The Virgin and the Goddess: Soteriological Roles in Louis De Montfort’s
Mariological Works and the Devīmāhātmya
Louis Grignion De Montfort (1673-1716) was a French mystic and priest who was one of the greatest exponents of the French School of Spirituality initiated by Pierre De Bérulle. His Mariology, captured in works such as the True Devotion to Mary (TDM) or The Secret of Mary (TSM), has had a great influence on the devotional practices of the Catholic Church — and he arguably gives Mary a soteriological role that is unsurpassed in the history of the Catholic theology, depicting her as being necessary for saving union with God. Arising in a very different cultural context, the Devīmāhātmya (‘The Glory of the Goddess’, variously called the Caṇḍī or the Śrī Durgāsaptaśati), a poem composed around 500 A.D in northwest India, is one of the earliest Sanskrit texts dealing with a systematic theology of the Devī — the Goddess (Kālī, 2003, p.13). The poem represents one of the first syntheses between Sanskrit Vedic traditions and the goddess worshipping traditions of tribal and pre-Vedic India (Coburn, 1991, p.27). It portrays a Goddess who has been identified in the commentarial tradition with the Brahman, the transcendental and immanent Absolute of the Vedic Upaniṣads — and described as a Woman of fierce wrath who also gives mukti (liberation through right knowledge) to her devotees. The poem has proven to be immensely influential on the practices and theologies of Śākta traditions across India.[1]
This essay will compare the soteriological roles assigned to Mary and the Devī through an approach inspired by Francis Clooney’s practice of comparative theology, where ‘we read back and forth across religious borders, examining multiple texts, individually but then too in light of one another’ (Clooney, 2010, p.58) — to increase our insights about how both ‘traditions honour their supreme female person’ (Clooney, 2005, p.228).[2] It will show that the soteriological roles of Mary and the Goddess are widely divergent — given their different theological and ontological bases. However, the textual discourses expressing these roles enjoy a certain similarity which can provoke consideration of crucial contemporary issues.
Soteriological Role of Mary
The Unchanging Nature of God and Mary’s Role as Co-Redemptrix and Mediatrix
One of the key teachings of Montfort is that Mary is necessary to both God and human beings, though in different ways, for salvation (TDM, 39). First, Mary, in comparison with the ‘Infinite Majesty’, is ‘nothing at all’ — and God is indeed all sufficient (TDM, 14). He has therefore no ‘absolute need’ of the Virgin for the salvation of humanity (TDM, 14). However, God ‘changes not either in his sentiments or his conduct’ (TDM, 15) — relating the common theological idea, found for instance in the Summa Theologica (Prima Pars, Q.9), that God is immutable due to his infinite perfection. Thus, given his sovereign choice in how he actually carried out the redemption of humanity — there is now an necessity based on the economy of salvation for Mary’s involvement (TDM, 15; TSM, 6).
To support this, he illustrates how the Three Persons acted to ensure that Mary was instrumental to the initiation of saving grace. The Father gave his Only-Begotten, the sum and source of grace, through Mary. The Son depended ‘on that sweet Virgin, in His Conception, in His Birth, in His Presentation in the Temple, in His Hidden Life of thirty years, and even in His Death, where she was to be present, in order that He might make with her the same sacrifice, and be immolated to the Eternal Father by her consent’ (TDM, 18). Mary is therefore the co-redemptrix in her unreserved consent to God’s workings, and her participation in the redemptive acts of Christ —especially at the cross (Richer, 2008). Similarly, it was Christ’s will ‘to begin His miracles by Mary’ and ‘he will continue them to the end of ages by Mary too’ (TDM, 19). Finally, God the Holy Spirit has become the ‘indissoluble Spouse’ of Mary. It was through Mary, though he had no absolute need for her, that he had ‘become fruitful’ -- and as it ‘is with her, in her, and of her, that He has produced His Masterpiece, which is a God made Man’ (TDM, 20-21; TSM, 13).
