana:” (CC Madhya: 17.15) Too much devotion is the sign of a thief. As far as defending oneself, we see that Tamal had organized many devotees to defend himself so he wouldn’t need to.

COMMENT: Bhakticharu thinks that the evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned should be analyzed and evaluated starting with a discussion about how Tamal was really a very devoted disciple? Naturally Bhakticharu wants to defend Tamal, because if Tamal is guilty, then the assistant is likely also guilty. As said in Judge For Yourself: “a seven month time-span for the'elder brother' to mentally exert, psychologically subjugate, plan, execute, justify, and brainwash his subordinate sibling with promises of a higher life and eventual gurudom.” Bhakticharu became an ISKCON initiating guru in 1987 as the eighth addition to the original eleven GBC-guru power elite after he had been a devotee only for 10 years. Many believe that he had been promised this position early on by his mentor Tamal. It is no wonder that he goes on record defending the big brothers who brought him into such an exalted, prestigious club. In his essay “Spiritual Connections” Bhakticaru confesses: "Tamal Krishna Maharaja was one of my most prominent spiritual connections to Srila Prabhupada. Under his guidance I served His Divine Grace during his final pastimes.” What this tells us is that he was simply following Tamal’s instructions. Also how “very heavy, demanding, and aggressive” was Tamal? Enough to be a poisoner behind the façade of “deep love”?

COMMENT: At least Nityananda das is eliminated as a suspect since he was not there in those last months. The belittling of the evidence as “some whispers” and a”dubious analysis of some hairs” at least admits more than Bir Krishna Swami did in Slovenia, saying, “There’s no evidence that Prabhupada was poisoned.” Actually the evidence is very substantial, if anyone has the time to actually look at it.

COMMENT: “praying to Krishna to let Srila Prabhupada stay on the planet in exchange of their lives." Yes, and Srila Prabhupada also said at that time the exact opposite: "You are all here praying for me to live and 'they' are in the next room praying for me to die." (spoken to Panchadravida, Upendra, and Srutakirti, all as separate confirmations)

COMMENT: All the evidence is dismissed because Srila Prabhupada was pleased with his loving disciples? Nityananda das, along with most of the rest of the devotees at that time, was not told about Srila Prabhupada’s request that all his disciples come to see him. This was due to concealment of the Acharya’s wishes by top men including Tamal and Hari Sauri. Besides, there is no doubt Srila Prabhupada was surrounded by loving disciples, but does that mean a poisoning could not take place? Or that amongst all those loving disciples there could not be someone who was a poisoner? Whoever did it, that comes second to understanding that the crime actually occurred, a crime now proven beyond doubt, and a crime that was not prevented by all the loving disciples being present. Also, why does Bhakticharu mention what Gurukripa would do if Srila Prabhupada told him he was being poisoned, something that Srila Prabhupada told Bhakticharu, Tamal, Bhavananda, and others, all who did nothing?

COMMENT: The issue is not about Tamal’s mosquito attitude; it is about the evidence presented in 700 pages of this book. Bhakticharu cannot answer that evidence, so he talks about mosquitoes instead!

COMMENT: OK, let’s get out the wailing violins; the heartstrings are really being pulled here. From the evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned with heavy metals, Bhakticharu only extracts a “let’s feel sorry for the good guys who are being unfairly accused” storyline. Only dummies fall for this. This is a favorite device of illogic used by deceivers: defend something which is not the subject at hand.

COMMENT: Would it be absurd to determine that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned? The hair tests confirm that he was. Now who did it? A witch on a broom who rode in from the clouds? Well, by Bhakticharu’s logic and admission, it must be him. Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, so therefore he did it, by his own reasoning. Instead of looking at the evidence that Srila Prabhupada was indeed poisoned, Bhakticharu would rather approach the issue this way: Since Srila Prabhupada was surrounded by loving disciples, it is impossible that he could have been poisoned. Bhakticharu should not apply to enter detective school because his logic is not suited to solve anything. The hair tests show a definite malicious poisoning, so not all that surrounded Srila Prabhupada were totally full of love. The devious will always try to divert the discussion to emotional secondary issues such as how unfair it is to suspect those who loved Srila Prabhupada. Bhakticharu only states that he and his friends did not do it, but does not argue against the poisoning itself. Emotions aside, let us look at the poisoning evidence to understand that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. Then we can ask who do it.

COMMENT: This is a bluff. Even though asked questions many times by our private investigators, he has not been forthcoming. These empty, blustery words are only a show to impress gullible people. He will not agree to polygraph or voice stress tests, interviews, questions, nothing. The whispers, the obstinate and slippery denials, the hair tests, the motive for the crime, the history of the insane zonal acaryas, the “mercy-killing” interview, the concealments, the character of some senior men, Srila Prabhupada’s own statements about being poisoned… this is what needs to be recognized as valid evidence which implicates Tamal, Jayapataka, Bhavananda, and Bhakticharu. For all of the false humility and denials, we come away with six key facts that will haunt Bhakticharu and company beyond their deaths: (1). Even after acknowledging that Srila Prabhupada had been poisoned, Bhakticharu never reported it to the authorities. (2). He backed Tamal in their secret meeting where it was decided, despite what Srila Prabhupada had said about being poisoned, that there was no poisoning. (3). He was part of the conspiracy to keep the Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning revelations secret until its discovery two decades later. (4). He still (on and off) denies that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned, even though he acknowledged that Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned. (5). He has done nothing more than hide behind the GBC produced book (NTIAP) of which his worthless statement above is a part. (6). He has done nothing to assist an investigation or prove his innocence, and as a suspect, he paid to publish the GBC book which was a white-wash cover-up.

