WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE ?
 
And the Mayavadi, nirvisesa. They are practically the same. The Buddhists say, "There is no God." And the Mayavadis say, "There is God, but He has no head, tail, nothing." It is in the indirect way to say there is no God. What is difference? If somebody says, "There is no God," and if somebody says, "There is God, but He has no head, He has no tail, He cannot eat, He cannot sleep," negatively. The same definition in a negative way.
 
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Lecture 7.6.1 Madras, January 2, 1976)
 
 
Whether Srila Prabhupada said he was poisoned indirectly or directly what is the difference ?
 
Srila Prabhupada: That same thing that someone has poisoned me.
 
( S.P.Room Conversation November 10, 1977, Vrndavana )
 
The definition of what has occurred is the same whether direct or indirect.

"Someone has poisoned me"

 
Let's look at another example :
 
So He immediately chided him, that asocyan anvasocas tvam prajna-vadams ca bhasase. "My dear Arjuna, you are talking just like a very learned man, but you are fool number one." That was His first words. Of course, He did not say directly "fool number one," but He said indirectly that "No learned man speaks like this, as you are speaking." That means, "You are not learned man. You are fool." He indirectly said, nanusocanti panditah. Pandita means learned. "No learned man speaks like that. But because you are speaking like that, that means you are not learned man. Or in one word, you are fool."
 
(General Lecture Montreal, June 26, 1968)
 
The Lord's definition of Arjuna is "You are fool." Because the Lord made His statement in an indirect way this didn't in any way change the definition. Same definition in an indirect way.
 
Similarly if our Krsna consciousness is rightly connected, then there is no question of direct or indirect. Because absolute world there is no difference. As soon as it is touched with the direct connection... That is called disciplic succession. Because the connection is coming down one after another, so if we touch here, the spiritual master who is connected by the same way, then the electric connection is there. There is no question of direct or indirect.
 
(Bhagavad-gita Lecture 2.13-17 Los Angeles, November 29, 1968)
 
Srila Prabhupada's words are Absolute because he speaks as the Supreme Personality of Godhead dictates from within. Thus it is not he that is personally speaking.
 
PURPORT. One is forbidden to accept the guru, or spiritual master, as an ordinary human being (gurusu nara-matih). When Ramananda Raya spoke to Pradyumna Misra, Pradyumna Misra could understand that Ramananda Raya was not an ordinary human being. A spiritually advanced person who acts with authority, as the spiritual master, speaks as the Supreme Personality of Godhead dictates from within. Thus it is not he that is personally speaking. When a pure devotee or spiritual master speaks, what he says should be accepted as having been directly spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the parampara system.

(C.C. Antya, 5.71-5.74)

The Personality of Godhead, being situated in everyone's heart, specifically gives a devotee intelligence to describe Him. It is therefore understood that when a devotee writes or speaks about the Supreme Personality of Godhead, his words are dictated by the Lord from within. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-Gita, Tenth Chapter: to those who constantly engage in the transcendental loving service of the Lord, the Lord, from within, dictates what to do next in order to serve Him.

(S.B. 4.9.4)

Therefore if Srila Prabhupada makes a statement whether that statement is direct or indirect there is no difference because his words are actually Krsna's words. Krsna is Absolute, His words and He are not different.
 
That supreme spirit is Krsna. So this assembly which we are trying to conduct is just to keep in touch constantly with Krsna. Krsna, Krsna can be in constantly companion with us. Because He's omnipotent, God is omnipotent, therefore He can be exactly in touch with us by His words. His words and He are not different. That is omnipotency. Omnipotency means in everything relating to Krsna has the same potency. Just like here in this material world the..., if you want water, you are thirsty, if you want water, then this water, simply calling, simply saying repeatedly, "water, water, water, water, water," will not satisfy your thirst. Because this word has not the same potency as water itself. You require the water as it is. Then your thirst will be satisfied. But in the transcendental, in the absolute world, there is no such difference. Krsna and Krsna's name and Krsna's words and Krsna's qualities, Krsna's pastimes--everything is Krsna. Somebody, some people argues that "Arjuna was talking with Krsna. So Krsna was present before him, whereas my case, Krsna is not present. So how I can get direction?" That is not the fact. Krsna is present by His words, this Bhagavad-gita. Krsna.....   So it is a fact that Lord Jesus Christ is present by his words, Bible. Similarly, Krsna is present by His words. These personalities, either God or son of God, who come from the transcendental world, they keep their transcendental identity without being contaminated by this material world. That is their omnipotency
 
(Srimad-Bhagavatam Lecture 1.2.17 San Francisco, March 25, 1967)
 
Therefore this argument raised by the IRM that Srila Prabhupada didn't make a direct statement that he was poisoned is a mental speculation, with no support from Srila Prabhupada's teachings.