Fools rush in where angels fear to tread

Śrīdhara Śrīnivāsa dāsa

I have been going through some of the recent facebook posts of Kaunteya dāsa. It reminded me of the old proverb, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” I also observed that anyone who challenges Kaunteya dāsa in the comments section, of his posts, with straight pointed questions, triggers a mental dysentery in his mind resulting in ten thousand plus worded facebook posts filled with incoherencies not to mention plain blasphemy. Either Kaunteya dāsa seems to be a novice who strongly believes that his readers are not intelligent enough to detect all such inconsistencies that fill his posts or he is intentionally determined to make a fool of himself. This article focuses on responding to Kaunteya dāsa’s allegations and opinions that he has expressed in a series of  facebook posts with explanations based on śāstra-sādhu-guru vākyas. Some of the responses touch upon topics such as guru-tattva that are huge enough to be addressed in a book by itself and hence it is not intended to be covered in detail in this article.  

Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī’s Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika – does it endorse FDG?

Let us now get down to the business. In one of his posts quoting Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī’s Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika, Kaunteya dāsa made a tall claim as below (emphasis ours):

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

The Sanskrit is very clear, listing the people from whom to take initiation in order of preference and precedence: “if the guru is not present, then retake initiation from his wife, if she is not available, then from his son, if he is not there, then from his godbrother etc.” — the wife of the guru being the first choice.
Sat Kriya Sara Dipika is the basis of rituals for civilized Gaudiya-vaisnava.
Anything contradicting that book in ISKCON is either neo-smartaism or plain ignorance. 

The primary problem in the above statement is that Kauteya dāsa sees no difference between a wife re-initiating her expired husband’s fallen disciples, acting as a rtvik, and a woman regardless of her status eligible to initiate and accept her own disciples. We can understand that Kaunteya dāsa’s conception is wrong only when we visit the section of Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika in which Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī states, cited as below (emphasis ours):

The above verse raises a question of what should be the Vaiṣṇava atonement standard for a fallen disciple. Therein, the words sātvata-prāyaścita-vidhānam (Vaiṣṇava atonement standard) clearly indicates that this is not referring to the normal dīkṣā ceremony but it is an atonement process for a fallen disciple. The answer is that the disciple should approach his spiritual master who had initiated him and the words kevalaṁ śrī-guru-govindatas (First approach his spiritual master) means that the disciple cannot approach anyone other than his spiritual master. Then it is stated in the verse that if his guru had expired then he should approach his guru’s wife, through the words tad-abhāve tat-pātnyas and get re-initiated through her, which is indicated by the words punaḥ — pañca-saṁskāra-pūrvvakaṁ (once again accept name and mantra via pañca-saṁskāra) and continue to perform his devotional service just as he was doing before. This re-initiation does not mean that he changes his chanting of guru-pranama mantra from his original guru now unto his guru’s wife. Therefore, the verse clearly indicates that the wife merely acts as a rtvik on behalf of his actual guru who is not physically present. So Kaunteya dāsa simply jumped the gun and tried to establish that these verses indicate that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī has endorsed FDG, which is incorrect. Based on that wrong assumption Kaunteya dāsa states that the devotees that are against FDG have ignored the śāstra-pramāṇa for FDG. But let us see what Śrīla Prabhupāda has to say on the general principles of guru-tattva:

{Purport to Cc Madhya 8.128}

The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life is called the vartma-pradarśaka-guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the śāstras is called the dīkṣā-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the śikṣā-guru.

{Purport to Cc Ādi 1.35}

A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept. Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on.

With the above purports in context, we find that Kaunteya dāsa is speaking without the knowledge of śāstra. Kaunteya dāsa stated as below:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

[Kautenya dāsa uvāca:] According to Śrīla Prabhupāda: “His Holiness Śrīla Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswami was the originator of Vaisnava Smrti in our Gaudiya Sampradaya.” (Letter to Sri Biswambhar Goswami, 25 Dec 1956)
I find interesting – and revealing – that neo-smartas quote all sorts of (mistranslated and misinterpreted) smriti references to prevent Vaisnavis from doing the service of diksa-gurus, but “forget” to quote the Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika of Śrīla Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswami.

Hence, according to Kaunteya dāsa what is mentioned in Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika tīka is a clear endorsement or scriptural evidence for women to become dīksā-gurus. Listed below are some of the serious issues with Kaunteya dāsa’s statement – when the fallen disciple approaches his expired dīksā-guru’s wife for re-initiation and by that process she becomes his independent dīksā-guru:

1. Is Śrīla Prabhupāda wrong in stating that scriptures forbid accepting more than one dīksā-guru?
2. Is Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī, in his tīka, speaking against Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā although he cited it as one of the references [Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses (1.42, 43) forbid woman from becoming an ācārya and the verse (1.59) forbids accepting a mantra from a woman]?
3. In Bhakti Sandarbha (anu. 207.1-4), Śrī Jīva Goswāmī quotes Brahma Vaivarta Purana, and explains:tad-aparitoṣeṇāpy- anyo- guruḥ -kriyate tato- aneka-guru-karaṇe- pūrva-tyāga eva siddhaḥ cāpavāda-vacana[Sri Jiva Goswami says] “However, if one is dissatisfied (aparitoṣeṇā) with the diksa Guru, one may take diksa from another Guru (anyo -guruh -kriyate). In taking other Gurus (aneka- guru -karane), the rejection of the former Guru is completed (purva- tyaga- eva -siddha).” So according to Bhakti Sandarbha anu. 207.1-4, by accepting his guru’s wife as his new dīkṣā-guru the already fallen disciple falls down further. Furthermore, because the wife of the passed away guru has acted foolishly and given a mantra against scriptural injunctions she will also fall down (Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā 1.60).

Obviously, neither Śrīla Prabhupāda is wrong nor Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī’s tīka is against Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā. It is Kaunteya dāsa’s proposal that is wrong and accepting it only means both the fallen disciple and the guru’s wife will lose their spiritual connection with the passed away guru permanently.

To understand this further let us also consider some other examples. For instance, if a second initiated devotee loses his yajno-pavītam (sacred thread) for whatever reason, he should go to his guru to get another set of yajno-pavītam and the Gāyatrī mantra. If the guru is not in proximity, he should approach one of his god-brother, who gives him the yajno-pavītam on his guru’s behalf by chanting the Gāyatrī mantra while placing his palms on the shoulders of the devotee. This does not mean that the devotee who got his new sets of yajno-pavītam now also has a new guru in his god-brother, nor it entitles his god-brother who gave him the sacred thread to start functioning as a mantra-guru for the whole world. To argue so would be considered insane and aśāstriya.

During the times that Śrīla Prabhupāda could not be personally present himself, he appointed some of his leading male disciples, as rtviks, to conduct the initiation ceremony by chanting on the beads to be handed out and by pronouncing the names of new initiates etc. Does this mean that the newly initiated devotees, become disciples of that disciple of Śrīla Prabhupāda who acted as the rtvik? Obviously not! The newly initiated are still considered as Śrīla Prabhupāda’s disciples. Similarly, when Śrīla Prabhupāda advised a devotee to hear Gāyatrī mantra from a woman, it was in the same spirit as the “male ritvik” disciple performing the Hari-nāma initiations for the selected candidates.

Let us consider another example, in which one gets sanyāsa dīkṣā mantras from one’s sanyāsī god-brother, specifically after the passing away of the sanyāsa candidate’s dīkṣā-guru. Is it not understood that the sanyāsī god-brother gave sanyāsa to the candidate solely on behalf of the candidate’s dīkṣā-guru? Hence it is obvious, that Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī does not endorse FDG institution. On the contrary, this only proves that Kaunteya dāsa’s claim that the wife of the expired guru can become a dīkṣā guru is completely absurd.

Moreover, in a footnote added by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī to the above quoted Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika commentary, he quotes verses from Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā (3.22.25), while describing the process of atonement for a Vaiṣṇava who had given up his given mantras. As we all know, Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses 1.42, 43 strictly prohibits a woman to act as mantra giving guru or an ācārya. In subsequent passages of this write-up we will investigate Kaunteya dāsa’s loyalty to Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī and Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika and also whether he is conscientious of accepting all scriptures quoted within Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī’s text including Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā.

Kaunteya dāsa’s crocodile tears for Bharadvāja-saṁhitā 

That brings up the crucial question of whether Kaunteya dāsa accept Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā in totality and not in bits and pieces. In a three part series accusing certain devotees of raping Bharadvāja-saṁhitā with wrong translations, Kaunteya dāsa’s statements, cited below, shows apparent whole-hearted acceptance of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā as a qualified standard ISKCON scripture:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

[Kautenya dāsa uvāca:] The Bharadvāja-saṁhitā is an authentic sastra, recognized as such by the Gaudiyas acaryas. … In part one I explained how there is perfect harmony between the Bharadvāja-saṁhitā, the Gita, the Caitanya-caritamrita and the acaryas. All of these sources are congruent: Gita, Caitanya-caritamrita, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā, and the acaryas’ conclusions. 

