{{#invoke:Lang|lang}} ({{#invoke:IPA|main}}) ("Two-God") is a name used to refer to the pair of Aztec deities {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}},<ref name="NahoaMythology">Template:Cite book</ref> also known as {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}.<ref name="adelaf">Template:Cite book</ref> {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} translates as "two" or "dual" in Nahuatl and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} translates as "Divinity".Ometeotl was one as the first divinity, and Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl when the being became two to be able to reproduce all creation.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
DefinitionEdit
Multiple Nahuatl sources, notably the Florentine Codex, name the highest level of heaven {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} or "place of duality" ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}} specifically terms it "in {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} in {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}" or "the place of duality, above the nine-tiered heavens)."Template:Sfn In the {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, Franciscan priest {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} translated a Nahuatl source reporting that in this layer of heaven there existed "a god named {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, which means two-gods, and one of them was a goddess."Template:Sfn The History of the Mexicans as Told by Their Paintings ({{#invoke:Lang|lang}}) names the inhabitants of the uppermost heaven {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} (Lord and Lady of Abundance).Template:Sfn {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} concurs that these are epithets of "in {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} in {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}", giving as another name of {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} "in {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}" ("the mansion of the Lord of Abundance").Template:Sfn
There is some evidence that these two gods were considered aspects of a single being, as when a singer in the {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} asks where he can go given that "{{#invoke:Lang|lang}} {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}" ("they, God, stand double").Template:Sfn The {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} reports of the two that "{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}" (they were raised and had always been in the thirteenth heaven; nothing was ever known of their beginning, just their dwelling and creation, which were in the thirteenth heaven).Template:Sfn
As a result of these references, many scholars (most notably {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}) interpret the rare name {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} as "Dual God" or "Lord of the Duality". {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} further argues that {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} was the supreme creator deity of the Aztecs, and that the Aztecs envisioned this deity as a mystical entity with a dual nature.
CriticismEdit
Other scholars however, notably Richard Haly (1992), argue that there was no {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} or {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} among the Aztecs. Instead, he claims, the names should be interpreted using the Nahuatl root Template:Wikt-lang ("bone"), rather than Template:Wikt-lang ("two"). Haly further contends that {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} was another name for {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} and {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, both gods related to the creation of humans from dead bones. He argues that, of the five sources used by {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} to argue in favor of the existence of a single creator god among the Aztecs, none contains a clear reference to a god of duality.
First, {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} cites the Franciscan {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, who affirms in his chronicle that the "Indians wanted the divine Nature shared by two gods". In his translation of the {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} introduces a reference to the "God of duality" where it is not explicitly found in the original text, which reads "{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}".Template:Sfn Haly argues that {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} erroneously unites "stands dual" with the Spanish loanword {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} ("God") to invent this dual deity.<ref>Haly 1992:275</ref><ref>Payas 2004:553</ref> Another example given by {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} is from the {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}: "{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}", literally "two-god, creator of humanity."Template:Sfn Haly, reading the interjection {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} as part of a longer (and similarly unattested) {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, argues that this should rather be translated as "juicy maguey God" as the text talks about the imbibing of pulque. The {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} has a representation of a god labelled {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} — iconographic analysis shows the deity {{#invoke:Lang|lang}} to be identical to {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}.<ref>Haly 1992:277</ref><ref>Anders et al.</ref> The fifth source is the History of the Mexicans as Told by Their Paintings which Haly shows does not in fact read {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, but rather "{{#invoke:Lang|lang}}, ("bone-lord") who is also called {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}" and is explicitly stated to be identical to {{#invoke:Lang|lang}}.
James Maffie in his book Aztec Philosophy poses the argument that Aztec religion was pantheistic, centered on the entity Teotl. As a result of the pantheism proposed by Maffie that he claims was practiced by the Aztecs, it is by definition not possible that Ometeotl can be a “God of Duality” that is separate from Teotl, which is contradictory to the way in which Leon-Portilla talks about Ometeotl as a transcendental creator god.<ref>Ometeotl, the God that Didn’t Exist, Itztli Ehecatl. http://www.calmecacanahuac.com/blog/uncategorized/ometeotl-the-god-that-didnt-exist/. 2014</ref>
NotesEdit
ReferencesEdit
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- {{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }} Template:In lang