Talk:Kali (asura)

message: A person from the ip address 70.53.92.79 added this sentence to the Kali (Goddess) page:
"Another manifestation is that of a bloated, woman, with hair like that of a horse, with stench and powers to kill through touch and utterance of certain words of power."
This writer, if you didn't know about real Hinduism don't write anything about this. It seems you totally confused and lunatic mind. Nothing is related with Goddess Kali as you mentioned here. First of all, She is Divine Goddess. Kali is one of the many forms of Shakti. Maha Kaali is the fiercest of all goddesses of Hinduism. The word Kali has its roots in the Sanskrit word "Kaal", which means time. And nothing escapes from time. Goddess Kali is sometimes referred as the goddess of death. But actually Kali brings the death of the ego. Even in the scriptures, she has killed demons but not anyone else. Kali is also not associated with Yama (the Hindu God of Death). Kali is considered a form of mother too. Maa Kali is one of the few Goddesses who are celibate and practice renunciation.
Goddess Kali has four arms and hands depicting her immense strength. In two of her hands, she holds a sword and a fresh severed head, representing a great battle in which she defeated the demon Raktabija. The other two hands are there to bless her true devotees, suggesting that they will be saved as she will guide them here and in the hereafter. Kali wears a garland made of 52 skulls and a skirt made of dismembered arms because the ego comes out of identification with the body. It suggests that physical body is false and spirit is the only reality. Her black or sometimes dark blue skin represents the womb of the unmanifest from which all of creation is born and into which all of creation will ultimately return. Therefore, the concepts of color, light, dark, good or bad do not apply to her as she is the pure, un-manifested energy, the Adishakti. Goddess Kali is seen standing with her one feet on Lord Shiva who is pure formless awareness Sat-Chit-Ananda (being-consciousness-bliss) while Kali represents "form" eternally sustained by the underpinning of pure awareness.
Don't think all Hindus are fool.  This is VKumar (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kali's "Appearance" 

message: I originally got the Sanskrit name for Kali-demon off of the Kaliyuga page. It turns out that the Sanskrit name on the Kali-Goddess page has the same spelling. This is wrong. From my understanding, these names have different sounding a's. So this means, someone messed up on the Kaliyuga page. It should be the Kali of the Kali-Demon, not the goddess. Here, check this out:
:"Q. I have begun reading your edition of Bhagavad-gita. It's wonderful, as I knew it would be. I came across a footnote that I have a question about. When describing Kali you say she is "the personification of evil who presides over the present age--Kali-yuga." I wasn't aware of this aspect of Mother Kali--that she personifies evil. My understanding has been that she is an aspect of the Divine Mother who was born out of the third eye of Mother Durga to kill demonic forces that none of the other gods could defeat. I was also under the impression that her purpose is one of love (maybe you could call it the ultimate "tough love") and that she slaughters the false ego and enables one to find one's true nature so that one may find complete love of God. Please elaborate on your knowledge of Kali Ma.
:A. Kali spelled with a long 'a' and Kali with a short 'a' are different Sanskrit words indicating different persons. Kali with a long 'a' is the Goddess wife of Siva, who, as you say, is often worshipped with a view to dissolve one's material ego. Kali spelled with a short 'a' is the personification of the age of quarrel (Kali-yuga). Duryodhana of Mahabharata and Bhagavad-gita fame is considered to be a partial incarnation of Kali, the personification of this degraded age, not Goddess Kali." - ([Bhagavad-gita Leads to Vrndavana)
Hopefully this has cleared things up a bit. So now all I need is the "correct" Sanskrit term for the Kali-Demon.(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 04:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, my bad. कलि and काली. I can't tell which one has the "long" and "Short" a. Maybe its the one with the shortest loop. I can't read sanskrit. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 05:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mix up 

