BinduMadhav

{But is Bhakti THE PATH to GOD? Not if you think logically and understand Bhagavad-Gita itself.} I have seen a lot of posts but this one beats every one of them in sheer horror.

{no offsense meant to you bindu, but you are looking at it all wrong. you are looking at it from the perspective of vishnu a personsonified being of god having some relations with shiva, another personified being of god. Your looking at is as if we are talking about two people who coupled up and had a relationship. These are not ordinary humans in an ordinary relationships god only has a personified form to those that desire } My dear Ratheesh: I understand that when we are talking about Siva and Vishnu, we are not talking about ordinary mortals like us and our wives. But, in any case, a union between divine personalities is just as bad. The story does not offer any explanation on why the union was required, why Lord Hari had to take the form of Mohini (instead of Siva taking the form of a woman), what good came out of it, etc. There are a couple of errors in your thinking, if you don't mind my pointing out. Firstly, Saguna Brahman + Nirguna Brahman theory is nonsense. There is no such thing as Nirguna Brahman. The moment we attempt to define Nirguna Brahman, the Nirguna Brahman no longer exists and a Saguna Brahman takes its place. Secondly, if you are arguing that Siva and Lord Vishnu never existed and never exist, then the whole premise of Hinduism falls apart. Let's face it: With all the love for Vedanta that we exhibit, we Hindus greatly depend upon the mythological stories for our support. So we cannot simply dismiss the story of Mohini and Ayyappan as just fiction. I don't mind expressing anguish or even disgust at such a story, but I am not going to dismiss it. We have to believe in something solid in religion and therefore I take Srimad Bhagavatham and Bhagavad-Gita as two authentic works. Srimad Bhagavatham stops short of any kind of union between Mohini and Siva. Siva regains his control over his senses when Mohini slips out of his embrace and runs away. Perhaps Goddess Parvati looking on helped him regain his senses quickly too. For all these reasons, the story annoys me. I just simply do not like it.

{I am a young Indian student studying in UK. Everybody around me seems to be taller, I don't know why. I am 5'9". I measured from the toe to the top of the head (without shoes). Is that correct, or should I measure from toe to forehead? Then it'll reduce more inches and I'll be down to 5'6". Anyway, what can I do when everybody's making fun of me? I feel like a stupid dwarf.} Are you in good health - physical and mental? Are you tolerably intelligent? Are you getting good grades? Are you able to eat good vegetarian food without falling sick? Do you have any health issues that demands that you take medication on a regular basis, draw blood, etc etc? If you answered positively to all of this, I don't understand why being a couple of inches shorter than normal is a big problem. I have seen midgets that carry on happily. You really don't know happiness until some serious health issue hits you. So my advice to you is: BE HAPPY AND CHANT HARINAM!

{Somebody please go into details, I need to find a husband too. Can I specify what kind of husband I want? *laughed when I saw this post* } Life is one long journey. We all need to experiment and find out for ourselves. Performing Gauri Puja is recommended for all brides and brides-to-be. During the time of Lord Krishna, the Gopis performed Gauri Puja to get Lord Krishna as their Husband. Rukmini was engaged in Gauri Puja when Lord Krishna appeared and whisked her away to safety. Even if a husband will not become readily available upon doing the Puja, spiritual satisfaction cannot be beat.

