>Exactly my point: the saints are virtuous enough to reach solace, they
>are even so virtuous that they postpone their arival in order to help
>others. Sort of hanging around at the gate and ushering the rest of us
>in there.
Why do they have to hang around the gate? What's to stop them from interceding from _within_ Solace?
>Apart from that, I think you have missed the point Peter. I can't speak
>for Justin, but I don't mean to equate Solace and Nirvana, or Malkioni
>saints and bodhisattvas. I'm using bodhisattvas as a good analogy for
>how Malkioni saints are viewed by their worshippers. Solace and sainthood
>are vaguely defined, purposefully so I guess, and the bodhisattva analogy
>works fine for me.
But the point I'm trying to make is that boddhisvatta doctrine is an _artificial_ one to explain the differences _between_ the Mahayana and Theravada schools of Buddhism. Supposedly the Mahayana boddhisvattas can intercede for the mortals by the strength of their power because they have not passed into Nirvana as opposed to people like the Buddha who have passed on into the state of Nonexistance.
Looking at reality (or rather RW evidence on Mahayana beliefs):
_Land_of_the_Ninja_ allows Buddhists to 'worship' and 'recieve magic' from Sakyamuni who is the _historical_ Buddha who has passed on into Nirvana according to Buddhist Doctrine.
In _Monkey_, the Hero escorts Tripitaka to India to get the Scriptures from the _historical_ Buddha.
So is Buddha unreachable having passed into Nirvana? Clearly the Mahayana buddhists do not think so. The standard 'truth' about the distinction between Bodhisvattas and Arhats seems to me like a simplistic explaination to explain the difference in the two schools in where it was really only applicable to the time when Buddhism was a major religion in India.
Looking at the Malkioni, the comparable split is between the Brithini who deny that Solace itself exists and the Believing Malkioni who say that it does. There is no concept of reincarnation in the cycles of existance among the Malkioni. Solace is seen as Life after Death. For buddhism, the opposite holds: Nirvana is the state of release from the Cycles of Existance, ie non-existance. The concept of Bodhisvatta arises because there is an apparent contradiction in one who is non-existant interceding in the material world. There is no such philosophical objection, IMHO, to One in Solace interacting with the material world. Such a semantic distinction does not arise in Malkionism, thus positing a status like bodhisvatta (Saint remaining Just outside Solace) is _alien_ to the mainstream Malkioni IMHO.
>Sure, the Malkioni western culture is inspired by medieval Europe, but
>it's always good to have a backup analogy. The purpose of the analogy is
>not to say that a Gloranthan phenomenon is exactly like an earthly
>equivalent, but to give me a fixed point to build an image around.
But you don't _need_ this analogy. There is no _doctrinal_reason_ saying that you can't interact with the mortal world from Solace. The Gloranthan Evidence is that many martyred Saints (ie Hrestol, Rokar) visibly ascended into Solace. They didn't stop 90% of the way and say 'Alright that's far enough, I want to help them poor buggers on earth'. I can accept Saints-outside-Solace being a doctrine for being the case with Theyalan converts to Malkionism (because of their belief in reincarnation). I do not think that the Rokari, Hrestoli or Sedalpist Church has a reason to view Saints this way.
Powered by hypermail