message: "The authors of the book Science in Culture reason the child looked like the Brahmin because Varuthini believed Kali was indeed Pravara. They give one example from the Jewish “Zoharic Midrash” that tells the story of how the son of Jacob was born to one woman, but actually belonged to the woman he believed he was making love to. They comment, the “Sanskrit phrase, ‘from his semen and from her thinking,’ closely parallels the Hebrew phrase, ‘his semen followed his thought’—though with the essential difference that, here, his semen follows her thought.”Graubard, Stephen R. and Everett Mendelsohn. Science in Culture. Ed. Peter Galison and Stephen Graubard. Transaction Publishers, 2001 ()" as a WP:FRINGE theory and WP:UNDUE to the reason behind the child looking like Pravara, not indirectly connected to kali.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although, I think it's a good piece of material, I can see why it should be removed because it's not directly related to Kali. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed this 

message: The entire material is totally unconnected to the context of this article. I think it is very necessary to remove this portion in order to make for a consistent article. Otherwise, when we reach this section, it looks like we are reading an article on some different subject which has no relation to the context of this article. That is why I am removing it.Civilizededucation (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No need to remove it, as it discusses Kali's portrayal in the modern age.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is no need for this article. This whole subject is not at all noteworthy enough to justify having it in an encyclopedia.Civilizededucation (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not noteworthy? You think the personification of one of the four periods of Hindu cosmological time is not noteworthy? What about the fact that he is a negative influence mentioned in several major Purunas, the epic Mahabarata, and is the main antagonist of one of Vishnu's avatars? Just because you have never heard of him doesn't mean he is not notable. First it was the politics and religion section, now you want to delete the entire thing. What exactly are your motivations? 100% of the people who have complained about the section have done so on religious grounds. They think it casts both Hindus and Muslims in a negative light. But what they don't realize is that the section only reports on the views of that particular time period. There was no political correctness back then. I think this is some thinly veiled attempt to remove the section by deleting the article. Is the Muhammad article deleted just because some Muslims protest the writing of the prophet's name or the showing of his image? No. Wikipedia is not censored. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Please be sure to cite reliable sources for your claims. Please note that the Hindu religious texts are not reliable sources in this case; as they're primary sources, specifically religious ones, which are always open to many interpretations. So we need secondary sources (ideally, scholarly articles in this case) that interpret the texts, and we need to attribute any such interpretations to specific writers. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Religion and Politics. 

message: I thought I had read the first time I visited this page that Kali is an aspect or part of Vishnu.  Which interested me for how it could explain themes I'd seen in fiction seemingly drawing on Hindusim.  But now that part isn't here?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aspect of Vishnu? 