Haven't I, Atanu? I am amazed and quite pleased with the zeal and energy with which you have posted all these notes. {Hey, some one else is the step of Visnu and bolt of Indra.} Yes. Who is it? Rudra? Even poor Rudra needs a role, so he gets one. {As usual, like in every other case, likes of you cross limits and defeat themselves.} What is the limit? Define it and I will consider not crossing it. But no promises. The one promise I make is not to be uncivil. {If Gita is authority for you (for me it is), show us where it is stated that Siva is demi god?} Gita does not give so much importance to Siva. But did you read my questions in proper order? Please read them again. {Earn some punya by reading Bhagavatam} I have an excellent copy of Srimad Bhagavatham. I am sure I am earning lots of Punya every time I read it. But I am not concerned about myself. I am concerned about you and other Saivites like yourself. {Repeat: all the demigods, along with the Supreme Lord Himself, approached Lord Siva [sadasiva].} Yes. All demigods, along with the Supreme Lord Himself, approached Siva, another demigod. Let me define 'demigod' for you here. A demigod is a minor god. Where Lord Vasudeva is present, everyone else including Siva is a demigod. When Lord Vasudeva is not present in his amazingly beautiful form, Siva can become somewhat of a major god. {I ask: Why Lord Vishnu—the Supreme God Head approached SadaSiva to drink Halahal?} For the same reason that the President of a company asks his secretary to book a ticket to fly to Bombay. The president could have done it himself. Why does not he? Because the secretary is there to help him out. {Note: Supreme Brahman} Atanu, my friend, in our literature, when someone prays to someone else, it is common etiquette to say that the person being prayed to is the Supreme Brahman. That is why when you read Ganesha Atharvasheersha, you will read, "Tvameva Pratyaksham Brahmasi". The same statement is seen in Narayanopanishad. Do you get it? When you read a piece devoted to Aditya, Agni, Vayu or some other god, it is the same. {Please note: Your Lordship, Lord Siva, is self-illuminated. You are directly situated as the supreme truth, known as Paramatma.} Same comments. {Please note: the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.} Same comments. "Brahma Murari Surarchita Lingam" is a polite statement. So are passages in Lalitha Sahasranama or Sivananda Lahari or Soundarya Lahiri written by Sankara. {And please note all the time Lord Vishnu was also there.} Of course, He would be. He is the all pervading Maha Vishnu. There is no place where Lord Vishnu would not be. {Ask: Why Lord Vishnu—the Supreme God Head approached SadaSiva to drink Halahal?} I already answered this one. If Lord Vishnu took all the glory, where is the glory left for his best Bhakta? {Some one is the bolt of Indra and the stepping of Vishnu. Who is that ONE?} We all need stepping stones, bows and arrows (or tools) while accomplishing something. Does that mean Lord Rama's bow is superior to Lord Rama Himself? Does that demon on which Nataraja dances superior to Nataraja? What kind of logic is this? Alodya sarva-shastrani vicharya cha punah punah Idam ekam sunispannam dheyo narayanah sada By scrutinizingly reviewing all the revealed scriptures and judging them again and again, it is now concluded that Lord Narayana is the Supreme Absolute Truth, and thus He alone is to be worshipped.

Sir, With all due respect, I really think you are going round and round in circles, like merry go round. {There are not two Mahesvaras.} I understand that. Ekam Sath Viprah Bahudha Vadanti. Ekam Na Dvi Na Tri.. All that is good. All your explanation is inadequate. Do you believe in the authenticity of Srimad Bhagavatham? Please look up my post under "Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu" and let me know your answers. Again, I am asking you (and not others) because I have identified you as a knowledgeable person. Many others are adepts at repeating what the Shastras say without fully understanding them. {Yes it takes all kinds. especially your kind, who inevitably help to bring out the truth. } Very funny. Apparently you have a sense of humor, albeit a tart one.

Although Lord Krishna is my God, many times I worship Devi or Mahalakshmi (Andal). So it is not that I don't like my God to be female. God can be Father and God can be Mother. What offends me is the fact that this story is totally out of line from Srimad Bhagavatham and sounds so gross. Under what circumstances did Lord Vishnu agree to take Mohini's form and become Siva's spouse? Why did Siva want Mohini in the first place, when he had Mother Parvati by his side (or half his body)? I find all this reprehensible.

{Can anyone have meanings of 1000 names of Vishnu?} Look up the website: http://www.astrojyoti.com/vs1.htm. It has word for word meaning of the complete Vishnu Sahasranamam. The only problem is that this is Sankaracharya's translation. I don't know if Sri Ramanuja's translation is avaible on the internet. There are definitely subtle differences but it may work for you.

{before i put my two cents i would like u ppl to have a glance of what other ppl have to say } What I am seeing is that everyone keeps going round and round in circles, mentioning pretty much the same things, but never truly addressing the issue. Never mind what The bottom line is this: 1. Lord Krishna makes it perfectly clear that He is the Supreme. All others are demigods, including Siva. Which means that Lord Hari is the Sarvottama. Do we all agree on this? 2. Lord Krishna also makes it crystal clear that worshipping lower gods will only result in attainment of that particular god's abode, not Vishnuloka, the Supreme Loka; once you go to Vaikuntha, one does not return. This is the true Moksha. Do we all agree on this? 3. The supreme goal of life is Moksha. All other Purusharthas - Kama, Artha and Dharma, in the increasing order of importance - are only aiding us to achieve Moksha, which means the abode of Sri Vishnu. Do we agree on this? 4. We all agree that Srimad Bhagavad-gita is the authority on our Shruti and therefore we cannot deny what is written in the Gita. Do we aree? So, why do we want to worship Siva or any other demigod? Siva is a great Vaishnav and deserves our respect because we need to follow his example. But he is not the Supreme Purusha. He is just a god. Now, let's not bring all other literature (like Swami Narayan) into the question. Or, just tell me that you folks don't accept the infallible stand of Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

