Talk:Kali (demon)

Kali's "Appearance"

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)

Excuse me but Kali Goddess The Destroyer Of Evil doesn't have anything to do with this Kali Demon. Maha Kālīka is the destroyer of evil, she's not a demon but mother of humanity. This kali demon is the Satan. Kali is the nemesis of Lord Vishnu. Please don't say anything rude or accuse without proper information. Rana Asuthosh (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

This kali demon also has 10 avatars like Vishnu. Haiygreva (Not lord Hayagreeva the Avatar of lord Vishnu), Rahu and ketu, Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, Vishatha (Gandharva Who waged war Between nations), Ravana and finally Duryodhana. There are other forms but they're not clear but one of his Avatar is a winged serpent (Dragon) which appeared in The beginning of Kali Yuga. Rana Asuthosh (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Mix up

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))

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))

Why is wikipedia being used to disseminate propaganda against Hindus?

This article on Kalki has been perverted by someone who wants to use it as a commentary on Hindu politics. There is no reasoning provided, only some citations to a book. And the contributor makes claims of "anti-Muslim" and "Hindutva propaganda". This, in an article dealing with a figure from Hindu mythology! Wikipedia has apparently become a public lavatory where anyone with extreme ideological views can come to relieve themselves, as long as they can provide citations to back up their pet prejudices.

Please refrain from deleting large chunks of cited material from the page. You opinion on the matter is duely noted. I am the "someone" who wrote the article. I assure you that I have no agenda or prejudices against Hindus. Kali was used in the pamphlets to denote Muslims. Please tell me how it reflects badly on Hindus? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be deleted or properly edited. Just because material is cited does that mean it is factual? Sure, it is in a book somewhere but the material has to be objective? Would you cite Hitler's Mein Kampf on the article on Wikipedia commenting on Jews as an authoritative source? I hope you see my point. Using loaded terminology like "Hindutva propoganda" and "anti-Muslim" shows the ideological predisposition of the author of the section. You may or may not subscribe to the ideology yourself, but at the very least you are complicit in regurgitating and disseminating it. I challenge you to prove that the organizations that you mention are "Hindutva" organizations, whatever that may mean. You depict pictures in the article dating from 1890 and try to link the pamphlets to various riots that may or may not have happened during that time period. You should know that even the term "Hindutva", was not coined at that time. So it is absurd to claim that these groups could be spreading "Hindutva" propaganda at that time.

Also, for someone who wants to contribute to articles on Hinduism you seem amazingly ignorant of the fact that Hindus in general are against cow slaughter. For example just last week there was an issue in Britain where members of the Hare Krishna religion protested vociferously against cow slaughter. Does that make them a part of a "Hindutva" organization? They did it simply because they are Hindus. (Another expression of your "knowledge" of Hinduism is the term 'darmaraj' that you have used in your section. There is nothing of kind in Hinduism. It is 'Dharma-raj' since there is nothing like 'darma' in Hinduism.)

What you described was a campaign against cow slaughter that depicted the slaughterer of cows as Kali. This was a campaign against cow slaughter. How does opposition by Hindus to Muslims slaughtering cows make one anti-Muslim? For example Muslims consider the Quran sacred and if Hindus were to practice burning the Quran and Muslims were to oppose it, would that make them anti-Hindu? Does making a caricature of Muhammad as terrorist make one anti-Muslim? For Muhammad is indeed the prototype and the archetype of all Muslims. Does banning head scarves make a country anti-Muslim? If so both France and Turkey are anti-Muslim nations. In all cases the opposition is to an ideology or certain aspects of it, in this respect Islam, and not to its adherents. Furthermore, you choose to ignore the obvious truth here that the cow-slaughter campaign was targeted at all beef-eaters not just Muslims. Your own translations prove that.