Since the Trinity made Mary integral in the first dispensation of grace, Montfort argues that this continues by the Father making her the sea (mare) of his graces. The Son has transmitted to her the merits of his life and passion, and all he has by inheritance. She is his ‘His mysterious canal; she is His aqueduct through which He makes His mercies flow’. The Spirit remains her Spouse, and his graces pass ‘through her virginal hands’ enabling her to form the image of Christ in Christians (TDM, 20-24). Mary, in contradiction to the passivity implied by the traditional ‘aqueduct’ image, distributes ‘graces whom she wills, as much as she wills, as she wills, and when she wills’ (TDM, 25) —sovereignly acting as the mediatrix (Richer, 2008). Thus, humanity must turn to Mary, God’s chosen channel through which grace comes, should they wish to receive the mercies and graces of Christ and attain saving union with Him. Just as Mary is the ‘the way which Jesus Christ Himself trod in coming to us’ — this remains the way eternally that He will come to us, and the way we can go up to him (TDM, 152).
The Unworthiness and Sinfulness of Humanity
The other cluster of reasons why devotion to Mary is indispensable for salvation is the sinfulness of humanity. Just as humans, fettered by original and actual sins, are not able to access the Father without the mediation of Christ — Montfort argues that since God the Son is also God, then given our failings and self-love, we require a mediator and intercessor with the divine Mediator, who, despite his tender compassion, is also the supreme Judge. This mediator is Mary:
She is not the sun, who, by the vivacity of his rays, blinds us because of our weakness; but she is fair and gentle as the moon, which receives the light of the sun, and tempers it to render it more suitable to our capacity. She is so charitable that she repels none of those who ask her intercession, no matter how great sinners they have been (TDM, 85)
It is precisely because she is not Divine— ‘our pure nature’ (TDM, 85)— and not therefore being infinitely beyond us that we can bear her Light and she can be patient with our failings. She represents the ‘weak side’ of Jesus (TDM, 149).
Indeed, appealing again to the unchanging divine nature, and citing Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux, Montfort points out that God has found humanity unworthy to receive Christ — except through Mary, who ‘merited’ it with her God — given her virtues and ‘the force of her prayers’ (TDM, 16). Thus, even today, ‘God, says St. Bernard, seeing that we are unworthy to receive His graces immediately from His own hand, gives them to Mary in order that we may have them through her’ (TDM, 142). She is still the mediatrix.
From the other direction, just as we need a High Priest to present our offerings to God the Father, we need Mary to present our sacrifices to Christ. Montfort’s pastoral counsel is to give ourselves to Mary and become ‘slaves of love’, ‘slaves of Jesus in Mary’ (TDM, 55 and 244). As Montfort prays:
I deliver and consecrate to thee, as thy slave, my body and soul, my goods, both
interior and exterior, and even the value of all my good actions (TSM, Prayers).
This vow and commitment of holy slavery is derived from the teaching of Bérulle — though it has ancient roots.[3] One justification for this consecration to God through Mary is that all our works and being have little value due to our self-will. Thus, it is the more humble and therefore, in the logic of the gospel, more exalted way to approach Christ: ‘The soul which abases itself exalts God’ (TDM, 143). Indeed, appealing to our need for imitatio Christi, Montfort argues that Jesus sets this example of humility and obedience in submitting to his Mother, and thus gave glory to God (TDM, 139).
Mary also has the power to increase the value of our offerings. Montfort uses a homely example of a peasant presenting an apple to the Queen, who puts it on a golden plate and presents it to the King — who will be pleased with the gift given its packaging, and the person presenting the gift (TDM, 147). He also supports this contention with an anagogical reading of the episode of Isaac and Rebecca in Genesis (TDM, II.II). Thus, given Mary’s closeness, our unworthiness to receive any grace, and the need for humility and imitatio Christi, slavery to Mary is a sure path to divine union. Additionally, Mary has the ability to keep secure our graces and merits from spiritual robbers (TDM, 174). Montfort acknowledges that saving union can be attained via other roads (even then with some Marian devotion) — but ‘it is by many more crosses, and strange deaths’ (TDM, 152).
Soteriological Role of the Devī
The Goddess as the Non-Dual Brahman
By contrast to orthodox Christianity which accepts a dualistic ontology (in terms of the categorical distinction between God and creatures), the commentarial tradition on the Devīmāhātmya (DM) tends to posit a non-dual relation between the Goddess and the world. These include the traditional commentaries by Bhāskararāya (Guptavati) and Nāgoji Bhatṭa (Nagesi), or modern commentaries by Devadatta Kālī and Vasudeva Agrawala (Kālī, 2003; Coburn 1991, p.145, 157).[4] These non-dualistic interpretations take varying forms influenced by different traditions. Bhatṭa’s view is closest to that of Advaitic Vēdanta, which is an absolute monism that tends to render particulars and qualities illusory; Bhāskararāya, from the Ṥrividyā Tantric tradition, accepts a real manifestation that results from the pariṇāma (transformation) of a singular Substraum (akin to, for instance, Kashmiri Śaivism) (Coburn, 1991).