I have looked at Vishvaroopa image many times and what do I see? I see Lord Hari's face in the prime position and all others around Him. So it means that Hari is Sarvottama and all others are demigods. That is all. For true Vaishnavs, Lord Hari and Hara can never be the same. If you disagree, let's take a vote. The Advaitins don't have a choice but to accept Siva to be equal to Lord Vishnu. That is a saving grace for them.

{Why? What if a child born to a brahmin is just not that intelligent to learn the scriptures, and not understand the spiritual meaning of life? Is he still a brahmin?} {When it is said you have to be born brahmin, it does not mean you have to be born into a brahmin family, a brahmin is somebody who by his words, actions and deeds becomes one.} In the Upanishads, it is mentioned that when a person dies, his soul will be reborn according to its Vasanas as well as samskaras in the appropriate caste. This is again confirmed by Lord Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita, wherein He states clearly that He will make individuals to be born according to whatever Karmaphala the soul has acquired. Svadharma is the most important Dharma for a person. A person born a Brahmin has to live the life of a Brahmin; this includes Agnikarya, Upasana, Sandhyavandana, Japa, Krishnanamasmarane and carrying out all the Dharmic Karmas. The same goes for all other castes. A Shudra has to serve. This is not Bindu Madhav speaking, this is Hindu Shastra speaking. Lord Krishna, although the Supreme Lord, was born as a Kshatriya. In order to be an example to other Kshatriyas, He was extremely polite and reverent towards other Brahmins. Neither Lord Rama nor Lord Krishna ever tried to become a Brahmin. They lived their human lives as they were born. Once a person is born as a Brahmana or Shudra, he should continue to do the Dharmas assigned to him. Trying to do something without being born into the family results in what happened to Shambuka, whose head was cut off by Sri Ramachandra (Uttara Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana). Ekalavya is another example. On the other hand, Karna, who was born a Kshatriya but raised a Shudra, reclaimed his right to being a Kshatriya. Dharmavyadha, a Shudra, is more powerful than Kaushika, the Brahmin, because Dharmavyadha followed his own Dharma while Kaushika ignored his Dharma and went to forest (thus abandoning his old parents). The same with the lady at whose house Kaushika begged for food. She had the power to laugh at Kaushika when he wanted to burn her up, just like he had burnt the crane. It is true that Mahabharat and other epics explains what the qualities of a Brahmin are: Shama, Dama, control of the Ari-Shadvargas (Kama Krodha Lobha Moha Mada Matsarya) and other divinely qualities. But nowhere have I read that a Shudra can become a Brahmin just like that. As far as the intellectually challenged child born into the Brahmin family is concerned, just because he is immature, he cannot stop being a Brahmin. If the child cannot do the proper things as a Brahmin, the others should do for him. Once the child is born, his Samskara of a Brahmin birth will follow him regardless of whether he will live the life of a Brahmin or not. Let me emphasize here again that all this is not Bindu Madhav's personal opinion. It is the opinion of learned Hindu scholars. If someone desires birth in a Brahmin family, he should follow his own Dharma in this life and pray to Lord Krishna for a proper birth in the next life. The Lord is all merciful and He will grant that wish.

{You're all talking nonsense refering to archeology to establish which God is older. You will not establish who is older in this way. If Shiva were 8000 years old how could He be God then. God-perception is beyond this world. The earth...} I think you missed the gist of the argument. We all agree that God is beyond time and space. As Taittareeya Upanishad puts it, the Lord is Immutable, Omniscient and Omnipresent (Sathyam, Gnyanam and Anantham). With Omnipresence comes 'ever-existence' in both space and time coordinates. The argument was in which form was God being worshipped first. Not counting the Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology or the Zaratushtra's school, we Hindus were discussing whether the form of Shiva came first or the form of Vishnu came first. Yes, Bhakti towards Ishvara is very important. But one cannot immerse oneself in IshvaraBhakti 24 hours a day. So we were discussing. The gentleman mentioned archaeology and I counter-replied. But the fundamental question has always been: In which form should we worship Him? Most of us Vaishnavs prefer to worship him in the form of Sri Vishnu or Sri Krishna. Almost all Hindus accept the validity of Bhagavad-gita and the Gita teaches us that Sri Krishna is the Lord Supreme. There are no ifs or buts about it. Hope I have made it clear to you.

