I recently saw a post by a devotee who was skeptic of adding a friend who had a Saivite Tilak (three horizontal forehead marks) because supposedly BSST refused to see such people. Then reading the Gopal Tapani Upanishad, I see that Durvasa, who has been described in scriptures having the same Saivite Tilak, is supposed to know intricate details about Krsna that he should share with gopis. Yes in another instance, where he is not a "devotee", he has to face the wrath of Visnu for offending Ambarisha. In any case, if Durvasa comes today the devotees have to not see his face if want to just strictly follow the sampradya (if that is what it means).
If we go back to Vedic times and infer things from the texts themselves, we see that many different philosophers could co-exist together at that time and Maharaja Ambarisha has the sages Gautama and Vasista in his court, who may not have exactly share his vaisnava beliefs (Who knows). Even in the BG 2.26 purport SP writes," There is always a class of philosophers, almost akin to the Buddhists, who do not believe in the separate existence of the soul beyond the body. When Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke the Bhagavad-gītā, it appears that such philosophers existed, and they were known as the lokāyatikas and vaibhāṣikas." Similarly there was Carvaka the atheist and then Kapila with the "atheistic" Sankhya. While people debated with each other about the superiority of their philosophy, they could co-exist and talk to each other. The modern or post-modern times that approach will be most useful where we stick to our philosophy, while knowing that there are other ways to interpret reality.
Post Sankara in the east and in the west, whenever a new philosopher established a new philosophy he/she disparaged and acerbically attacked other points of view. This was needed to establish the identity of their sect. But it appears that this approach is counterintuitive to the current of the "current" times. Obviously, if we need to take the space, which is taken by fanatical Christianity and Islam, then we can continue with the current approach without any problem.
So my approach is more akin to taking the approach prevalent in SB where though Sukadeva expounds the principles of pure bhakti, he is able to sit together with people with different opinions and treat them with some dignity, instead of just not seeing their face etc etc. Even CM did not disrespect Sarvabhauma and his sanyasa guru Kesava Bharati. He revered Sridhara Swami, who is considered an advaitin by other vaisnava sampradayas for some good reason. In his BG commentary, Sridhara Swami acknowledges Sankara's teachings according to Jagat ( I have not seen the commentary myself) .
Again this is my opinion seeing the evidence and activities of previous acaryas as far as possible. I take the approach of BVT, where absolute truth is tinged with the currents of times bygone and we can see the essential principles in the current time and move on. Enough from me!
I recently saw a post by a devotee who was skeptic of adding a friend who had a Saivite Tilak (three horizontal forehead marks) because supposedly BSST refused to see such people.
What is the evidence for this? After all, he did not refuse to see persons wearing no tilak whatsoever.
What is the evidence for this? After all, he did not refuse to see persons wearing no tilak whatsoever.
I don't know of the evidence. Gaura das refused a friend request from a person based on this assertion.
I don't think you read him right Gaura-vijaya. The next sentence in that status was "Lord Caitanya sat in the ashram of Prakasananda Sarasvati , who I believe all had Shiva tilac on and converted them, and I am supposed to be Gaura das."
I don't think you read him right Gaura-vijaya. The next sentence in that status was "Lord Caitanya sat in the ashram of Prakasananda Sarasvati , who I believe all had Shiva tilac on and converted them, and I am supposed to be Gaura das."
Yes, but I just said he did say that BSST did not see people with Siva tilak. "I am not Srila Bhaktissidhanta Sarasvati Thakur, but I heard he would refuse to even look at them."
Bhrigu asked for the evidence and I don't know how he got his evidence.
well he actually did accept the friend request from the siva tilak person. Gaura is a bit old school, but favorable to GM.
well he actually did accept the friend request from the siva tilak person. Gaura is a bit old school, but favorable to GM.
Yes I have nothing against him personally. I was just talking about the statement that he made. That is all. Otherwise he has glorified GM so much and I respect him for that.