Bhakticharu Swami’s statement that ”If anyone intentionally poisoned Srila Prabhupada, then it must be me.” For many homicide detectives, they would consider that to be the start of a confession, at least opening the door for continued interrogation. We believe you. Now, tell us more…

COMMENT: We have already discussed in Ch. 18 that Srila Prabhupada was NOT referring to bad medicine when he spoke of being poisoned on Nov. 10-11, 1977. He had discontinued the makaradhvaja after perhaps three doses around October 27. For over 10 days there was no more talk of makharadhvaja, and then we are led to believe that the Nov 10-11 “poison discussions” (see Ch. 12) were about the makharadhvaja being bad medicine? Then why did Srila Prabhupada not mention the makharadhvaja or medicines when speaking of being poisoned? Thus Bhakticharu, above, diverts attention to bad medicine to mislead people with a totally deceitful hoax of an excuse.

COMMENT: OK, here we have more subterfuge and twisting of things as a clear act of deception. He could not take Srila Prabhupada’s speaking of being poisoned seriously because the doctor did not detect it? This means putting more faith in what the doctor missed than what Srila Prabhupada, the pure devotee who knows past, present, and future, is actually saying? This sounds like a really lame excuse. Further, in the actual conversations we find that the doctor/kaviraja DID believe Srila Prabhupada, and spoke of a rakshasa or demon who had poisoned Srila Prabhupada. Yet Bhakticharu seems to have forgotten all this? No, he has not forgotten, but he is counting on us to not read the 1977 conversations so he can say nonsense. Also, whoever the poisoners were, they had chosen cadmium, a highly undetectable poison, so it is rather strange for Bhakticharu to say because the doctor did not detect it, he was unconcerned (even after Srila Prabhupada himself had detected or ascertained his poisoning.) Does Bhakticharu think poisoning is so easily detected even by doctors? No, poisonings are very hard to detect. Bhakticharu’s idea about the body turning blue is something a 7 year old would believe, not the chemistry major from a German university that he is. Who could come up with such a daffy defense? Is he playing dumb with us? So because Srila Prabhupada did not turn blue, then Bhakticharu concluded that Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned are… what? Senility?

COMMENT: Bhakticharu saw Srila Prabhupada as a completely spiritual personality who said someone was poisoning him, a statement he could not take seriously? So why did Srila Prabhupada say that? Bhakticharu makes no sense, and that’s how a liar is trapped, by his own contradictions. The more they talk the better, as they eventually tie themselves up in their own web of lies and contradictions. Also, what does “quite normal,” “apart from his usual unhealthy condition” mean? This is bewildering.

After 22+ years, finally Bhakticharu was compelled to make some statements regarding why he and other caretakers did NOTHING when Srila Prabhupada spoke repeatedly about being poisoned on Nov 10-11, 1977. Better late than never. Hopefully Maharaja will answer the many questions that will be put to him and others as this investigation proceeds, but we are not expecting he will. There are 7 points regarding this second statement from him:

(1). That Maharaja did not see any unusual health symptoms or that Srila Prabhupada did not turn blue, and therefore there was no poisoning, means nothing: heavy metal poisoning symptoms are practically unrecognizable even to trained doctors. Of course there were kidney problems: that is what heavy metals directly exacerbate. Maharaja should consult with his toxicologist disciple in New York.

(2). Srila Prabhupada said three times that he was being poisoned, and the kaviraja said that if Srila Prabhupada said it, there must be truth to it. Why did Maharaja not take it seriously?

(3). Srila Prabhupada's voice was definitely not strong and resonant during his last months with us. Listen to the tapes, read the health history: it was hoarse, raspy, weak. These are signs of heavy metal poisoning.

(4). Why does he not mention anything of the sudden and drastic attack of illness Srila Prabhupada experienced in Hrishikesh, which was what made Srila Prabhupada think he was about to die?

(5). That Maharaja says he thinks Srila Prabhupada's statements about being poisoned referred to the makharadhvaja is a dishonesty and a tired, old strategy to confuse his listeners.

(6). Contrary to Bhakticharu himself, the kaviraja took Srila Prabhupada’s statements that he was being poisoned very seriously, and said it must be true. Bhakticharu’s claims are contradictory.

(7). Rather than lamenting about giving makharadhvaja when maybe it wasn't the best idea, Bhakticharu should lament about not taking (even today!) Srila Prabhupada's statements seriously.

(8). That Srila Prabhupada appeared "quite normal" to Bhakticharu only means that the slow poisoning was chronic, not apparent. Did he ever wonder about all the different diagnoses from the parade of doctors, and why no medicine or care program seemed to be effective?

From Nityananda das: “In early 1998 Bhakticharu Swami made a statement on VNN.org that Srila Prabhupada could not have been poisoned because he did not turn blue. Yet when I interviewed him by phone in North Carolina in late 1998, he said that after Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned, no one followed up on it, although he thinks the matter should have been looked into. This reveals three contradictory positions when compared to his other testimonies.

“Does it make any sense? Actually, when we study what Bhakticharu has said and done in relation to the poison issue, we find a necklace comprised of the jewels of suspicion, complicity, contradiction, dishonesty, and duplicity. This is all being noted down and organized for judgement day.”

Naveen Krishna das had resigned from the GBC body in March 2000 after seeing the GBC response to the poison issue in the form of their book Not That I Am Poisoned. A few months later, Bhakticharu came alone to visit Naveen at his home in Alachua. The conversation followed these lines:

BCHARU: Why did you resign? Why don’t you come back? You have left very important services…

NAVEEN: I left because I lost all trust in the GBC. The book they produced on the poison issue is full of lies, fraud, deception, and my conscience won’t allow me to work in an organization that refuses to recognize the serious evidence that Srila Prabhupada was poisoned. You yourself admitted in 1977 that Srila Prabhupada thought he was poisoned.

BCHARU: Well, Srila Prabhupada thought some of the medicines were acting like poison.

NAVEEN: Maharaja, that explanation does not conform to the actual conversations involving yourself, Srila Prabhupada, Tamal, the last kaviraja, and others in late 1977. For example…

(From memory, Naveen listed many of the discussions in Srila Prabhupada’s last days and how all the participants, including Bhakticharu Swami, acknowledged that Srila Prabhupada thought he had been poisoned. Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada who had done it. These transcripts are in Part Two.)

NAVEEN: So, Maharaja, you and I both know that Srila Prabhupada thought he was being poisoned. The GBC has done a great wrong by neglecting to honestly investigate this issue and the new evidence.

BCHARU: Well, do you suggest that we should re-open the investigation?

NAVEEN: Yes, definitely. A number of senior devotees believe this also, and we are prepared to form an impartial commission for that purpose. Will you please agree to be on the commission?

BCHARU: We need people like Ambarisha, Sesa, yourself, and then I could be part of it.

NAVEEN: OK, you please think it over and be sure. Let me know in a few days so we can get started.

BCHARU: Yes, I’ll let you know soon.

Naveen never heard back from Bhakticharu Swami again. This proves Bhakticharu’s insincerity about the poison issue. He is inconsistent, sometimes saying there was a poisoning (1977), and then sometimes saying it is a ludicrous idea (2000). He makes dishonest statements like, “the medicine was the poison” and “I thought someone who is poisoned would turn blue.”

Abhinanda das remembers that on the morning on November 15, 1977, in Vrindaban, while he was working hard by digging the Samadhi pit for Srila Prabhupada, that “Bhakticharu Swami came to him in a panicky mood, crying and weeping heavily,” and asked, “Where is the kaviraja? Where is he?.” Abhinanda immediately got a very bad feeling about what was taking place. Abhinanda’s claim is contained in a letter to Naveen Krishna das on Dec. 18, 1999, shown below, wherein he also discusses the investigative efforts at that time. In 2017 Abhinanda das again confirmed this account, and he was not sure why Bhakticharu was frantically looking for the kaviraja, who had already departed back to Calcutta.

In a recent letter dated July 23, '03, you said: "I am not denying that Srila Prabhupada spoke about poison." Maharaja, allow me to draw your attention to the actualities:- What Srila Prabhupada said was that he had heard "All these friends" discussing his poisoning. You were in the room. Not a single person there, not even you, refuted the allegation. To the contrary, we hear you say very distinctly, "Someone gave him poison here!" And then, when Tamal Krishna Swami asked you if Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him, you said "Yes." Now you say you are "not denying that Srila Prabhupada spoke ABOUT poison?" He said he thought that someone had poisoned him, and you clearly understood the fact, yet now you say he simply spoke ABOUT poison.

In that same letter (July 23), and in the same paragraph, you admit: "As a matter of fact, when we heard His Divine Grace speaking in that way, we became extremely worried". So why did "WE" become extremely worried if Srila Prabhupada was simply speaking ABOUT poison? It does not make sense. Who are the WE you refer to? Are they the same "friends" in the room, whom His Divine Grace heard discussing his poisoning? If you (all) were extremely worried, as you say, why didn't you alert the authorities or law enforcement to a possible homicide in progress, or after the fact? You, and who else?

You then attempt (in the same letter) to push forward the lie that Srila Prabhupada said "Not that I am poisoned" as a statement in itself, even after he had openly stated, and you, along with the others admitted, that he thought he was being poisoned.

(1). Bhakticharu: Someone gave him poison here!

(2). Tamal: Srila Prabhupada, Shastriji says that there must be some truth to it if you say that. So who is it that has poisoned? (No answer)

(3). Tamal: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him. Bhakticharu: Yes.

(4). Bhakticharu: He said that when Srila Prabhupada was saying that [He was being poisoned] there must be some truth behind it.

In spite of the transcription above, you are now (25 years later) attempting to circumvent documented evidence by telling us that Srila Prabhupada said he was 'not poisoned'. This is what you wrote in your letter:

By neglecting to include what Tamal said, you have excluded the fact that His Divine Grace was informed that he was poisoned. Here it is:

Tamal: Srila Prabhupada? You said before that you...that it is said that you were poisoned?

So this tells us that Tamal knew and admits to an informant and his question tells us that Srila Prabhupada raised the matter of his poisoning (on tape). How would he have known unless Srila Prahupada told him (and you?). Which prompts the question- if Srila Prabhupada raised the subject, why would he do so only to say that he was not poisoned? Again, it doesn't make any sense? So now we will look at Srila Prabhupada's answer, which you claim "relieved us."

