Talk:Kali/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Pujaris & Pujarinis

Pujaris & Pujarinis, shouldn't there be a section on worship??? niranjan108 21:45 4 Jun 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone change the Sanskrit spelling of Kali? I tried changing it myself but I don't seem to have the fonts. You're missing an accent on the first letter.

Thuggee

"Her poor reputation in the West came from the cult of the Thuggee, Muslims who took the goddess Kali as their deity."

What???

I don't know how much it is responsible for the Western image of Kali, but the thugees did exist. The thugee (from which we get the word 'thug') were a secretive Hindu religious group active around Calcutta, who murdered people, until the British destroyed them. But (AFAIK) they definitely weren't Muslims -- they were Hindus. -- SJK

So, you are accepting obviously questionable British reports on the Thugee as true history? The very fact that you point out that the British destroyed them, during their colonial occupation of India, points out why such reports cannot be trusted at face value. The fact of the matter is there are no credible sources which back up the British story that Hindus sacrificed children to Kali and went on murderous rampages. I suppose if you want to take Indiana Jones' word for it, but really the British often used such propogranda campaigns to justify their brutal occupation of peoples they deemed 'savages.' How do you make an argument for why a certain region and a certain group of people deserve to be destroyed and ruled? Simple claim they have barbaric cults that murder children. I don't know that the thugee were Muslims, there are no trustworthy sources detailing their existence and activities at all. In all my years of studying Hinduism there has been nothing that would lead me to any other conclusion than such stories are simply the Western World's way of demonizing a tradition that doesn't mirror its own. I would also like to thank whoever wrote the article for not giving the child sacrificing murderous cult stories any room for possible validation.

I've found a few websites saying they were Muslims. But by everything I know, if they took Kali as their deity, they weren't Muslims.

The existence of the Thuggee is debatable. William Sleeman needed a name for himself and may have played up the existence of Dacoits (highway robbers) for the purposes of self-aggrandizement. See "The Strangled Traveler" by Martine Van Woerkens, ISBN 0-226-85086-2 and "Children Of Kali: Through India in Search of Bandits, the Thug Cult, and the British Raj" by Kevin Rushby ISBN 0-8027-1418-8. In any case, Sleeman DID insist that the Thuggee were made up of both Hindus and Muslims. I don't really see how he managed to square the two, and he published a book on the subject, the name of which escapes me at the moment, but it's veracity is HIGHLY debatable by scholars at this point.

-- Sedusa66

"The West"

I have removed another passage mentioning "the west". I think "the west" needs to be defined. Do you mean "western world" like Europe and U.S.? If that is so, what does it matter? The western world hardly knows anything about Kali. And her presentation as dark and violent is better seen in India itself. Black is as dark as it gets, wild gaze with tongue hanging out, how much more bewildering does it get? Take any number of Bollywood films to it that use her image (e.g. Karan-Arjun, Koyla) and this association is perfectly warranted without "the west". Gschadow 21:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a good point. Be bold and remove it. --BorgQueen 22:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Although Kali is standing on an inert Shiva (her husband), he is not dead, just inert. And the severed head she's holding is that of a demon, not Shiva's. If there are any sites that talk about Shiva's corpse or Shiva's severed head, let me know. (I haven't edited any pages as I'm a new user. I just went through the Talkpages rules which say never to edit another user's words.)
Jay 21:45 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The author of the original text has not commented even after 1 month of my queries. Hence I have made the updations.
Jay 11:26, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Kali-ma seems to be a stub, should it be a redirection page to Kali? -- Logotu 20:31, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ya, merge and redirect. Jay 06:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You guys have put a wrong picture there. The first picture there that says picture depicting goddess Kali is actually the picture of Kaal Bhairab. I know cos I am from Nepal and that statue is near my house!! Please change it. Kali is different from Kaal Bhairab.

Regmi 11:34, 08 Aug 2005 (NST)

Added cleanup template

I just added a cleanup template to the top of this topic. I don't know nearly enough about Hindu spirituality to speak to the veracity of this article's content, but it contains sentences like, "Many people also believe her to be the same as Durga, even though this is not true as Durga is the terrible aspect of Devi, not the Shakti of Shiva."