Finally please tell me how is it even material to the discussion here. This is a vast subject and there is a lot of material that can add to the credibility of this page. And you choose to post this insignificant drivel that adds nothing of value but is indeed of questionable origin and intent. It is disgusting to note that even articles on Hinduism are being used to portray Hindus in a poor light. This is exactly the kind of poor content that makes Wikipedia such a questionable source for valid information. Therefore, for the sake of the integrity of Wikipedia itself you need to do us all a favor and delete this section, or, at the very least, reword it to make it less shrill and more factual. Remove references to Hindutva and anti-Muslim etc. And shorten it down to make it more accurately representative of its true place in the scheme of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Aurovir (talk • contribs)

Again, your opinion is duly noted. If you go back through the edit history, you will see I am not the person who added the "Hindutva" link to the page. Please refrain from uncivil remarks like "ignorant". (see WP:Civil) And please sign your comments with four tildes. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Duly noted where? Let's cut through the doublespeak, shall we? What you really mean is duly ignored and dismissed as opinion. Also, there is nothing offensive about the fact that you seem ignorant about basic facts. It just means "you do not know" and does not indicate any kind of inherent deficiency on your part, mental or moral. If you are genuinely interested in the subject you will take this as an opportunity to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurovir (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's duly noted on the current talk page. Again, please see WP:Civil. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I see that you have edited the section.

No problem. Happy to help. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Well, I really appreciate the hard work which has been put into this article. But unfortunately I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to list it as a GA.

• Lead

The lead just mentions Kali in different epics like Vishnu Purana, Kalki Purana and Mahabharata. It doesn't summarize the entire article. As a rule of thumb, I would like to have a detail from each and every section. But there is no mention of Kali's life, death, significance in the lead.

• Description

This section describes Kali but it doesn't have an Image here. The section needs an Image especially so that people can visualize.

• Life

This section looks good from above. But when you read the section, it looks like a story. Example:

The Brahmin Pravara was given a magical ointment that allowed him to fly when he spread it on the bottoms of his feet. But when he flew to the Himalayas and walked around on the mountain snow, the ointment was washed away keeping him from returning home to his wife. During his time on the mountain, the Apsara Varuthini fell madly in love with him and begged the Brahmin to stay with her forever. But he rejected her advances because his guru had told him to never lust after another man’s wife. He prayed to Agni who returned him home safely.

According to Markandeya Purana, The Brahmin Pravara was given a magical ointment that allowed him to fly. But when he flew to the Himalayas, the ointment was washed away keeping him from returning home to his wife. During this time, the Apsara Varuthini fell madly in love with him and begged the Brahmin to stay with her forever. But eventually, he rejected her. He prayed to Agni who returned him home safely.

This list is not exhaustive, I have just tried to give an idea of the sorts of issues that need to be addressed before a successful GA nomination.

• Death

Kali dies one-third of the way through the Kalki Purana->>what do you mean by dies. How is it encyclopedic.
The stench of his blood billowed out and filled the atmosphere with a foul odor.--->peacock terms.
The author comments, "Unlike most battles between gods and demons, however, this apparent victory is immediately undercut, for Kali escapes to reappear in 'another age'—in our age, or the next Kali Age."-->>Who is this expert author
Since he had the power to manifest himself in human form on earth, he was able to forsake his dying corporal form to escape in spirit.--->>Why do you require tems such as dying corporal here. Can't you make it simple.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Fail...needs a little bit more work

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass looks fine it seems.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Pass

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Fail..It may invite POV problems in Religion and Politics

5. It is stable:

   Pass That's good too.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Fail,,description section doesn't have an Image

7. Overall:

   Fail

Good luck, and I hope to see this article back at GAN very soon....Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 14:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Answer to 4: IMO, The section is Neutral. The section only illustrates how Kali was considered as a representation of beef-eating Muslim community, by some Hindus. References are provided. Please list sentences, which are non-neutral so they can be reworded.

Some Hindus considered Kali’s presence in the picture to be a representation of the Muslim community. When one of the versions of these pamphlets came into the possession of a state official in 1893, he commented that the image “contained a representation of a Musalman [Muslim] advancing to slay the cow ...”

I suggest you to remove this sentence. Maybe some Hindus may like this sentence. But Muslims will definitely not like this senetence. How can you compare a community with a demon. Everything for which References are provided need not be posted on Wikipedia. It should be carefully analyzed first. The article should appease both the Hindus and the Muslims and not the Hindus alone. Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 17:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is one likes it or not, it is a fact that the demon Kali was compared to Muslims, who eat cows - prohibited in Hinduism, on the background of Hindu-Muslim riots. It is not appeassing anyone, but stating the facts.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer to 6:"The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then they should be used." Image of Kali present in infobox too.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the original author of the page. I kind of figured that it wasn't ready for GA status since the lead was not long enough and a few of the sections needed to be rewritten for flow, but I have to agree with Redtigerxyz on some points: #4 - The section gives both the viewpoint of the Bristish ruling class, the hindus, and the muslims. I do not see how it is POV. It has every viewpoint covered. The plain and simple fact is that Kali was believed to be a representation of Muslims. #6 - The infobox pic hovers just above the description section, so there should be no problem.