Prabhupada: No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.

The above statement tells us Srila Prabhupada was informed he had the symptoms, but his informant had not said directly that he was poisoned. Nonetheless, His Divine Grace did believe he had been poisoned. This is how we read it, and this is how YOU, Tamal Krishna, the Kaviraja, and everyone in the room understood it. The proof is there for all to hear, and is attested to through the following statements made by Tamal, Damodara Prasad Shastri and YOURSELF. Here are the statements made AFTER the so called “not that I am poisoned” statement, which you claim (in your letter) “relieved us,” but proves that you are lying because, in fact, none of you were “relieved,” ergo you should have informed the authorities and not covered up a possible homicide in progress.

Tamal: Did anyone tell you that or you know it from before (know what from before...that he was not poisoned?) Prabhupada: I read something (Read what...that he was NOT POISONED?)

Tamal: 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 Srila Prabhupada, is it because he said he was NOT POISONED?)

Directly after Srila Prabhupada was supposed to have admitted (according to your letter) that he was not being poisoned, here's what the kaviraja had to say:

Kaviraja: (translated) Look, this is the thing, that maybe some rakshasa gave him poison.

(Why didn't the kaviraja believe Srila Prabhupada when he said “Not that I am poisoned”?)

Kaviraja: (translated) If he says [he's been poisoned] there must be some truth to it. There's no doubt.

So if no one present at the time believed that Srila Prabhupada had said “Not that I am poisoned” as a statement in itself, how can you, Maharaja, ask us to believe you now? Just to jog your memory, we'll throw in your “disbelief,” spoken AFTER the not that I am poisoned quote, that you say, gave you (all) relief:

Bhakticharu: He's saying that someone gave him poison. (And you say you were 'relieved'?)

Tamal: Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him?

Bhakticharu: Yes. Tamal: That was the mental distress?

Bhakticharu: Yes. (And you say you were relieved because he said that he was not poisoned?)

It becomes clear from your letter that you have some apprehension about what took place in 1977. You have written: "It is still a mystery to me why Srila Prabhuapda spoke that way." We are offering you a chance to solve the mystery and exonerate yourself in the process. If it is a mystery to which you are an innocent party, why have you not strived to clear it up already? Instead, you secretly financed the book Not That I Am Poisoned to further shroud the mystery with smoke and mirrors. We have shown in our report (Judge for Yourself) how Tamal worked behind the scenes to create a diversion from the truth (his followers even named the book- Not That I am Poisoned after his suggestion), and now we have proof that you financed that book, and since there is no mention of you in the book's credits, we must assume that you requested your participation in its publication to be kept quiet. It appears that you quite enjoy the element of mystery and deception, just as we are sworn to exposing it.

Further you have written: "I cannot even imagine in my remotest dream that any of Srila Prabhupada's disciples could have given him poison. That is why I do not believe that there is a cover up." Firstly, we must ask you what experience you have in dealing with poisoners? Do you believe that devils wear horns and poison turns one blue? After all this time you cannot even tell a bhogi from a yogi, and you are in the guru business. How then can you identify a poisoner? The truth is, even state-of-the-art forensics must use highly specified toxic screens to identify the poison. Ergo, a full scale investigation is necessary to identify a poisoner. Nevertheless, the only possibility of temporary escape for a poisoner once discovered, is for associates to give sanctuary by muddying the facts, as is the case here. Secondly, you say “That is why I do not believe that there is a cover up." Maharaja, may we remind you that the matter was covered up for two decades. The "poison issue" was NEVER revealed by you or any of your confederacy. It came to light in the last five years, and only after the tapes had been spirited away from Tamal's control in 1977 and someone discovered their contents much later. Your letters show that you are still trying to cover up the facts, in spite of our efforts to uncover them. Yoy say: "I will be happy if you can successfully conduct an investigation to settle this issue once and for all. Please let me know how you want to go about that." We seriously doubt your sincerity in this.

Bhakticharu: He said that when Srila Prabhupada was saying that [he is poisoned] there must be something truth behind it.

So why didn't Bhakticharu tell the kaviraja he was thinking irrationally? with absurdity? Why didn't he tell Srila Prabhupada that? Why did Bhakticharu himself say, "Someone gave him poison here." Not only did Bhakticharu, Tamala, Jayapataka, and Bhavananda fail to address this greviance, they also cohorted to exclude any investigation or pathological analysis to check into it.

So, we have a remarkable series of varying statements from Bhakticharu Swami, or what amounts to “changing stories” and contradictory statements, as one would typically get from someone who is groping at straws to deny the facts, with… well, deceit and lies. This is the hallmark of a person who has something to hide and is always a signal to investigators that such a person is (1). Not telling everything, and (2). He is making up stuff. Why is he doing this? Does he know something he is afraid to tell us? Look at his suspicious series of changing stories; does it look like he is being honest?

(1). "It's just natural when you get such shocking complaints from Srila Prabhupada, who is very dear to you and he just happened to be the person you thought you were serving lovingly, then suddenly, the food you gave him might have been poisoned!" (BCS, Europe, 2001) but then in 2000 he says in the GBC book that Srila Prabhupada said that he was NOT poisoned. Which is it?

