Women and Vaishnavism?

[Jaskaran Singh]

I just found out why women love Krishna-Vaishnavism!!!!!

YouTube[youtube]5R1vsrGrRgs[/youtube]

Pssh....Kṛṣṇa is not blue, he's black, hence the name śyāmasundara, not nīlasundara. I can understand why they make him blue in paintings (to express emotions), but there's not reason to actually go through the trouble of painting someone blue to portray Kṛṣṇa; don't they see the beauty in black?:

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I can understand why they make him blue in paintings (to express emotions), but there's not reason to actually go through the trouble of painting someone blue, don't they see the beauty in black?:

I suspect that clarity of emotion is probably a good reason. In doing my paintings I debated between painting Rama blue or very dark brown (or green). Even asked people for their thoughts on the matter. Everyone said blue, so that's what I went with. Black is indeed beautiful though. Artists ruin everything

:camp:

 

[Poeticus]

Pssh....Kṛṣṇa is not blue, he's black....

Krishna literally means "black". "Jet black" to be exact. Yes, he isn't blue, as per the scriptures.

I just found the guy painted as blue in that video really, really handsome and wanted to share that video (a song which I know you have heard of a thousand times). And, the Parsi Gujju Nauheed Cyrusi is a gem.

EDIT: But, since when is skin color so important to the Shri Maha Gods? Shri Indra is known to take on any color He wishes. Shri Rudra has the skin of camphor, but a brown face and brown arms. Ratri is black, with diamond stars across her body. UshA is dark golden, etc. etc. Shri Vishnu is blue as well as gold. The Ashvins are known to take on a myriad of colors. Agni is known as Red-VaishvAnara among other things. Varuna is the expansive blackness of the universe. Mitra is a bright gold. On and on and on.

don't they see the beauty in black?

Bollywood is allergic to black. Hopefully, they find a cure and stop being foolish.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Reading through the posts I felt FiresideHindu's post quite nailed it as far as the OP is concerned, but got to admit that Ratikala did a decent job.

And as for the anguish of Jaskaran towards me, I think that one is justified, even though as I see it, he is trying to defend Vaishnavism (which I am also doing).

I said Vaishnavism tends to be like Abrahamic religion, especially Christianity, if further elaboration is needed then consider this:
1) The chosen race, i.e. the Jews, are replaced with Brahmins. So now the bhakta jana can have love-hate relationship with Brahmins, instead of Jews.
2) And this, kind of makes them feel at home with Hinduism, even though the real movement within many serious seeker among them is towards the core of Hinduism.
3) This is the mainstream Vaishnavism today, though I agree that any comparision with Christianity is no less than an insult, and I never meant it that way.
4) Infact, I have a lot of respect for such Vaishnavites, because I believe their thought systems are very clear, and further have helped preserve whatever good there is in Hinduism including the Vedas.
5) So my intention is not to "convince" a Brahmin to shun all this. "All the world's problem may get solved when the Jews and the Brahmins just commit suicide"--no, I dont believe in that, even if the majority of people may think so.

6) The intention is to address the non-Brahmin Vaisnavism, who I think would do a lot better by not mimicking the Brahmins. This is a confused lot. One example:
the lot says, "caste is not birth based, but is merit based."
Now, this is rubbish. Varna, as understood by me from the study of Veda, doesnt mean any hierarchy at all. So if given an option to chose only between the two: birth based or merit based, I will chose birth based. And this is just an example; I will always chose a Vaishnava Brahmin over a confused Vaishnava, because I understand that the exclusivity practiced by the Brahmins has and is serving a particular purpose (of preserving Hinduism, tradition, and its texts).

KT.


PS: just to make it clear, the most important Hindu organisation in India, the R.S.S. doesnt believe in caste hierarchy, the latest evidence is their support and advancement of a "lower caste" person for the topmost post in the country.

 

[StarryNightshade]

I wouldn't necessarily say that more women "choose" Vaishnavism over other schools of Hinduism, but it does seem that Vaishnavism (in general) seems to be the most practiced school. Especially by many westerners who are new to Hinduism.

Personally, I never really cared for Krishna. If he is your path to God, then fine, but I prefer Shiva and Ganesha over Krishna and Vishnu. In fact, the only avatar of Vishnu I have an attraction to is Narasimha.



