The brief dialogue with Believer in the Ramakrishna post made me think about (my) perception.

I did not see anything wrong in calling the marriage of Krishna and Rukmini as rakshasa vivaha. For me rakshasa vivaha was just a term, one of eight categories. For Believer the term made Krishna a rakshasa.

First of all, for me, as a non-Hindu, it is not to assess a Hindu, Swami or not, how he interprets the scriptures.

Where I feel hurt is how the West deals with Indian scriptures and symbols. When at the dakini center lingam massages are offered as tantra. When meditation cushions are embroidered with OM and people sit on this OM. Examples are endless.

In Bhutan, on a market, I once bought a small bag with the image of Buddha for my camera. In a monastery I was approached by a monk that this is inappropriate. I understood him immediately, emptied the bag and handed it over to him. He said he would cut out the image and put it on the altar. That would not have happened in India. That’s why India and Hinduism in the West are called tolerant.

None of the Swamis - in India and in the West - wake awareness regaring sacred scriptures and symbols. They participate in the commercial sale of Indian heritage, accept, that yoga practitioners completely detach it from any sacred context and promote it as a mental and physical exercise to calm the mind and to empower the lightly dressed designer body.

On March 21st, 2017 Mystical Soul introduced his blog ‚The Invisible Hindu‘. He obviously left the forum but I still read his blog because he thinks like me.

In the post ‚Not Just Yoga, The West Doesn’t Seem to Respect Anything‘ he wrote:

The story in question deals with disrespect for yoga, and somewhat by default, Hinduism in general. The writer claims to have come to the conclusion while doing “yoga” that Lord Shiva is a “weird one with a bad attitude.” He goes on to further describe Goddess Lakshmi as having “great curves”, and Lord Vishnu as a “bad ass”.

A commentator: Mother of this Unknowable Universe,Parvathi,the better half of Lord Mahadeva,should be also specifically mentioned.

The author’s answer: She was not mentioned in a defamatory way in the article so that is why she was not specifically included.

The commentary shows that the commentator did not perceive at all the author's core message - disrespect. His focus was on something completely different, he missed Parvati.

I would really like to know the mentioned Swami’s view regarding the Rakshasa marriage, because Believer's point of view cannot be dismissed.