In the first post of this series, Kaunteya dāsa cited Madana Mohana dāsa’s book as the basis for all details concerning the refutations of mis-translations of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses, as cited below:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

As this is a short series of Facebook posts, I won’t get into too many technical details. If you wish to read an exhaustive refutation of the neo-smartas’ misinterpretation of the Bharadvāja-saṁhitā, please read “Guru: The Principle, Not the Body” A response to “Vaiṣṇava-dīkṣā according to Nārada-Pañcarātra: Can a Female Devotee be a dīkṣā-guru?” by Madana-mohana Dāsa, a loyal Gaudiya scholar:
https://docs.google.com/…/1LxiVjTxCVLX8qSQybXoBjxPo…/
And this is also what I plan to answer to the objections and the tantrums I expect: go and study the 75,000+ words of the detailed refutation. I am only giving a synopsis and don’t intend to deal with pedantic hostilities. 

However, when we go through Kaunteya dāsa’s recommended book (Madana Mohana dāsa’s book) it is very clear that Madana Mohana dāsa does not think Bharadvāja-saṁhitā as a suitable scripture for use within ISKCON. He says so because this scripture will introduce philosophical mutations and push ISKCON down the slippery slope of racism and casteism [page 11, “Guru: The Principle, Not the Body”]. So, the question is did Kaunteya dāsa really read the book in full before recommending it to others or did he just randomly extracted texts that are favorable to his arguments from that book? Either way, it only proves that Kaunteya dāsa is expert at employing half-hen logics and cherry picking tricks with the sole aim of putting down his oppositions by hook or crook.

Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā mistranslations – Who is the real culprit?

When we further examine Kaunteya dāsa’s other statements we see that his “love” for Nārada-pañcarātra, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā is indeed not “as it is” but it is his cheap attempt of modifying that scripture, and its commentaries by Gaudiya Ācāryas, to suit his predetermined (concocted) understandings. In one of the parts of the three part series, Kaunteya dāsa cites (partly) Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s commentary to SB 1.13.15, as cited below:

[Kaunteya dāsa uvaca] FACT: THE Bharadvāja-saṁhitā CLEARLY APPROVES VAISNAVI DIKSA-GURUS -{See Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook posts}

And this is the meaning our Vedanta acarya, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana, uses in his Vaiṣṇavānandinī commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.13.15 – in which he specifically quotes the Bharadvāja-saṁhitā:
ata eva bhāradvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ strī-śūdrādīnāṁ tan niṣidhya sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ teṣāṁ tad āha: “na jātu mantra-dātāro na śūdro nāntarodbhavaḥ, nābhiśapto na patitaḥ kāma-kāmo ‘py akāmitaḥ; striyaḥ śūdrādayaś caiva bodhayeyur hitāhitam, yathārhaṁ mānanīyāś ca nārhanty ācāryatāṁ kvacit; kim apy atrābhijāyante yoginaḥ sarva-yoniṣu; pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ naiṣāṁ cintyaṁ kulādikam” iti.
sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ = women, sudras, etc. are qualified if they have a clear perception of the para-tattva. 

First of all, Kaunteya dāsa’s translation for sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ as qualification of clear perception of the para-tattva is simply contradicting with the previous and following verses of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā. In the verse 1.43, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā states that woman can instruct within their group (bodhayeyur hitāhitam), which means sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ is not merely a clarity of perception but rather a much higher aspect of direct realization. Furthermore, in the same verse 43, it is stated that, nārhanty ācāryatāṁ kvacit: “even then they can never become an ācārya,” which certainly implies a higher standards are  necessary and therefore sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ is not as simple as having a clear perception but a direct perception of the Lord.

