I have been going through some of the recent facebook posts of Kaunteya d\u0101sa. It reminded me of the old proverb, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” I also observed that anyone who challenges Kaunteya d\u0101sa 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 d\u0101sa 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 d\u0101sa’s allegations and opinions that he has expressed in a series of\u00a0 facebook posts with explanations based on \u015b\u0101stra-s\u0101dhu-guru v\u0101kyas. 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.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Let us now get down to the business. In one of his posts quoting Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b’s Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika, Kaunteya d\u0101sa made a tall claim as below (emphasis ours): <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>The Sanskrit is very clear, listing the people from whom to take initiation<\/strong> in order of preference and precedence: \u201cif the guru is not present, then retake initiation from his wife<\/strong>, if she is not available, then from his son, if he is not there, then from his godbrother etc.\u201d \u2014 the wife of the guru being the first choice. The primary problem in the above statement is that Kauteya d\u0101sa 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 d\u0101sa’s conception is wrong only when we visit the section of Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika in which Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b states, cited as below (emphasis ours):<\/span><\/p>\n The above verse raises a question of what should be the Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava atonement standard for a fallen disciple. Therein, the words s\u0101tvata-pr\u0101ya\u015bcita-vidh\u0101nam <\/strong>(Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava atonement standard) clearly indicates that this is not referring to the normal d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101 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 kevala\u1e41 \u015br\u012b-guru-govindatas<\/strong> (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-abh\u0101ve tat-p\u0101tnyas <\/strong>and get re-initiated through her, which is indicated by the words puna\u1e25 \u2014 pa\u00f1ca-sa\u1e41sk\u0101ra-p\u016brvvaka\u1e41<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong>(once again accept name and mantra via pa\u00f1ca-sa\u1e41sk\u0101ra) 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 d\u0101sa simply jumped the gun and tried to establish that these verses indicate that Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b has endorsed FDG, which is incorrect. Based on that wrong assumption Kaunteya d\u0101sa states that the devotees that are against FDG have ignored the \u015b\u0101stra-pram\u0101\u1e47a for FDG. But let us see what \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da has to say on the general principles of guru-tattva: <\/span><\/p>\n {Purport to Cc Madhya 8.128}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual life is called the vartma-pradar\u015baka-guru, the spiritual master who initiates according to the regulations of the \u015b\u0101stras is called the d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is called the \u015bik\u1e63\u0101-guru.<\/span><\/p>\n {Purport to Cc \u0100di 1.35}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n With the above purports in context, we find that Kaunteya d\u0101sa is speaking without the knowledge of \u015b\u0101stra. Kaunteya d\u0101sa stated as below: <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>[Kautenya d\u0101sa uv\u0101ca:] According to \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da: “His Holiness \u015ar\u012bla Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Goswami was the originator of Vaisnava Smrti in our Gaudiya Sampradaya.” (Letter to Sri Biswambhar Goswami, 25 Dec 1956) Hence, according to Kaunteya d\u0101sa what is mentioned in Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika t\u012bka is a clear endorsement or scriptural evidence for women to become d\u012bks\u0101-gurus. Listed below are some of the serious issues with Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s statement – when the fallen disciple approaches his expired d\u012bks\u0101-guru’s wife for re-initiation and by that process she becomes his independent d\u012bks\u0101-guru:<\/span><\/p>\n Obviously, neither \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da is wrong nor Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b’s t\u012bka is against N\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101. It is Kaunteya d\u0101sa’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. <\/span><\/p>\n To understand this further let us also consider some other examples. For instance, if a second initiated devotee loses his yajno-pav\u012btam (sacred thread) for whatever reason, he should go to his guru to get another set of yajno-pav\u012btam and the