Who are the "many people"? Who says this is not true? What is the "Shakti of Shiva"?

In another sentence, the article says, "Some of her greatest 'bhaktas' (loving devotees) are to be found in the West Bengal, South India and Kashmir traditions." By what standard are these "bhaktas" her "greatest"?

Could someone with knowledge of this subject and a firm understanding of Wikipedia style please take a look at this and help out? For all I know, the information in here may be great; but the writing asks me to take too much on faith. CKA3KA (Skazka) 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Content

I have no experience of creating Wikipedia articles, but I could work in collaboration with someone wanting to clean this up. The problem with it for me is one of content: this article attempts to present a homogenous Kali who simply doesn't exist. For example: The bhaktas in Bengal overwhelmingly view Kali as a benevolent goddess, as McDermott's research has shown. Kali is not simplisticly the consort of Shiva, though she is portrayed in sexual union with him. She is not always 'an aspect of the Great Mother', in fact this is a fairly recent idea Her emergence from Durga should be put into context with various other goddesses who transform into her or create her at times of wrath.

Stylisically: is it possible to use the more recent (and correct) transliterations: as far as I can see it is possible to write Kālī, but the correct version of S for Siva is unavailable.

I'm more than happy to attempt to edit this page and have someone else knock it into shape, or email (or post here) the content I think should be included and have someone else insert it correctly

This like many other pages of Hindu Gods/Goddesses need to seriously be cleaned up. I can participate here to a small extent. Since you are not that familiar with Wikipedia, you can rewrite the stuff that needs to be, then I can format it to Wikipedia standard. Da Gizza ^Chat ^(c) 11:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Edited

I have pretty much rewritten the article: I'm a little bit scared, I've never done this before.

I will come back to this over the weekend and try and flesh out some areas. If you can guide me how to use Indian letters, or more complex accenting (as is used in the Shiva section) this would be useful, as almost all the terms should have at least some.

I also don't know how to insert pictures, or where the legality of such a move is. I have referred to one scholar, but am not sure where this stands legally... if its OK I will get a reference or whatever if this is needed.

This probably could do with a contrasting picture of Kali as the benevolent mother goddess, I'll try and find one, but don't know how to insert them

131.111.8.104 14:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Well done! Thank you! The style of this article inspires much more confidence than did its previous incarnation. I only have a couple of minor questions:

Under the Origin heading, I saw the word emnate. Is this a word I don't know, or was it supposed to be emanate, or perhaps emulate?
The last sentence in this same section says, "... some take this to be a sign of the great potential power of women, when their Shakti is not controlled by and gifted to a male consort." The second paragraph indicates that shakti means wife. If that's the case, then I'm not sure what the sentence is trying to say.

Again, thank you. A dramatic improvement. --CKA3KA (Skazka) 05:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, shakti doesn't mean wife. Please see Shakti. --BorgQueen 12:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

BorgQueen, I moved your post down a line so that it was no longer contained within my post. Thank you for the clarification, but I'm still not sure what I'm seeing.

What is the article trying to say, near the middle of the second paragraph, when it says, "… the name Kali is sometimes used for Energy in her form as Shiva's wife, or Shakti"? After reading the Shakti article, I think the Kali article is trying to say either that the name Kali is used to mean energy or shakti in the form of Shiva's wife, or the name Kali is used to mean energy in the form of Shiva's wife, or in the form of Shiva's shakti.

I hope I don't sound too obtuse, but I imagine that I probably won't be the only person to misunderstand after reading this article. Experience tells me that if one person doesn't get it, then there will probably be others. --CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't sound obtuse at all. You have a good point, actually. I just deleted the sentence which wasn't too well written. Most, if not all, goddesses are facets of shakti, and if the original writer was trying to mention on the connection between Kali and shakti it has to be told in an entirely different context. --BorgQueen 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

You're probably right about getting rid of the 'Shakti'. 'Shakti' is the energy usually conceived as feminine, but certainly isn't synonomous with consort. Did I really say wife? I hope that was just left in from before, I know of no case of Kali being presented as married to Shiva.

