Re: Saints

From: Nils Weinander (nilsw@ibm.net)
Date: Fri 15 May 1998 - 09:58:45 EEST


Peter:
>
> And I am allowed to question the usefulness of the parallel, am
> I not? If one choses to post ideas here then one should expect
> a fair bit of comment about it.

Of course. What I wrote came out very much the wrong
way. I'm sorry about that. I'm was a bit irritated
at having my words misrepresented.

> >Hmm? The only absolute I have seen in this debate is
> >on the line of "no, that is wrong".
>
> Read the thread again. Some people were discussing it as being
> applicable to all Malkioni Saints.
- -..
> >But, since my
> >position has been unclear, I repeat: I like to use
> >one aspect of bodhisattvas as a model for one aspect
> >of malkioni saints, that is a postponement of their
> >respective state of grace in order to help others on
> >the same way. OK?
>
> You are doing it again! In the last post you said you wanted
> it because it would be a useful bone of contention between
> the differing sects. And now it's back to all saints are
> postponing Solace.

No, I'm not. You are the only one who has mentioned
_all_ saints in this debate. Right now it seems to me
that you have read mine and others' arguments as
meaning "all Malkioni saints are exactly like buddhist
bodhisattvas". That is not what I'm suggesting.

If I had meant an unqualified "all" I would have
written all. I use bodhisattvas as a model. A model
does not have to be all-encompassing.

For further qualification: even if the model were
all-encompassing, that wouldn't mean that the malkioni
themselves knew about it. They can still argue to no
end about the nature of saints.

> >Also, as I have explicitly stated, I use one model,
> >like this one, until a better comes along. If that
> >happens, I adopt the better explanation.
>
> Given that this is largely a matter of taste, I simply am not
> interested in changing your mind.

So, you say my model is wrong because some saints are
known to be in Solace, that you have your own cool
idea but don't want to expand on it since I have
a differing opinion from the beginning?

If you do have a good idea I want to know about it
and why it is better than mine. If there are details
which don't work in my model, I want to have either
suggestions how to make it work better or another
model which works better. A flat "this is wrong"
doesn't help. Now, since I have not written any
"all malkioni saints" arguments as you have read it,
it seems possible that you did not really write that,
so let's get on with the actual subject.

> All I set out to do was to
> illustrate some of the problems of the parallel with what is
> known about Malkionism.

So far I have seen one single argument which is
troublesome in my model: I agree that saints like
Malkion and Hrestol are problems. As for the other
saints, the sources I have access to don't say enough
about whether they are thought to be in Solace or not.

If they are, the bodhisattva model falls immediately,
no argument there. That also means that the premise
that Solace is completely beyond the world, that
those who have gone there cannot be contacted in any
way, must go.

The inaccessibility of Solace is the primary reason
I started using the bodhisattva model. I have assumed
that it is an important distinction. A plain assumption
that saints have gone to Solace clashes with this and
doesn't seem right, unless someone comes up with a
very good reason for it.

If a cool idea comes up though, I think it's fine to
drop the inaccessibility. The seven heavens sound
intriguing, but I would like to know more before I
accept a major change.

> >Where do the average dead Malkioni in good standing go?
>
> It depends on how good they were in life.

So, can ancestors be contacted in some way, or is that
something which is the mark of saints? If they can,
since holier saints are harder to reach, "bad" ancestors
would be easier to contact than the exemplary malkioni
ones. Odd, but perhaps consistent.

> >But that is no problem in my model, since they, as saints,
> >are not in Solace yet.
>
> If they are not in Solace, then how do they gain the ability
> to work miracles?

That's a mark of a saint: the miracle making. But I
would like to know the reason why you think they have
to be in Solace for that. Also, the worship saints

get of course maintain their miracles. Which brings
up an interesting question: are living saints worshipped?

Note: when I say worshipped I mean as patron saints,
not as henotheist deities.

______________________________________________________
Nils Weinander | Everything is dust in the wind
nilsw@ibm.net | http://www.geocities.com/Paris/8689/

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:21 EEST