• news
  • WEDNESDAY JULY 4 2007 4:00 PM

Thanks For Visiting America! By The Way, You’re No Longer A Goddess

Submitted by Uncognitive

Edited by erin_broadley



Sajani Shakya is pretty much your average 10-year-old Nepalese girl.

Well, except that up until recently, she was venerated by both Hindus and Buddhists in Nepal as a Kumari Devi, or ”living goddess”.

Sajani was one of the latest in a very long line of Nepalese girls considered to be an incarnation of the Hindu goddess Durga. Normally Durga is all fierce, riding a lion and kicking demon ass with her 10 arms, but camping out in a little Nepalese girl keeps Durga’s energy in check and keeps it on the “creation” side of things. The Kumari Devi is also the patron of Nepal’s monarchy, bestowing blessings upon the king.

Being chosen as a Kumari Devi is quite an elaborate procedure. The right girl has to match 32 “attributes of perfection,” ranging from eye color to the shape of her teeth. Apparently ancient Hindu goddesses use a procedure similar to eHarmony. Then the potential Kumari Devis are put in a dark room where dancers in demon masks attempt to scare them, since a true incarnation of a goddess who, among other things, kicks demon ass shouldn’t be scared by jazz hands.

However, it’s a lot easier to stop being a Kumari Devi. Traditionally, it’s the onset of puberty that signifies the goddess Durga leaving for a new incarnation in some other Nepalese girl, but even sustaining a scratch that’s deep enough to bleed can cut short a Kumari Devi’s reign.

Sajani Shakya, however, lost her goddess status for other, less blood-based, reasons.

Was it because she blessed Nepal’s king during a decade-long civil war? Maybe it’s because Nepal’s entire monarchy might soon be abolished?

Nope, it’s because she set foot in the United States on a goodwill tour related to an upcoming documentary about both Kumari Devis and Nepal’s civil war. While there are a bunch of Kumari Devis living in various cities and towns in Nepal, Sajani was considered one of the major ones, and thus wasn’t really supposed to leave Nepal.

Sajani’s US tour was enough to anger temple elders in her town of Bhaktapur, who declared that setting foot on American soil had tainted her purity. It’s like they’ve heard of Britney Spears or something.

So now the newly de-goddessed Sajani returns to her life as a normal 10-year-old Nepalese girl (albeit with a government pension), and I’m hoping America, having caused Sajani to lose her divinity, can learn something from this.

Like, why doesn’t Jesus grow eight more arms and ride around on a lion, kicking demon ass?

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 24

Next

Comments
mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUL 05, 2007 04:47 AM

G93 said:
The practice violates not only the rights of the child but the rights of women in general.



Please do explain how.

Glassmachine

Glassmachine

United Kingdom
November 2004

JUL 05, 2007 04:50 AM

G93 said:
The practice violates not only the rights of the child but the rights of women in general.



Yeah and while you're at it, explain what you know of the practice itself that you didn't read from this article and Wikipedia. Then go and look up 'reactionary' in the dictionary.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUL 05, 2007 05:03 AM

Jenni said:
Surely there must long-lasting psychological consequences from believing you were once a God? I'm not certain, but it seems to have a real potential to mess with her life and mental health. Hopefully she'll move on from this with a minimium of issues, but it's still an irresponsible way to raise a child.



You think so because you come from a culture in which no children are ever treated that way. To the Nepalese the custom is normal and unremarkable.

Ms_Magdalena

Ms_Magdalena

Minneapolis, MN
February 2007

JUL 05, 2007 05:21 AM

mingol said:
. . . If it's the latter, why are her handlers not the ones being blamed?



Her "handlers"? Good lord, you make it sound like she was some sort of trained animal.








Oh, wait. . . . I suppose in a way, she really was blackeyed

mingol said:

Jenni said:
Surely there must long-lasting psychological consequences from believing you were once a God? I'm not certain, but it seems to have a real potential to mess with her life and mental health. Hopefully she'll move on from this with a minimium of issues, but it's still an irresponsible way to raise a child.



You think so because you come from a culture in which no children are ever treated that way. To the Nepalese the custom is normal and unremarkable.



And this is a very good point.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUL 05, 2007 05:46 AM

Ms_Magdalena said:

mingol said:
. . . If it's the latter, why are her handlers not the ones being blamed?


Her "handlers"? Good lord, you make it sound like she was some sort of trained animal.



She's nine years old. Presumably she's not travelling alone, or making her own travel arrangements.

Sorry if my choice of the word "handlers" came across the wrong way. "Guardians," maybe?

Reaver

Reaver

I'm lost
August 2003

JUL 05, 2007 05:46 AM

Jesus can do it with two and no lion.

Charybdus

Charybdus

Lafayette, LA
July 2006

JUL 05, 2007 06:40 AM

ProphetNoise said:
religions are silly, and they do silly things for stupid reasons



Silly things like feeding and clothing the poor and encouraging people to act a little more civilized, hopefully. I totally agree.

Ms_Magdalena

Ms_Magdalena

Minneapolis, MN
February 2007

JUL 05, 2007 06:46 AM

mingol said:

Ms_Magdalena said:

mingol said:
. . . If it's the latter, why are her handlers not the ones being blamed?


Her "handlers"? Good lord, you make it sound like she was some sort of trained animal.



She's nine years old. Presumably she's not travelling alone, or making her own travel arrangements.