Thanks for the kind comments, guys.

131.111.8.103 15:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

took out link in "see also" section: "* Saint Sarah, also called "Sara-la-Kali"" because saint sarah has nothing to do with Kali. Sadartha 00:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Put back Sara-la-Kali, as she does in fact have a link to this goddess - the Roma are originally from India, and Kali was the name given to their mother goddess. Sara-la-Kali is often regarded as an aspect or follower of the Hindu goddess Kali.

Proserpine 9 May 2006

You may wish to put the desired information in a "see also" section, with a link to Saint Sarah a brief explanation of that article's relevance, and a source citation to support your position regarding the relevance of the Saint Sarah to Kali. I suspect that would be very helpful to interested readers. David Traver 11:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

I don't know if the 'meaning of Kali' section is accurate, but in my experience, most apparent etymological explanations aren't in this area. It's also written very poorly.

I'm dubious about neatening it up unless we're sure it has some actual basis

Further info on iconography

I added the Tantric interpretation of Kali's tongue sticking out. As explored in chapeter 3 of McDermott's "Encountering Kali", the legend of her sticking out her tongue in shame is a later interpretation in order to domesticate the goddess, to make her more "proper". The original Tantric symbolism is something else, though. --Snowgrouse 11:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Help wanted in dealing with a Kali spammer

Every so often a spammer using an IP address that starts with 64.228.225. spams links to bogus web sites. I have tracked down and reverted all I could find, but I'm getting a little sick of tracking all these articles on my watchlist (it's up to 263 pages by now). Can I ask the regular, frequent editors of this article to keep an eye out for this person? If they hit again, please revert the edit and warn the spammer. If you have the time, check out what other edits they made that day and revert them as well -- or just let me know and I'll do it.

The link they like to add to this article is :[http: //www angelfire com/ma/ramakrishna/kali html Selection of Ramakrishna Quotes on Mother Kali]. The real point of the link is to build search engine rankings for the commercial links at the bottom of the page; the same spamdexer is linking similarly bogus pages for Hindu mystical figures and U.S. country music stars -- all with the same links at the bottom of the page.

The spammer also recently created an account, User:Borgengruft.

For more info, see:

Thanks for your help.--A. B. 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC) --A. B. 03:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Further editing

I've reworked the opening paragraph to make it more concise - the information about the etymology of Kali's name was duplicated in the "Meaning" para, and seems to fit better there. I've also given the article a brief copy-edit, fixing some grammatical errors, typos, etc. It probably still means some more work - there are plenty of sentences in there that are fairly ambiguous or could otherwise do with clarification, but I don't know nearly enough about Kali or Hinduism in general to know what's right and what's wrong. Tpth 06:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Category add

I added Kali to the Category:Mother goddesses page. I know there are problems/impossibilities with creating a homogenous article on Kali due to her different sets of worshipers, different stories, etc., but there is a school of thought that worships her as the Mother, and I thought it balanced with the Destroyer goddesses category link.

I think I'm going to do more work on this article in the near future; a friend of mine has most of the books listed in the Biblio. Time to do some reading... --Parcequilfaut 17:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kali or Kali?

I've added a few sentences which, I hope, will clear up some confusion between the male and female deities of the same name. Kali with the "long" a is the goddess. Kali with the "short" a is the demon from the Mahabharata and Kalki Purana. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC))

Cali merge

Support, The merge seems obvious, if the "Cali" bit can be included here without much of a bump, or if it will be notable in this article. --mordicai. 18:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Support, I now this poll thing is by the book, but I really don't think it is necessary. The page is like three sentences long and the original author even has her listed as a Demon. I highly doubt it, but that person might be confusing her with the male demon of the same name from the Kalki Purana and the Mahabharata. Just put "Cali" in the first setence like "Kali (also spelled Cali}". Or something like that.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC))
Against, Better to leave this reference to the Hindu Goddess, while the other reference deals with the occult references. To put 'Cali' as an alternate spelling is not strictly true...certainly it is not true in any Hindu references - only in the occult.