Take that how you will.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

EDIT: But, since when is skin color so important to the Shri Maha Gods? Shri Indra is known to take on any color He wishes. Shri Rudra has the skin of camphor, but a brown face and brown arms. Ratri is black, with diamond stars across her body. UshA is dark golden, etc. etc. Shri Vishnu is blue as well as gold.The Ashvins are known to take on a myriad of colors. Agni is known as Red-VaishvAnara among other things. Varuna is the expansive blackness of the universe. Mitra is a bright gold. On and on and on.

Actually there are three depictions (possibly more) of Viṣṇu in the śāstra-s. Some depict him as green, some as clear, but the vast majority depict him as dark gray/blue (like a storm cloud or like a śaligrama stone/fossil, see here) with a golden Śrīvatsa mark (representing Śrī/Lakṣmī, hence the name Hari, as he glows with a yellow effulgence)

I said Vaishnavism tends to be like Abrahamic religion, especially Christianity, if further elaboration is needed then consider this:
1) The chosen race, i.e. the Jews, are replaced with Brahmins. So now the bhakta jana can have love-hate relationship with Brahmins, instead of Jews.

I don't think that any people think that Brāhmaṇa-s were a "chosen race," because races aren't genetically definable and races in a social sense usually are based on phenotypic factors, and Brāhmaṇa-s have historically been very phenotypically diverse (for example, Agathiyar/Agastya had skin as dark as the night sky whereas Patañjali was blonde). Jews too are not a "chosen race," as they are a tribe which, while claiming origin from one individual (Yehuda), are also quite phenotypically diverse and hence cannot be considered a race (unless, of course, you're an anti-semite David Duke type).

2) And this, kind of makes them feel at home with Hinduism, even though the real movement within many serious seeker among them is towards the core of Hinduism.

What? I don't seem to follow you; if being "anti-Brāhmaṇa" makes you feel at home with Hinduism, then those Mujahideen mleccha scum that are wiping out Kaśmīrī Paṇḍits must be very "comfortable" with Hinduism, lol.

3) This is the mainstream Vaishnavism today, though I agree that any comparision with Christianity is no less than an insult, and I never meant it that way.

Wow, I remember Śivafan just recently accused some Vaiṣṇava-s of being too casteist and/or Brāhmaṇical, now you're accusing them of the exact opposite (hating Brāhmaṇa-s and considering them the chosen race, etc.). LOL, I guess you can never please everyone...

5) So my intention is not to "convince" a Brahmin to shun all this. "All the world's problem may get solved when the Jews and the Brahmins just commit suicide"--no, I dont believe in that, even if the majority of people may think so.

Why would a Vaiṣṇava say that (especially since people like Madhvācārya and Rāmānujācārya were Brāhmaṇa-s)? Are you sure you're not confusing Vaiṣṇava-s with Muslims, because I think you are:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." - Sahih Muslim, 41:6985

"Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers will you find the Jews and Pagans" - Qur'an 5:85

"Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them." - Qur'an 9:5

6) The intention is to address the non-Brahmin Vaisnavism, who I think would do a lot better by not mimicking the Brahmins. This is a confused lot. One example:
the lot says, "caste is not birth based, but is merit based."
Now, this is rubbish. Varna, as understood by me from the study of Veda, doesnt mean any hierarchy at all. So if given an option to chose only between the two: birth based or merit based, I will chose birth based. And this is just an example; I will always chose a Vaishnava Brahmin over a confused Vaishnava, because I understand that the exclusivity practiced by the Brahmins has and is serving a particular purpose (of preserving Hinduism, tradition, and its texts).

In my opinion, it depends. In some situations, I would definitely choose merit based. For example, I would rather touch the feet of a true devotee regardless of whether they were female or born in a low-caste family any day (after all, Nārada was born into a low-caste family and Gārgī from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad was just as intelligent as Ṛṣi Yājñavalkya) than I would an agnostic Brāhmaṇa who eats meat, drinks alcohol, etc..

PS: just to make it clear, the most important Hindu organisation in India, the R.S.S. doesnt believe in caste hierarchy, the latest evidence is their support and advancement of a "lower caste" person for the topmost post in the country.