(2). Srila Prabhupada again said that someone had poisoned him, and Bhakticharu exclaimed aloud to the others in the small room: “Someone gave him poison here!” And when Tamal asked him, “Prabhupada was thinking that someone had poisoned him?” Bhakticharu replied, “Yes.” (Nov.10, 1977)

(3). "When I first heard about this allegation (poisoning) I considered it to be so absurd that I did not think it deserved any response. I could not even imagine that anyone with a rational mind would give any credence to such an allegation." (BCS, Not That I Am Poisoned book, 2000)

(4). He says Srila Prabhupada just had to tell any one of the devotees there about the poisoning and one can imagine what the reaction would have been like. BUT Srila Prabhupada DID tell Bhakticharu and others in 1977 that he was being poisoned, and he and Tamal did nothing!

(5). Studying chemistry in a German university where one understands how poisons work, but then his silly statement in 1998 that he thought poisoning turns the body blue? Was he really that uneducated? No, he is playing dumb. This is very suspect!

(6). He said Srila Prabhupada spoke of bad medicine being “like poison” on one occasion, and on another he said “the food you gave him might have been poisoned!" These are contradicting each other. Which is it?

(7). In 1977 he acknowledged Srila Prabhupada said he was being poisoned but in 1998 he said it should have been looked into, but he did not, and also in 1999 said the idea was absurd. Triple contradiction here!

(8). He first heard about poisoning allegations in 1997? But Srila Prabhupada told him this in 1977.

(9). He never took the matter to any authority, inside or outside ISKCON yet he has been telling Sarvabhavana das since 1977 that he suspected Srila Prabhupada was poisoned.

(10). On July 23, 2003 Bhakticharu said: "It is still a mystery to me why Srila Prabhuapda spoke that way." And he also said: "As a matter of fact, when we heard His Divine Grace speaking in that way, we became extremely worried." This again contradicts what he has previously stated.

Are we dizzy yet with this whirlwind of contradictory statements and positions? Bhakticharu’s words are a maze of bewildering contradictions to the point that we don’t know what he thinks from one day to the next day. Changing stories are the hallmark of a liar and a guilty man.

While Tamal surreptiously engaged his notorious Australian disciple Tirtharaj das to organize with an Australian Jayapataka Swami disciple named Gaura Deva Hari das the formation and compiling of the book titled Not That I Am Poisoned, Bhakticharu paid US$3000 for the publishing costs and covered all the expenses of Deva Gaura Hari. This was confirmed to Jitarati das by Tirtharaja das.Thus we see that Bhakticharu is an active participant in the fraudulent cover-up and blind denials of Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning. He has colluded with the other primary suspects, namely Tamal and Jayapataka, to distribute a book of lies, fraudulent claims, false propaganda… why? Because they are innocent or because they have something to hide? Any simpleton can see that something is fishy there.

An account from a Srila Prabhupada disciple, former ISKCON member HH Krishna Balarama Swami of Vrindaban (born in a mahant family):

“For example, one time in the early eighties His Holiness Bhakticharu Swami and Sarvabhavana Das had surprisingly fed us alone and sumptuously, along with sweet rasagullas in their apartment in Calcutta, India. A few hours after eating, we felt like knives were moving around inside our stomach. We were in Calcutta to catch our flight to California. In that condition we reached Berkeley, California where we were admitted in the hospital. When we were in the hospital, even after many months and after many tests, the doctors could not find anything wrong in our body. Seeing our situation, the GBC Guru of the Berkeley temple at that time, HH Hansadutta Swami, sent us to the Manila temple in the Philippines where Chakravarti das and his wife (Dinasarana dd) were living. We were very sick. Chakravarti and his wife took us to Dr. Baskara and secretly told him to put us to sleep forever. Dr. Baskara, while injecting the lethal drug in us, told us to think about beautiful ocean waves and nice dancing girls on the beach, etc. Chakravarti das and his wife were both present next to our hospital bed in Dr. Baskara’s hospital in Manila and were chanting the Hare Krishna Mahamantra loudly. We cannot remember what happened next. But Hansadutta Swami was in California and he phoned HH Svarupa Damodara Swami, another GBC Guru for ISKCON, and told him that Krishna Balarama Swami was dead. Later, when HH Svarupa Damodara Swami met us in Calcutta, India, he was shocked upon seeing that we were alive. He said, “Hansadutta told me that you were dead.”

http://archived.Krishna.org/MyMission/mymission11-3.php
https://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/news/?p=43289

In 2016 Bhakticharu Swami (BCS) released his book called Ocean of Mercy recalling his time in 1977 as one of Srila Prabhupada’s caretakers and as assistant to Tamal, who was Srila Prabhupada’s personal secretary. Upon review, we find that it definitely portrays BCS as a very intimate caretaker of Srila Prabhupada and he shares his spiritual emotions of that time very effectively and movingly. However, it has numerous historical errors and chronological problems, that, when compared with actual tape recordings and other accounts of the time, show clearly that BCS’s version of many key 1977 incidences are either wrong or twisted. Maybe BCS simply relied upon a faded memory of things 40 years ago without fact-checking against the other existing historical accounts, and that explains the divergences. There are accounts from Hari Sauri, Tamal, Satsvarupa, the actual tape recordings, and others; but BCS’s version stands out as a very different story that conflicts with real history. Why is this?