Sorry if my choice of the word "handlers" came across the wrong way. "Guardians," maybe?



*cough* did you read the rest of what I wrote? *cough*

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Ms_Magdalena said:

mingol said:
. . . If it's the latter, why are her handlers not the ones being blamed?



Her "handlers"? Good lord, you make it sound like she was some sort of trained animal.








Oh, wait. . . . I suppose in a way, she really was blackeyed

. . .


Charybdus

Charybdus

Lafayette, LA
July 2006

JUL 05, 2007 06:49 AM

r3v said:

LegacyOBrutality said:
Good golly! Are people here always this off-the-cuff about calling people's religions "imaginary." WTF difference does it make if I believe in demons, angels, divine hamsters, whatever. Any impetus for human beings to live better lives is a good one.



I can't speak for other people "here", but yes, I am. Sorry if that offends, but not sorry enough to keep my yap shut. Just know that it isn't my intent to offend.

I also don't mean to get too argumentative here (though, admittedly, it's a topic I love to discuss and am somewhat passionate about) but I disagree with your "any impetus" statement. I believe reality is more important than delusion. I believe it's important to the advancement of the species as a whole.

Note, I realize the "delusion" comment might be offensive. Once again, sorry.



I respect your opinion on the subject, but I problem I have is that you are defining the word "reality" as one that exists without gods or demons. That ain't their reality and it ain't mine. I really don't understand how being antireligious advances our species either.
I appreciate the fact that you don't intend to offend, and I am making this reply in the most courteous way I can, but I feel pretty strong about the subject too. You can't use your perception of the universe as the yardstick for judging others' beliefs. Its simply not valid. My point is, and this is not meant to offend anyone at all, if I want to believe that the Easter Bunny takes me to candy corn heaven if I live a virutous life, then the net effect is the same. I live a good life. Same as if I were a Stoic who believed a virtuous life is it own reward. I didn't slay Bunny infidels or go on a crusade. The power of faith in incredibly potent.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUL 05, 2007 06:52 AM

Ms_Magdalena said:
*cough* did you read the rest of what I wrote? *cough*



Yeah, I did. But it wasn't the part of your post I felt like responding to. Is that okay with you?

Ms_Magdalena

Ms_Magdalena

Minneapolis, MN
February 2007

JUL 05, 2007 06:56 AM

mingol said:

Ms_Magdalena said:
*cough* did you read the rest of what I wrote? *cough*



Yeah, I did. But it wasn't the part of your post I felt like responding to. Is that okay with you?



Oh no no, that's perfectly fine. I would have just figured that by the tone of the rest of my post, you would have figured that justification for your use of the term "handlers" wouldn't have been necessary.

Is all.

Seeing as I agree with you.

And all.

mingol

mingol

Singapore
July 2005

JUL 05, 2007 07:04 AM

Ms_Magdalena said:
Oh no no, that's perfectly fine. I would have just figured that by the tone of the rest of my post, you would have figured that justification for your use of the term "handlers" wouldn't have been necessary.

Is all.

Seeing as I agree with you.

And all.



Ah. In that case, I apologize for having been abrupt. My "handlers" post was intended to be conciliatory, but I interpreted your follow-up as an attempt to take the piss out of it. Sorry to have misunderstood.

Ms_Magdalena

Ms_Magdalena

Minneapolis, MN
February 2007

JUL 05, 2007 07:11 AM

mingol said:

Ms_Magdalena said:
Oh no no, that's perfectly fine. I would have just figured that by the tone of the rest of my post, you would have figured that justification for your use of the term "handlers" wouldn't have been necessary.

Is all.

Seeing as I agree with you.

And all.



Ah. In that case, I apologize for having been abrupt. My "handlers" post was intended to be conciliatory, but I interpreted your follow-up as an attempt to take the piss out of it. Sorry to have misunderstood.



No apology necessary, sir. All is understood.

Besides. I can see how you'd be on guard, considering the tenor that some of the other rebutted posts have taken.

RyleeStrange

RyleeStrange

Los Angeles, CA
February 2007

JUL 05, 2007 07:18 AM

G93 said:

mingol said:

Jenni said:
Also, it's a bit out of order to psychologically abuse a child to the point where they believe they're a divinity in human form.



She plays the role until she's about 12, knowing full well that it's temporary - and then goes on to have a normal life. I hardly think that constitutes "psychological abuse".



It is considered as abuse by some. It's a very controversial topic. The practice violates not only the rights of the child but the rights of women in general.



no you're talking american constitutional rights. this is nepal--where our constitution does not factor in at ALL

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JUL 05, 2007 07:21 AM

Glassmachine said:

G93 said:
The practice violates not only the rights of the child but the rights of women in general.


Yeah and while you're at it, explain what you know of the practice itself that you didn't read from this article and Wikipedia. Then go and look up 'reactionary' in the dictionary.


"Reactionary" refers to ultraconservative politics, and that's what it will say in the dictionary. Its internet mutation has always annoyed the fuck out of me. Just for the record.

I don't know about G93's point (I haven't read everything here, yet, as I only came in here to ogle Ms_Magdalena), but I have heard that there's a movement in Nepal to discontinue the practice because the girls' education is interrupted during the period of their divinity.

It actually is controversial. In Nepal itself, where a lawsuit has been filed on behalf of the girls' civil rights.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 24

Next

featured interviews