G\u0101yatr\u012b mantra. If the guru is not in proximity, he should approach one of his god-brother, who gives him the yajno-pav\u012btam on his guru’s behalf by chanting the G\u0101yatr\u012b 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-pav\u012btam 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 a\u015b\u0101striya. <\/span><\/p>\n During the times that \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da 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 \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da who acted as the rtvik? Obviously not! The newly initiated are still considered as \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da’s disciples. Similarly, when \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da advised a devotee to hear G\u0101yatr\u012b mantra from a woman, it was in the same spirit as the “male ritvik” disciple performing the Hari-n\u0101ma initiations for the selected candidates. <\/span><\/p>\n Let us consider another example, in which one gets sany\u0101sa d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101 mantras from one’s sany\u0101s\u012b god-brother, specifically after the passing away of the sany\u0101sa candidate’s d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101-guru. Is it not understood that the sany\u0101s\u012b god-brother gave sany\u0101sa to the candidate solely on behalf of the candidate’s d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101-guru? Hence it is obvious, that Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b does not endorse FDG institution. On the contrary, this only proves that Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s claim that the wife of the expired guru can become a d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101 guru is completely absurd.<\/span><\/p>\n Moreover, in a footnote added by Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b to the above quoted Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika commentary, he quotes verses from N\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 (3.22.25), while describing the process of atonement for a Vai\u1e63\u1e47ava who had given up his given mantras. As we all know, N\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 verses 1.42, 43 strictly prohibits a woman to act as mantra giving guru or an \u0101c\u0101rya. In subsequent passages of this write-up we will investigate Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s loyalty to Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b and Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika and also whether he is conscientious of accepting all scriptures quoted within Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b’s text including N\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101.<\/span><\/p>\n That brings up the crucial question of whether Kaunteya d\u0101sa accept N\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 in totality and not in bits and pieces. In a three part series accusing certain devotees of raping Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 with wrong translations, Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s statements, cited below, shows apparent whole-hearted acceptance of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 as a qualified standard ISKCON scripture: <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>[Kautenya d\u0101sa uv\u0101ca:] The Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 is an authentic sastra, recognized as such by the Gaudiyas acaryas. … In part one I explained how there is perfect harmony between the Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101, the Gita, the Caitanya-caritamrita and the acaryas. <\/span>All of these sources are congruent: Gita, Caitanya-caritamrita, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101, and the acaryas’ conclusions.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In the first post of this series, Kaunteya d\u0101sa cited Madana Mohana d\u0101sa’s book as the basis for all details concerning the refutations of mis-translations of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 verses, as cited below: <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>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 Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101, please read “Guru: The Principle, Not the Body” A response to \u201cVai\u1e63\u1e47ava-d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101 according to N\u0101rada-Pa\u00f1car\u0101tra: Can a Female Devotee be a d\u012bk\u1e63\u0101-guru?\u201d by Madana-mohana D\u0101sa, a loyal Gaudiya scholar: However, when we go through Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s recommended book (Madana Mohana d\u0101sa’s book) it is very clear that Madana Mohana d\u0101sa does not think Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 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 d\u0101sa 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 d\u0101sa is expert at employing half-hen logics and cherry picking tricks with the sole aim of putting down his oppositions by hook or crook.