Las fake news y la post verdad

Although the Devç MÅhÅtmya’s vision of the Goddess as ±akti, prakŸti and mÅyÅ is maintained in both Vai„æava and ÷aiva contexts, her sta-tus as highest, ultimate reality is not. Assertions of equality between the ultimate male God and his consort are quite common in these texts, but in fact it is the male who is really supreme. It is said, for example, that ultimately there is no distinction between ÷akti and the possessor of ÷akti, who is Brahman, but it is the male who possesses the Goddess. ÷akti is never described as the possessor of her consort.

In the Devç-MÅhÅtmya, the Goddess is represented in ways that por-tray her as Brahman, although such identification is not made explic-itly in the text. This is clearly not the case in Vai„æava and ÷aiva contexts.

In the Devç-BhÅgavata PurÅæa, which is ±Åkta in orientation, nar-rative patterns concerning cosmogony that we have already seen in Vai„æava and ÷aiva PurÅæas merge with the Devç-MÅhÅtmya’s vision of the Goddess as supreme, ultimate reality.¹¹ This PurÅæa celebrates the Goddess as Brahman, an identity that Vai„æava and ÷aiva PurÅæas would reject. Yet the same understanding of the Goddess as the well-spring of the universe, a role embodied in her nature as ±akti, prakŸti,

89 The Goddess as Fount of the Universe

and mÅyÅ persists, although the Goddess’s role as generator of the cosmos is subsumed under the Goddess’s larger identity.

In the Devç-BhÅgavata PurÅæa, as in the Devç-MÅhÅtmya, the Goddess is the eternal, omnipresent overlord of creation and support of all that exists (e.g., 1.2.4–5, 1.2.8, 1.2.19). She is both nirguæa and saguæa, and the text distinguishes between these different aspects (e.g., 1.8.40, 1.12.51, 3.7.4–7, 3.24.39, and 12.8.75).In her nirguæa state, she has a transcendent form that surpasses the three guæas; she is supreme reality itself and transcends all qualities. When her nirguæa aspect is emphasized in the text, she is sometimes called NirguæÅ ÷akti, MahÅmÅyÅ, or even—as in the Brahmavaivarta PurÅæa—NirguæÅ PrakŸti (e.g., 1.5.48).

In an account of cosmogony in the Devç GçtÅ section of the text, which Brown explores in detail in this volume, it is said that before the universe is created only the Goddess exists as Supreme (para-) Brahman. Brahman possesses a single inherent power (±akti) called mÅyÅ, described in true Advaita fashion as neither real, nor unreal, nor both (7.32.1–4). Ultimately, this mÅyÅ is not different from the Goddess herself (7.33.1 and 12.8.67). As Brown notes above, in this text the Goddess not only wields mÅyÅ as world-generating power, she is the very mÅyÅ that she wields.

There are two dimensions of the Goddess’s power of mÅyÅ; they are described as different kinds of causes that play different roles in cosmogenesis. Through its association with consciousness (caitanya), the Goddess’s mÅyÅ acts as the instrumental or efficient cause (nimitta) of creation, that is, the agent necessary for creation to occur. By its transformation into the visible world, it is the material cause of cre-ation (7.32.8), that is, the prakŸti-like substance from which the cosmos is fashioned. Given that the Goddess is not different from her mÅyÅ, these two causes seem to represent two dimensions of the Goddess herself as cosmogonic agent, corresponding to puru„a and prakŸti in creation narratives from the GaruØa and NÅrada PurÅæas detailed above. It is also said that when the Goddess unites with her creative power, she becomes the “cosmic seed” (bçja) that serves as the source of creation (7.32.7).¹² This form of the Goddess as cosmic seed, too, seems to correspond to prakŸti in some of the other cosmogonies de-tailed above as material foundation of the visible world, except that here this cosmic seed is also Brahman, since the Goddess is Brahman (Brown 1998, 96). Both mÅyÅ and the Goddess are, in fact, identified with prakŸti (e.g., 7.31.44, 7.32.9).

While conceding to the ultimate identity of all forms of the Goddess, the Devç-BhÅgavata PurÅæa nevertheless distinguishes among her different aspects. As Nirguæa Brahman, she transcends the guæas;

she is beyond attributes. As creator, she possesses and wields creative power, mÅyÅ ±akti, which is the impelling force behind cosmogenesis.

But both this power and the prakŸti-like form that she takes as the cosmic seed that gives rise to the visible universe are forms of the Goddess herself. Hence, the Devç-BhÅgavata maintains the same vi-sion of the Goddess as immediate wellspring of the created universe that the ÷aiva and Vai„æava PurÅæic accounts of cosmogenesis de-tailed above also share.

Conclusion

While portraying the Goddess’s personal identity in different ways depending on the context, PurÅæic creation narratives from across the sectarian spectrum affirm her role as wellspring of the universe, a role that is embodied in her nature as the principles ±akti, prakŸti, and mÅyÅ.

Accordingly, these cosmogonies negotiate differences in sectarian al-legiance while maintaining a shared vision of the Goddess as the foun-dational source of creation. The integration of the Goddess into the mechanisms of cosmogenesis and the identification of different god-desses with cosmic creative principles are inherently connected to the theology of a Great Goddess who is portrayed even in non-±Åkta con-texts as powerful and praiseworthy. The vision of her that comes forth in these creation narratives also points to two larger issues concerning her identity that come forth in this book: MahÅdevç’s status as “Mother,”

and her multiple singularity.

As the source of all that exists, the Goddess is the Mother of all.