Part of the textual basis for this non-dualism derives from how the Goddess, variously named Mahālakṣmi or Durgā or Caṇḍikā or other names, is described in the DM and its appendage texts, the aṅgas, such as the Prādhānika Rahasya, in terms very similar to the descriptions of nirguna and śaguna Brahman (the Absolute transcending qualities and It with qualities) of the various Upaniṣads (Pintchman, 1994, p.119):
O great king, Mahālakṣmi is the supreme sovereign, the true essence of all that is. She is both formless and with form, bearing various names.
She can be described by different names, yet by no other name [can she truly be known] (Prādhānika Rahasya, 31)[5]
Thus, un-manifest and transcendent, the Goddess is without form — and beyond all affirmations — reminding us of the ‘Neti Neti' of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.3.6. Manifest, she is the One who has become Many (e.g. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 3.14.1; 6.3.1), the immanent One with qualities and names who, 'having manifested in every way…abides in everything' (Prādhānika Rahasya, 1). She is paradoxically both nirguna and śaguna, as Bhāskararāya notes in his commentary (Coburn 1991, p.143) — which also identifies the Goddess with the Brahman (Coburn 1991, p.133).
Her relationship to the Many also mirrors the relations of Brahman with its manifestation. These include being the ‘support’ and ‘soul’ of all (DM, 11.32), parallel to, for example, Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.3. She is also the material cause of the universe, and the operative cause of creation:
You are the primordial material (prakṛti) of everything, manifesting the triad of constituent strands (three guṇas)
By you is everything supported, by you is the world created;
(DM, 1.56)
Thus, as prakṛti (a concept borrowed from Sāṃkhya philosophy and originating in the Upaniṣads), she is the source of the three guṇas, or modes of nature, though she transcends them.[6] As such, she is also the source of all the gods. In the account in Prādhānika Rahasya, Mahālakṣmi manifests Mahākālī through her guṇa of tamas and Mahāsarasvatī through her guṇa of sattva. From this transcendent triad is produced the male gods of Brahmā (the creator), Rudra (the destroyer) and Viṣṇu (the preserver), and their female consorts. And it is from these that the lesser gods are manifested and the cosmic egg which represents the singularity which gives birth to the universe.
Thus, the Goddess combines in herself all divine powers. She is Śakti — Power itself (DM 1.63 and 5:18). In the battle against great demon Mahiṣa, she arises from the heat energy (tejas) of all the gods, and receives their weapons (DM, 2.7-30). And in the battle against the arch-demon Śumbha she echoes the Upaniṣads: 'I alone exist here in the world; what second, other than I, is there?' (DM, 10.3), before absorbing all the fighting śaktis of the gods.
If we accept the non-dualistic readings of the commentarial tradition, the Goddess’s soteriological role is as the one who both binds and releases all creatures, gods included — echoing the identification of prakṛti with māyā in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 4:10. She is One without a second, and no one can liberate, if she does not authorise it. And indeed, liberation (mukti) is to merge with her through Knowledge and her grace — or in the interpretation of Bhāskararāya, to realise one’s primordial identity with her — an achievement which is ‘greatly difficult even for the gods to reach’ (Devyāḥ Kavacam, 60-61). Thus, in an uncompromising non-dualism — there is no one else responsible for ignorance — which is at the root of attachment to self, bondage and suffering (DM, 13.13), and it is also she, who is the liberating Knowledge of herself:
This blessed Goddess Mahāmāyā (illusion), having forcibly seized the minds
Even of men of knowledge, leads them to delusion.
…
Just as she is the gracious giver of boons to men, for the sake of (their) release,
She is the supreme, eternal knowledge that becomes the cause of release. (DM, 1.43-44)
In Brahmā’s hymn to the Goddess, this sublime ambiguity is emphasised:
You are the great knowledge (mahāvidyā), the great illusion (mahāmāyā) the great insight (mahāmedhā) the great memory,
And the great delusion, the great Goddess (mahādevī), the great demoness (mahāsurī).(DM, 1.55--56)
Ultimately, even the demons that she obliterates for the sake of righteousness are under her reign, the power of the mahāsurī. It is for this reason, and due to her omnipotence and divine joy, that the word līlā (play) is used to describe her war:
Broken as if in līlā, showering down her own weapons and arms.