Now let us examine the original commentary of Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Vaiṣṇavānandinī commentary on Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.13.15, as cited below (emphasis ours to indicate the text left out by Kaunteya dāsa):

na vidurasya kaniṣṭhatvāc chūdratvāc ca kathaṁ tad-upadeṣṭṛtvam? tatrāha— aryamā pitṛdeva-mukhyo bhagavad-vibhūtiḥ| “pitṝṇām aryamā cāsmi” (gītā 10.29) ity ukto’gha-kāriṣu pāpiṣu yathāvat sanyāyaṁ daṇḍam abibhrat dhṛtavān| yāvan māṇḍavya-śāpāt yamaḥ varṣa-śataṁ vyāpya śūdratvaṁ dadhāra| bhārate kathāsti— “kadācit taskarān anudhāvanto rāja-puruṣās tapasyato māṇḍavyarṣer antike tān prāpya tena saha nibadhyānīya rājñe nivedya tad-ājñayā sarvān śūlam āropayām āsuḥ| tato rājā tam ṛṣiṁ vijñāya śūlād avatārya prasādayāṁ cakāra| tataḥ sa ṛṣir yamam eva rājāviṣṭaṁ daṇḍa-dharaṁ vimṛṣya tam āsādya cukopa| tvaṁ bālye kuśāgreṇa śalabham āvidhya krīḍām akārṣīr iti tad-uktaṁ niśamya śaśāpa| tadā jñāna-hīnasya mama mahāntaṁ daṇḍaṁ kṛtavān atattvaṁ śūdro bhaveti| tathā ca viduraḥ kaniṣṭho’pi| śūdro’pi sākṣād dharma-rājatvena pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt tasya tad-upadeṣṭṛtvam iti| ataeva bhāradvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ strī-śūdrādīnāṁ tan niṣidhya sākṣāt-kṛta-para-tattvānāṁ teṣāṁ tad āha— “na jātu mantradā nārī na śūdro nāntarodbhavaḥ| nābhiśapto na patitaḥ kāma-kāmo’py akāmitaḥ|| striyaḥ śūdrādayaś caiva bodhayeyur hitāhitam| yathārhaṁ mānanīyāś ca nārhanty ācāryatāṁ kvacit| kim apy atrābhijāyante yoginaḥ sarva-yoniṣu| pratyakṣitātma-nāthānāṁ naiṣāṁ cintyaṁ kulādikam” iti||15||

When we examine the text in emphasis, we find that Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana clearly states that Vidura, although a junior to Dhṛtarāṣṭra and a śūdra as well, being dharma-rāja himself (sākṣād dharma-rājatvena) was qualified to perceive the Lord with his eyes directly (pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt). Then he presents the verses 1.42-44 of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā as the evidence for his statement. The “pratyakṣīkṛ” usage has a unique meaning assigned to it. Both Monier-williams and Vaman Apte support the direct meaning (technically abhidhā-vṛtti) for pratyakṣīkṛta as seeing with ones own eyes and does not define it as “understanding” or “grasping” as Kaunteya dāsa claims in his posts. As explained before in the case of partial quoting of Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika, in this case also Kaunteya dāsa seems to have extracted a part from Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Vaiṣṇavānandinī commentary (ataeva bhāradvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ…kuladikam iti) to SB 1.13.15 out of its context and has speculated the following without substantial evidence:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

And Baladeva Vidyabhusana says that the qualification of gurus is being: sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ (having a clear perception of para-tattva); in other words, Baladeva Vidhyabhusana indicates the same concept- that “pratyakṣitātma-nātha” basically means “tattva-vetta” – one who has a clear grasp of the categorical Vaisnava truths. (As many ISKCON and non-ISKCON Vaisnavis have.)

It is important to note that Śrīla Baladeva Vidhyabhusana has glossed the term pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt in connection with Vidura’s qualifications which should be understood by its direct meaning by itself. Hence, the direct meaning for sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ in Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s statement – ata eva bhāradvāja-saṁhitāyāṁ strī-śūdrādīnāṁ tan niṣidhya sākṣāt-kṛta-para-tattvānāṁ teṣāṁ tad āha – must be understood in connection with his previous statement – tathā ca viduraḥ kaniṣṭho’pi| śūdro’pi sākṣād dharma-rājatvena pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt tasya tad-upadeṣṭṛtvam iti. Therefore, it is clear that sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ, in this context, has the same meaning as that of pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt, which is seeing the Lord directly or seeing the Lord with one’s eyes.  In this manner, the translation for pratyakṣitātma-nātha of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā (1.44) as seeing the Lord face to face is very much in harmony with Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s definition of pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt. Similarly, the other definitions for pratyakṣitātma-nātha to refer to devotees who are siddha or residents of Goloka Vṛndāvaṇa are harmonious with Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s commentary in which he describes Vidura, as a sākṣād dharma-rājatvena. Moreover, according to Mimāmsaka rules, when direct meaning is unintelligible, then only may look for figurative meaning. 