From my readings of the śāstra-s, I do believe there is a hierarchy, but it is largely mundane at a deeper level and that while one should focus on his/her dharma by birth, each true devotee should be treated equally and the matters related to birth-based Varṇa should not in any way affect how one's treats another individual.

Personally, I never really cared for Krishna. If he is your path to God, then fine, but I prefer Shiva and Ganesha over Krishna and Vishnu. In fact, the only avatar of Vishnu I have an attraction to is Narasimha.

namaste puṇḍarīkākṣa namaste puruṣottama।
namaste sarvalokātmannamaste tigmacakriṇe॥1.19.64॥
namo brahmaṇyadevāya gobrāhmaṇahitāya ca।
jagaddhitāya kṛṣṇāya govindāya namonamaḥ॥1.19.65॥
brahmatve sṛjate viśvaṃ sthitau pālayate punaḥ।
rudrarūpāya kalpānte namastubhyaṃ trimūrtaye॥1.19.66॥
devā yakṣāḥ surāḥ siddhā nāgā gandharvakinnarāḥ।
piśācā rākṣasāścaiva manuṣyāḥ paśavastathā॥1.19.67॥
pakṣiṇasthāvarāścaiva pipīlikasarīsṛpāḥ।
bhūmyāpognirnabhovāyuḥ śabdaḥ sparśastathā rasaḥ॥1.19.68॥
rūpaṃ gandho mano buddhirātmā kālastathā guṇāḥ।
eteṣāṃ paramārthaśca sarvametattvamacyuta॥1.19.69॥
vidyāvidye bhavānsatyamasatyaṃ tvaṃ viṣāmṛte।
pravṛttaṃ ca nivṛttaṃ ca karma vedoditaṃ bhavān॥1.19.70॥.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

juat to clarify ,

krsna is shyamasundar , he has all qualities of beauty and is the colour of a dark rain cloud ,

that is the depest blue , deepest grey , yet he is often depicted as paler blue , this is vishnu's colour and as a child he is depicted tinged with blue and pink and is as beautifull as a lotus flower , this pale blue tinge is symbolic of his true self 'shyam' , 'vishnu'

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram jaskaran ji :namaste

black is not a colour but a depth of tone so can be the darkest tone of blue ir grey ,

intruth even the night sky is the deepest blue , it simply appears black ,

so shyamasundara can by deepest blue , deepest blue grey or black

Pssh....Kṛṣṇa is not blue, he's black, hence the name śyāmasundara, not nīlasundara. I can understand why they make him blue in paintings (to express emotions), but there's not reason to actually go through the trouble of painting someone blue to portray Kṛṣṇa; don't they see the beauty in black?:

 

[ratikala]

jai jai , black is beautifull too :namaste

 

[Poeticus]

Coming back to the OP, a better question would be: do most women adoptees/converts gravitate not to just Vaishnavism, but Krishna-Bhakti? Or, are the ones that mostly do, are the only ones that get media?

 

[Vinayaka]

Coming back to the OP, a better question would be: do most women adoptees/converts gravitate not to just Vaishnavism, but Krishna-Bhakti? Or, are the ones that mostly do, are the only ones that get media?

Great question ... perception ... or reality. Tough to answer.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

onr thing to consider , ...... Vaisnava's are the largest of the denominations

apparently ....according to a 2013 survey of world religions .....

• Vaishnavism: more than 555,000,000 adherents
• Shaivism: more than 198,000,000 adherents
• Shaktism: (number of adherents unknown)
• Smartism: (number of adherents unknown)
• The Darshanas: (number of adherents unknown)

so it simply means that in the west there is a higher liklihood of coming into contact with vaisnava's ......

 

[Vinayaka]

namaskaram :namaste

onr thing to consider , ...... Vaisnava's are the largest of the denominations

apparently ....according to a 2013 survey of world religions .....

• Vaishnavism: more than 555,000,000 adherents
• Shaivism: more than 198,000,000 adherents
• Shaktism: (number of adherents unknown)
• Smartism: (number of adherents unknown)
• The Darshanas: (number of adherents unknown)

so it simply means that in the west there is a higher liklihood of coming into contact with vaisnava's ......

