>Really: Is Saintliness different from or the same as
>either Enlightenment or Illumination or both?
>If it is different, in which ways is it different?
>Would a Saintly chaotic be thought of in orthodox
>(there's that word again!) malkionism as being
>primarily Saintly or primarily Chaotic? Or, are
>Saintliness and Chaos mutually exclusive?
>(Borists apart.)
>Also: What is the difference between Holiness
>and Saintliness in Glorantha?
This is the crux, and it's probably where the Bodhisatva analogy fails.
Enlightenment and/or Illumination are fairly obvious parallels for real-world Zen transcendence and the Budhist nirvana. Solace is a very different kettle of fish, and so Peter is probably right in saying it is not a usefull model for the west. That dosen't mean that there can't be some heretics somewhere in the west, or pamaltela, or even in the east isles that believe something like it.
Saintliness is IMHO not anything like Illumination, or Enlightenment.
I don't think it is even possible for an Illuminate to enter Solace, let alone become a saint. I don't think Solace would have any meaning for them.
As for chaos, don't think even the Borists believe that they can enter Solace, once tainted by chaos. This is the sacrifice they make - to take the taint of chaos upon themselves and save others, at the cost of their own souls.
Holiness is a culturaly determined concept. Malkioni believe their saints to be holy. Theists believe their gods and heroes to be holy. Kralorelans believe their emperor to be holy. It all depends who you ask.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail