La tecnología como impulsora de la participación

In these pages, I have attempted to present the meanings that MahÅdevç, in all her various manifestations, has for her Oriya Hindu devotees. I have tried to remain as faithful as possible to indigenous conceptions and interpretations. The voices heard and the opinions presented have been those of ordinary Oriya Hindu householders and their wives—

the majority, as it happens, of the residents of the temple town of Bhubaneshwar. These men and women have few pretensions of being philosophically sophisticated. As far as I know, few would claim that they consider KÅlç to be their divine mother “because she gives birth to a wider vision of reality than the one embodied in the order of dharma” (Kinsley 1982, 152). Neither would most suggest that she

53 MahÅdevç as Mother

should be understood as beckoning them towards a final release (mok„a), because people rarely speak of their chances of achieving such release.

In fact, there are those who are sufficiently astute, mentally, to argue that even to talk of such a possibility is itself a kind of attachment and one more indication of being still bound to this world of enchantment and illusion (moha-mÅyÅ).

Instead, these men and women affirm life in this world, describ-ing the life of the householder as most blessed (dhanya), most excellent (±re„‡ha), and happy (sukhamaya). In their estimation, it embodies “the good life” (cf. Madan 1987). They see the experiences of this world—

to be born, to live, to eat, to make love, to procreate—as worthy and valuable experiences worth repeating in future lives. They unhesi-tatingly recognize MahÅdevç as “the power that makes possible not only the creation, but also the maintenance and destruction of the universe. She transcends the universe and controls its rhythms. Yet she is also immanent, for it is said that she abides in all beings in the form of ±akti and is described as the ±akti of all that is” (Pintchman 1994, 120–121). But, simultaneously, and perhaps because of their positive evaluation of life in this world, they also recognize the futility of ordinary humans trying to apprehend her all-encompassing nature.

Hence, they make sense of her by domesticating her, by socializing her, by defining her in terms of a particular role, that of mother. When they acknowledge her immanence, it is as MÅ, Mother. As MÅ she becomes accessible to them, and they can approach her without fear, doubt, or hesitation.

Therefore, most ordinary folk in Bhubaneshwar going about the everyday business of living unqualifiedly identify MahÅdevç in all her manifestations, the benign and the terrible, as Mother. As a mother, they claim, she may be terrifying, but she can never be terrible to her children. As that which makes everything possible, she transcends the embodied universe; she is beyond all moral and social norms. Never-theless, by approaching and addressing her as “MÅ,” her devotees reclaim her. They contend that identifying MahÅdevç as mother com-pels her, powerfully and irresistibly, to remember her maternal, nur-turing responsibilities to her children, and to never refuse their requests.

Notes

1. Oriya Hindus routinely interchange the names MÅ, Devç, ÷akti, MahÅdevç, often in the same sentence.

2. According to Oriya Hindus, only when she is in her form as KÅlç, her most destructive aspect, do bloodthirsty demonesses like CaæØç and CÅmuæØç tumble out of her body, devouring all life forms that come in their path.

3. The Sabaros are a Mundari-speaking group of tribals who live in the hills of Ganjam district in southern Orissa. The icon of JagannÅtha in the temple at Puri is supposed to be of Sabaro origin and is said to have been stolen from the Sabaros by an emissary of the king of Puri.

4. Interestingly enough, the role of the one who is ignorant of the

“truth” is cast upon the Sabaro, someone who could be technically catego-rized as the Other. As it happens, however, Sabaros, though recognized as ÅdivÅsis (autochthonous people), are well-integrated into LiÙgarÅj’s worship.

The Badus, a subcaste that claims Brahmin status and participates in ritual activities at the LiÙgarÅj temple, are said to be descendants of the union be-tween a Sabaro woman and the ascetic Siddhabhâtç, a devotee of ÷iva. In fact, the woman who told me this story is herself a Badu.

5. The popularity of the icon is hardly surprising considering that the Goddess is worshiped in precisely this form in the KapÅlç Mandir that I mentioned toward the beginning of this essay.

6. In addition, one informants adduced very few of the twenty-five meanings and were able to do little more than identify the figure in the icon as KÅlç.

7. On examination, neither the LiÙga PurÅæa nor the KÅlçkÅ PurÅæa appears to be the appropriate text. Rather, the MÅrkaæØeya PurÅæa, including as it does the Devç-MÅhÅtmya, seems to be what these people had in mind.

8. SÅralÅ DÅsa is the name taken by Sidhe±var PariØÅ, a ±Åkta who lived out his days as the Goddess’s servant at the temple dedicated to SÅralÅ at ChattiÅ in Cuttack district in Orissa. As a ±Åkta, SÅralÅ DÅsa elaborates a highly female-oriented perspective. Two other texts, the Adhbhuta RÅmÅyaæa and the Bilaæka RÅmÅyaæa, are also attributed to him. In the latter, as befits a devotee of the Goddess, he portrays SçtÅ as assuming the blindingly radiant form of MahÅdevç and killing the thousand-headed demon RÅvaæa while her fearful husband, RÅma, stands by helplessly in the shadows and watches (see Mishra 1980; Banerjee 1986).

9. Bhañja is a medieval Oriya poet who belonged to the ruling family of Mayurbhañj in northeastern Orissa.

10. A caste of cultivators, locally ranked as a “clean caste.”

Chapter 3