Rather than deal honestly with the actual documented history of events and provide rational explanations for them, BCS has changed what happened so it all looks fine to readers and disciples. But this course of dishonesty actually increases suspicions of what happened in 1977, and draws more distrust of himself upon himself. It is clear he wants to deflect attention away from himself as a prime suspect in the now proven cadmium poisoning of Srila Prabhupada. He also tries to resolve the question of succession to Srila Prabhupada by claiming something that is unsubstantiated by any other real evidence. Altogether, the book is an ocean of questions and suspicions. He is trying to hide history with his doctored so-called recollections. His book is thus fraud and cheating by his deceitful changing of what really happened, as shown below.

From BCS’s book Ocean of Mercy, we extract the following questionable sections and comment.

(1). “[Srila Prabhupada said] ‘Now that you have become a sannyasi, you are a guru. You can initiate. But as long as the spiritual master is present on the planet, one does not give initiation. That is the formality.’” (p 184)

COMMENTS: We do not believe that Srila Prabhupada said this, or anything close to it. We do not find anywhere else in Srila Prabhupada’s teachings that upon taking sannyas that one is allowed to initiate when his guru “disappears.” We think this is inserted by BCS simply to try to give further credence to his being an initiating guru, to bolster his so-called authority received from the ISKCON GBC. Amazing.

COMMENTS: Finally someone admits how the leaders were thinking, that one of them would be named as the successor acharya. Again, amazing. And Srila Prabhupada clearly disappointed the aspiring “acharyas.” Instead, eleven ritviks or priests were named instead, and although Srila Prabhupada did not say this anywhere, the leaders then claimed after Srila Prabhupada had left that the ritviks were meant to become full gurus. But where is that evidence?

(3). “Soon thereafter he named ten leading devotees to give initiation on his behalf in different parts of the world while he was still present on this planet, and he said that they could initiate their own disciples after his departure. Hamsaduta’s name was not on that list, but when Srila Prabhupada heard about his successful preaching in Sri Lanka, he asked Tamal Krsna Maharaja to add him….” (pg. 200)

COMMENTS: Actually Srila Prabhupada named NINE ritvik representatives on July 7, not ten. Tamal said that on July 9, when he was ready to type up the July 9th letter, he asked Srila Prabhupada if there were any more names to add, and Srila Prabhupada then added Bhavananda and Hansadutta. Also, the GBC already apologized to the ISKCON society in 1990 about the false claims made by the GBC in 1978 that Srila Prabhupada had appointed eleven successor gurus. So Bhakticharu’s claim is contradictory to the present GBC body’s official position that there never was any appointment of gurus. Therefore, Bhakticharu’s statement: “that they could initiate their own disciples after his departure” is totally contradictory to the ISKCON GBC minutes and resolutions which state the opposite, that Srila Prabhupada only named ritviks for while he was still present. The GBC now claim no arrangement was made for after his departure, thus necessitating their making a solution by creating a vote-approved system for new initiating gurus. This erroneous claim by Bhakticharu shows either tremendous deceit or total confusion of history, or both.

(4). On p. 206, BCS describes that in late August 1977: “When it was finally time for him to go, we all watched him stride through the gate and disappear around the corner.”

COMMENTS: But Srila Prabhupada could not walk at that time. Another account describes: “…the caravan reached the Delhi airport, where Srila Prabhupada remained lying on the bed in his car with the doors open. Srila Prabhupada was finally moved by wheelchair to the plane.” (ISKCON in the 1970’s, Satsvarupa, p.308) So why the inaccuracy in BCS’s account? Stride through the gate? This gives us more doubts about his book.

(5). Conspicuously, BCS has mentioned absolutely nothing about the instructions that Srila Prabhupada gave on May 28 nor does he mention the July 9 Order. He was present for both of these very important events, so why has he chosen to simply ignore them? This omission is convenient for his concocted explanations on guru succession and future initiations.

From BCS’s book Ocean of Mercy, we extract the following questionable sections and comment.

COMMENT: More serious historical errors here, which leave us wondering further about the veracity of BCS’s other claims in his book. Abhiram das left Vrindaban and Srila Prabhupada’s service at least a week earlier on October 16; it was actually Satadhanya das who brought the medicine from Delhi to Vrindaban, and it was purchased by Chandra Swami and then donated to Srila Prabhupada. BCS has the facts all mixed up. Abhiram had nothing to do with the makharadhvaja at all. What else in his book is wrong?

(2). “That evening, a Bengali devotee from another matha in Vrndavana came to ask Srila Prabhupada for a donation for a temple […]

COMMENT: Here is another big error. Srila Prabhupada discontinued the makhardhvaja on October 27 after three doses because it had caused diarrhea. Balaram Misra, who maintained the Chaitanya Mahaprabhu temple, for which he asked for a donations for renovations, came to see Srila Prabhupada on November 9. There are 13 days separation between these two events, yet BCS says “Prabhupada started to feel so bad that he decided not to take any more. That evening, a Bengali devotee…” and thus implies these two events were on the same day, although 13 days apart. Why does he do this? The answer is that he wants to explain Srila Prabhupada’s talk of being poisoned on Nov. 9 with some moderate but temporary ill effects of medicine last taken on Oct. 27. The Bengali Balaram Misra did NOT come that sameday, but 13 days later!.