The Goddess, being praised by gods and seers, appeared unruffled. (DM, 2.49)
Thus, there can be no mukti without her consent and power. Where all the other gods combined are routed by demonic armies, the Goddess singlehandedly achieve complete victories.
The Fierce Goddess
In the Mūrtirahasya, one of the angas, there is an extraordinary description of one of the earthly incarnations of the Goddess, Raktadantikā:
Red is her clothing, red her body…Great indeed is the terror she inspires.
Red are her rending talons…As a wife is loving toward her husband, the Devī loves the person who is devoted to her.
She is expansive like the earth, and her two breasts are like Mount Meru, full, heavy, massive, and alluring.
Firm and exquisite, they hold the milk of perfect bliss.
…
As a woman attends her beloved, the Devī attends one who constantly turns the mind to this wonderful hymn to Raktadantikā. (Mūrturahasya, 5-11)
This hymn combines the imagery of the wife, earth, mother, lover, seductress, warrior and lioness — evoking a wondrously incongruous imagery of motherly care, romantic allure and domestic love juxtaposed with terror, aggression and ‘masculine’ power. It is this ambiguous but supremely attractive figure that is the Goddess — she remains dangerous even as she liberates.
And with her is also fruitfulness like that of the earth. In an image resplendent with the ancient celebrations of life-giving Gaia — or akin to the Harappan seal of the naked goddess with a plant issuing from the womb (Kālī 2003, 240), is the description of the next incarnation, Śākambharī:
Śākambharī’s colour is blue, her eyes like a blue lotus, her navel deep, and her slender waist adorned with three folds of skin.
Her breasts are firm, even, and full…
Reposing on a lotus, she holds a handful of arrows, a lotus blossom,
and all manner of flowers, tender plants, roots, fruits, and
vegetables in dazzling abundance, with tastes to please very palate,
said to remove all fear of hunger, thirst, and death. (Mūrturahasya, 12-14)
The Goddess is the fruitful one, the ones with the three earth furrows. She is the beauty and fruitfulness of earth, and it 'is She who maximizes bliss in every realm of experience and who enables all to flourish' (Clooney, 2005, p. 226). She is bhuktimuktipradāyinī (DM, 11.6) -- giving not just mukti but also bhukti (enjoyment/heaven).
The Goddess and The Virgin : Soteriological Roles Compared
Following Clooney’s approach and if we read the texts in the light of each other, it is clear the soteriological roles are very different. Mary’s role is premised on a dualistic ontology that categorically divides God and creature. Despite Montfort attempting to give her the highest place within the bounds of orthodoxy, she remains infinitely inferior to God. Her roles as co-redemptrix and mediatrix, and her will, being and virtues, are dependent on God. And as we are called to be slaves of God — Mary is the most perfect slave. She derives her soteriological importance precisely from her voluntary consent, self-effacement and dependent participation. And God, despite the apophatic tradition or the rare vision of a Julian of Norwich, is depicted by Montfort as being basically masculine — the Father, Son and Spouse of Mary. It appears then that in Montfort’s theology, the ‘feminine’ is thoroughly subordinated to the ‘masculine’. Warner (1976)’s assertion that Mary is portrayed by a patriarchal Church as a subordinate and idealised figure that no woman could or should want to imitate is at least partly applicable here. Certainly, a comparison with the Devī, celebrated for independent power, and organic links to earth and sexuality accentuate such considerations.
Still, this discourse of subordination is nuanced by another strand in which Montfort emphasises ‘the necessary union’ of Mary to Christ (TDM, 63) — to the extent that their identities are practically fused:
Thou, Lord, art always with Mary, and Mary is always with Thee, and she cannot be without Thee, else she would cease to be what she is. She is so transformed into Thee by grace that she lives no more, that she is as though she were not…She is so intimately united with Thee, that it were easier to separate the light from the sun, the heat from the fire. (TDM, 63)
As Clooney aptly puts it, Mary ‘is the only Christian to whom we must remember to deny divinity’ (Clooney, 2005, p.224). Her relation to Christ is not unqualified subordination. Indeed, Montfort attributes a ‘functional’ equality between Mary and Christ. From Christ, she has been given ‘by grace’, ‘all the same rights and privileges which He possesses by nature’ (TDM, 74). And ‘she is so powerful that never have any of her petitions been refused. She has but to show herself before her Son to pray to Him’ (TDM, 85) — which implies a practical omnipotence. And as examined earlier, her role as mediatrix is depicted in autonomous terms.