- The page is only three sentences long. It’s not offering any real insight at all. It's best to merge them and work the "occult" material into the main article. (Ghostexorcist 11:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Against, I'm a scholar of Indian Philosophy & Religion, and don't really think the merge is necessary, warranted, or even a good idea, without very, very clear explanation attached to it. Cali is misspelled, for one thing (not uncommon in those days), this is an Orientalist reference, and is clearly not accurate in its portrayal of the goddess Kali. If it were to be merged, the material would have to be explained and set aside as patently incorrect in its portrayal of Kali the goddess. Those who suggest that de Plancy is confusing her with the male demon Kali are not versed in the Orientalist view of this goddess that prevailed in the 18th-20th century, which is akin to believing that the portrayal of the goddess Kali in the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom film is at all even remotely correct (it's pure fantasy and fiction). In fact, I think maybe I should just add to the de Plancy Cali reference... (girlchick 11:44 23 November 2006)

- Please do. The "Cali (Demon)" page is just way too small to keep on its own. If it can't be greatly expanded, it needs to be integrated into the article. Even a small section on "Orientalist View of Kali" can be created. (Ghostexorcist 16:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC))

Support, pending more information that this needs to be at a separate page. It appears to be a related concept/variant, but I'm willing to be convinced the other way. -- nae'blis 16:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC")

- I've never heard of "Cali", but I did see a very disturbing propoganda film made by Christian fundamentalists that misrepresented Kali (and Shiva ) as demons and evil forces. This was screened at Brown University around 1994-1995, as an "educational" tool about Hinduism. If "Cali" is referring to this phenomena of misrepresentation, I think it would be wise to have a section about it. In the same vein, the first photograph on this article is not a "common" one of Kali. It seems, again, to be an artistic rendition not usually found in the subcontinent, and reminds me of the (controversial) stamps found on New Age chappals and bags and toilet-seats, a commercial representation that has little connection to the Kalis of South Asia. Subcontinental 16:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Against: If anything, as a native Californian, "Cali" is often what people will call our state, that seems more likely than a demonic oirtrayal of Kali. I suggest adding a disambiguation page. Sedusa66 21:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Sedusa66

BEING WRONG

A concept needs to be added to the minds of the Wikipedia editors. That of individuals or whole cultures being wrong. It doesn't change one of two facts. Either, a culture can be wrong for centuries, or else an individual person or other culture can believe and publish another culture as wrong for centuries. During this century our schools lied to us in America and told us Columbus was the only man who beleived the earth was round. We were told that schools of Europe lied to their people saying you would fall off the edge of the Earth at sea. This was published despite the fact that the whole world knew it was a sphere and had calculated it almost accurately since the Greeks of 200 BC. What Columbus differed in was his European discovery of America came due to his insisting Earth was smaller and that the Atlantic and Pacific were one ocean only as wide as the Atlantic, a very small Earth. Point learned here is that all cultures will either lie about other cultures so that it becomes in our books for centuries as that cultures belief, or those cultures do have false scientific beliefs for centuries, or are even divided in the majority/minority concerning those beliefs. America for example has secular books that prove permeated with Catholic belief such as saying that historically Jesus had not family brothers. That doesn't mean they were correct, or that minority churches of America never knew he did have brothers. Therefore, dispute on whether Kali and Kali were confused or not, if we confuse them today, how are you so sure that they haven't been confused and crossed paths thruout history. It is foolish to not realize man has done it and will do it. Lastly, what is forgotten is that while men argue over what Kali is and is not, it is like arguing about Osiris. While you argue is he sun or moon or Orion you ignore they all share the fact that these are all reborn. Osiris can be anything reborn, or just worshipped as one of them and so dividing the cults into sun versus moon versus Orion. Must we be this way too, how can you stress opening our eyes to learn if we are busy ruling everything as false sources. Did not false sources become part world beliefs, is the world all true and not false so the false never becomes the claimed published norm of truth! Grow up you children, you claim you are adults and then you discipline other adults as children claiming to discipline children. Let the reader judge what is false, dont go editing it out. i would rather have someone edit my words of wordiness for brevity sake than wipe them out as if to be God. I dont mind someone who understands my words to say it simpler and clearer for someone to see it too, it is an admirable thing to do for someone.69.76.46.169 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a stretch, but according to various folklore and historical documents, there were two people named “Zhou Tong” during China’s Song Dynasty. They are often confused to be the same person by westerners who don't know the difference. However, Zhou Tong was a fictional bandit in the Chinese epic, the Water Margin. And Zhou Tong (monk) was the historical archery teacher of General Yue Fei, a famous martyr. My point is, just because the names of the two are similar, like the goddess and demon, does not make them the same person. (Ghostexorcist 23:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Kali Sothis and Arabic (anonymous IP 69.76.46.169)

