From: Peter Metcalfe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 14 May 1998 - 11:51:10 EEST
>Although I would hardly be prepared to cite LoN as an authoritative
>source on Budhism.
But it is a source that most digesters could be expected to have, no?
>I think Peter is reading too deeply in the boddhisatva model.
Before people were saying what a totally brill idea it was to
describe Malkioni Saints. Now they are saying they only meant
it as a belief held by heretics and similar scum. So regardless
of whether I have been reading too deeply into the model, it
seems that my criticisms of the model have some validity.
>What I like in it is, as in Malkionism, there are many doubtful and
>even outright fabricated saints in the rosters, and they give their
>blessings anyway (as many boddhisattvas).
I'm bemused. What do doubtful and fabricated saints have to do with
>All that "the saint is in Solace but intervenes" and "No, it is just
>outside" becomes ridiculous when you consider Arkat (is he in Solace? All of
>them? Then how will they come back? I thought they were in a star...) and
>the saintly gods. St. Orland? Of course he lived in Hrelar Amali. And many
>families in Eastern Safelster have him as an ancestor. Recorded history,
>true fact. :-)
Let's say a Ralian says that their Saints Arkat and Orland dwell in
Solace (IMO this is what most Ralians believe). What proof can you
show to the Ralians that those Saints are _not_ in Solace? To take
a RW parallel, what proof can you show to the Muslims that Mohammad
is _not_ in Heaven?
> Some saints are constructs, some are camouflaged gods, many are
>disguised god learners, and a few were bodily taken to Solace (and have
>appeared in visions quite often since then). All of them give their
>blessings (if you are a good follower) no matter the origin. The matter
>where they are, in or out, is a bone of contention among the sects.
I strongly disagree with this. More often than not, most Saints
were real pious Malkioni. Furthermore most Sects would agree with
the statement that Saints are in Solace with only the reincarnating
Galvosti arguing differently.
> And yes, I think the God Learners are responsible for most of the
>spurious saints in the lists. But I am not sure if they just built
>constructs or a GL adopted the persona of the god to sanctify. And this
>ties well with the False Gods (failed pretenders? Or another faction of GLs
>mudslinging their competitors?).
Only one god, Jogrampur, is ever said by the God Learners to have
been invented. I thus see little evidence to support the idea that
the God Learners forged Saints on a massive scale.
- --Peter Metcalfe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:19 EEST