Thus, arguably, there is a polarity in discourse about Mary in Montfort, which also reflects the lex orandi (practice of devotion) and sensus fidelium (the sense of the faithful) for much of Church history — as can be seen in the liturgical images of ‘Ark of the Covenant’, the ‘Burning Bush’ or, most importantly, ‘Theotokos’ (the God Bearer) that coordinates a differentiated unity between creator and creature. In Thomistic theologies as well, Mary’s divine maternity terminates in and belongs to the hypostatic, and therefore divine and created, order — not only to the created order (Nichols, 2015). While still creaturely, she enjoys ‘a certain infinite dignity’ (Summa Theologica, 1a, q.25, a.6, ad iv). Montfort, given his extensive Jesuit training, may also be influenced by Francisco Suárez (the ‘pious Suarez the Jesuit’ of (TDM, 40)), who asserted a uniquely close union between Mary and Christ. Thus, in Montfort, Mary’s soteriological role is predicated on a coincidence of opposites: of utmost subordination and exaltedness; of slavery and omnipotence; of God and creature; and in so far as God is identified as ‘masculine’, of male and female.
In the Devīmāhātmya, the Devī’s soteriological role derives from her non-dualistic relation to the universe — which is starkly different from Christian dualistic ontology. She is the only Reality to be known. And only She on which everything depends and is; and only She, who upholds knowledge and the ignorance — can be the liberator. Even in her role as prakṛti, māyā and Śakti, she is not defined in relation to a male Absolute — as tends to be the case in the Upaniṣads (e.g. Sve.Up 4.9-10 where the Maheśvara (great Lord) is the possessor of prakṛti/māyā). She is self-defined, or causa sui as the Christian tradition might put it. And, unlike the goddesses of many other Indian traditions, she is no ‘consort’. Even though one of her names is viṣṇu-māyā (DM 5.12) — Viṣṇu is born from her (DM 1.65) and his Power belongs to her (10.4). Indeed, the traditional Śākta reading is that she deludes and puts even Viṣṇu to sleep (DM 1.54) (Kālī, 2003, p.109) — not that she belongs to Viṣṇu. She herself subsumes the traditionally masculine imagery of war and kingship. Thus it may seem that the ‘masculine’ is placed beneath the ‘feminine’ from which it is born.
Still, the very non-dualism accepted by tradition, which is evoked by a discourse fusing polarities and which is the basis of her soteriological role, nuances this subordination. As Brahman, the Goddess is both male and female and neither. Thus, while the Devīmāhātmya clearly gives a priority to the feminine depiction of the Supreme — she as the Absolute transcends gender and it is also the ‘female’ which becomes the ‘male’ in the birth of the gods — implying a hidden identity. Additionally, a pervasive discourse fusing other pairs of opposites, such as in Raktadantikā’s depiction, runs across the Devīmāhātmya. Light and darkness, freedom and bondage, mother of the gods and the demons — all is She — and yet none of these is She. The ontology that is the basis of her soteriological role also ensures her transcendence of all limiting categories — and all limiting discourse.
Reflection and Comparison
Thus, the discourses of Montfort and the Devīmāhātmya share some similarity in their fusion of polarities — though the underlying ideas and ontological bases are different. Still, the provocative discourse of the texts, when simultaneously considered, can challenge our conventional notions of gender, divinity, nature, humanity, and of the notion of ‘boundaries’. Much reflection can result from this — but one contemporary trajectory may be to ponder the ecological possibilities of the Marian cult. For Mary, in a coincidence of opposites, can simultaneously be celebrated as archetypal matter— the ‘dearest freshness deep down things’ — and as the Mother closest and almost indistinguishable from the Divine — something a comparison with Devī-Śakambharī powerfully highlights as well. Indeed, Mary’s virginity is associated since Patristic times (Richer, 2008) with her being ‘the true terrestrial paradise of the new Adam’ (TDM, 261). She is the virginal earth who ‘embodies the goodness of God's original creation , and is the beginning and sign of its future perfection’ (Boss, 2004, p.41). She is thus a powerful symbol of a soteriological narrative that extends beyond from God to individual human souls to the whole creation — she evokes the profoundly ecological and Christological vision of a divinity that shall be ‘all in all’ (Ephesians 1.22-23). For she, the Theotokos, who is the guarantee of the humanity of Christ, is also the seal of God’s union with creation — and therefore of its sanctity and glorious destiny (Boss, 2004). It is this ecological dimension of the Marian cult that may be increasingly crucial in our world today.
