Posted:
There have been several threads discussing distortions of Shakta and other Hindu canon by Mahakaali. There is also a thread presently rallying for UN to provide his sources. While I may disagree with the discussions, I absolutely support that particular thread. Every writer needs to cite their work, should they use books or articles. Granted, his sources are plausibly contradictory, considering how different the Puranas can be from each other. Regardless, he should disclose his sources to the audience.
What surprises me is how many people clamor for UN to cease his distortions, yet distortions throughout history are accepted. Radha does not exist in the Mahabharata; she was introduced to medieval Hinduism. Yet, she was retroactively regarded as Krishna's beloved and his most cherished lover. Vedic Hinduism experienced an immense transformation, replacing Indra and Surya with the Tridev.
As this is a serial about Mahakali, let's discuss her distortions.
Here is Kali as she is described in the Devi Mahatmyam. Notice her gaunt, skeletal appearance and disheveled hair. Additionally, her breasts are sunken, indicating a lack of milk.
Here is another image of Kali. She is still characterised by blood and violence, yet she is adorned with ornaments. Her eyes are half-lidded, suggesting serenity. Her breasts are full, indicating motherhood. Beneath her lays Shiva.
Although similar, the iconography of both images is vastly different. In the former, Kali is Durga's unbridled rage: she is bloodthirsty, violent, merciless, and terrifying. Her breasts do not contain milk because she is not in any way maternal. She does not wear ornaments because she exists on the fringes of civilization. She is shameless because she is nature; and as nature, she cannot be controlled.
Where did Shiva come from? Yes, there are references in the Linga Purana to Shiva intervening when Kali loses control, but the Linga Purana itself is highly inconsistent. The original myth of Raktabija doesn't mention Shiva anywhere. In fact, it is only when Durga and Kali have quenched their bloodlust does Kali disappear, returning to Durga. Both Kali and Durga were assimilated by Hinduism; they originally existed as pre-Vedic goddesses protecting villages yet unflinching in their wrath when upset. They were not motherly or serene, nor were they womanly.
Why is it okay to accept Kali's distortion? Why is it okay to dress her in saris and gold jewellery? Why is it okay to teach Kali needs to be controlled?
Why was it okay for the Brahmins to vilify meat and sex and alcohol? Coincidentally, the very things they could not experience.
History is not static. It is mutable, dynamic; it changes, and we accept those changes. If we can accept these changes, why can we not accept any distortions or changes in the serial? I distinctly remember reading a post which suggested distortions should remain in village myths. How quickly we forget it were village myths which provided Hinduism with Durga and Kali.
Where is Durga in the Vedas? Where is Kali? Yes, the Rig Veda contains the Devi Suktam, but (as far as I remember) it is dedicated to Vak. Furthermore, Nirriti exists as a Vedic goddess similar to Kali, yet all of Nirriti's hymns implore her to stay away. They seek protection from Nirriti.
We accepted Durga and Kali, which changed Hinduism itself.
Will the serial really change Hinduism? Will people really forget the "original" canon? Will one serial really, truly, honestly have the same impact as hundreds of years, even thousands?
If the Puranas can be inconsistent, if Kali's canon can be inconsistent, if we can distort her canon; then why can't we watch Mahakaali for what it is? Entertainment.
Remember: at some point, people misunderstood Kali to the extent that they changed who she was. Just so they could "worship" her. Is that not a distortion?
Sports
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Hollywood
Hindi TV Shows
Love Friendship Dating and Relationships
