Great traditional Ācāryas of old engaged in fierce debate.
At times, they wrote treatises even against highly venerated elders of their own Sampradāya, because of their zeal for what they saw as the correct Siddhānta & the intellectual honesty in being vocal about it.
Meanwhile, you have here a group of people who are convinced about the omniscience of their teacher & have zero tolerance for the slightest criticism. In fact, they are offended that people are even shocked by what they heard.
And they accuse Satsampradāyikas of being rigid & blind.
See, this is where Hindus need to appreciate the value of their Śāstras. They provide a safeguard against personality cults because even the highest Ācārya of a Śāstriya Satsampradāya MUST be accountable to the Mūlaśāstras & Pūrvācārya-granthas.
Jokers are those who accuse unenforceable Śāstras (which they can violate with impunity anyday, anytime) of robbing them of their freedom & individuality but can’t see how they are magically unable to critically engage a single man’s comment, whatever it is.
They are robbed of the freedom & individuality they celebrate so much but can’t see the robbery. This is not Gurubhakti. Don’t use that label. Gurubhakti is not the suspension of thinking, standards or thresholds.
Sūreśvarācārya could depart from his Guru, Śaṅkara on some views. Madhusūdana Sarasvatī could depart from Śaṅkara as well. A Śrībhāṣya was born because a Kūreśa could raise questions about his Guru, Rāmānuja’s definition of a Jīva.
Kāśmīra Śaivācārya Rāmakaṇṭha could pay his deep respects to Saiddhāntika Ācārya Bṛhaspati while disagreeing with him on the correct view regarding a tricky issue in Siddhānta—The liberation of the highest of all beings endowed with divine authority, Ananta the Vidyeśvara.
Kumārila writes his Tantravārttika on Śabarasvāmī’s Mīmām̐sasūtrabhāṣya but does not hesitate to depart from his predecessor’s commentary on the Mīmām̐sasūtra in several places.
There was an ancient practice where some studied all the Vedas for a grand total of 48 years (from the day of their Upanayana). This is a practice that is cited with respect by even Baudhāyana though he too notes the inherent problem.
Śabarasvāmī deconstructs this provision brutally, stating that it contradicts the Veda’s command to set up Śrautāgni while the hair is still black & must have a hetu (reason “ulterior motive”) where men hide their lack of manhood & use the 48 years as an excuse to avoid marriage.
Medhātithi has no hesitation rejecting the opinions of sages that approve of voluntary sahagamana, saying that they fall foul of the Veda’s command to not end one’s life before the natural expiry.
• • •