Gurus being managed by committee? ISKCON

PADA: Akruranatha does not seem to understand what a guru is? A guru is a person who is free of the four material defects, and anyone who says gurus are defective is a severe offender, gurusuh narah matih narakah sah, i.e. anyone who says gurus are defective is a resident of hell (narakah). Then Akrurantha says, these gurus are full of faults and defects --- ??? Worse, anyone who takes shelter of Srila Prabhupada like our devotees in Bangalore, they are sued? ys pd


Akruranatha Dasa >>A guru is a person who is free of the four material defects, and anyone who says gurus are defective is a severe offender, gurusuh narah matih narakah sah<<
Well, I think we all agree that Srila Prabhupada was such a guru, and Srila Prabh...upada established the GBC as ultimate managing authority of ISKCON. Why don't you accept it? Did he make a mistake? He should have appointed Puranjana (Tim Lee) as the authority instead?

What do you say Puranjana? Why did Srila Prabhupada appoint the GBC? If it was not a mistake, why don't you follow? Why didn't he say, "GBC is ultimate authority until such time as Puranjana determines it is not following my instructions?" Would that have been a more perfect decision? Was it a mistake not to do so?


PADA: OK, now Akruranatha agrees with us: that the GBC was only appointed to be managers. OK, except they are saying they are gurus (people who receive direct dictation from God), not managers? Does Akruranatha think that the Church manager is an... acharya? The manager of the Catholic church down the raod, is a guru free from defects because he is a manager? No, a manager is a manager, since 1967 the ISKCON managers were always falling down in ISKCON, and this is why Srila Prabhupada said they are not fit for sannyasa and gurus. Now we have "managers" who control the acharyas -- and so every year the GBC's "managers" are, according to their documents: ... "2/3 show of hands" voting in, voting out, suspending, censuring, remanding, commanding, monitoring (gurus like Satsvarupa), and "managing" the acharyas? OK, Akruranatha has forgot the whole point, since the acharyas are under the direct control of Krishna (acharyam mam vijnaniya) and chaitya guru inspires and preaches through the guru, now Akruranatha says, no, Krishna does not dictate to the acharyas, the acharyas are "managed"? So this is the problem, under the Akruranatha idea, Krishna is no longer the manager of the acharyas, the GBC is? This is simply not possible, no one can take the place of God. ys pd