68 thoughts on “Kali’s video game debut”

1. me:

   I like your second interpretation of the game, brownfrown, and that would rock if it turned out to be the case… but I also seriously doubt that those were the creators’ intentions.

   and then I asked what you meant by commercial product.

2. Hinduism does not have a concept of evil in the western sense – i.e., something that is the opposite of good. In any case the emphasis is on the deed and not on the person. Good and bad (punya and paap) are adjectives used to describe the action and not the person. Kali is a fighter of demons and even if she is depicted with huge teeth and dripping blood, it’s for a good cause and to call that evil is ridiculous. Unless we’re looking at it from the judeo-christian viewpoint which declares that peace and love are good and bloodshed is evil. Hindus were pragmatic and knew that blood must be spilled once in a while and did not have absolute concepts of good and bad.

   The argument about the buddhist perspective doesn’t sound convincing either. Indra is routinely defeated in hindu mythology as well. Dharma is as much a hindu concept as it is a buddhist one. Ditto for ahimsa. As for tension between Hindusim and Buddhism that too is a judeo-christian concoction. There were several schools of thought in India – 6 vedic darshans, buddhism, jainism, and numerous tantric schools. There was intellectual tension between all of these schools, not just buddhism and so-called hinduism. This is the Indian way. They do not suppress any viewpoint but they routinely ridicule and argue amongst each other. Buddhism became big because of Ashoka who was the first (and perhaps only) missionary minded king. It was annihilated in India by the muslim conquest and later reconstructed in London, Paris and Heidelberg. Naturally, it was reconstructed in the Judeo-Christian image which was only capable of imagining deadly conflict and incompatibility among different creeds. The concept of co-existence was foreign to them. It is also interesting that when Buddhism revived in India it became purely tantric. The contrast is specially stark when compared to the austere Japanese zen style. The blood and gore in Indian Buddhism matches that of the hindus in every way. So it is incorrect to suggest that there is a “purity” in buddhism that is lacking in hinduism.

3. About various interpretations – It’s not about being the Taliban or anything. There are no constraints on interpretation but that doesn’t mean you can simply suck something out of your thumb. What’s the point? It has to hang together with the whole context. It makes no sense to say Kali is Peter Pan for example. Where does that fit into the larger story – the concept of creation, sustenance, destruction, etc. etc.

4. Hello All,

   Divya has raised some very important and relevant points on this subject. I have read about this company and the creation process of this game. Apparently, the company enlisted the help of some British gaming company for “initial scene and character concept sketch work” so as “to ensure that the game would appeal to Western players.” So now we know where all this is coming from and what the intentions of this company are. It has nothing to do with subtle philosophies. Its purely for commercial gain and very wrong. I have already written to the CEO of this company, (email: vishal@ indiagames.com , info@indiagames.com) and would urge others who feel concerned about this to do so as well.

5. “Intention” is a tricky thing to measure, Gaurav. And while I would argue that these gamers are probably not stupid, and might infact have some inkling that the Asokha myth plays into this Hindu/Buddhist tension, the whole thing could also be one big coincidence. I only mentioned it because it was an interesting reflection (intended or not) of what had already come before.

   Either way, I don’t see very much difference between this latest appropriation and what was going on a thousand years ago between Hindus and Buddhists. Both situations essentialise another’s symbols as a polemic, to further whatever they are trying to push. You don’t think that was a commercial move on the Buddhists’ part? They were a proselytising religion, in need of converts – and what better way to do that than to use the language and the imagery of your milieu to your advantage? I think the differences between these two situations are a lot less marked than we’d like to admit because while we like Buddhists, we don’t like ignorant Western money-making corporations touching our deities. But back in the day, I bet you there was the same distaste in “Hindu” circles (at least amongst people who had ahem time to sit around and debate philosphical issues ad nausem) if they came accross this appropriated Buddhist version of say Siva or Durga.

   And Divya, the tension between Hindus and Buddhists is not entirely a “Judeo-Xtian concotion”. While you’re right in that there was debate within all the various (at least Brahmanic) “Hindu” schools of thought and “Buddhist” schools, there was a sense of self-identity amongst Buddhsists that could only defined by defining themselves as “other” to the Hindus. And while much of the terminology between the two “religions” such as dharma, ahimsa, karma etc. are shared, thier philosophical import is (other than in perhaps schools like Advaita… but where you still have that pesky brahman vs. sunyata issue) quite different, both between H&B and within the various Buddhisms themselves.