<\/span><\/p>\n When we further examine Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s other statements we see that his “love” for N\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 is indeed not “as it is” but it is his cheap attempt of modifying that scripture, and its commentaries by Gaudiya \u0100c\u0101ryas, to suit his predetermined (concocted) understandings. In one of the parts of the three part series, Kaunteya d\u0101sa cites (partly) \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s commentary to SB 1.13.15, as cited below: <\/span><\/p>\n [Kaunteya d\u0101sa uvaca] FACT: THE Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 CLEARLY APPROVES VAISNAVI DIKSA-GURUS -{See Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook posts}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span><\/p>\n And this is the meaning our Vedanta acarya, \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana, uses in his Vai\u1e63\u1e47av\u0101nandin\u012b commentary on \u015ar\u012bmad-Bh\u0101gavatam 1.13.15 – in which he specifically quotes the Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101: First of all, Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s translation for s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 as qualification of clear perception of the para-tattva is simply contradicting with the previous and following verses of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101. In the verse 1.43, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 states that woman can instruct within their group (bodhayeyur hit\u0101hitam<\/em>), which means s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 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, n\u0101rhanty \u0101c\u0101ryat\u0101\u1e41 kvacit: <\/em>“even then they can never become an \u0101c\u0101rya,” which certainly implies a higher standards are\u00a0 necessary and therefore s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 is not as simple as having a clear perception but a direct perception of the Lord. <\/span><\/p>\n Now let us examine the original commentary of \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Vai\u1e63\u1e47av\u0101nandin\u012b commentary on \u015ar\u012bmad-Bh\u0101gavatam 1.13.15, as cited below (emphasis ours to indicate the text left out by Kaunteya d\u0101sa):<\/span><\/p>\n na vidurasya kani\u1e63\u1e6dhatv\u0101c ch\u016bdratv\u0101c ca katha\u1e41 tad-upade\u1e63\u1e6d\u1e5btvam? tatr\u0101ha\u2014 aryam\u0101 pit\u1e5bdeva-mukhyo bhagavad-vibh\u016bti\u1e25| \u201cpit\u1e5d\u1e47\u0101m aryam\u0101 c\u0101smi\u201d (g\u012bt\u0101 10.29) ity ukto\u2019gha-k\u0101ri\u1e63u p\u0101pi\u1e63u yath\u0101vat sany\u0101ya\u1e41 da\u1e47\u1e0dam abibhrat dh\u1e5btav\u0101n| y\u0101van m\u0101\u1e47\u1e0davya-\u015b\u0101p\u0101t yama\u1e25 var\u1e63a-\u015bata\u1e41 vy\u0101pya \u015b\u016bdratva\u1e41 dadh\u0101ra| bh\u0101rate kath\u0101sti\u2014 \u201ckad\u0101cit taskar\u0101n anudh\u0101vanto r\u0101ja-puru\u1e63\u0101s tapasyato m\u0101\u1e47\u1e0davyar\u1e63er antike t\u0101n pr\u0101pya tena saha nibadhy\u0101n\u012bya r\u0101j\u00f1e nivedya tad-\u0101j\u00f1ay\u0101 sarv\u0101n \u015b\u016blam \u0101ropay\u0101m \u0101su\u1e25| tato r\u0101j\u0101 tam \u1e5b\u1e63i\u1e41 vij\u00f1\u0101ya \u015b\u016bl\u0101d avat\u0101rya pras\u0101day\u0101\u1e41 cak\u0101ra| tata\u1e25 sa \u1e5b\u1e63ir yamam eva r\u0101j\u0101vi\u1e63\u1e6da\u1e41 da\u1e47\u1e0da-dhara\u1e41 vim\u1e5b\u1e63ya tam \u0101s\u0101dya cukopa| tva\u1e41 b\u0101lye ku\u015b\u0101gre\u1e47a \u015balabham \u0101vidhya kr\u012b\u1e0d\u0101m ak\u0101r\u1e63\u012br iti tad-ukta\u1e41 ni\u015bamya \u015ba\u015b\u0101pa| tad\u0101 j\u00f1\u0101na-h\u012bnasya mama mah\u0101nta\u1e41 da\u1e47\u1e0da\u1e41 k\u1e5btav\u0101n atattva\u1e41 \u015b\u016bdro bhaveti| tath\u0101 ca vidura\u1e25 kani\u1e63\u1e6dho\u2019pi| \u015b\u016bdro\u2019pi s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101d dharma-r\u0101jatvena pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t tasya tad-upade\u1e63\u1e6d\u1e5btvam iti|<\/strong> ataeva bh\u0101radv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101y\u0101\u1e41 str\u012b-\u015b\u016bdr\u0101d\u012bn\u0101\u1e41 tan ni\u1e63idhya s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101t-k\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 te\u1e63\u0101\u1e41 tad \u0101ha\u2014 \u201cna j\u0101tu mantrad\u0101 n\u0101r\u012b na \u015b\u016bdro n\u0101ntarodbhava\u1e25| n\u0101bhi\u015bapto na patita\u1e25 k\u0101ma-k\u0101mo\u2019py ak\u0101mita\u1e25|| striya\u1e25 \u015b\u016bdr\u0101daya\u015b caiva bodhayeyur hit\u0101hitam| yath\u0101rha\u1e41 m\u0101nan\u012by\u0101\u015b ca n\u0101rhanty \u0101c\u0101ryat\u0101\u1e41 kvacit| kim apy atr\u0101bhij\u0101yante yogina\u1e25 sarva-yoni\u1e63u| pratyak\u1e63it\u0101tma-n\u0101th\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 nai\u1e63\u0101\u1e41 cintya\u1e41 kul\u0101dikam\u201d