The inter-textual reading of Mary and Devī also highlights the contrasting scriptural and socio-political contexts of Christianity and Hinduism. The Vedic Saṃhitās, the oldest scriptures of India, while having a plethora of male gods, have a complementary set of goddesses. And male Vedic seers are complemented by (some) female ones. There is also the figure of Aditi, who is celebrated as the mother of the gods, and the Earth mother, who is celebrated in great hymn 12.1 of the Atharva Veda. The Upaniṣads, unlike the Bible, are discussions of metaphysical philosophy. Both nirguna and śaguna vākyas are present — describing the Absolute as both without and with attributes. As such, it was fully ‘orthodox’ within the dominant Brahmanical tradition to construct theologies describing God as man, woman and neuter. Moreover, there has never been any empire powerful enough to impose uniformity of faith or a fixed canon. As such, unlike their extinct equivalents in Europe and Asia Minor, the goddess traditions from the Indus valley civilisation and tribal communities (Brown, 1974, p.xv; Kālī, 2003, p.4-5) were successfully syncretised with the philosophies of Vedic India to form the the ‘orthodox’ types of Śaktism that the Devīmāhātmya represents (Coburn, 1991, p.27).
By contrast, the Jewish canon, which was fixed by the time of early Christianity, mostly consists of narratives where the form of God is frequently anthropomorphic and — despite some exceptions (especially in the Wisdom literature) — male. There is little possibility for patristic theologians to draw on traditions of goddesses (which existed in the Roman Empire) to interpret such scriptures. This is compounded by how the male-dominated orthodox churches eventually fixed the New Testament canon — and many alternate texts were suppressed by collaborating civil authorities. While an apophatic tradition exists that decries the applicability of any creaturely label to God, it does not have the standing of scripture. Given the male-dominated discourse of the Jewish canon and the limited details about Mary in the Christian texts widely accepted by the ‘emerging orthodoxies’, there are scholars (especially Protestant in alignment) who suspect that Mary’s elevation in early Christianity was partly due to the communities possessing texts which will eventually be defined as ‘heterordox’ to varying degrees (e.g. Book of Mary’s Repose) — texts which give a high place to Mary and women in general (Shoemaker, 2016, p.232). In any event, in the complex process of Marian doctrinal formation, lex orandi certainly tends to run ahead of lex credendi (doctrinal formulations). For instance, popular devotions likely influenced the outcome of the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) and the promulgation of the Theotokos title — and liturgical feasts well pre-dated the declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 (Shoemaker, 2016; Rose, 2015). It is clearly possible that high Mariology was generated in spite of canonical scripture — and not because of it.
An inter-textual comparison thus raises questions of how ‘canon’ and doctrine should be defined and by whom. It is not about which cult is ‘superior’ to the other for both have their spiritual possibilities. Still, it remains intriguing whether the Marian cult could have developed its seeds of ecological compassion and feminine empowerment more completely if a greater freedom and ‘organicity’ of enquiry and scriptural development had been permitted — and if female voices had been allowed a greater place.
Conclusion
The comparative study of the Devīmāhātmya and Montfort’s works reveals two soteriological visions of the divine feminine that are divergent in ontology and theological basis, and socio-political and scriptural origins — but which also share an embrace of the coincidence of opposites in discourse. Such discourse highlights a vision of solidarity between nature, humans, and the Divine (Boss, 2004, p.8) that is potential in the Marian cult. This vision is also implicit in the non-dualistic readings of the Devīmāhātmya and particularly in the figure of Devī-Śākambharī. And it is such general ideas of spiritual/material solidarity that need to take centre stage in a world faced with a mass extinction of human origin and a deadly imbalance between technological power and spiritual capacity — both exacerbated by a techno-capitalist juggernaut. Contemplating and enacting the wisdom of the divine feminine in the light of different world traditions is one key to a practical ‘soteriology’ — to building a better civilisation that can heal the Earth that so many cultures have personified as the Mother.