True, ratikala, but not necessarily, as this distribution is for the world, and not further split according to regions. I have never seen such a breakdown just for Hinduism in the west. Not sure if it's ever been attempted. Also not sure if individual adherents would even know. Also, on experience, I've seen people make sectarian declarations, then go on to contradict that statement based on what they say in a follow-up conversation. So the whole thing gets rather confusing.

But it's all good. Certainly Vaishnavism is the most popular world wide.

 

[ratikala]

True, ratikala, but not necessarily, as this distribution is for the world, and not further split according to regions. I have never seen such a breakdown just for Hinduism in the west. Not sure if it's ever been attempted. Also not sure if individual adherents would even know. Also, on experience, I've seen people make sectarian declarations, then go on to contradict that statement based on what they say in a follow-up conversation. So the whole thing gets rather confusing.

But it's all good. Certainly Vaishnavism is the most popular world wide.

I am not trying to prove popularity , it just logicaly follows that the most prevelant group will have the widest covering of temples therefore it is more likely that westerners will come in contact with this group .....

and as far as contradictions go these are human beings you are talking about ...of course there are contradictions there will always be contradictions
any how I doubt anyone went arround with a pen and paper asking what sect are you following today ...... temples report their regular attending members ... then you will say it deppends how honest they are ? ....and if they want to boost their figures ?

it is a rough guideline ....

for instance here there were many gujarati forming comunities , ... many kenyan asians , they have been here long enough to be settled ,.... then more recently an influx of tamils , so as the tamils build their comunities they will build bigger temples and behave less as a closed cultural group , ...then westerners will slowly be attracted into their traditions at the moment most of the tamils are not so intergrated , it will take time for them to open up their comunities a little .....I used to pass a ganapati temple on my way to buy puja items for festivals occasionaly if I had time I would call in to see the deitys they were so beautifull everything was arranged very differently and had the clasic central shrine with smaller deitys around the walls I was allways in temple dress with full tilak so it was obvious which tradition I came from , Iallways took in some flowers to offer , the preist allways took the flowers and offered them , but it was all with gestures as their english was non existant , or they were very shy ? ..but had I not known the protocol I would have felt very out of place , it will be years before they feel comfortable with westerners so that makes it much harder for westerners even if interested to get to know their tradition , ...the gujarati's however are much easier with westerners their english is better and they love to share their tradition ...and many of the gujarati's here are vaisnava , it its pretty self explanitory realy ....as a woman I am obviously more attracted wher I feel most comfortable , ...then prehaps I would have learnt a different tradition and seen the beauty in their way of worship , ....who knows

 

[Vinayaka]

You're in UK. I am in Canada. I'm quite sure immigration patterns from India and elsewhere would differ somewhat. For example, here, just on a geographical basis, we got a lot of second migration Hindus from Guyana and Trinidad on the east coast, and Fijians on the west coast. The very first Indian immigrants were Punjabi Sikhs and then, in the early 60s we had a wave of non-priesthood Brahmins from all over India.

I cannot speak to the patterns in UK cause I have no idea.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

it will be years before they feel comfortable with westerners so that makes it much harder for westerners even if interested to get to know their tradition , ...the gujarati's however are much easier with westerners their english is better and they love to share their tradition ...and many of the gujarati's here are vaisnava , it its pretty self explanitory realy ....as a woman I am obviously more attracted wher I feel most comfortable , ...then prehaps I would have learnt a different tradition and seen the beauty in their way of worship , ....who knows

This is an interesting point. Depending upon a westerner's first few encounters with Hindu communities I can see this shaping which schools one feels attracted too. My first community was largely south Indian, however, there was still a nice mix. I danced the garba with the Gujaratis, was "adopted" by a very traditional, Tamil, Saivite woman and my closest friends were Rama/Durga devotees from UP.

I was given the impression that South Indians were generally more orthadox and conservative - and while my experience of this was true, I was also welcomed and encouraged in my faith by a Tamil woman (in other words, she didn't consider me non-Hindu because I was a westerner)

If one is met with what looks to be a "cold shoulder", even if it really is just shyness, or if one feels closed out from a community, the natural tendency it to look for the open door. I think this is where cultural differences can make or break one's experiences. The lesson for me is to be open and patient with whomever you meet. People take time to "warm up" to strangers and that's understandable.