   It is also interesting that when Buddhism revived in India it became purely tantric. The contrast is specially stark when compared to the austere Japanese zen style. The blood and gore in Indian Buddhism matches that of the hindus in every way. So it is incorrect to suggest that there is a “purity” in buddhism that is lacking in hinduism.

   I’m not sure who you’re directing this to, but I’ll respond by saying there is as much plurality in “Buddhism” as there is in “Hinduism”. And Buddhist tantra, like Hindu tantra, does indeed make use of “impure” substances certain practices. I’m not sure what period you’re referring to when you’re talking about this specifically tantric revival in India – I’d be interested to know the dates you’re thinking of. And certain Buddhist tantras are replete with the appropriation of Siva and Sakti as fierce, “lower” divinites. In some tantras, for example, dakinis and dakas refer to the “fiendish flesheating followers of Durga, often simply known as Devi” (Snellgrove, 1987) and Tilopa, a famous Buddhist siddha, sings “Brahma, Visnu, Mahesvara. Hey, boddhisatva! Bodhisattva! Do not worship these gods!/Don’t make offerings to the gods, or go to the external places of pilgrimage!/There is no liberation in offertories to these deities” (Davidson, 2002).

6. I see the “repeated references” to “Hindu mythology” here.. Actually I grew up hearing that in India and believed most of the Hindu religious stories are BS and myths.. Never knew about Islam or Christianity much.. But after learning about how Muhammad received his revelations from God through an angel in a cave and the virgin brith of Jesus, it sounds like the same BS to me..

   Do you folks treat and term those as myths too??

7. Brownfrown – This notion of the “other” is a modern day western concoction as well. In a land of infinite plurality this is a nonsense concept. Buddhism was simply called buddha dharma and it was one among a multitude of dharmas. There were innumerable jaatis (tribes, clans) each with their own dharma and also with different dharmas within each jaati. So differences between buddhist and hindu philosophy existed mostly at a scholarly level. Nalanda and Takshila universities were full of Brahmin scholars. Nagarjuan, Dharamkriti two of the most famous buddhists were Brahmins who continued to be brahmins. Buddha himself did not shed his caste for that matter. He was called by his caste name “Gautam” and not by his family name. These were people interested in knowledge and did not regard each other as enemies.

   I do not have any specific period of time in mind. Buddhism flourished in India for almost a thousand years, yet the so-called tribal practices, sacrifices, rituals continued to flourish the whole time. The essence of buddhism was taught in universities and there were monastaries with monks, with a formal hierarchy and all of that. The muslims targeted these institutions, killed the scholars, destroyed the universities and poof Buddhism was gone. Shankara emerged in this same period, and being of the “poornata” (wholeness) school of thought rather than the “shunyata” (nothingness) school helped with the revival of hinduism. Please note, these discussions only go on between scholars and do not effect the common man who continued on as he always had. Buddha was born within a pre-existing society and culture. There was no radical change in the culture with Buddhism as you find in Greece and Arabia. Tantra gained momentum during this same period as that of the muslim conquest (8th century). The remote regions of the mountains were among the only places where buddhism survived. If you see tangkha paintings your head will reel just as much as it does on looking at images of Kali. I only had this in mind when I made my prior comment and did not intend to talk about the philosophy. I mean Indian buddhism is just as exotic as Indian hinduism. They all have tribal roots. Practice and philosophy are two very different things.

   As for your quotes – the vedas themselves say that books (including the vedas), gods, pilgrimages are useless and you will not find enlightenment through them. This is a concept that is very much present in hindu philosophy which pre-dates all of the newer religions.

8. I’m not sure what your point is, PS… but yes… those would all be classified as religious myths. And the word “myth” is not perjorative and neither does it equate to “BS”.
   Here’s princeton.edu’s definition of “myth”: S: (n) myth (a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people).

   See how that works?