Ratheesh wrote: {Shiva worship is the oldest religion in the history of this planet that we live on. Proto-Shaivism was worshipped in India as far back as 8000 BC...} There is no proof that Saivism existed at that time. It is only a conjecture. Some of the archaeological evidence found indicate a figure similar to Siva in meditation, but it could have been a Rishi in meditation. Which means that Saivism is not that old. On the other hand, evidence of Vishnu worship exists dating back to before the times of even Lord Rama, whose family (Ikshvaku's) were worshippers of Lord Vishnu. {Im not saying Vedism came from outside India however. I blieve Shavisim came with the people that came from south india and went up (Dravidian - austronesian people) } In this case, Saivism is not part of Arya Samskriti. It should be abandoned. Only worship of Lord Krishna should be followed by everyone.

Guest wrote: {VEDAS,SHASTRAS are words which came out from the lotus mouth of OUR LORD.how can they go against it?VEDAS say that a man shd be older as the wife can SERVE him in a better way if she is younger to him. moreover,a chaste wife is supposed to do 'SEVA' to her husband.VEDAS say that a woman can easily get "MUKTI" even if she devotedly serves her husband,especially if he is a devotee of the LORD. a wife shd see THE LORD in him(in her husband).if the girl is younger to him,how can she serve him/devote to him,,is it not a sin to even touch his(her younger husband's) feet? wont she attach KARMA to herself and to each other?} All you have written is right except the last part. Once a girl accepts a young man to be her husband, age does not enter the equation. He is her husband or Pati, and therefore her Lord. She won't incur Paapaphala by touching his feet and he won't get it either. There was a reason why the wife was usully younger than the husband. Mostly it has to do with serving the old husband. In the very old days, since women committed Sati when the husband died, it would have helped if the wife was younger. When the widow did not commit sati, like in the majority of cases, the children took care of her. The husband's Punaphala is supposed to be shared with his wife. This is why a Dvija wears two sets of Yagnyopavita's, one for self and one for the wife. Wife's job is to assist the husband, and the husband's job is to so Tapas, Sandhya and other Karmas. But let's be flexible here. If we are not flexible, the young couple may decide to flee the fold of Hinduism. This will be a loss to the Hindu society.

jayan008 wrote: {...No one is trying to degrade Lord Vishnu. Lord Vishnu coming in a female form and being in union with Shiva is considered demeaning to you because you are only looking into the physical aspects of such union and thus finds it degrading that God has involved in a physical relation. While, you are missing the greatness of Lord Vishnu who can transform himself into any form - from a simple being to the most powerful, regardless of its size, shape and sex, to restore peace... } I appreciate both you and Ratheesh responding in such a civil manner to my note. It speaks volumes for your upbringing. I thank you both for that. Here is a dilemma for us Hindus. We have the habit of digesting every new thing thrown at us and make it divine. We have to stop somewhere. I can understand someone believing Srimad Bhagavatham, but this is something totally new and made up. People will keep making up new stories and we are expected to keep swallowing them. Among all the scriptures I have read, I only recognize Srimad Bhagavatham, Srimad Bhagavad-gita and Ramayan of Valmiki and Tulasidasji as the supreme. As a Hindu, you too, doubtless, agree with this thinking. Srimad Bhagavatham mentions Siva falling for Mohini form of Vishnu and even embracing Her (I won't explain the details here), but there is no mention of Siva having a sexual union with Her and giving birth to Ayyappa. So, I am sorry, but I cannot recognize Ayyappa as a genuine deity. I truly think it is demeaning to Lord Vishnu(Krishna) for anyone to think that the Supreme Lord took a female form and had a union with Siva to have a child. And, we have to pay attention to the physical forms here. Otherwise, there is no Ayyappa at all.