message: The entirety of the edits made by Hinduresci ought to be reverted, as they are clearly deeply integrated with the Kedar Joshi nonsense.  He is likewise the sole editor of the Kedar Joshi page, which I have placed as under review for deletion, for the 3rd time (Both previous deletions were approved).  It seems obvious to me that Hinduresci is a sockpuppet, but I have no actual evidence of this.  Still, the edits are largely without merit and overwhelming in amount, making it nonsensical to sift through all several hundred of them to find those that might have valid content. LordQwert (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would actually expect you, or for that matter any sober individual, to understand that if I indeed were Kedar Joshi, I would never insert the following content right into the introductory section of this article: "a world-destroying, lustful, miserable and fetid man who holds his penis in the left hand and who has a crow-like belly and a dreadful mouth with a restless tongue", given the fact that Joshi claims himself to be the very subject of this article! Hinduresci (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  and you do sound suspicious especially your edits here, and praises of Kedar Joshi on the AFD. Capitals00 (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have praised Hill as well. And I don't think any of my praises has ever been unwarranted. — Hinduresci (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: And the terrible farce is, excepting the stupid suspicion, my edits to this article are found well-sourced and acceptable. With the suspicion, however, they seem virtually meaningless. Open your eyes. And have some shame. — Hinduresci (talk) 21:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Not even a single reliable source seems to exist to support the statement in the intro that Ravana was an incarnation of Kali. Plus, B.K. Chaturvedi's translation is profoundly non-notable and unreliable, and I could cite a number of examples. As it stands, it's a pathetically stupid and misleading article with lots of mistranslations, whereas my version of the article was nearly as objective, neutral, detailed and factual as reasonably possible. It is, in fact, really nauseating to find a couple of blokes here and there, with no good knowledge of the subject, criticizing as if they are gods or something. — Hinduresci (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: If anyone on this planet should ever make use of Google for "Kali Durukti", they would be almost destined to come across "Kedar Joshi" and "Kshipra Joshi" within a matter of few seconds. You find some topic; it leads you to another topic; and that might lead you to yet another topic and so on; and that's how things usually develop here, don't they? — Hinduresci (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: When this article says, "Kali (right) wielding a sword", it clearly seems to imply that according to Wikipedia, Kali is supposed to relate to that weird creature in the lead picture, while no reliable source whatsoever appears to exist to support such correlation, notwithstanding the noted imagination of some Hindus which once identified him with Muslim cow slaughterers. Just how misleading do you want Wikipedia to be? And on top of that, it is I who must bear ridiculous accusations! — Hinduresci (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The very first line in the article says, "Kali is the reigning lord of the Kali Yuga". Precisely where, do you think, on this planet must that (reigning) lord be? Nowhere, right? So Kalki Purana, and the Hindu religion in general, are false, right? The fact is, they are not (necessarily) false; for that very first line in this article is actually Original research. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Kali is from root kad. Really?? Could you cite any source? — Hinduresci (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: "Kali is the personification of Adharma." Are you out of your mind or something? Kali is actually the personification of the Kali Yuga. Read the scriptures at least once before writing anything in the article. And Adharma is in fact supposed to be Kali's great-great-grandfather. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: "Kali's weapon is sword." Why? Because the Muslims used to slaughter the cows with swords?? LOL. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:28, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: "Kali is the great-great-grandson of Lord Brahma." Since when? Kali is the great-great-grandson of Adharma. Maybe you don't know, but there is a huge difference between those two (Brahma & Adharma). And I am actually LMAO now! — Hinduresci (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: I bet there is not even a single credible source available on this planet which says Alakshmi is Kali's wife. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The virtually obvious truth is, I was not interested in promoting Kedar Joshi; you were interesting in removing him as well as reverting my praiseworthy efforts on this article. And since now your job is done, you simply choose to ignore my comments. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: "From his birth, he carried an Upaasthi (worship) bone." LOL. And the source is B.K. Chaturvedi. LMAO. Do you know this rather makes you look like Uncyclopedia? For your kind information, it's a completely and obviously and ridiculously false translation, of a line in the Kalki Purana, by Chaturvedi, published by Diamond Books (reliable? Notable?) — Hinduresci (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

text: The clear implication of the proposition "Kali is the reigning lord of the Kali Yuga" is that Hinduism, in general, is falsehood. Please have some mercy on the religion; for that very proposition is, in fact, not implicated by that religion in the first place. — Hinduresci (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one's responding, it's probably because no one's reading your comments anymore.  Do not take this as acceptance of your positions.  It's more like that people have chosen not to pour their time and effort into your bottomless pit of self-assurance.LordQwert (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No one except yourself, at least and certainly. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Your bottomless pit of self-contradiction is at least on the verge of being disruptive. — Hinduresci (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kedar Joshi nonsense 

message: Page protected-- please discuss changes/revisions and achieve consensus.Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit warring 

message: I want tu be kali 103.136.95.163 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think de will come soon to give us new life  

message: The infobox states that the children of the asura are Dumvishnu, Niraswati, Vishbrahma, and Alakshmi. I can't find any reliable source from Hindu texts that support this. Someone please look into this and add reliable sources to support this content if you can find them or remove them if they are incorrect.  Chronikhiles (talk)  07:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children of Kali