It says Kali is from feminine Kala as black time, and although the Kali Yuga is said to mean time of terror or terrible age, the article says that being masculine that it isn't to be confused with it. How can black time and terrible age not be confused, they sound exact. I submit the fact that the article on Sothis says it is Kali, which Sothis is not only a star to measure time but does so in 4 years by leaping one day. I also submit the empty quarter or desert quarter of Arabia which is known as the Khali and translated as quarter. Then there is the picture of Kali who although appears to have 8 cut off arms hanging as a skirt around her waist to total 12 arms, of zodiac or Jupiter or the moon, there is a hidden 9th arm (total 13) as if to be the 13th moon. However, specificaly 4 are intact from her shoulders as the chosen method for time, and the right hand appears to be vernal spring because the sickle is autumn making the right two arms the equinoxes, and the left two arms as winter death's head cut off, with the summer bowl of fire. How can you say that Kali didn't evolve from the word 4 if even the Kali Yuga is one of four ages, the greatest being Krta yuga (Quarta yuga). -- anonymous IP 69.76.46.169, 08:55, 5 February 2007

The Goddess Kali is not associated with Kali Yuga at all. The deity associated with this time is the Kali (Demon). HE is a separate deity and was a major player in the Mahabharata and the Kalki Purana. His most famous avatar is King Duryodhana from the Mahabharata.(Ghostexorcist 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC))

Horrible

This article looks horrible now that most of the pictures have been taken out. Plus, the gallery section is a mess because someone does not know how to do the code correctly. Bring the pictures back and clean up the gallery section! (Ghostexorcist 00:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Response to Ghostexorcist

Dear Ghostexorcist. We appreciate your comments and feedback despite the tone. Regrets for the formatting problems. We believe that the earlier image did not do justice to Kali. We will find another image which we think is more accurate. We have included a verse from poet Ramprasad Sen depicting the grace of the Goddess. We will work on the formatting to make it appear clean. Thanks.(Dipendra2007)

We who? You are the only one who is making these abrupt edits to the page. Besides, your changes have been reverted by two different editors (including myself). These changes should be discussed with other editors before being initiated. (Ghostexorcist 17:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

Reason of Adding Pakistani Tag

please check this Aror, there are many kali Temples in Sindhi. Khalidkhoso 22:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This section moved up in the page so as bring the later three sections together, as they are the same discussion. Imc 19:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Images of Kali in the article

(The title renamed by user Imc for clarity)

I'm starting this line of discussion in the hopes that ALL editors of this page will come to an amiable agreement over the lead photo. Although I like the current one (Image:Kali2.JPG), I think the pic from the "Popular form of Kali" section (Image:Kaligoddess.jpg) could also be used. It is still rathful, but toned down a bit. Thoughts? (Ghostexorcist 09:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I was out of Wikipedia for a while and so probably late in the game. I shot the picture from temple mural in Madurai, as I felt the depiction of Kali was pretty interesting. I'm a devout Hindu and I dont think the picture is abusive or uncommon with what people use. Just my 2 cents. Balajiviswanathan 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dipendra that the picture you suggest is not appropriate given what is followed in Hindu households. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dipendra2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrinaliniB (talk • contribs)

I can tell that you are new to Wikipedia. I have left a message on your talke page. Please refrain from deleting the picture without discussion. (Ghostexorcist 07:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

As I've said before, no one owns this article, which means anyone can edit it. However, I'm concerned that users like Dipendra2007, who make gross POV statements like Kali is "...a multi-faceted Goddess who is at once the nurturer and shatterer, the upholder of the family as well as one who stands outside all social norms", will try to whitewash the page of any material that they feel is "grotesque" or "distasteful". That is the reason why I have initiated this section for open dialogue. The article is to be balanced; showing the good and bad views of the goddess. Not just the good, not just the bad!