Even in those contexts where male deities are ascribed ultimacy, it is the Goddess who acts as the immediate source of creation, giving birth to the world from her own nature as divine creative power or as the material matrix from which all arises. Such a vision of the female’s role in creation reflects the biological realities of procreation, of course, for children emerge from the bodies of their mothers. While Devç’s nurturing maternal role is emphasized in many of the devotional con-texts explored in other chapters in this volume, PurÅæic creation ac-counts emphasize her generative capacity as the Mother of all that exists.

With respect to her multiple-singular nature, as ±akti, prakŸti, and mÅyÅ, Devç embodies a cosmogonic potency that transcends particular form and personal identity. One might say that the identity of the Great Goddess in these contexts has more to do with what she is than with who she is. Who she is can and does change from text to text, depending on sectarian biases, but her identity as a creative force

91 The Goddess as Fount of the Universe

manifest in cosmogony and the foundation and source of all that is persists across sectarian contexts. Cultic practice further bears out her nature as a multifaceted creative power that transcends her particular forms. While ±akti, prakŸti, and mÅyÅ are not individual goddesses with distinct narrative or ritual traditions—like Lak„mç, for example—

nevertheless devotees of a variety of goddesses may understand the object of their worship to embody these principles. Cultically as well, as generator of the universe, MahÅdevç transcends sectarian borders and remains accessible to worshipers of all stripe.

Notes

1. The Brahmanical tradition comprises eighteen major (MahÅ-) and eighteen minor (Upa-) PurÅæas, although there is some disagreement as to exactly which PurÅæas belong in which category. Even the PurÅæas them-selves disagree as to exactly which texts should be included in which list. The main disagreement concerns whether the ÷iva PurÅæa should be included as a MahÅ-PurÅæa—replacing the VÅyu—or whether it should be classified as an Upa-PurÅæa. If we include both the ÷iva and VÅyu PurÅæas, the result is a list of nineteen PurÅæas: Agni, BhÅgavata, Bhavi„ya, Brahma, BrahmÅæØa, Brahmavaivarta, GaruØa, Kârma, LiÙga, MÅrkaæØeya, Matsya, NÅrada, Padma, Skanda, ÷iva, VÅmana, VarÅha, VÅyu, and Vi„æu.

Many of the PurÅæas can be classified according to their sectarian per-spectives. The major or MahÅ-PurÅæas tend to celebrate the gods Vi„æu (and his manifestations) and ÷iva above all others, designating that god as Brah-man, and several of these PurÅæas are clearly Vai„æava or ÷aiva in orientation.

Four of the Upa-PurÅæas and portions of some of the MahÅ-PurÅæas are ±Åkta and elevate the Goddess to the highest position in the divine hierarchy. Sev-eral PurÅæas, like the Kârma, are cross-sectarian, and others, like the MÅrkaæØeya PurÅæa, cannot be classified as having any clear sectarian allegiance.

2. This chapter draws upon and revises earlier research detailed in chapter three of Pintchman 1994. Please see that work for further elaboration of the Goddess’s role in PurÅæic accounts of creation.

3. There are twenty-three of these tattvas that flow forth from prakŸti:

intellect (buddhi or mahat), egoity (ahaœkÅra), mind (manas), five sense capaci-ties (buddhçndriyas: hearing, touching, seeing, tasting, and smelling), five ac-tion capacities (karmendriyas: speaking, grasping, walking, excreting, and procreating), five subtle elements (tanmÅtras: sound, contact, form, taste, and smell), and five gross elements (mahÅbhâtas: ether, air, fire, water, and earth).

4. These are the dates proposed by Hazra (1975, 144). Hazra also notes that the Uttara-KhaæØa is a later addition. The GaruØa PurÅæa appears to have been compiled over a long period of time in several stages, and many scholars have proposed that the date of the text as a whole cannot be fixed.

Rather, they have dated different sections of the text separately, ranging from the first century C.E. up to the eleventh century.

5. ÷rç is another name for Lak„mç, and Bhâ is the goddess Earth. See also GaruØa PurÅæa 3.11.4–5, which states that prakŸti assumes the forms of Lak„mç and the Earth (= ÷rç and Bhâ).

6. Hazra proposes the dating of 850–1000 C.E. for much of the text, but notes that some of the text is later than this (1975, 129–133).

7. These materials include the third pÅda of the first part (Pârva KhaæØa) and the second part (Uttara KhaæØa) of the text, sections that Hazra describes as “comparatively late” (1975, 132).

8. See Brown 1974, 119–122. Brown also looks at parallels between the KŸ„æaite sections of the NÅrada PurÅæa and the Brahmavaivarta PurÅæa (26–

27, 158–165).

9.Ätman is synonymous with Brahman.

10. For a detailed discussion of the five forms of prakŸti and the histori-cal roots of this concept, see Brown 1974, 142–167.

11. As Brown notes, the ninth book of the Devç-BhÅgavata PurÅæa cor-responds closely to the PrakŸti KhaæØa of the Brahmavaivarta PurÅæa, except that Devç replaces Vi„æu as supreme deity (1990, x, 10, 145–147, and passim).

Because the mythological material is substantially the same in both PurÅæas, I will not address this portion of the Devç-BhÅgavata PurÅæa.

12. I am borrowing Brown’s translation here; see Brown 1998, 86, 89 n.11. In his translation of this chapter of the text (85–109), Brown discusses this account of creation and its roots in Advaita VedÅnta in much greater detail than I am able to do here.

Chapter 5