{An excerpt from CC Adi 7.110, purport}

“Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura comments that mukhya-vṛtti (”the direct meaning”) is abhidhā-vṛtti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gauṇa-vṛtti (”the indirect meaning”) is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kurukṣetra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gauṇa-vṛtti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-vṛtti or abhidhā-vṛtti. This is the distinction between the two. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidhā-vṛtti, and the gauṇa-vṛtti He rejects. Sometimes, however, as a matter of necessity, the Vedic literature is described in terms of the lakṣaṇā-vṛtti or gauṇa-vṛtti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.”

On the topic, “Direct Meanings and Extrapolations—Their Differences” we find the following:

{Daśamūlatattva 2 (of Bhaktivinoda Ṭhakura) citing Tattva-muktavali (Tm. 22)}

Śrī Śaṅkarācārya postulates that as one is researching the imperceptible, impersonal truth of the Veda, the direct meaning is ineffectual; hence, extrapolations and interpretations are imperative. To this view, the illustrious ācārya, Śrī Madhvācārya, has posted his rebuttal in his famous philosophical treatise:

nāṅgikṛtābhidhā yasya lakṣaṇā tasya no bhavet
nāsti grāmaḥ kutaḥ sīmā na putro janakaṁ vinā

“In ascertaining the pre-eminent meaning of a word, if the direct meaning is not obvious, where is the provision for interpretation? When there is no town, what is the use of arguing about its border? Without a father, how can a son be conceived?”

So, there is no need to interpret “sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ” as Kaunteya does:”sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ = women, sudras, etc. are qualified if they have a clear perception of the para-tattva.” Hence, the translations of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses by devotees opposing FDG, are not outrageous or immoral, as falsely alleged by Kaunteya dāsa. As a matter of fact, as it will be established in this article, that Kaunteya dāsa’s claim – “FACT: THE Bharadvāja-saṁhitā CLEARLY APPROVES VAISNAVI DIKSA-GURUS” – is indeed ridiculous and his efforts to extract and misinterpret words from various scriptures is indeed a condemnable act.

Kaunteya dāsa’s misinterpretation of tattva-darśinaḥ

Kaunteya dāsa also attempts to misinterpret the Bhagavad-gīta verse 4.34, by making the following claims:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

But the neo-smartas transmogrify the expression “pratyakṣitātmanāthānām” into an uncertifiable dimension. They rape the text by misconstruing it as meaning “seeing God face-to-face” or to indicate “nitya-siddha devotees,” or “always seeing Kṛṣṇa” or even as indicating “residents of Goloka Vrndavana.”
All bogus and indefensible.
It’s very common, for instance in the Gita, to express “understanding” or “grasping” as “seeing.” It’s a common usage in Sanskrit – and also in English, to refer to “seeing” not in the physical sense.
The Gita, for instance, says that the spiritual masters “can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth [tattva-darśinaḥ].” (Bg 4.34).
Tattva-darśinaḥ simply means those who understand tattva, the categorical truths of existence. They are qualified to teach their knowledge to their disciples.

Kaunteya dāsa’s claim, “Tattva-darśinaḥ simply means those who understand tattva” or “It’s a common usage in Sanskrit – and also in English, to refer to “seeing” not in the physical sense” are in direct conflict with Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation and explanation of Tattva-darśinaḥ to mean as one who has actually seen. In many lectures and conversations we find that Śrīla Prabhupāda had consistently explained that Tattva-darśinaḥ in Bhagavad-gīta (4.34) means the act of direct perception and not in some mental or metaphorical sense. For example:

{Morning Walk: 751117MW.BOM.mp3}

Prabhupāda: No. Therefore our process is upadekṣyanti tad jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ, one has seen the truth. Not these rascals. Tattva-darśinaḥ. Darśinaḥ means who has actually seen. There is no change. The advice is, tad viddhi praṇipātena paripraśnena sevaya [Bg. 4.34]. These are the thoughts[?]. Upadekṣyanti tad jñānaṁ jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ. Not that theoretical. Tattva-darśinaḥ. You have to go there, then you will get knowledge. A blind man goes to another blind man, what is the profit? No profit.