I believe that no one “against” the current picture has even read my original comment about switching pictures around in the article. They are just dead set on deleting the current one and leaving the header blank, which makes the article ugly.(Ghostexorcist 08:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Ghostexorcist is opinionated and insists on having his way!! He is no academic scholar on Hinduism. Mrinalini

Former heading here, 'Kali Depicted' downgraded for clarity, as the following discussion is the same as the preceding.

Dipendra, Ghost Exorcist and Mrinalini:

The depiction that Ghost Exorcist is so eager to retain might well be from the movie India Jones and the Temple of Doom. I am not sure though whether deleting it is the way to go. Perhaps another portrait with wider currency would be more appropriate.

I deeply respect what Dipendra has to say and would try to get a representation of Bhadra Kali in the South Indian/Sri Lankan tradition for everyone's consideration. The problem is that most prints on the web are copyrighted.

Dipendra - thank you for your thoughtful insights on your talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dipendra2007 I learnt a lot and concur with you.

I hear Mrinalini's insinuation that Ghost Exorcist was perhaps too aggressive and belligerent. Its time perhaps to restate the Indian doctrine of Anekantavada i.e. the many sidedness of reality, something that Ghost Exorcist refuses to accept. The concept of Kali epitomizes that. Live and let live. There should be no petulant intolerance of the newcomer who might have a different perspective. --Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

How about a picture more along the lines of [1]? It shows a depiction that is commonly unseen. Xuchilbara 04:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The depiction that Ghost Exorcist wants to retain is a valid and common one. We should describe things as they are, and that depiction is an example of the representations of Kali. It has been suggested in another user talk page that non-Hindus may see it as demonic. That may be true but is irrelevant. The purpose of this article is to describe Kali, and not to make her more acceptable to non-believers. However, there is no need to make this picture more prominent than any other picture. I'd say that [2] which is currently in the page much lower down, is a more common representation, and thus more suitable for the top picture.

The picture suggested by Xuchilbara above, is, as suggested, not that common a depiction, and so should not be given pride of place.

Imc 08:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I never once said I was "eager to to retain" the current picture as Dharman Dharmaratnam put it. If people will direct their attentions the header named Please respond, you will see that I opted for the Image:Kaligoddess.jpg just like Imc has suggested. There is no reason that a watered-down, uncommon image of the goddess should be used. The most common depiction of her should be used so people will easily recognize her. I am finally happy that people are starting to discuss the issue instead of deleting the pic like Dipendra2007, MrinaliniB, and Dharman Dharmaratnam. (Ghostexorcist 10:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Former heading, 'Kali Once More' downgraded for clarity, as the following discussion is the same as the preceding.

For the record, I never deleted any picture!

Dipendra, from what I gather, did try to elicit a dicussion. Niranjan and he had a respectful conversation on-line. There were no major textual deletions. The controversy pertained only to the off again on again visual at the top.

In fact, Dipendra had recommended the second illustration that Imc (and later Ghost Exorcist) suggests if one were to follow the discussion trail. I concur with Dipendra and Imc on that particular portrait, which is more mainstream. Or what Xuchilbara suggests.

But there needs to be respect for the views of others. I notice a vehemence in the tone of Ghost Exorcist that is quite unwarranted. There is no "most common depiction" of Kali as Ghost Exorcist seems to think. The visual he insists upon is certainly not conventional! I had never seen it before and its validity can be questioned.