iti||15|| <\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n When we examine the text in emphasis, we find that \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana clearly states that Vidura, although a junior to Dh\u1e5btar\u0101\u1e63\u1e6dra and a \u015b\u016bdra as well, being dharma-r\u0101ja himself (s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101d dharma-r\u0101jatvena) was qualified to perceive the Lord with his eyes directly (pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t). Then he presents the verses 1.42-44 of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 as the evidence for his statement. The “pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5b” usage has a unique meaning assigned to it. Both Monier-williams and Vaman Apte support the direct meaning (technically abhidh\u0101-v\u1e5btti) for pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta as seeing with ones own eyes and does not define it as “understanding” or “grasping” as Kaunteya d\u0101sa claims in his posts. As explained before in the case of partial quoting of Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika, in this case also Kaunteya d\u0101sa seems to have extracted a part from \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s Vai\u1e63\u1e47av\u0101nandin\u012b commentary (ataeva bh\u0101radv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101y\u0101\u1e41…kuladikam iti)<\/em> to SB 1.13.15 out of its context and has speculated the following without substantial evidence: <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>And Baladeva Vidyabhusana says that the qualification of gurus is being: s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 (having a clear perception of para-tattva); in other words, Baladeva Vidhyabhusana indicates the same concept- that “pratyaks\u0323ita\u0304tma-na\u0304tha” basically means “tattva-vetta” – one who has a clear grasp of the categorical Vaisnava truths. (As many ISKCON and non-ISKCON Vaisnavis have.)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is important to note that \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidhyabhusana has glossed the term pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t in connection with Vidura’s qualifications which should be understood by its direct meaning by itself. Hence, the direct meaning for s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 in \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s statement – ata eva bh\u0101radv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101y\u0101\u1e41 str\u012b-\u015b\u016bdr\u0101d\u012bn\u0101\u1e41 tan ni\u1e63idhya s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101t-k\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 te\u1e63\u0101\u1e41 tad \u0101ha – <\/em>must be understood in connection with his previous statement – tath\u0101 ca vidura\u1e25 kani\u1e63\u1e6dho\u2019pi| \u015b\u016bdro\u2019pi s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101d dharma-r\u0101jatvena pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t tasya tad-upade\u1e63\u1e6d\u1e5btvam iti.\u00a0<\/em>Therefore, it is clear that s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41, in this context, has the same meaning as that of pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t, which is seeing the Lord directly or seeing the Lord with one’s eyes.\u00a0 In this manner, the translation for pratyaks\u0323ita\u0304tma-na\u0304tha of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 (1.44) as seeing the Lord face to face is very much in harmony with \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s definition of pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t. Similarly, the other definitions for pratyaks\u0323ita\u0304tma-na\u0304tha to refer to devotees who are siddha or residents of Goloka V\u1e5bnd\u0101va\u1e47a are harmonious with \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s commentary in which he describes Vidura, as a s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101d dharma-r\u0101jatvena. Moreover, according to Mim\u0101msaka rules, when direct meaning is unintelligible, then only may look for figurative meaning.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n {An excerpt from CC Adi 7.110, purport}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>“\u015ar\u012bla Bhaktisiddh\u0101nta Sarasvat\u012b \u1e6ch\u0101kura comments that mukhya-v\u1e5btti (\u201dthe direct meaning\u201d) is abhidh\u0101-v\u1e5btti, or the meaning that one can understand immediately from the statements of dictionaries, whereas gau\u1e47a-v\u1e5btti (\u201dthe indirect meaning\u201d) is a meaning that one imagines without consulting the dictionary. For example, one politician has said that Kuruk\u1e63etra refers to the body, but in the dictionary there is no such definition. Therefore this imaginary meaning is gau\u1e47a-v\u1e5btti, whereas the direct meaning found in the dictionary is mukhya-v\u1e5btti or abhidh\u0101-v\u1e5btti. This is the distinction between the two. \u015ar\u012b Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu recommends that one understand the Vedic literature in terms of abhidh\u0101-v\u1e5btti, and the gau\u1e47a-v\u1e5btti He rejects. Sometimes, however, as a matter of necessity, the Vedic literature is described in terms of the lak\u1e63a\u1e47\u0101-v\u1e5btti or gau\u1e47a-v\u1e5btti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n On the topic, “Direct Meanings and Extrapolations\u2014Their Differences” we find the following:<\/span><\/p>\n {Da\u015bam\u016blatattva 2 (of Bhaktivinoda \u1e6chakura) citing Tattva-muktavali (Tm. 22)}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>\u015ar\u012b \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya 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 \u0101c\u0101rya, \u015ar\u012b Madhv\u0101c\u0101rya, has posted his rebuttal in his famous philosophical treatise:<\/span><\/p>\n n\u0101\u1e45gik\u1e5bt\u0101bhidh\u0101 yasya lak\u1e63a\u1e47\u0101 tasya no bhavet<\/span> “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?”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, there is no need to interpret “s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41” as Kaunteya does:”s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 = women, sudras, etc. are qualified if they have a clear perception of the para-tattva.” Hence, the translations of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 verses by devotees opposing FDG, are not outrageous or immoral, as falsely alleged by Kaunteya d\u0101sa. As a matter of fact, as it will be established in this article, that Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s claim – “FACT: THE Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 CLEARLY APPROVES VAISNAVI DIKSA-GURUS” – is indeed ridiculous and his efforts to extract and misinterpret words from various scriptures is indeed a condemnable act. <\/span><\/p>\n Kaunteya d\u0101sa also attempts to misinterpret the Bhagavad-g\u012bta verse 4.34, by making the following claims: <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>But the neo-smartas transmogrify the expression “pratyak\u1e63it\u0101tman\u0101th\u0101n\u0101m” 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 \u201calways seeing K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a\u201d or even as indicating “residents of Goloka Vrndavana.” Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s claim, “Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25 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 \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da’s translation and explanation of Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25 to mean as one who has actually seen. In many lectures and conversations we find that \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da had consistently explained that Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25 in Bhagavad-g\u012bta (4.34) means the act of direct perception and not in some mental or metaphorical sense. For example:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n {Morning Walk: 751117MW.BOM.mp3}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span>Prabhup\u0101da: No. Therefore our process is upadek\u1e63yanti tad j\u00f1\u0101na\u1e41 j\u00f1\u0101ninas tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25, one has seen the truth. Not these rascals. Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25. Dar\u015bina\u1e25 means who has actually seen. There is no change. The advice is, tad viddhi pra\u1e47ip\u0101tena paripra\u015bnena sevaya [Bg. 4.34]. These are the thoughts[?]. Upadek\u1e63yanti tad j\u00f1\u0101na\u1e41 j\u00f1\u0101ninas tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25. Not that theoretical. Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25. You have to go there, then you will get knowledge. A blind man goes to another blind man, what is the profit? No profit.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n {Lecture and Address: 760630BJ.NV.mp3}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span>Prabhup\u0101da: So this is guru. What is that? One who has seen the truth. <\/p>\n {Conversation: 750219R1.CAR.mp3}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span>Prabhup\u0101da: 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-dar\u015bibhi\u1e25, “who has seen the truth.” So you have to approach such person who has seen the truth. <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n In his commentary on BG (4.34) –\u00a0<\/span>j\u00f1\u0101nina\u1e25 \u015b\u0101straj\u00f1\u0101\u1e25 | tattva-dar\u015bino\u2019parok\u1e63\u0101nubhava-sampann\u0101\u015b ca | te tubhya\u1e41 j\u00f1\u0101nam upade\u015bena samp\u0101dayi\u1e63yanti – \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101m\u012b <\/span>defines “j\u00f1\u0101nina\u1e25” as knowers of the scriptures, “\u015b\u0101straj\u00f1\u0101\u1e25,” which means that the “understanding part” that Kaunteya d\u0101sa is referring to is actually described by the term “j\u00f1\u0101nina\u1e25,” and not “tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25<\/span>.” \u015ar\u012bdhara Sv\u0101m\u012b defines the term “tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25<\/span>” as “parok\u1e63\u0101nubhava-sampanna\u1e25” or “one who has direct experience of the absolute,” which is on a highest platform beyond mere understanding part.