:camp:

 

[Nyingjé Tso]

Vanakkam,

On a side note, I think how the devotee perceive God is important. Imagine a western woman who is looking to set a foot into Hinduism, seeking a first contact with a deity, or aspect or God. What will she feel drawn to ? The beautiful, infinite Narayana, wearing princely clothes and a jeweled crown, or the mysterious Shiva, half-naked sitting strange guy, surrounded by snakes ?

I may say complete ********** here, but that's my though :

In the west, we grow up with all the fairytales and stories depicting an ideal man, ideal king, ideal husband, ideal prince, ideal God. Full of virtues, crowded, adorned with fine clothes and wielding weapons to protect, to save, looking at his subjects with a concerned eye for them. We all grow up with these stories, should it be from Disney or the local lore (in Europe, especially the germanic and english, celtic lore stories are very accessible and are still told to childrens.)
They all depict this perfect man/deity/prince as a couragous warrior, a king, a shining knight full of a certain concept of beauty. (bright face, concerned eyes, good clothes, reassuring smile, weapons, crown, etc...)

I think Sri Visnu, in his various forms mirror this view of the ideal ruler/husband/protector/brother/God, because he have the attributes that show it, he have to attitude of being welcoming, full of glory. Should it be open arms, should it be His relaxed face and protective mudra, or should it be the playful look of Sri Krisna... Sri Visnu is depicted as explicitly protective, looking AT the devotee, he is looking like the handsome, protective, divine apparition many people dream of.

What of ShivJi ? In a western mind, he looks way more like a spirit, the ghost, the trickster of the story, not like the charming prince. He doesn't look appealing, and not even accessible: He is either depicted with his family, as a loving husband (he is then, not "accessible"), or as the ermit, shut to the world, with his eyes turned internally (he is not directly looking at the devotee). Who would like a half naked, snake infested hermit as a prince ? After all, as the story goes, Daksha and many people were totally horrified and opposed to a princess (Sati) marrying such a wild man (Shiva) ! He isn't the sweet looking, richly adorned prince, with his sword high up to behead all that come to harm the devotee ! No, He is just sitting here. Shut to the world. Unattentive to the physical world around Him.

Is it unfair ? No. Not one is better than the other. They are two different approaches for the devotee.

One is the easiest to understand, to love. Sri Visnu is directed toward the world, He is fully awake, aware of what is going on. Sri Visnu is action, He is active, acting, directed toward accomplishing the goal.

The other is the most mysterious one. Directed toward the Soul, eyes shut to the physical world. Inviting the devotee to know Him, feel Him, with the eyes shut too... And the soul open. Shiva is inaction. He is not acting. He is simple in apparence, silent. It is not easy to know Shiva, to go past the reflexes of the first impression, to detach from clothes, features of a face, or whatever else the physical eye may be drawn to, seeking to KNOW someone, or something. Shiva is nothing, but immense potentiality, inviting the devotee to seek the peaceful bottom of the ocean of potentialities. While Sri Visnu is nothing, but immense action, inviting the devotee to ride the agitated waves of the world, to reach his hand.

Yeah so quit saying stupid stuff Jaya, straight on: why womens are more attracted to Sri Visnu than Shiva ?
Sri Visnu look accessible (as a king, husband, friend etc) active, protecting, and correspond better to the ideal king/prince charming western womens grow up with.

Shiva doesn't look accessible (married man with childrens, or inaccessible hermit) he is not clothed like a civilized man, and carry in his look and attitude more the concept of the wild man/spirit/ghost western womens grow up with.

Vaisnavism is more directed outward, like Sri Visnu: toward external actions and devotions, it looks more like a bright light straight path. While Saivism is viewed as a more "obscure" one. Not in the sense of being bad, but Saivism is somewhat more inward directed, it is working on oneself, within ourselves. It require to sit still, to learn to tame the mind, it is also a more esoteric, mystic path. Something not easily reachable, accessible, that require to let go of the world in a total different manner from what is taught in Vaisnavism in general.

This is what I think, just don't mind if you think this is total stupid stuff xD I am trying to think, since I personally didn't have to "choose" or anything. Shiva just came to me. And that's all.