Om Namah Sivayya wrote: {Yes Dear, I am a Siva devotee and that is why Krishna is every second with me. He protects me. He does all my work. Lord Krishna is not the embodied form you worship. He is all pervading unborn Mahesvara. } Sir - Unfortunately, Bhagavad-Gita which is the embodiment of all knowledge (as you will doubtless agree) clearly states that worshipping demigods like Siva is not recommended. Bhagavad Gita does not state that Siva is Supreme God like Lord Krishna is. It states clearly that Lord Krishna alone is the Supreme. Lord Krishna is the quintessence of everything, the best of everything as he says: "Rudranam Shankaraschasmi": Among Rudras, I am Shankara, the Lord says. He did not say "Shankara and I are the same". This is why Krishna is Paramathma. All others are demigods. Lord Krishna IS the embodied form I worship. Yes, he is the all pervading Maheshvara, but 'Unborn Maheshvara'? You are wrong, Sir. "Sambhavami Yuge Yuge" is the statement you need to keep in mind. I understand that Lord Krishna is all pervading (Vishnu), Omnipotent (Sarvashakta) Supreme Lord (Parameshvara). But as Srimad Bhagavatham states so clearly, Siva is a parama Vaishnav, who constantly worships the form of Lord Vishnu (or Krishna). No disrespect to Siva, but he is just a demigod and a guru, a god who is filled with Tamoguna, who should be listened to but not worshipped. We all need a form to worship. That is why we imagine Lord Krishna in the form that he was born. Lord Krishna's form is the most beautiful and sweet form that anyone could imagine. Why would anyone worship Siva? I don't understand. But, as Wodehouse says, it takes all kinds to make the world.

Guest wrote: {will he have to wait for another birth to call himself a brahmin???} He will have to wait for his next birth. All scriptures say that one has to be born a Brahmin in order to be called a true Brahmin. This is said in the Bhagavad-Gita and is supported by all scholars including (surprise) Advaita gurus from like Kanchi Kamakoti Pitham. Recitation of Gayathri Mantra by a non-Brahmin results in terrible things. Have you not read Uttara Kanda of Valmiki Ramayan? If he is born as a Shudra, he should perform his duties as a Shudra. Following one's own Dharma is supremely important. All this being said, I have to express my genuine respect for this gentleman who completely turned his life around and became a Sadguna Sampanna as a vegetarian and other good qualities he has acquired.

Chirag, Nice to read your note. I would like to point out a few inaccuracies in your note. {Look back into the history of Hinduism--none of the deities proclaimed themselves to be God to the public, not Lord Ram, not Lord Krishna, not any God. Yet, they did allow their strongest and most appropriate devotees to see their divine form--Krishna to Arjun, Ram to Hanuman and Vibhishan, and so on and so forth. } Lord Krishna knew and everyone around Him knew that Lord Krishna was Bhagavan Himself. Same with Lord Rama. If you read Valmiki Ramayan or Tulsidasji's Rama Charita Manas, you will understand that. Same with Srimad Bhagavatam and Mahabharat of Parashara Vyasa. Both Lords Rama and Krishna showed their true forms throughout their lives. {...-if this is not true, then why did Lord Ram worship Lord Shiva's murti? Why did Lord Krishna worship Vishnu and Shiv?} This is not entirely true. Lord Rama never worshipped Siva according to Valmiki Ramayan. Srimad Bhagavatham does not talk about Lord Krishna worshipping Siva. Mahabharat shows Lord Krishna having done Tapas towards Siva, but that is mainly to set an example to other humans. Lord Krishna truly loved Siva because Siva is His best devotee. On the other hand, just because Swami Narayan writes something in his book, it does not become true. Swami Narayan's works are neither Shruti nor Smriti and therefore cannot and should not be considered to be God's work. But, as long as you understand that Swami Narayan worshipped Lord Krishna and loved Him, you can worship Swami Narayan as a great Guru. I and my friends worship Siva as a great devotee of Lord Krishna and as a Parama Vaishnav. But we know the difference between Siva and Lord Krishna.

{The Devas then went to Brahma and Vishnu, but finally Lord Siva came to their rescue, who sent his son Dharmasastha, born out of the union of Shiva & Vishnu (in Mohini, a female form) to earth to kill Mahishi.} Although I have heard of it, I think this is a myth. There is no mention of Lord Vishnu taking the form of Mohini and marrying Siva. If you say Mohini and Siva did not marry but had a child out of wedlock, that is very offensive. In fact, this whole story is stinky and is written to demean Lord Vishnu, the Supreme God of the universe. I have read Srimad Bhagavatham thoroughly and there is no mention of Mohini having any kind of relation with Siva. It is true that Siva goes to Lord Vishnu and begs Him to show Mohini form; Lord Vishnu shows the form to Siva out of pure compassion for His devotee (Siva). Siva falls for the form and even embraces Mohini but nothing happens. Please stop spreading all these nasty stories.