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>In his translation and commentary to BG (4.34), \u015ar\u012bla Bhakti Vinoda \u1e6ch\u0101kura has also translated “tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25<\/span>” as a bonafide spiritual master who has seen the truth.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, even from plain s\u0101nskrit grammar tattvadar\u015bin being the root word, tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25<\/span> is the Nominative-plural case (prathama vibhakti bahu-vacana) and hence must refer to persons who are the seers. Nonetheless, our \u0101c\u0101ryas have explained that the the plural form “tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25<\/span>” has been used only out of respect, for such usage does not encourage taking shelter of many gurus. <\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da and his disciple is very appropriate, as cited below:<\/span><\/p>\n {Discourse on Lord Caitanya Play Between SP and Hayagriva\u2014April 5\u20136, 1967, San Francisco}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div><\/span>“So Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu is stressing that to read Vedic literature, Ved\u0101nta, Upani\u1e63ad\u2014these are principal literatures in the Vedic knowledge\u2014then Bhagavad-g\u012bt\u0101, \u015ar\u012bmad-Bh\u0101gavatam, 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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 ga\u1e45gaya\u1e41 gho\u1e63apali, that “There is a neighborhood which is called Gho\u1e63apali 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.<\/span><\/p>\n So when there is such doubt, one can interpret. But when there is no doubt\u2014everyone can understand clearly the meaning\u2014there is no question of interpreting. That is Caitanya Mah\u0101prabhu’s stressing, that gau\u1e47a-v\u1e5bttye yeb\u0101 bh\u0101\u1e63ya karila \u0101c\u0101rya [Cc. \u0100di 7.109].<\/span><\/p>\n [\u015ar\u012bp\u0101da \u015aa\u1e45kar\u0101c\u0101rya has described all the Vedic literatures in terms of indirect meanings. One who hears such explanations is ruined.]”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Hence, in a rush to crush his “opponents,” Kaunteya d\u0101sa ends up crushing his spiritual life by calling devotees rapists of Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 not realizing that these translations are harmonious with \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhushana’s commentary to SB 1.13.15. As it was clearly shown that Kauteya d\u0101sa’s understanding of the meaning of “Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25” and “s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41” are totally wrong, his other statements in regards to k\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a-tattva-vett\u0101 from CC Madhya 8.128 and other sources of citations are also marred with such wrong understandings.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Kaunteya d\u0101sa claims the following without substantial evidence:<\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>The Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 is crystal clear: women are only one of the various categories of human beings that in certain pre-Mahaprabhu environments cannot accept disciples. In Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 verses there is no mention of “pre-Mahaprabhu environments,” which for some mysterious reasons is crystal clear only to Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s eyes. That is just a side-note besides several major problems. Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 clearly states in verses 1.37-41 all the necessary qualification for a male devotee to become an \u0101c\u0101rya. In the same context, verse 1.42 and 1.43 continues to list females and various categories of male, starting with \u015b\u016bdra and below, as those who cannot become \u0101c\u0101ryas. 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 k\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a-prema or seeing the Lord face-face, just like Jah\u1e47ava-dev\u012b mata or mother Lak\u1e63m\u012b or even other great personalities like \u015ar\u012bla N\u0101rada mun\u012b, \u015ar\u012b Vidura etc., then one should not see their lower birth status and they can become an \u0101c\u0101rya. Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 verses 1.59 prohibits anyone from accepting mantras or initiations from a woman or \u015b\u016bdra 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: <\/span><\/p>\n atha str\u012b-\u015b\u016bdra-sa\u1e45k\u012br\u1e47\u0101-nirmal\u0101patit\u0101di\u1e63uananyen\u0101nya-d\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e6dau ca k\u1e5bt\u0101pi na k\u1e5bt\u0101 bhavet<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n If one surrenders to a woman, \u015b\u016bdra, sa\u1e45k\u012br\u1e47a (one of mixed birth), one who has not accepted an \u0101c\u0101rya, 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) <\/span><\/p>\n ato \u2019nyatr\u0101\u015bu vidhivat kartavy\u0101 \u015bara\u1e47\u0101gati\u1e25upade\u1e63\u1e6d\u0101 tu mantrasya m\u016b\u1e0dha\u1e25 pracyavate hy adha\u1e25 <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n 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) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Kaunteya Prabhu is correct when he states: “<\/span>Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 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 [pratyak\u1e63it\u0101tman\u0101th\u0101n\u0101m of verse 1.44 ] then clearly explains that when any member of those categories (women, sudras, etc.) become aware<\/strong> 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, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 verses 1.61<\/span> cautions us that due to being addicted to sense gratification from time immemorial, a conditioned soul cannot remember Lord Vi\u1e63\u1e47u, not to mention about developing an understanding about the necessity of surrendering to Him. Under such circumstances, Kaunteya d\u0101sa is not only merely trying to dilute the principle of \u015bara\u1e47\u0101gati or surrender but also fails to provide legitimate Vedic scriptural evidence nor present previous \u0101c\u0101ryas’ statements as it is without his speculations.<\/span><\/p>\n The main problem is Kaunteya d\u0101sa’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 var\u1e47a-dharma of her husband and as well as the str\u012b-dharma that are specific only to woman. \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da explains this as below: <\/span><\/p>\n {lecture, SB 1.3.17\u2014September 22, 1972, Los Angeles}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>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\u2014woman becomes faithful and chaste to the husband\u2014then 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, K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a conscious, and woman should be…, woman should be devoted to the husband, faithful, so that she would help the husband to make progress in K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a 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 sa\u1e41sk\u0101ras 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 K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a consciousness. Furthermore, Manu-sa\u1e41hita, \u015ar\u012bmad Bh\u0101gavatam (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 d\u0101sa turns a blind eye and dismisses such lectures of \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da. 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 \u015ar\u012bla Prabhup\u0101da 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. <\/span><\/p>\n In his concluding post, Kaunteya d\u0101sa says: <\/span><\/p>\n {Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s facebook post}<\/p><\/blockquote><\/div>All of these sources are congruent: Gita, Caitanya-caritamrita, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101, and the acaryas’ conclusions. It’s only the neo-smartas who try to deceive us into thinking that the Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 sticks out of this supra-cosmic concordance.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It has been proved that there is a natural concordance existing between the translations for the terms – “Tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25,<\/span>” “krsna-tattva-veta,” “pratyak\u1e63\u012bk\u1e5bta-pare\u015batt\u0101t,” “s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101t-k\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41,<\/em>” and “pratyak\u1e63it\u0101tman\u0101th\u0101n\u0101m,” – as given to us by our \u0101c\u0101ryas. They all are referring to the exalted position of pure devotees of the Lord such as Vidura, as stated by \u015ar\u012bla Baladeva Vidyabhusana, to be always in direct contact with the Lord in a state of prema-bhakti. Hence, the translations for Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 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 pratyak\u1e63it\u0101tman\u0101th\u0101n\u0101m as seeing the Lord face to face is a direct concordance with statements of Gaudiya \u0101c\u0101ryas and not, as Kaunteya d\u0101sa depicts, a supra-cosmic concordance. In light of this expos\u00e9 it is upto readers to determine to whom the following statement of Kaunteya d\u0101sa is quite appropriate: <\/span><\/p>\nGop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Gosw\u0101m\u012b’s Sat-kriya-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika – does it endorse FDG?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nSat Kriya Sara Dipika is the basis of rituals for civilized Gaudiya-vaisnava.