It is funny to see, as a Saiva, how sometimes people (non hindu or non saiva) "see" Shiva: litterally as the "destructor", someone to fear, the savage. I came across some people like this "How can you worship such a savage, misogynic God ?". What, in the eye of someone that is not a devotee a Shiva, gives this person this look on Shiva ? I think it is the look of Him.

PLEASE NOTE: I am aware not everyone is the same and therefore, I am not attempting to generalize anything, should it be on God or womens or sects. Also, I am not into the "Visnu vs Shiva" fight, and I am NOT attempting to prove superiority of one above another. This is not the purpose of this post, so please don't take offense.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

You're in UK. I am in Canada. I'm quite sure immigration patterns from India and elsewhere would differ somewhat. For example, here, just on a geographical basis, we got a lot of second migration Hindus from Guyana and Trinidad on the east coast, and Fijians on the west coast. The very first Indian immigrants were Punjabi Sikhs and then, in the early 60s we had a wave of non-priesthood Brahmins from all over India.

I cannot speak to the patterns in UK cause I have no idea.

exactly we will be influenced by what is going on arround us , ...I am talking ablut women , what attracts them to vaisnavism ???

we cant help it , there are subtle imprints which colour our way of thinking and accepting .

my introduction to hinduism was mostly through gujarati vaisnava's the first images I saw if krsna was sri ji ...

and the first dhun I learnt to sing was , ..''Sri krsna saranam mama '' , before I even knew what it meant , he decided , he addopted me he pulled me in ....he made me ask for his mercy , ... then he gave it , he is clever like that we dont stand a chance , if he wants your serva he will get your serva .

P.s. MV ji Krsna means ''all atractive'' , and he does(attract) whether we think we are choosing or not ? actualy he is pulling the strings

 

[ratikala]

jai jai jayabholenath ji

since I personally didn't have to "choose" or anything. Shiva just came to me. And that's all.

the perfect way :bow:

 

[Metempsychosis]

Is it unfair ? No. Not one is better than the other. They are two different approaches for the devotee.

One is the easiest to understand, to love. Sri Visnu is directed toward the world, He is fully awake, aware of what is going on. Sri Visnu is action, He is active, acting, directed toward accomplishing the goal.

The other is the most mysterious one. Directed toward the Soul, eyes shut to the physical world. Inviting the devotee to know Him, feel Him, with the eyes shut too... And the soul open. Shiva is inaction. He is not acting. He is simple in apparence, silent. It is not easy to know Shiva, to go past the reflexes of the first impression, to detach from clothes, features of a face, or whatever else the physical eye may be drawn to, seeking to KNOW someone, or something. Shiva is nothing, but immense potentiality, inviting the devotee to seek the peaceful bottom of the ocean of potentialities. While Sri Visnu is nothing, but immense action, inviting the devotee to ride the agitated waves of the world, to reach his hand.

Yeah so quit saying stupid stuff Jaya, straight on: why womens are more attracted to Sri Visnu than Shiva ?
Sri Visnu look accessible (as a king, husband, friend etc) active, protecting, and correspond better to the ideal king/prince charming western womens grow up with.

Shiva doesn't look accessible (married man with childrens, or inaccessible hermit) he is not clothed like a civilized man, and carry in his look and attitude more the concept of the wild man/spirit/ghost western womens grow up with.

Vaisnavism is more directed outward, like Sri Visnu: toward external actions and devotions, it looks more like a bright light straight path. While Saivism is viewed as a more "obscure" one. Not in the sense of being bad, but Saivism is somewhat more inward directed, it is working on oneself, within ourselves. It require to sit still, to learn to tame the mind, it is also a more esoteric, mystic path. Something not easily reachable, accessible, that require to let go of the world in a total different manner from what is taught in Vaisnavism in general.

This is what I think, just don't mind if you think this is total stupid stuff xD I am trying to think, since I personally didn't have to "choose" or anything. Shiva just came to me. And that's all.

It is funny to see, as a Saiva, how sometimes people (non hindu or non saiva) "see" Shiva: litterally as the "destructor", someone to fear, the savage. I came across some people like this "How can you worship such a savage, misogynic God ?". What, in the eye of someone that is not a devotee a Shiva, gives this person this look on Shiva ? I think it is the look of Him.

Wonderfully written. Frubals!

Does Shiva come off as cold, aloof and not really appealing for women?(Or Am I generalising?)