One notes that Mrinalini and Ghost Exorcist are battling it out each removing and then reinstating that particular Steven Spielberg type illustration! Is this Huntington's Clash of Civilizations playing itself out? Regardless, it is hardly exemplary behavior on Wikipedia--Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to create a new header everytime you leave a comment. Your "respectful conversation on-line" took place on your user talk pages and not on the Kali talk page where it belonged. I never once said you deleted textual material from the page. I'm glad that you are finally joining in on the discussion, whether it be attacking me or actually talking about the picture. I don't care. My point is that all editors must discuss any major changes like the deletion of a picture. Welcome to the discussion.

Like I've said many times before, I am in favor of switching the pictures around. Thoughts from other editors? (Ghostexorcist 13:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

The image has now been removed three times by Mrinalini in the last day, in violation of the three revert rule. Imc 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The only other picture I suggest is this one.It shows her in prime form, w/out using the same Daksinakali pose that we've seen 100 X over. It also isn't related to popular culture conceptions the West has about Kali. If not there are plenty of other Kali images that can be suggested, such as the more indigenous looking Kali: [3] I would suggest something like the first one, of her by herself. Xuchilbara 03:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

MrinaliniB has 'officially' broken the three revert rule for continually deleting the picture from the page. I have reported him to an administrator. On a lighter note, the first picture that Xuchilbara has suggested is not much different from either of the two full sized pics of her on the page. However, it only shows half of her body. And the second one (and I mean no offence whatsoever) looks like a child's drawing. It is in no way detailed enough to be a header photo. (Ghostexorcist 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I prefer the illustration proposed by Xuchilbara - the one which he/she mentions is in Kali's "prime form'. The other visual recommended by Imc and Dipendra is also good. Why is this such a difficult decision to make? The original depiction that Ghost Exorcist insists upon is not common in the Indic tradition! I do not agree with Ghost Exorcist that the picture suggested by Xuchilbara looks like a child's drawing.

Imc, I am not defending Mrinalini. I do not know her. But both Ghost Exorcist and she have violated the three revert rule, n'est-ce pas? I would urge that the views expressed by several in this discussion trail be taken seriously i.e. that the picture Ghost Exorcist insists upon is not in keeping with tradition.

For future reference, it might be useful to rely on traditional iconography be it from museums, temples or murals (like Kangra and the Rajasthani school). This would avoid controversies of such nature. Right now it is one person's word against the other. --Dharman Dharmaratnam 11:18, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said time and time again, we can switch the pictures around. However I fail to see a major difference with the current photo, those on the page and that suggest here other than the red background and the eyes. She is still displaying her tongue, wielding her divine sword, holding the head, wearing the garland of heads, etc. Even the "prime form" picture has her displaying her tongue, wielding the sword, holding the head, etc. Is it because she looks somewhat angrier than in the others? All I keep on hearing is the current pic is not traditional, but all of the 'traditional' pictures shown are very similar indeed.

How many times do I have to say that I do not prefer one picture (on the page) over another. We can switch pictures around, there I said it again. Therefore, there is no reason to keep on talking about my "preference". (Ghostexorcist 11:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Ghost Exorcist dearest

Thank you for the clarification. Then can you please up-load either Xuchilbara's recommended visual or the second one agreed upon by Imc, Dipendra, you and me. That would solve the whole issue. Over to you monsignor! --Dharman Dharmaratnam 11:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a God! Finally, that is what I've been after: discussion and resolvement. This could have been over in 5 min. had not the pic been deleted over and over again.

Once I switch the pics around, I certainly hope no one tries to delete them without first discussing it.(Ghostexorcist 11:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Finally! If you are ok with it, do consider Xuchilbara's excellent recommendation for future use. It might be good to include in the gallery. I liked the Nepalese look of her visual. There are many facets to Kali and that is one. Btw, we have a shared interest in Kung Fu and Sinic studies! --Dharman Dharmaratnam 12:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I could not upload either pictures presented by Xuchilbara because I don't know their source or what the copyright is on them. If I did, the pics would be "speedily deleted". (Ghostexorcist 11:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I am glad that the image issue is likely to be resolved. Ghost's insistence can be viewed as defamation since the controversial picture is not representative of the Deity. It is intended to malign. (MrinaliniB)

