> Some time in the early 600s there arose a group of idealistic young
> people from a particularly conservative/fundamentalist background
I disagree about this background. What they did was radical, reassessing even the most fundamental aspects of their religion.
> They distilled out the "best" ideas from existing Malkioni writings
> (i.e. threw out anything they disagreed with)
I disagree: this was not their approach. They were not working to "prove" that their (pre-existing) version of Malkionism was "the best" -- they worked to discover what the best form of Malkionism might be.
> integrated ideas from the Arkati
As David and Peter note, the Jrusteli didn't have access to core Arkati beliefs at the time of the early God Learners. However, one of the objectives in their compilation of scriptures was to determine which parts of the contemporary western theological morass (post-Arkat and post-Gbaji) were beyond the pale.
> I am sure that they explored the mythical planes using Arkat's techniques
> to "prove" that they were correct.
Not until later could they have used Arkat's creative heroquesting techniques. Unsurprisingly, when they later did so, the results vindicated their hypotheses. (Proving...?)
> They were not above inserting some particularly self-serving sections
> about the Secret Keepers and Paternal Keepers
Perhaps "retaining" or "emphasising" rather than "inserting". A bit like the use the Papacy made of "Thou art Peter, and on this rock..."
> Finally they developed a magical ritual to "announce" their revelation.
Here, I agree with Charles. The ritual at which the Abiding Book was made manifest was the culmination of its creation, not the moment of it.
> But. The cynicism at the core of the new Malkionism infected the GLs.
> This, of course, was a necessary mythical consequence of the scheming -
> even if the GLs did not (initially) know that the Book was a human
> invention.
Here I disagree (again), at least in nuance. I think the "authors" (or committee of compilers, redactors, etc.) who produced the Abiding Book *were* the first "God Learners". It is my theory that they got this name because they Learned about God: *their* God. In which case, the God Learners would be wholly familiar with the method of the Book's composition, though they might be unwilling to call this "human invention". (Is Christ of one substance with the Father by majority vote, or because it's True?)
> At first, the GLs were the more intellectual and inquisitive adherents
> of the new Malkioni religion but later, I imagine, they were thought
> of as heretics, but too powerful to challenge.
I agree, sort of. The latterday God Learners carried on theological and cosmological speculations and enquiries long after "mainstream" Malkioni had satisfied their own understanding of the Universe. The "good guys" (non-heretical God Learners) probably never wrote another word after the Abiding Book, which (after all) "said it all".
> All knowledge that the Book was a human construct had been erased with
> the destruction of both the GLs and the Malkioni hierarchy
I disagree, here. Detailed knowledge of the process leading to its creation may have perished, or may never been that widespread in the first place. Compare with mediaeval understanding of the early Church Councils' proceedings.
> The Book was interpreted in its strictest sense and all God Learner and
> pre Book deviations were considered anathema.
I think this would be almost impossible to make interesting or amusing. See my webpage article on the "Malkioni Bible" (my old name for what Greg has now called the "Abiding Book") for some suggestions as to what scriptural variations might exist in different Malkioni lands.
> I believe the authors of the Abiding Book were essentially sincere folk
> (though at least some of them felt that the ends justified the means).
I agree.
> They were the original God Learners, in the sense of learning about God.
Yippee! I couldn't agree more.
> They distilled what they learned into the Abiding Book, and perhaps used
> a few excusable theatrics to spread the word.
Quite so.
> [Steve] Lieb had the idea that the God Learners accorded women a much
> greater role in society, for example, than modern Malkioni.
I don't like this much, if it's applied to the "Church Father" compilers of the Abiding Book. For a later God Learner belief, it'd be fine by me -- that'd be one of the semi-heretical variant practices we talk about above. But if the Abiding Book was written by sexual-equality pioneers, Malkionism today would look'n'feel too different for me to be comfortable with it.
> The Abiding Book was the end result of a long process of reconciling
> the oracular wisdoms of Jrustela...
>> Finally they developed a magical ritual to "announce" their >> revelation.
> Would you have such cynicism at the core of every gloranthan
> religion? If not, then why tar the God Learners with such a
> brush?
I am happy to say that the Seven Mothers developed a magical ritual to bring the Red Goddess back to the world, and that 27 years later she performed a magical ritual of her own to attain Apotheosis. Is this cynical?
> And it was really _God_ that moved the Pen to Write.
Yes, indeedy.
> The Loskalmi and the Rokari are definitely _not_ similar.
They are far more similar than the Loskalmi and the Uncolings, or the Rokari and the Orlanthi, surely?
Cheers,
:::: Email: <Nick_Brooke_at_csi.com>
Nick
:::: Web: <http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Nick_Brooke/>
End of The Glorantha Digest V6 #511
Powered by hypermail