 

{Lecture and Address: 760630BJ.NV.mp3}

Prabhupāda: So this is guru. What is that? One who has seen the truth.
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: Yes. Jñāninas tattva-darśinaḥ.
Prabhupāda: So one who has seen… Just like Arjuna has seen Kṛṣṇa. That’s a fact. He was talking. Now that if you take instruction of Arjuna, then you understand. So what is the instruction of Arjuna? Find out in the Tenth Chapter.

 

{Conversation: 750219R1.CAR.mp3}

Prabhupāda: It is not convention. It is not convention. It is actually knowing that “I have approached this perfect man.” Just like the same example = if you approach the mother of the son, she is the perfect to know the father. And if you have known from the father and mother that “This boy’s father is this gentleman,” that knowledge is perfect. Even though you have not seen while the father was begotten, giving birth, it doesn’t matter. But because you have heard from the mother—she is perfect—therefore your knowledge received from her is perfect. Therefore it is written, tattva-darśibhiḥ, “who has seen the truth.” So you have to approach such person who has seen the truth.

In his commentary on BG (4.34) – jñāninaḥ śāstrajñāḥ | tattva-darśino’parokṣānubhava-sampannāś ca | te tubhyaṁ jñānam upadeśena sampādayiṣyanti – Śrīdhara Svāmī defines “jñāninaḥ” as knowers of the scriptures, “śāstrajñāḥ,” which means that the “understanding part” that Kaunteya dāsa is referring to is actually described by the term “jñāninaḥ,” and not “tattva-darśinaḥ.” Śrīdhara Svāmī defines the term “tattva-darśinaḥ” as “parokṣānubhava-sampannaḥ” or “one who has direct experience of the absolute,” which is on a highest platform beyond mere understanding part.  In his translation and commentary to BG (4.34), Śrīla Bhakti Vinoda Ṭhākura has also translated “tattva-darśinaḥ” as a bonafide spiritual master who has seen the truth. 

Furthermore, even from plain sānskrit grammar tattvadarśin being the root word, tattva-darśinaḥ is the Nominative-plural case (prathama vibhakti bahu-vacana) and hence must refer to persons who are the seers. Nonetheless, our ācāryas have explained that the the plural form “tattva-darśinaḥ” has been used only out of respect, for such usage does not encourage taking shelter of many gurus.

In the previous sub-section we already mentioned about when direct meanings are used and when extrapolations or interpretations are needed. Nonetheless, the following conversation between Śrīla Prabhupāda and his disciple is very appropriate, as cited below:

{Discourse on Lord Caitanya Play Between SP and Hayagriva—April 5–6, 1967, San Francisco}

“So Caitanya Mahāprabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Vedānta, Upaniṣad—these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge—then Bhagavad-gītā, Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, all these books should be studied from the direct meaning. Don’t try to interpret. According to ordinary, I mean to say, dealings, suppose in the law court there are two parties. Two lawyers are fighting on the principle of one clause or section in the law book. One is interpreting in a different way, one is interpreting in a different way, and the judges give their judgment.

Now, the opportunity for interpretation is there when the meaning is not clear. A very good example is given by the grammarians, or Sanskrit scholars, that gaṅgayaṁ ghoṣapali, that “There is a neighborhood which is called Ghoṣapali on the Ganges.” Now somebody may ask, “How there can be a quarter on the Ganges? Ganges is water.” So there is interpretation required. So somebody says, ” ‘On the Ganges’ means on the bank of the Ganges.” That makes it clear. “On the Ganges” does not mean that in the middle water there is a, I mean to say, residential quarter. No. “On the Ganges” means on the bank of the Ganges.

So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt—everyone can understand clearly the meaning—there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s stressing, that gauṇa-vṛttye yebā bhāṣya karila ācārya [Cc. Ādi 7.109].

[Śrīpāda Śaṅkarācārya has described all the Vedic literatures in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is ruined.]”

Hence, in a rush to crush his “opponents,” Kaunteya dāsa ends up crushing his spiritual life by calling devotees rapists of Bharadvāja-saṁhitā not realizing that these translations are harmonious with Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhushana’s commentary to SB 1.13.15. As it was clearly shown that Kauteya dāsa’s understanding of the meaning of “Tattva-darśinaḥ” and “sākṣātkṛta-para-tattvānāṁ” are totally wrong, his other statements in regards to kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā from CC Madhya 8.128 and other sources of citations are also marred with such wrong understandings.

