User talk:Dipendra2007

Hi Deep,

Not sure what you were trying to improve with this article, but we really didn't seem to think it made sense anymore. If you are going to remove major sections of the text please replace them with something comparable or please leave them alone. Also, feel free to remove pictures if you like, but Mother will just put them right back -- faster than you can say, "atmano mokshartham jagaditaya ca."

Jay Matta Di,

Niranjan

---

Hi Niranjan

I removed the picture that seemed to detract from the storyline. No major material was deleted. The section on mythology was moved to the section after the Tantra and the Bengal Tradition. It was a mere reordering of the text, no more.

The Goddess Kali is a complex deity. In villages of North Sri Lanka and in Nepal she is often viewed in an un-iconic form without the elaborate iconography that the picture you posted depicts. She is seen as pure power that shatters all limitations that confront the devotee - be they mundane or spiritual. Interesting, the bandit queen - Phulan Devi who belonged to a scheduled caste always sought the blessings of the Goddess. So did the 'robber tribe' called the thuggees in the ravines of Chambal.

The picture you had uploaded incidentally was grotesque, hideous and would be seen as demonic by a casual non-Hindu who reads the article. It does not do justice to the complex strands that define concept under consideration. Why not a more mainstream picture or just the face. The Bengal school of iconography i.e. the two eyes with the tilak on the forehead stands out. Or the south-Indian Bhadrakali i.e. of Kali emerging from the fire.

Best regards

---

Hi Deep,

First, I didn’t upload the picture to which you are referring, but I didn’t see a problem with it – Kali is “grotesque.” And, if you are going to remove a picture that’s fine, just make sure you replace it. Furthermore, this article deals with the issue of the pleasant vs. unsettling aesthetics within the history of Kali. Your mentioning of non-Hindus misinterpreting this goddess only implies that you think non-Hindus wouldn’t take the time to read this article -- superiority complex?

It’s interesting to me how much I hear my fellow countrymen whine about the “Latinization” of Indic culture, and then (when presented it in its raw, intended form) they whine again that it may be offensive and needs to be whitewashed! There are no more pure cultures in this world my friend -- the Hotr & Udgatr priests, they all have cell-phones now. What we do have though is a society of individuals who pick and choose (from a vast warehouse of human history) those cultural traits which best suit their ever-changing needs. Remember this the next time you are cheering for you favorite cricket team.

The role Wikipedia plays in all of this is that it is part of the warehouse I referred to before. And, unlike the people who use it, it can (and should) maintain its cultural purity -- this is Wikipedia not Myspace. So, if an article contains something that is factual yet hard for you to stomach, tough. Now, I apologize for my harsh rhetoric sir and I mean you no harm or disrespect. I’m going to upload a picture from my last trip to Dakshineswar. It’s pleasant and includes lots of flowers. I’m also going to include Kali’s yantra to strengthen the presentation. But, it’s on you now to make amends with Ma, as to why you took issue with her naked, ego-threatening side.

Respectfully,

Niranjan

Kali picture

I have reverted the picture posted by Niranjan because, though beautiful, it is not detailed enough to be a header photo. The majority of the statue was obscured by flowers. I have moved the picture to the Inconography section. Niranjan is correct in saying that wikipedia shows the good and bad sides of each article. They are to be balanced and free of point-of-view. Even if a user finds something offensive about an article, they can't change it because Wikipedia is not ever to be censored. A good example would be this article.

Please keep in mind that this is English Wikipedia and so the most common depiction of Kali should be used (such as the current picture). The article does the job itself of explaining the differences between the east and west’s views on the mother-goddess. The pictures are just to show what she looks like for reference.(Ghostexorcist 00:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

---

Hi Niranjan and Ghostexorcist

This is not about censorship. It is also about how the practitioner views the worship of the Goddess. The wording and pictures in the current text represent a stereotyped view of the Goddess that is highly selective.

The picture put up by Ghostexorcist is hardly the most common depiction of Kali. I would like to know the source of the picture. It appears to be from a Steven Spielberg track! The picture placed in the sub-section "Popular Form of Kali" is far more in use. I am unable to upload that. But would that not be more in keeping with how contemporary devotee views the Goddess?

I note that the South Indian/Sri Lankan concept of Bhadra Kali (or the auspicious Kali) finds no mention in the current iconography or text. That too forms part of the broader overview of the worship of the Goddess.

Let us place this debate in a broader context. Would the textual references to 'female circumcision' in the Hadith or the possible 'ritual cannibalistic' antecedents of the Eucharist ever find mention in the 'vast warehouse of human history' that is Wikipedia? Why the selectivity?

Best regards

Dipendra