COMMENT: This is afraudulent misrepresentation of facts. The reason why BCS has put these two events together on the same day is because he wants us to believe that when Srila Prabhupada announced to Balaram Misra that he thought he was being poisoned, he was talking about the ill effects of the makharadhvaja. Many ISKCON leaders have tried to explain away Srila Prabhupada’s statements about being poisoned with this makharadhvaja theory. (see Ch. 18) BCS has joined the others in a deceitful explanation which is easily exposed and is their attempt to assign Srila Prabhupada’s statements to bad medicine rather than actual poisoning. But on November 10 when Srila Prabhupada last spoke of being poisoned, BCS and the other caretakers all engaged in a frenzied discussion which clearly acknowledged actual homicidal, malicious poisoning. (see Ch. 19) Even 13 days earlier when Srila Prabhupada had taken the last of the “bad” medicine (makharadhvaja), he never spoke, as BCS asserts, “as if he had been given poison.” This is concocted by BCS to make us believe there was no poisoning. However, the hair tests with cadmium prove otherwise.

(4). “Although many devotees were standing around, I was the only one who could understand the conversation. I was shocked to hear what Prabhupada had said, and told Tamal Krsna Maharaja, who shared my reaction […] After the Bengali devotee left, the devotees got together and I told them in detail what Prabhupada had said. Tamal Krsna Maharaja, followed by several senior devotees, went right to him and asked, ‘Srila Prabhupada, do you feel that you have been given poison?’ ‘No’, Srila Prabhupada replied, ‘not that I have been poisoned. I am just speaking like that.’ He had simply been trying to express how bad he had been feeling.” (pg. 222)

COMMENT: Where to start? How does Bhakticharu think he can get away with this surgery of actual events? He is digging a grave for himself the more he speaks on this issue. Silence would have been far better for his defence. These conversations were tape recorded, and this is just not the way they went, not even close. See Ch. 12 for the transcript of these talks. Bhakticharu Swami has now conspicuously projected more suspicion upon himself by proposing a history that could not have happened, according to the tapes and other accounts. BCS is in clear discord with actual history by trying to make up his own history. The tapes do not lie, and BCS has it all wrong. “As if” he was given poison? “I am just speaking like that”? These statements are nowhere in the actual conversations. Read them and see. Bhakticharu is trying to convince us that Srila Prabhupada was not speaking of actual poisoning, just that he felt as if poisoned. By these statements, he is creating more and more reason to suspect him as involved in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning.

The hair tests prove there was a real poisoning, not just some “feeling” about bad medicine. This is why BCS is a prime suspect in Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning, due to repeated dishonesties. The guilty always do this in their attempt to hide what was really done.

Srila Prabhupada told Balaram Misra on Nov. 9, and Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada on the next day, Nov. 10, “So who is it that has poisoned?”… NOT… ”Do you feel that you have been given poison.” And the day before, on Nov. 9, Tamal asked Srila Prabhupada: “You said before that you… that it is said that you were poisoned?” And Srila Prabhupada replied, “No. These kind of symptoms are seen when a man is poisoned. He said like that, not that I am poisoned.” The “he” is the one who said there were poisoning symptoms, but “he” did not say there was poisoning. Srila Prabhupada himself said he thought he was being poisoned. In this way BCS and other ISKCON misleaders jumble the conversations to make their own versions, trying to fool people with the way things did not happen. What an outrage! Does BCS think we do not have the taped conversations as they are and that he can just rewrite them as he likes and no one will notice?

(5). “I told Damodar Prasad about what Srila Prabhupada had said about feeling like he had been poisoned, but he brushed that aside. ‘When someone feels pain or discomfort,’ he said, ‘he may say something like, “I have been poisoned.” Don’t worry about that. Srila Prabhupada is a pure devotee of Krsna…..These are all his pastimes.’ […] Damodar Prasad thought for a minute and then said, ‘Makaradhvaja is like nectar, but it is very strong. It is a tonic. Therefore, the body must be able to absorb it. To give the medicine without even seeing the patient’s condition was not right. Whoever gave it like that made a mistake. Besides that, it Is prepared from mercury, so if the mercury is not cured properly its effect can be quite harmful.’ I began to see what a big mistake had been made. ‘What can be done now?’ I asked. Although Damodar Prasad tried to console me, a terrible weight remained in my heart. I told Tamal Krsna Maharaja about the conversation [...] but Tamal Krsna Maharaja reminded me that it was Srila Prabhupada, after his dream, who had wanted to take it.” (pg. 225-6)

COMMENT: Actually Damodar Sastri believed that Srila Prabhupada WAS poisoned, according to his own son, Dr. Ramesh K Sharma. See Ch. 82. Further, nowhere in the tape recordings do we see that Satriji believed anything other than that Srila Prabhupada’s speaking of poisoning must be true, that it was due to a rakshasa, and questioning why anyone would want to do this, etc. Review the tape transcriptions. (Ch. 12) And we have already addressed the bogus suggestion that Srila Prabhupada was talking of poison as reference to ill effects of medicines like the makharadhvaja. (See Ch. 18) Makharadhvaja was only taken thrice Oct. 26-27, then discontinued. So how does “Someone has poisoned me” on Nov. 10 have anything to do with something that had not been spoken of for 2 weeks? Bhakticharu is trying to mislead us that the reason he did nothing when Srila Prabhupada spoke of being poisoned is that he was only “feeling as if poisoned,” brushing aside Srila Prabhupada’s poisoning complaint as due to discomfort. Now we are convinced Bhakticharu is purposefully obscuring what really happened, and the only reason someone does that is because they actually ARE guilty of what they are being suspected of. BCS also contradicts his earlier versions of the events as listed above.