Bharadvāja-saṁhitā on qualifications for Female Dīkṣā-gurus

Kaunteya dāsa claims the following without substantial evidence:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

The Bharadvāja-saṁhitā is crystal clear: women are only one of the various categories of human beings that in certain pre-Mahaprabhu environments cannot accept disciples.
The text then clearly explains that when any member of those categories (women, sudras, etc.) become aware of “krsna-tattva” (categorical truth about God), they can initiate disciples.
Explicit.
The Bharadvāja-saṁhitā is unambiguous about this fact: the qualification described apply to any gender.

In Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses there is no mention of “pre-Mahaprabhu environments,” which for some mysterious reasons is crystal clear only to Kaunteya dāsa’s eyes. That is just a side-note besides several major problems. Bharadvāja-saṁhitā clearly states in verses 1.37-41 all the necessary qualification for a male devotee to become an ācārya. In the same context, verse 1.42 and 1.43 continues to list females and various categories of male, starting with śūdra and below, as those who cannot become ācāryas. The verse 1.44 merely states an exception to the rule mentioned in verses 1.42 and 1.43, which is if one is at the platform of kṛṣṇa-prema or seeing the Lord face-face, just like Jahṇava-devī mata or mother Lakṣmī or even other great personalities like Śrīla Nārada munī, Śrī Vidura etc., then one should not see their lower birth status and they can become an ācārya. Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses 1.59 prohibits anyone from accepting mantras or initiations from a woman or śūdra and below, even though the disciple may have an unalloyed attitude. Verse 1.60 specifies the repercussions of violating the rules described in verse 59, as cited below:

atha strī-śūdra-saṅkīrṇā-nirmalāpatitādiṣuananyenānya-dṛṣṭau ca kṛtāpi na kṛtā bhavet

If one surrenders to a woman, śūdra, saṅkīrṇa (one of mixed birth), one who has not accepted an ācārya, or a sinful and fallen person, his initiation is useless or as if not done.This is so even if he takes shelter with unalloyed attitude. (1.59)

ato ’nyatrāśu vidhivat kartavyā śaraṇāgatiḥupadeṣṭā tu mantrasya mūḍhaḥ pracyavate hy adhaḥ

Such a disciple should quickly take shelter of another spiritual master who is bonafide according to rules and regulations. A foolish person (as described in 59th verse), who becomes a spiritual master by giving mantras, falls down. (1.60)

Kaunteya Prabhu is correct when he states: “Bharadvāja-saṁhitā is unambiguous about this fact: the qualification described apply to any gender,” but he is not correct to state (emphasis and text within square brackets are ours): “The text [pratyakṣitātmanāthānām of verse 1.44 ] then clearly explains that when any member of those categories (women, sudras, etc.) become aware of “krsna-tattva” (categorical truth about God), they can initiate disciples.” Anyone who gets initiated into ISKCON become “aware of krsna-tattva,” but rare are those who are indeed “krsna-tattva-veta.” As a matter of fact, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses 1.61 cautions us that due to being addicted to sense gratification from time immemorial, a conditioned soul cannot remember Lord Viṣṇu, not to mention about developing an understanding about the necessity of surrendering to Him. Under such circumstances, Kaunteya dāsa is not only merely trying to dilute the principle of śaraṇāgati or surrender but also fails to provide legitimate Vedic scriptural evidence nor present previous ācāryas’ statements as it is without his speculations.

Kaunteya dāsa’s egalitarianism

The main problem is Kaunteya dāsa’s total ignorance of differences and immutable characteristics between a male body and a female body (linga-bedham). He does not understand that a woman is governed by the varṇa-dharma of her husband and as well as the strī-dharma that are specific only to woman. Śrīla Prabhupāda explains this as below:

{lecture, SB 1.3.17—September 22, 1972, Los Angeles}

Woman, they are generally equipped with the qualities of passion and ignorance. And man also may be but man can be elevated to the platform of goodness. Woman cannot be. Woman cannot be. Therefore if the husband is nice and the woman follows—woman becomes faithful and chaste to the husband—then their both life becomes successful. There are three qualities of nature: sattva, raja, tama. So rajas-tama, generally that is the quality of woman. And man can become to the platform of goodness. Therefore initiation, brahminical symbolic representation, is given to the man, not to the woman. This is the theory. Therefore the combination should be that the husband should be first-class devotee, Kṛṣṇa conscious, and woman should be…, woman should be devoted to the husband, faithful, so that she would help the husband to make progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Then their both life is successful. Otherwise, if the husband simply becomes captivated by the charming beauty of woman and engages himself in the sex life, then his life is lost, and the woman, they are less intelligent that unless they are guided by proper husband, her life is also lost.