9. bf,

   ---

   This is Merriam -Webster’s definition

   myth 2 entries found for myth. To select an entry, click on it. mythurban legend

   Main Entry: myth Pronunciation: ‘mith Function: noun Etymology: Greek mythos 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths

   ---

   My question was because I normally don’t see people using “mythology” when they talk about Islam or Christianity..

   Well.. For me I can’t really differentiate the BS.. 🙂

10. Divya –

    I agree about your point about syncretism. But I think it’s inaccurate to claim that certain people didn’t identify with the new Buddhist traditions and didn’t see a difference between what was taught under that umbrella term versus that which was “Hindu”. As for the vedas as maya within “Hindu” traditions – sure. But there is an explicit imagery used in certain Buddhist texts that serve to differentiate itself from the status-quo of Hinduism. And deities do fall under “popular” religion. So whether the Vedas say that the deities are not ultimately the end of enlightenment or not is moot given the practices of the people. The response of Buddhists is also on this realm of praxis (rooted, of course, in philosophy). Ultimately, you are to let go of gods, goddesses, bodhisattvas, and Buddhas to realise sunyata or equate wisdom and compassion or nirvana or whatever permutation particular to that path.

    And your point that these are all rather highbrow distinctions is valid. The “common man” (ahem) may not have been greatly affected by these philosophical distinctions… but in the same way that this discussion board is an elite excercise, those religious polemics have always been confined to the realm of the privilage few while people on the ground go about thier everyday business, picking and choosing religious practices with relative ease and freedom. Until of course, it’s time to mobilise the masses and fight or something 🙂

    If you see tangkha paintings your head will reel just as much as it does on looking at images of Kali. I only had this in mind when I made my prior comment and did not intend to talk about the philosophy. I mean Indian buddhism is just as exotic as Indian hinduism.

    Yes I’ve seen seen them – they are pretty wild. My head, however, doesn’t reel very much when I look at images of Kali – I guess you get desensitized pretty quickly when you’ve grown up with a particular image – especially one that’s been domesticated to the extent that Kali has in Bengal… However, earlier, more explicitly ‘tantric’images of Kali bear a lot of resemblence to the shock value of these Buddhist paintings.

    What do you mean as Indian Buddhsim being as “exotic” as Indian Hinduism, by the way?

11. PS I assure you I do 🙂

12. What do you mean as Indian Buddhsim being as “exotic” as Indian Hinduism, by the way?

    The comments seemed to suggest that Kali is exotic and Buddhism (Ashoka’s religion) is all intellectual. The ground reality was that Indian Buddhism fulfilled the same criteria for exoticism as does Hinduism.

    I didn’t used to get shocked by Kali but as I get older I seem to be getting more and more squeamish. I had to remove my little painting of Kali to a spot where I didn’t see it so often.

13. Hey brownfrown, I finally wade into the fray. I like the comments. And yours are the first I want to comment on, cause they are so yummy. Here goes.

    Brownfrown says:

    Either way, I don’t see very much difference between this latest appropriation and what was going on a thousand years ago between Hindus and Buddhists. Both situations essentialise another’s symbols as a polemic, to further whatever they are trying to push. You don’t think that was a commercial move on the Buddhists’ part? They were a proselytising religion, in need of converts – and what better way to do that than to use the language and the imagery of your milieu to your advantage? I think the differences between these two situations are a lot less marked than we’d like to admit because while we like Buddhists, we don’t like ignorant Western money-making corporations touching our deities. But back in the day, I bet you there was the same distaste in “Hindu” circles (at least amongst people who had *ahem* time to sit around and debate philosphical issues ad nausem) if they came accross this appropriated Buddhist version of say Siva or Durga.

    I think this is a great point. There was alot of borrowing, exercising, and conversion, to use old Buddhist Studies terminology–so packed with Orientalist concerns–of local dieties by Buddhists. Nowhere did this happen more than in Tibet, where the comparative sophistication, and more importantly the cultural weight of the Subcontinent paradigm, gave Buddhism the resources it needed to “placate, exercise, and convert” all the local dieties, many of which are said by the tradition to have been hostile to Buddhism at first. In comes the mythical Padmasambhava.