{Which god is older in the scriptures? I've always wondered that. I'm told that Shiva is older and his images were found in the Indus-valley civilisation along with shakti, but no vishnu images were present. But Shiva is not mentioned in the Vedas as Shiva, but as Rudra. Vishnu is mentioned but apparently not like the Vishnu we know in the puranas but as the Sun. According the Vaishnavas like the HK, Shiva is just a demigod, but according to Shaivites, he is the Supreme God and Vishnu isn't. Who are we to believe and why? How about neither! } Lord Vishnu's three steps are mentioned in the Vedas. The same Lord Vishnu is mentioned in the Agamas such as Pancharatra, which are reputably older than the Vedas. Rudra is a minor god in the Vedas and the only way he could muster enough respect for himself is through his bullying. That is why any worship to Rudra is to keep him away, not to invite him to come closer. Lord Vishnu (or Krishna), on the other hand, is benign and sweet as Amrit. Krishna's name itself is so sweet. That is why even Siva suggests worship of Vishnu in Padma Purana. Siva is also a worshipper of Lord Rama and states clearly that reciting Lord Rama's name even once is equivalent to reciting all thousand names of Lord (Vishnu). (Srirama rama rama ithi rame rame manorame sahasra nama tattulyam ramanama varanane). I recommend worship of Lord Krishna (or Lord Rama) and not Siva's worship. We should follow the example of Siva and worship Sri Krishna. How about neither? Not a good idea. We all need God in our lives for spiritual guidance.

Sir, are you Siva's devotee? If so, why? I don't understand since Lord Krishna makes it crystal clear that devotion towards Him is the best. Siva also agrees.

Vishwanath Pai wrote: {But Prabhupada and followers consider Jesus as their Guru! In what bloody sense? Please explain....... } Srila Prabhupada (all glory to him) has made it perfectly clear. Jesus is the son of God and God is Lord Krishna. Jesus did not want to identify Father God as Krishna because that would have caused an uproar. The people were not ready at that time. So Jesus is a great Guru, just as as Siva is a great Guru. Siva also said: "Worship of Lord Vishnu is Supreme" (Vishnor Aradhanam Param). Siva is a Param Vaishnav himself. All true Vaishnavs pray to Siva to give them devotion towards Lord Krishna.

I know that a lot of discussion has been recorded on this forum on demigods like Siva. But, most of us Vaishnavites believe that, in order to achieve Moksha, one should worship Lord Vishnu or, better still, Lord Krishna. In Bhagavadgita, Lord Krishna himself says that by worshipping the demigods, the devotees go to the world of the demigod but not achieve Moksha. "Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." (Bhagavad-Gita 7.23) I like Siva, because he is Lord Krishna's great devotee. He is a Parama Vaishnav, although he is filled with Tamoguna. This is why even Vaishnavs pray to Siva and ask for Bhakti for Hari from him. So I want to know what people think about worshipping Siva instead of Sri Krishna Himself directly. Why does anyone worship Siva? Why not worship the source, Lord Krishna Paramatma Himself? I know that in scriptures, Siva himself says that he is a Paramavaishnav so there are no doubts about this.

I did not like Lord Rama on the shoes. It is cheesy. But, no disrespect to Saivites, Siva looks cool in those glasses. The book seems to provide a positive image of India. Why would anyone want to ban it?

[[[[[[it says in Valmini Ramayana that Lord Ramachandra worshipped Lord Shiva to gain permission from Lord Shiva, to KIll His [Lord Shiva] Own devotee! Sounds very dangerous to be devotee of Lord Shiva doesn't it? Not much in it! So this is really a baseless claim. ]]]]] I have studied Valmiki Ramayan and no where does Valmikiji says Lord Rama prayed to Siva. By why do you say it is dangerous to be a devotee of Siva? Although Siva is a great Vaishnav himself, I can quote stories of where Lord Vishnu protected His devotees by destroying their enemies. Does this mean that Lord Narayana is dangerous too? Jai Ramji Ki Jai Radhe Shyam Ki