It is very clear that men can be elevated to the platform of goodness through saṁskāras and hence they are given the brahminical symbolic representations. A woman should be devoted to her devotee husband and in that way she can make progress in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Furthermore, Manu-saṁhita, Śrīmad Bhāgavatam (7.11.25), and all other Vedic scriptures clearly establish this fact that a woman’s unique dharma is her faithful and chaste service to her husband and her dependance on her husband’s guidance for both spiritual and material aspects of life. But, Kaunteya dāsa turns a blind eye and dismisses such lectures of Śrīla Prabhupāda. When pointed out to him, he had stated that these are mere theories or descriptions and not prescriptions for ISKCON devotees to follow. But the reality is that Śrīla Prabhupāda wrote these details for ISKCON devotees to follow these rules and regulations and not just wrote or spoke extensively for outsiders as a mere lip-service.

Conclusion:

In his concluding post, Kaunteya dāsa says:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

All of these sources are congruent: Gita, Caitanya-caritamrita, Bharadvāja-saṁhitā, and the acaryas’ conclusions. It’s only the neo-smartas who try to deceive us into thinking that the Bharadvāja-saṁhitā sticks out of this supra-cosmic concordance.

It has been proved that there is a natural concordance existing between the translations for the terms – “Tattva-darśinaḥ,” “krsna-tattva-veta,” “pratyakṣīkṛta-pareśattāt,” “sākṣāt-kṛta-para-tattvānāṁ,” and “pratyakṣitātmanāthānām,” – as given to us by our ācāryas. They all are referring to the exalted position of pure devotees of the Lord such as Vidura, as stated by Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhusana, to be always in direct contact with the Lord in a state of prema-bhakti. Hence, the translations for Bharadvāja-saṁhitā verses 1.41 through 44 and specifically the verse 1.44, takes into consideration all these points, in addition to so many others. Therefore, the translation for pratyakṣitātmanāthānām as seeing the Lord face to face is a direct concordance with statements of Gaudiya ācāryas and not, as Kaunteya dāsa depicts, a supra-cosmic concordance. In light of this exposé it is upto readers to determine to whom the following statement of Kaunteya dāsa is quite appropriate:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

Vedic literature, Śrīla Prabhupāda explains, is like the mother.
Mistranslating or misinterpreting sastra is like raping one’s mother, violating her to satisfy one’s lust.

In the concluding part of the three-part series of his facebook posts, as cited below, Kaunteya dāsa has nothing but abominable words for those devotees whom he considers as his enemies:

{Kaunteya dāsa’s facebook post}

THE BHARADVAJA-SAMHITA RAPISTS ARE ELEVATED AS SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITIES
In normal circumstances one would expect those guilty of heretical deviation (such as the authors of the book “Vaisnava-diksa according to Narada Pancaratra”) to be officially reprimanded and censored; and presumably removed from any formal position.
But, no, the two misled and misleading rapists of the Bharadvaja-samhita pompously sit within the so-called “ISKCON India Scholars Board”:

Members

What a sad, sad joke!
It’s like keeping convicted pedophiles as leaders of the Child Protection Office.

Whereas Kaunteya dāsa is highly critical of the above-mentioned devotees, in reality he has quit his services to ISKCON only to undertake blasphemy of devotees as a full-time work. He has taken shelter of atheistic scholars and their writings mainly to severely criticize Śrīla Prabhupāda and thereby has lost faith in his teachings, which is all but evident in his recently published book “Tough Questions, Difficult Answers on Srila Prabhupada’s Contentious Remarks.” It is high time for him to realize that he is the fallen disciple and as a first and foremost measure he must seek in public unconditional forgiveness for insulting Śrīla Prabhupāda and all Vaiṣṇavas. Considering his lost spiritual position he has to approach his spiritual master immediately to seek re-initiation as the atonement suggested by Gopāla Bhaṭṭa Goswāmī in Sat-kriya-sāra-dīpika.

Several other points are explained in detail in my book Female Dīkṣā-gurus, Do We Need Them? (2022). The readers may contact me (+91-7373098272) to place orders and may also read a short summary presentation using the link given below:

https://archive.org/details/A_Refutation_to_Kaunteya_Pr_Book/mode/2up?mibextid=ykz3hl