Re: the Hindu model of Malkionism from Argrath_at_aol.com on 1996-02-07 (Glorantha Digest Vol 02)

From: Argrath_at_aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 19:23:48 -0500

In Glorantha Digest V2 #362, Erik the Whyning writes that he once rewrote the:

>"What my Father told me" for the Western Knight by changing all
>references of a RW European nature to Indian - talking about
>"Rajahs" instead of Lords, "Brahmins" instead of Wizards etc, but
>it failed due to my ignorance of Indian matters.

Let's look at it:

     Lords               Rajahs
     Wizards           Brahmins
     Knights            Ksatriyas
     Peasants         Vaisyas (merchants & husbandmen)

One problem, of course, is that Hinduism's 4-caste system drew its rulers from the Ksatriya class and had a lower caste of Sudras (menial artisans, laborers, and servants). And their caste system was a lot more complicated than this, with innumerable jati (birth groups) as well as the 4-fold varna (color) categorization. "Rajahs" isn't quite right, either: anybody know a better term?

My sources note that in Vedic times there was some mobility between these categories, and intermarriage was not unusual. Kind of the opposite of the Malkioni, with complete rigidity early on and mobility developing later.

Of course, the bigger problem is that Hindu mythology, theology, and cultic practice don't make a very good model for Malkionism, so these titles just look tacked on. Hinduism is a dandy model for the theistic traidition, but not so good for the monotheists.

I'm glad, OTOH, to see someone else who thinks Malkioni swear by the Prophet's Beard. Now THAT's a fruitful line of thinking.

--Martin