\nAnything contradicting that book in ISKCON is either neo-smartaism or plain ignorance<\/strong>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
\nI 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-s\u0101ra-d\u012bpika of \u015ar\u012bla Gop\u0101la Bha\u1e6d\u1e6da Goswami.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
Kaunteya d\u0101sa’s crocodile tears for Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nhttps:\/\/docs.google.com\/…\/1LxiVjTxCVLX8qSQybXoBjxPo…\/
\nAnd 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nN\u0101rada-pa\u00f1car\u0101tra, Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 mistranslations – Who is the real culprit?<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nata eva bh\u0101radv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101y\u0101\u1e41 str\u012b-\u015b\u016bdr\u0101d\u012bn\u0101\u1e41 tan ni\u1e63idhya s\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 te\u1e63\u0101\u1e41 tad \u0101ha: \u201cna j\u0101tu mantra-d\u0101t\u0101ro na \u015b\u016bdro n\u0101ntarodbhava\u1e25, n\u0101bhi\u015bapto na patita\u1e25 k\u0101ma-k\u0101mo \u2018py ak\u0101mita\u1e25; striya\u1e25 \u015b\u016bdr\u0101daya\u015b caiva bodhayeyur hit\u0101hitam, yath\u0101rha\u1e41 m\u0101nan\u012by\u0101\u015b ca n\u0101rhanty \u0101c\u0101ryat\u0101\u1e41 kvacit; kim apy atr\u0101bhij\u0101yante yogina\u1e25 sarva-yoni\u1e63u; pratyak\u1e63it\u0101tma-n\u0101th\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 nai\u1e63\u0101\u1e41 cintya\u1e41 kul\u0101dikam\u201d iti.<\/em>
\ns\u0101k\u1e63\u0101tk\u1e5bta-para-tattv\u0101n\u0101\u1e41 = women, sudras, etc. are qualified if they have a clear perception of the para-tattva.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\nn\u0101sti gr\u0101ma\u1e25 kuta\u1e25 s\u012bm\u0101 na putro janaka\u1e41 vin\u0101<\/span><\/p>\nKaunteya d\u0101sa’s misinterpretation of tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nAll bogus and indefensible.
\nIt’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.
\nThe Gita, for instance, says that the spiritual masters “can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth [tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25].” (Bg 4.34).
\nTattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25 simply means those who understand tattva, the categorical truths of existence. They are qualified to teach their knowledge to their disciples.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/span>Pu\u1e63\u1e6da K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a: Yes. J\u00f1\u0101ninas tattva-dar\u015bina\u1e25.
\n<\/span>Prabhup\u0101da: So one who has seen… Just like Arjuna has seen K\u1e5b\u1e63\u1e47a. 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.<\/span><\/p>\nBharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 on qualifications for Female D\u012bk\u1e63\u0101-gurus<\/span><\/h2>\n
\nThe 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.
\nExplicit.
\nThe Bharadv\u0101ja-sa\u1e41hit\u0101 is unambiguous about this fact: the qualification described apply to any gender.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nKaunteya d\u0101sa’s egalitarianism<\/h2>\n
\n<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nConclusion:<\/h2>\n