    However, this appropriation by Buddhism of so-called Hindu motifs masks the reciprocity of the exchange between the various traditions in South Asia. I hesitate using the term “Hinduism” in this context, because the earliest record of the term ‘hindu’ in Indic languages post-dates the exhaustion of Buddhism in India. What we seem to have are all sorts of traditions in contact, contestation and communication. We find, very commonly, the incorporation of Buddhist motifs, symbols, in all sorts of traditions we now call “Hinduism”. It seems to me the discussion has implied that the borrowing was a one-way endeavor, which is not at all the case. This is true even if one doesn’t accept the notion of pan-Indian tropes shared and used variously in all sorts of ways by Buddhists, Jains, and “Hindus” in medieval India.

    And again:

    While you’re right in that there was debate within all the various (at least Brahmanic) “Hindu” schools of thought *and* “Buddhist” schools, there was a sense of self-identity amongst Buddhsists that could only defined by defining themselves as “other” to the Hindus.

    Absolutely. This is totally correct. The sanskrit term that Buddhists used was Bauddha, just like Jains called themselves Jaina. The problem with this statement is that they didn’t define themselves as “other” to Hindus, but rather to Brahmins (in the Pali literature) and Nyayas or Kapilikas, S’aivas and Vais’navas (in Sanskrit), and more commonly other Buddhist schools, for example. We have to remember that for large periods of time in particular regions of India up until the Gupta period, Buddhism was a more dominant ideology than Hinduism or Jainism. In certain instances, it was the other way around–that is, “Hindu” traditions would define themselves in response to Buddhist or Jain paradigms. Some argue that the Gita is imbedded within this context of a response to an excess of actual renunciation and move to more symbolic, internal forms of renunciation. To add another point to the borrowing,

    Divya says,

    Dharma is as much a hindu concept as it is a buddhist one.

    Indeed, in the Vedas, there is not much emphasis on dharma, it is not until you get to the 2nd c. BCE-2nd c. CE that we find the Epics, Dharmas’astras, and puranas explicitly talking about Dharma. But this is after Jains, Ajivikas, and Buddhists have spread all across India talking about Dharma. It seems that the response to this, called “classical Hinduism” by scholars, borrowed heavily from that paradigm but went in an interesting direction with it.

    Just to bring it back to Kali and Tantra, an exchange is often called pan-Indian where it is unclear which tradition “originally” developed a certain characteristic that exists in all traditions. This quest for origins is problematic at best, but just to show an example: the two earliest tantras we have are Buddhist, the Hevajra tantra and the Guhyasamaja tantra. So, from that evidence do we conclude that Tantra originally was a Buddhist tradition borrowed by Hinduism? I don’t think we have enough evidence to support that claim. Nor the other way around. There is not enough evidence to support a Buddhist borrowing of Tantra from Hinduism, originally. When we starting talking about particular elements of Buddhist or Hindu Tantra at a later date, there are more clear cut cases of borrowing.

    So, all this evidence is to argue that all interpretation is (mis)interpretation or–less polemically–(re)interpretation. All traditions were reinterpreting and re-imagining paradigms that were kicking around. While we can, in some cases, say that one particular element started here instead of there, I think the weight of that in terms of authenticity is overstated. Reinterpretation happens all the time–everyone is doing it. From the vantage-point of history, we might say that the violence of Buddhist or Jain or Hindu reinterpretations are not at the level of Orientalist commodification, but perhaps brownfrown is correct in questioning this assumption? The concern, of course, is the degree of systematic power-relations and relative inequality. But again, are we over-stating the power of Orientalist discourse? Can we think of examples of appropriation of “Western” motifs, watered down, commodified and proliferated in non-Western settings?

    Anyway, all of these details don’t really get at brownfrown’s observation that perhaps the repetition of the Ashoka v. Kali battle is a (coincidental?) reproduction of a ideological battle happening in classical India. In some ways, I think it necessarily has to be. Where did those symbols come from? Even if the video game was Ashoka and Kali v. Christ and Moses (live on pay-per-view) instead of Ashoka v. Kali, the structural history would still allow that combination. There are all sorts of semiotic systems coming to bear on this game; and like literary analysis, a semiotic analysis of this particular video game could reap great benifits to unpacking a more general understanding of contemporary mythical paradigms. So, while there never was any Ashoka v. Kali in India literature, we can see how this reimagining becomes the confluence of Abrahamic and Indic semiologic systems. The interesting thing would be to unpack them.

