Kaunteya Das turns out to be the intrepid faultfinder. He went through a massive biography over 1500 pages of HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami Maharaja and found one anecdote he finds questionable then broadcasts it.
He had challenged repeatedly: “Do you believe that Sarasvati Thakura started giving diksa to women mainly because of being pressurized by a woman, not because he deeply agreed with the practice? (Again, it’s a simple ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘I don’t know’ answer.)”
When I tried to respond to the questions that others had related to this topic Kaunteya started to deleting my responses and tried to interfere in my interactions with those who were eagerly and sincerely looking for answers. So I decided to answer his questions via my blog. The following link is the response to the objection raised by Kaunteya. In the next article I will try to answer, based on my own understanding, the question raised by others in regards to eligibility of Brahma-gayatri mantra to women and śūdras.
Blog Post (also reproduced below): https://the-eye-of-sastra.blogspot.com/p/is-bhakti-vikasa-swami-maharaja-going.html
Can Ācāryas Be Forced to Act in Specific Ways?
Great ācāryas, especially those of the stature of Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and Śrīla Prabhupāda, are pure devotees of the Lord. Their actions are not to be questioned or categorized, but rather followed in their true spirit. One must be cautious not to imitate the ācārya, even in seemingly faithful replication of his footsteps.
The following excerpt from Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Vaibhava (SBV) by HH Bhakti Vikāsa Swami presents a historical account of Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s approach to giving mantra-dīkṣā (our additions within brackets):
In the early days of the mission Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura gave only harināma, but not dīkṣā, to women. So when his harināma disciple Śrīmatī Sarojavāsinī devī asked for mantra-dīkṣā, initially he refused. Yet upon her importunate requests, he finally relented. Thereafter he freely gave dīkṣā to suitably qualified women disciples by imparting pāncarātrika dīkṣā-mantras, but not Brahma-gāyatrī or the sacred thread worn by brāhmaṇa men – [SBV Vol 2, p245]
In this context, Kaunteya Dāsa, a devotee aligned with the pūrvapakṣa (opposing group), raised objections in a public social media post criticizing Bhakti Vikāsa Swami and his book. He posed the following question:
Do you believe – as the sentence I quoted seems to imply – that Sarasvati Thakura started giving diksa to women mainly because of being pressurized by a woman, not because he deeply agreed with the practice? (Again, it’s a simple ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘I don’t know’ answer.)
This pūrvapakṣa effectively raises two distinct questions:
- Did Sarasvatī Ṭhākura begin giving dīkṣā to women mainly due to pressure?
- Did he do so because he deeply agreed with the practice?
Q1: No. Sarasvatī Ṭhākura, an exalted ācārya, could not be pressured by anyone. However, the historical fact remains that he initially declined to give mantra-dīkṣā to women, being fully aware of the scriptural standards and prevailing social norms. It is also true that his female disciple was persistent in her request. Ultimately, as a mahābhāgavata devotee, he knew how to apply scriptural principles appropriately, considering deśa-kāla-pātra (time, place, and circumstance).
Q2: Yes. However, Sarasvatī Ṭhākura did not endorse indiscriminate giving of all mantras to women. Scriptural injunctions do not permit women to receive vaidika mantra-dīkṣā—such as the Brahma-gāyatrī—but do allow for pāñcarātrika dīkṣā-mantras. As noted in SBV Vol. 2, p. 245, after the incident with Śrīmatī Sarojavāsinī Devī, Sarasvatī Ṭhākura began giving pāñcarātrika dīkṣā-mantras to women, but not the Brahma-gāyatrī or the brāhmaṇa thread.
The pūrvapakṣa fails to grasp that great ācāryas like Sarasvatī Ṭhākura are deeply versed in śāstra and apply it with discernment, especially during dharma-saṅkaṭa (crises of dharma). To a mundane observer, their actions may appear to contradict dharma-śāstra, but such judgments are superficial.
Kaunteya’s critique of Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Vaibhava and his defense of Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s actions rest on the flawed logic of ardha-kukuṭi-nyāya (the half-hen fallacy). He does not accept Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s policy of withholding Brahma-gāyatrī from women, yet claims to revere the ācārya’s authority.