• Well I found it a bit difficult to visualize. I had to read the first sentence The Kalki Purana describes him as a huge being, the color of “soot,” with a large tongue, and a terrible stench. From his birth, he carried an Upaasthi (worship) bone. Go up again and check the image, come down again read the other sentences and go up again. If you just put an Image of Kali in the decription, then I think it will make a difference.Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 17:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Now for other points: "dying corporeal" - I don't see any problem with this wording. Corporeal just means "body". In the Mahabharata and Kalki Purana, he only has a spiritual form (no physical body), before he either possesses someone who manifests a body of his own. "Death" - His physical body dies, how much simpler can I get? "billowed" and "foul" - The english copy of the Kalki Purana that I used said that a black cloud came forth from his wounds and had a horrible smell. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if we forget the Images and POV for a second, the fact cannot be denied that the prose is not of a very good quality. It looks like a essay or a story. Kali dies one-third of the way through the Kalki Purana looks as if this sentence is a continuation of a story.Kensplanet^Talk_E-mail^{Contributions} 17:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The kalki purana does not end upon Kali's death. It continues for some time as Kalki faces other enemies, finally brings about Satya Yuga, and divides the earth among his generals before transforming back into Vishnu and returning to heaven. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed this

"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.”" 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)

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)

References

Removing Religion and Politics.

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)

No need to remove it, as it discusses Kali's portrayal in the modern age.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Discussion of the perception of Kali in the modern period is obviously relevant to this aricle. I have tried to fix the article toc. The article should clearly distinguish (a) pre-Puranic literature (Mahabharata), (b) Puranic accounts and (c) modern material. --dab (𒁳) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"According to the Vishnu Purana, he is a negative manifestation of Vishnu, who along with his extended evil family, perpetually operates
as a cause of the destruction of this world."

I can understand why non-Hindus are confused here. Even the translator of Vishnu Purana is utterly confused about the identity of names in Vishnu Purana and its interpretation.

Now to clarification:

Adharma is another name of Nirriti, one of the devatA or gods. What Vishnu Purana is talking about is offsprings of this Devata, namely Nirriti. There is a concept called abhimAni or controller of principles and entities existing in Universe. For example, this Nirriti is controller of the principle called adharma, kAma (cupid) is a devata who controls attraction or desire for women, and similarly different devatAh or gods control different principles or actions in Universe. This is why even the devataH or god's name is called as kAma or adharma (Nirriti). Similarly the sons of Adharma (Nirriti) are given such names because they control these principles. On eof the son's name is Kali. Now this Kali (son of Nirriti in Vishnu Purana) has no relationship to Kali of Mahabharatha who took incarnation as Duryodhana or the same Kali who came out of churning of ocean in Bhagavatha Purana, just as Lakshmi (the daughter of Prajapati) has no connection to Lakshmi the wife of Lord Vishnu. The article is about Kali of Mahabharatha who took incarnation as Duryodhana. He is utterly considered as evil in Hindu texts as Mahabharatha, Bhagavatha and Kalki Purana. He is in no way a manifestation of Vishnu. What Vishnu Purana describes is the power of Vishnu within the devataH (gods like Nirriti and his sons) as immanent God within them. Hope this clarifies the subject and convinces you all. I am going to make corrections assuming you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.171.18 (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Aspect of Vishnu?

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)

Well it's the opposite actually. Rana Asuthosh (talk) 10:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Kali was born not created. So he's not Vishnu but "he's like Vishnu" because he has 10 Avatars like him. Rana Asuthosh (talk) 10:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Who Durukti Is!

https://works.bepress.com/kedar_joshi/154/

Kedar Joshi nonsense

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)

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)

I agree with @LordQwest: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"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)

"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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

No one except yourself, at least and certainly. — Hinduresci (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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

edit warring

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

I think de will come soon to give us new life

I want tu be kali 103.136.95.163 (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Children of Kali

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)