Chaitra Navratri: Kalaratri

Kalaratri

On the seventh day of Chaitra Navratri, Shakti is worshipped in the form of Kalaratri (Kala=time, black in reference to the primal darkness before the Creation, Ratri=night). Kalaratri is a form of Kali. She is dark in complexion and rides atop a donkey. She is depicted with four arms, Her right hands positioned in Abhaya and Varada mudras and Her left hands holding a sickle and a thorn-like iron weapon. In mythology, She slayed the dreadful demon Raktabeej, as Miss Saxena relates:

In this form Goddess Kalratri killed Raktabeej. Raktabeej was a demon who could multiply from every drop of his blood which fell on the ground. The Goddess Kaalratri killed him by licking the blood before it could reach the ground and hence conquered him.

Kalaratri’s form is dreadful and repulsive in appearance (She is the most misunderstood of the Hindu Goddesses by many Westerners!), but She is very protective of Her devotees and protects them against the evil spiritual influences of demons and dark forces. While She has a ferocious side, She also has a very maternal side. She also aids Her devotees to rid their lives of tamasic qualities, effectively destroying ignorance. She governs the planet Saturn and is associated with the Sahasrara (thousand, infinite) chakra, which is located on the crown of the head. It is the chakra of Pure Light and of Supreme Consciousness. Awakening the Sahasrara chakra leads to ultimate spiritual enlightenment.

Her mantra is:

Ekveni Japakarnapura Nagna Kharastitha

Lamboshthi Karnikakarni Tailabhyakta Sharirani

Vaampadolla Salloh Lata Kanthak Bhushna

Vardhan Murdha Dhvaja Krishna Kalratri Bhayankari

Which means in English:

She is naked, rides on an donkey, has a long tongue, lustrous body, wears ornaments on her legs like lightning, is black in color, has unlocked hair, big eyes and ears and is very dangerous looking. Meditating on this form of Kalratri removes all obstacles as well as removes all magical effects created by others.

For purposes of pronunciation, I have included a link to the spoken mantra (The mantra itself lasts for the first minute of this video, after which a speaker gives a lecture in Hindi).

Resources:

http://www.drikpanchang.com/hindu-goddesses/parvati/durga/navdurga-kalaratri.html

http://rampuri.com/navdurga-navratri/

http://www.chakras.net/energy-centers/sahasrara

http://mantrashlokas-madhuri.blogspot.com/2011/06/maa-kalaratri-worship-of-fiercest-forms.html

http://experiencehinduism.com/festivals/navratri-seventh-day-seven-form-durga-kalaratri

http://vedicgoddess.weebly.com/3/post/2012/08/kalaratri-by-yogi-ananda-saraswati.html

http://www.astrosage.com/festival/navratri/devi-kalaratri.asp

Freedom of Speech: Extents and Limitations

A caricature of Kali holding a pack of cigarettes, amongst other objects, graced the pages of the New Zealand Herald—and infuriated many Hindus worldwide. Amongst Her worshipers, Kali is highly revered, and Her image is intended for worship in temples and devotee’s homes, not trivialized in commercial media that removes Her image out of its intended context. Many have spoken up on the issue, demanding that the media show more respect toward people of other cultures and religions. Rajiv Chaturvedi, a member of the Hindu Council of NZ, sums up the issue with the statement: 

The illustration of Goddess Kali published in New Zealand Herald cannot be attributed to ignorance and has nothing to do with the article on dairy owners that it was accompanying. It seems to be a malicious desire to cause mischief by the cartoonist and the editor. They hurriedly removed the caricature from their internet version and this indicates they realized they had been caught, but instead of an apology and owning up, they just hoped no one will notice.

This issue brings to question what should be covered under free speech and what should not. I am still forming my own concept of the nature of freedom of speech, though I have some general beliefs about it. Freedom of speech is an important tenet to democratic political ideology of the post-Enlightenment Western world, and is so important in my native country of the United States that it is featured prominently in first place on the Bill of Rights. It is a catch-phrase in modern day politics and discourse, ranging from the potty-mouthed youngster who asserts “This is America, I can say whatever I want,” to prim statesmen addressing far-reaching legalities of what is covered under freedom of speech and what is not.