Kaunteya is also the author of a 600-page book containing numerous mundane critiques—ranging from Śrīla Prabhupāda’s upbringing and cultural conditioning to his views on homosexuality and women. This work has been thoroughly analyzed and refuted by the ISKCON India Scholars Board in their series Responses to Tough Questions, Difficult Answers. Some of their responses include:
- Did Śrīla Prabhupāda commit mistakes? – ISKCON India Scholars Board
- Responses to Tough Questions, Difficult Answers – ISKCON India Scholars Board
Despite this, Kaunteya has publicly criticized HH Bhakti Vikāsa Swami, a respected sannyāsī and prolific author, including of the monumental three-volume Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Vaibhava and Mood and Mission of Śrīla Prabhupāda.
It is evident that Kaunteya has not studied the full scope of Bhakti Vikāsa Swami’s work but has instead cherry-picked a sentence to malign the author. In his work, Bhakti Vikāsa Swami elaborates on the nature of an ācārya and how the words of an ācārya are themselves śāstra. For instance, as referenced below, Bhakti Vikāsa Swami explicitly outlines Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s position on pages 230–231—just fifteen pages prior to recounting the historical anecdote:
…. Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī asseverated:
“Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura is Kamala Mañjarī, a personal associate of Rādhārāṇī. He directed me to establish daiva-varṇāśrama. I must obey his order. An ācārya is not under śāstra. He can make śāstra.* Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura, the ācārya, has inspired me in various ways. By his mercy and that of Śrīla Gaura Kiśora dāsa Bābājī Mahārāja and previous ācāryas, we are going on, not caring for the precise technicalities of smārtas.†
Although this presentation of bhāgavata-paramparā appears to be new, it is based on essential understanding of scripture. Anything novel given by an ācārya but founded on śāstra is called vaiśiṣṭya (a special characteristic). Ācāryas Rāmānuja and Madhva apparently introduced new ideas, yet because those were grounded in śāstra they came to be accepted. Phalena paricīyate: “An action should be judged by its result.” The level of bhajana and the preaching activities of the Gauḍīya Maṭha speak for themselves. Owl-like persons cannot see this, but the honest will acknowledge it.”
– [Śrī Bhaktisiddhānta Vaibhava, Bhakti Vikāsa Swami, vol. 2, pages 230-231]
Moreover, just two paragraphs before the sentence in question, Bhakti Vikāsa Swami conveys Saraswati Thakura’s teaching that even qualified śūdras and women—though they may not receive brahma-gāyatrī—are in no way inferior to their equally qualified peers who do, as cited below:
A man of low caste from Assam who had heard of Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s transcendental qualities came to Māyāpur to become his disciple. He was unaware that Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura bestowed brahminical initiation upon qualified candidates irrespective of their birthcaste. He was given harināma and told that he could return after some time to receive dīkṣā. In those days caste bracketing was exceedingly strong and considered unchangeable, so even though that devotee strictly followed the devotional regulations at home, he was reluctant to accept an upavīta, fearing harassment to himself and his family if he were to transgress societal norms by becoming a brāhmaṇa.
When this disciple next met Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura and outlined his dilemma, he was told that there was no need to take dīkṣā; if he simply followed the prescribed rules and chanted the holy name of Kṛṣṇa, he would certainly advance in bhakti and ultimately be rescued from the material predicament. Furthermore, he should not think himself any lower in status than Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura’s dīkṣita disciples.
– [SBV Vol 2, p245]
When read in isolation, one might wonder whether Śrīla Sarasvatī Ṭhākura refrained from giving dīkṣā to that devotee due to prevailing societal norms. But such a conclusion is entirely unfounded. It is both unreasonable and unfair to construct a narrative about a book, its author, or the revered ācārya it seeks to honor, based solely on a single sentence or paragraph.
Had Kaunteya read the book in its entirety and followed the natural flow of its passages, he might have refrained from casting aspersions on Bhakti Vikāsa Swami. Considering that Kaunteya has previously issued strong criticisms of Śrīla Prabhupāda in his book Tough Questions, Difficult Answers, one is compelled to question the credibility of his accusations regarding others’ reverence for ācāryas. It is only reasonable to scrutinize the authority and qualification of anyone who presumes to critique the words and actions of exalted spiritual masters such as Śrīla Prabhupāda and Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura.
Conclusion
Ācāryas like Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Ṭhākura deeply understand the essence of śāstra. They are not constrained by it, but their insights are never divorced from it. Their application of vaiśiṣṭya—the discerning adaptation of scriptural principles to time, place, and circumstance—is a hallmark of their spiritual genius. Śrīla Prabhupāda, following in the footsteps of his guru, embodied this same principle with unwavering fidelity.