I had a feeling in my gut this was going to happen. Please stop deleting stuff from the page. No one is trying to malign Kali. It is just a representation of her. The article is to be balanced. There is no reason to whitewash the picture just because you don't approve of it. That's it, I'm having this page fully protected! (Ghostexorcist 12:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

I found another similar image here, the on I got can be found here. Xuchilbara 17:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Xuchilbara:

why not you upload either of the two pictures of Kali to the document -the one that is waist up or the other one beneath the tree or even both - they appear to have the Nepalese touch - in consultation with Ghost Exorcist. These are beautiful visuals. cheers --Dharman Dharmaratnam 15:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The image upload page says the following:

"Do not upload content with false license declarations. You will be blocked."

Basically, when you upload an image, you have to choose from a long list of tags that declare it an image of a painting, tv / movie / video game screenshot, album cover, DVD / CD cover, Newspaper cliping, Movie / Political poster, ect. (there are many more) . If you tag a copyrighted image as being free to use, you will be blocked.

It continues:

"Do not upload images found on websites or on an image search engine. They will be deleted."

I know that not everyone sticks to this rule. I’ve uploaded images from websites before, but they were either scans from a book, a very famous painting, or something else like that. The above applies to just finding and uploading a random picture without knowing where the original picture came from or (most importantly) who created it. Unless the picture is over 100 years old (this does not include the lifespan of the creator!) and has a verifiable source, random pictures can’t be uploaded. Please go the Image uploading page for more details.

I especially like this one image of Kali suggested by Xuchilbara. However, as I’ve stated before, we don’t’ know the copyright status of it since it comes from a long, uncited index of pictures. The second image can most definitely not be used since it is being painted by request and sold on the internet. This means it is not over 100 years old and the copyright is probably still owned by the artist. According to this page, the artist who painted it is 39 years old and is still alive. (Ghostexorcist 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC))

Xuchilbara:

Could you please indicate the copyright status of the visual of Kali that Ghost Exorcist refers to - i.e. the one of Kali beneath the tree with the Linga in the foreground?--Dharman Dharmaratnam 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the particular artist. [4] I think it might be an older image. I found the same image on a art site, but couldn't find the artist. (yet again) And it might be a reproduction of the original: http://www.artoflegendindia.com/details/PBABC001 [5] But the first link is where I got the image from, not the art place.

Xuchilbara 18:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Translated text

There's some translation of text by Ramprasad Sen, mostly it seems taken from [6]. I don't know if it is ok ot quote in copyright terms, but the quality of its English is terrible, with such gems as;

     O Mother! We are all ashamed of you;
   Do put on Thy garb.

I'm removing it therefore.

(forgot to sign the above; that was me, Imc, on 14 March 2007).

That's what was in the Hindu Goddesses by Kinsley book. The site I found afterwards. I'm not responsible forthe translations of Ramprasad texts. I could find Alt. translations if that'd be better & more appropiate.

Xuchilbara 03:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to the inclusion of relevant text. I know that Wikipedia is not the place for literary criticism, but that translation is awful (or even funny), with its sloppy mixing of archaisms and modern English. Imc 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Kali in a higher spiritual center

According to Joseph Campbell's lecture on Kundalini Yoga, Kali is associated both with the yoga of war (which is spiritual aspiration on a strictly biological and sociological plane, transcending fear of death to be part of something materially bigger) and also with the yoga of purgation (the purging, casting off or breaking through of the lower spiritual centers and especially logic and the realm of forms). Campbell claimed that the severed head in her hand was that of Brahman, the god who creates forms. This is consistent with this article's claim that the 51-head-necklace represents the 51 characters of Sanskrit script. After recognizing the transcendent in forms, the yogi, with the power of Kali, rejects forms, language, EVEN THE FORMS OF HINDUISM ITSELF, in order to purge his consciousness of all worldly attachments. Kali cuts off her own head to release the yogi from her form as well. Thus, the yogi is on his way to experiencing the ultimate ground of being that is transcendent of forms. Jedmichael 03:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So what does that have to do with the talk page? If the material is supported by a varifiable source, please feel free to add it to the page. (Ghostexorcist 03:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC))

Categories: Talk archives