In reviewing Bhakticharu Swami’s book Ocean of Mercy, what was striking was the lack of any specific descriptions about Srila Prabhupada’s severe decline of health in 1977. Bhakticharu was with Srila Prabhupada’s party as early as January 10 at the Kumbha Mela, and then again in Mayapur from mid-February and on. He says nothing about the sudden and drastic health attack of February 26 which was well-known amongst all the devotees there at that time- prayers for srila Prabhupada’s health were advised by management and Srila Prabhupada lay bedridden for days, koaning in pain, and unable to give the morning class as usual. Why does Bhakticharu miss this major event in his book? Further, he hardly mentions Srila Prabhupada’s health while Srila Prabhupada could not eat or go on walks. On p.105 is the first mention of health, and he describes: “Srila Prabhupada’s health had been bad for months, since he had returned to India, and now it was deteriorating rapidly.”

However, the facts are that Srila Prabhupada was still able to take his daily walks, give classes, meet visitors, etc until February 26 when there was a horrible and immediate episode just days after Tamal had arrived from America. Bhakticharu makes it sound like it all started much earlier, and was a gradual decline of health. Everyone in Mayapur, including all the visiting foreign devotees who came for the annual Mayapur festival, was fully awate of Srila Prabhupada’s sudden health problems. How does Bhakticharu miss this?

The liited health descriptions:

(1). Pg. 116: “…despite his ill health…” (late March 1977)

(2). Pg. 119: “His health was not good and he was physically weak…” (Cross Maidan)

(3). Pg. 134: “Due to his poor health…” (April)

(4). Pg. 160: “Prabhupada told him [Tamal] the same thing. ‘Please take me to Vrindaban. The time has come for me to leave my body. I weant to leave my body in Vrindaban.’ Srila Prabhupada’s health had been poor, but none of us had imagined that his illness was so serious that he could leave his bnody. We all thought it was a temporary setback and that he would soon get better… We were all stunned by this turn of events.”

On May 8, Srila Prabhupada arrived in Hrishikesh and he ate kicharis and jalebis heartily, with daily public darshans, increasing his translation work, and even teaching the cooking of many preparations. On May 11, Tamal wrote to Radhaballabha that Srila Prabhupada’s health is slightly improving. Srila Prabhupada wrote Giriraj that “Yes, my health is improving a very little.” But late on May 15, after midnight, there was a sudden turn for the worse, as described by Satsavrupa: “…and with the storm came a drastic turn in Srila Prabhupada’s health. He said the end was near, and he asked to go immediately to Vrindaban.”

Arriving in Vrindaban on May 17, Srila Prabhupada could no longer walk and began preparations for his departure including the drafting a final will. Yet the only descriptions we get from Bhakticharu up to this point is the three ultra-brief mentions above of poor health, with no detail. If his book is supposed to be about Srila Prabhupada’s last year, why has he avoided anything about Srila Prabhupada’s health condition? He makes it sound like a vague gradual deterioration that no one understood or saw unfolding.

Actually, there were two very dramatic attacks on Srila Prabhupada’s health, February 26 and May 16, and Bhakticharu fails to describe anything about them in his book. It is as though he wants us to believe that Srila Prabhupada quietly faded away due to some unknown cause. Of course, today we know it was due to lethal cadmium poisoning, the levels of which produced very obvious and outstanding health symptoms, of which his omission is a very suspicious. He doesn’t want to talk about Srila Prabhupada’s health failure and deteriorating symptoms except in the vaguest way possible?

Then he claims Srila Prabhupada told him to stop cooking for him: “he was going to stop eating and drinking in order to give up his body…” to which Tamal replied: “What can we do when Srila Prabhupada makes such a decision and gives us such an order?” Rather, what else could Srila Prabhupada do, being poisoned? Bhakticharu then says: “And nobody could have imagined that his condition would deteriorate so quickly.” (pg. 211) No one, that is, except the poisoners who were somehow giving the cadmium to Srila Prabhupada.

And that pretty much is all the detail that Bhakticharu has in his book about Srila Prabhupada’s health conditions and health decline during all of 1977. Nothing about diagnoses, diabetes, kidneys, causes of illness, very little about all the doctors that came and went, or about medicines other than the makharadhvaja.

Bhakticharu Swami has evaded the health issue almost entirely. As the living caretaker who was giving Srila Prabhupada all the medicines and applying all the treatments prescribed by dozens of doctors and kavirajas throughout 1977, why has he not mentioned but 2% of this history? It was his specific service at the time, in conjunction with Tamal. This information is very conspicuous by its ABSENCE, and it simply casts another cloud of suspicion upon him. Altogether, there a lot of clouds of suspicion about Bhakticharu Swami and his knowledge of or involvement in Srila Prabhupada’s catstrophic cadmium poisoning.

Bhakticharu is also one who would have knowledge of poisoning with cadmium and its doses because he was a chemistry major in a German university. We would not mention this otherwise, but since he is so suspiciously implicated by his various conflicting “stories,” we do so. For example, on July 12, 1977 in our Health Chronicles in Someone Has Poisoned Me, it is described that Bhakticharu was taught by Bonamali kaviraja to prepare a herbal potion daily which included two salts, one being sodium nitrate. The entire story was told by Bhakticharu to Nityananda das in November 1998. It was clear that he was quite knowledgeable with chemicals, compounds, and their uses.