Freedom of speech by the modern understanding has been grossly taken out of its original context, which was to protect citizen rights to criticize their government. As summarized by P.A. Madison on the Federalist Blog:

“Freedom of speech and of the press served one purpose in America: To remove the fear of the common law doctrine of seditious libel so citizens could freely speak or publish without license their grievances against public policy or conduct of public officials.”

As I feel P.A. Madison did a fine job of giving an in-depth review of the origin and original meaning of the freedom of speech in American politics, I won’t re-invent the wheel here. For those interested in reading the full article, a link is given below:

Original Meaning: Freedom of Speech or of the Press

I feel that people enjoy making offensive, vulgar, and rude speech and media because it grabs other people’s attention. When celebrities exhibit shocking behaviour, they earn a place on the front cover of tabloid magazines. In the case of the offensive Kali caricature, the New Zealand Herald would not have received nearly as much attention if it had simply posted hum-drum, run-of-the-mill articles and images. The same hate speech vs. free speech issue on a much larger scale came up several years ago when a Danish cartoonist published satirical, anti-Islamic cartoons, earning himself attention on an international scale that he would have otherwise never had.

Freedom of speech is not all bad, though. It can be a wonderful tool toward positive, constructive social change. One can speak out against injustice, seek change in the world around, and still cultivate thame (harmony). I strongly agree that innovative ideas are worth discussing, even if they are unorthodox and on the fringe of current social norms. But with the right to freedom of speech comes the responsibility of speaking ethically. A point can easily be made, even a point others consider to be outrageous, without making personal attacks, disrespecting others, or being generally vulgar and rude.

What are your thoughts on freedom of speech? Should it be limited or unlimited? Feedback on this topic would be much appreciated!

Resources:

Original Meaning: Freedom of Speech or of the Press

http://www.examiner.com/article/offensive-speech-violates-free-speech

http://www.eurasiareview.com/19072013-upset-hindus-ask-nz-herald-for-front-page-apology-for-goddess-kali-caricature/

Divine Wrath? Flooding in Uttarakhand

Attributing the cause of natural disasters to wrathful divine beings is common practice amongst religions worldwide. Devout, superstitious Christians are usually the ones taking heat for their views from the secular population. One of the most infamous trolls on Youtube made a video in the aftermath of the Japanese tsunami in 2011, thanking God for exterminating the atheists and ruffling more than a few people’s feathers. I posted below a link to the video for my readers who haven’t seen it:

But Christians aren’t the only ones claiming that God smites people he finds displeasing. A recent flood in Uttarakhand, India has fed the indignant flame of the local populace who were outraged by a hydro power company’s efforts to remove Dhara Devi, a form of the Goddess Kali, from Her original place of worship to make way for a 330 MW hydel project dam that would have submerged the little island her shrine was  built upon. Hours after Dhara Devi’s removal from Her shrine, a sudden deluge struck the region, leaving behind a path of death and destruction, and leaving the dam’s construction site in ruins.

Scientists write the disaster off as an unfortunate coincidence, but locals and many Hindus from around the nation say otherwise. I’m not sure how I feel about this situation; you can draw your own conclusions based on this article and the information I have posted in external resources at the end of this article.

Regardless of the flood being an act of divine retribution or not, two facts remain certain. One being that the local people’s insistence for respect of Dhara Devi and Her shrine was not paid any heed to by government officials who pushed for the project to continue anyways. And two, the area where the dam was set to be built was declared as an eco-sensitive zone under the Environment Protection Act of 1986, which theoretically should ban all construction activity from the region. The state government opposed the ban anyways and gave the okay for the hydro power company to go through with their plan due to a desire for economic progress in the region. Such an act shows a lack of respect for local beliefs and the people who hold them, but a lack a respect for Nature.

Resources

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/Dhari-Devi-controversy-in-Uttarakhand-floods/Article1-1082966.aspx

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/dhari-devi-unleashed-the-floods-for-revenge/1/285473.html

http://zeenews.india.com/news/uttarakhand/uttarakhand-floods-dhari-devis-wrath-%E2%80%93-myth-or-reality_857295.html