    As far as what the semiology means, one thing I tend to agree with is a distaste for the repetition of Good/Evil paradigms in relation to any symbolism, but especially in regard to imagery and traditions that explicitly attempt to deconstruct that binary. But, this is how symbols travel. Once that reality is accepted we can find more strategic ways of restaging the symbols to reflect a paradigm that we think is more appropriate. An example of a successful venture is Princess Mononoke, which many have told me they found disconcerting precisely because of its moral ambiguity. In this video game, I think the disney mythology has been used as a foundation for a co-opting of other symbols. What should be done in response? Non-dual interpretations of Abrahamic religious symbols? It seems to me more and more that direct confrontations can suppress particular instantiations of systematic representations, but the only thing that affects structure-wide change is developing a competitor on the same stage that is more attractive. It is a consumer-heavy model, but in terms of symbols, perhaps the consumption and reproduction of symbols is a more effective strategy than railing against something. Look what effect millions of people worldwide marching against the Iraq war had. Barely perceptible to none. Perhaps we need both rejection and working within the system. It doesn’t look like we have much of a competitor to late-capitalism in the forseeable future. So why not market a popular product/movie/mythology that opens up room for more historically accurate, positive, or enabling interpretations of Kali? Getting Sarasvati shoes off the racks is necessary (rejection), but then video games like this pop up (does continual rejection work?). Eventually, if these symbols cannot enter the global market of symbolic exchange, they will die out. Why else does the Dalai Lama, craftily, sell Apple computers? He understands the power of branding in late capitalism. Why else did Vivekenanda and Dharmapala go to the World Parliament of Religions?

    Ok, ok. Enough of the late-capitalist rant. I guess to sum up my points, it is to say we have to be careful about our analysis of medieval India. Too often we ahistoricize the past. Nowhere do I see it more commonly than about India where emotive or often well-intentioned political influences ignore certain facts or trends of the past that don’t fit with contemporary desires. Nonetheless, a examination of classical and medieval India can help us understand some of the contemporary appropriations and reinterpretations of symbols, and give us a better idea of what is going on today.

    Dharmaserf

14. I was poking around on wikipedia, and it says there that the demon Kali and the goddess Kali are two different entities and are even pronounced differently. (And spelled differently in Sanksrit and other languages, they just transliterate to the same word in English.)

15. this is one stupid game.. and its gonna suck no doubt.. i mean its a clear rip off of prince of persia.. they should come up with something new.. i mean the lead character even looks like the prince..

16. Dear Vishal Gondal,

    Next time you create a game, try to use Egyptian gods like Set, Horus or Norse gods like Thor. You clearly have no idea what Kali signifies, and if you’re someday fortunate enough to pull your head out of your materialistic ass, focus on your Ajaneya chakra and actually commune with Reality, you’ll think twice about reducing a very primal force and a feminine principle to some super-villain like entity, and then feeding that concept into millions of global minds. What your game could likely speed up, is inevitable and indiscriminate Pralaya.

    I hope people flush your game down the toilet, and I hope it doesn’t sell.

    Sadhu Sanyasi Ji: Heretic, poet and Saint – part of the Hindutva hate brigade – or figure this out for yourself

17. Actually, you can’t battle Kali. Give ‘Third Eye’ a listen. Its a song by Tool. Kali is utter and complete dissolution. Its something that cannot be battled. At least not in gamer fashion. When your gamer population sues you because their everyday life suddenly went topsy turvy and they turn schizo. You could always get creative and change the name of the character without altering her appearance in an updated version. How about Viking Valerie? Too puerile? Vishti maybe (demoness)? Try Chandi instead. Its generic. Fits too, if you saw the movie.

    Cheers Vishal! Rock on!

18. Oh hey – also, avoid listening to too much Tool. It can impact your perceptions significantly. I just realized this blog was for the intelligentsia, and not some dumbass who actually assumes that Beings who affect creation and dissolution actually appeared on earth aeons ago, risked themselves to do humanity some serious favors, and chose to stick around observing where humanity is headed.

    Peace Out.

    Cheers!