(4950 Words -- excluding Bibliography and Title. Word count by Apple Pages.)
Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. 1920. The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas. 2nd and rev. ed. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne.
Bérulle, P. de, Thompson, W.M., 1989. Bérulle and the French school: selected writings, Classics of Western spirituality. Paulist Press, New York.
Boss, S.J., 2009. Mary: the complete resource. Continuum, London.
Boss, S.J., 2004. Mary [electronic resource], New century theology. Continuum, London ; New York.
Brown, C.M., 1974. God as mother: a feminine theology in India : an historical and theological study of the Brahmavaivarta Purāna. CStark, Hartford, Vt.
Clooney, F.X., 2005. Divine Mother, Blessed Mother [electronic resource]: Hindu goddesses and the Virgin Mary, Oxford scholarship online. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Clooney, F.X., 2010. Comparative theology: deep learning across religious borders. Wiley--Blackwell, Chichester.
Coburn, T.B., 1991. Encountering the goddess: a translation of the Devī-- māhātmya and a study of its interpretation, SUNY series in Hindu studies. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Devadatta Kālī, 2003. Devīmāhātmyam: in praise of the Goddess : the Devīmahātmaya and its meaning / Devadatta Kālī, translator and commentator. Nicolas--Hays ; Airlift, Berwick, Me. : Enfield.
Gambero, L., 2005. Mary in the Middle Ages: the Blessed Virgin Mary in the thought of medieval Latin theologians. Ignatius Press, San Francisco.
Montfort, L.D., 2012. The secret of Mary. TAN Books, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Montfort, L.D. 2013. True Devotion to Mary: With Preparation for Total Consecration. Revised and edited 2013. London: Catholic Way Publishing.
Hawley, J.S., Wulff, D.M., Harvard University (Eds.), 1986. The Divine consort: Rādhā and the goddesses of India, Beacon paperback. Beacon Press, Boston.
Hawley, J.S., Wulff, D.M., 1998. Devī: goddesses of India. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.
McDaniel, J., 2004. Offering flowers, feeding skulls: popular goddess worship in West Bengal. Oxford University Press, New York ; Oxford.
Nichols, A., 2015. There is no rose: the Mariology of the Catholic Church. Fortress Press, Minneapolis, MN.
Pintchman, T., 1994. The rise of the goddess in the Hindu tradition. State University of New York Press, Albany, N.Y.
Richer, E., 2008. The co-redemption and maternal mediation of the immaculate “Reparatrix of the human race” according to Saint Louis-Marie Grignion de Montfort, in: MARY AT THE FOOT OF THE CROSS - VII: Coredemptrix Therefore Mediatrix of All Graces. Academy of the Immaculate, New Bedford, MA.
Shoemaker, S.J., 2016. Mary in early Christian faith and devotion. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Smart, N., 2005. Soteriology. Encyclopedia of Religion.
Warner, Marina. 2013. Alone of All Her Sex [Electronic Resource]: The Myth and Cult of the Virgin Mary. 2nd ed. Ebook Central. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://ezproxy--prd.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/login?url=http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/oxford/detail.action?docID=1164157.
[1] ‘Soteriological roles’ in the essay are taken to mean the roles played by Mary and Devi in effecting the transfer of humans from some ‘defective condition’ to a state of ‘ultimate’ good — however defined (Smart, 2005). It is a broad definition based on those used in comparative religious studies.
[4] There are no full English translations of any of the numerous traditional commentaries. This essay will cite from the selective translations and summarisation by Coburn (1991). From his study of the commentaries, he opines that the two, which are widely accepted in India to be the most significant, are sufficiently representative to provide a ‘fair sense’ of the commentarial tradition (p.122).
[5] DM translations from Coburn (1991) and aṅgas from Kālī (2003).
[6] Classical Sāṃkhya is dualistic and prakṛti is one of two ontological principles. However, both Bhāskararāya and Bhatṭa do not interpret the term dualistically. Bhatṭa, for instance, follows Advaita in identifying the non-dual Brahman with prakṛti due to the illusory imposition of particulars on it (Coburn, 1991, p.145).
No comments:
Post a Comment