>> One of the weaknesses of Martins model - if gives us no explanation
>>at all that I can see for why some Emperors (Voracius, for example) seem
to
>>be so much less as rulers than others.
>
>That is easy to explain. Voracius is a classic case. He was exploring
>gluttony. He was the founder of the Infinite Party. He is definitely a
case
>of tantric style excess(or Rashoranic mysticism) in a Mask.
>
>Robustus was more material
>
>Reclusus I believe was more of an austerity mystic.
>
>Militaris was warlike
>
>etc.
>
>They are extremes in the main. They all concentrate on aspects of
behaviour
>as if testing them or trying them.
>
This is something I've thought about. I used to believe that the various masks corresponded to the phases of the goddess, so Sheng was the 'Red Emperor' of the DarkPhase of the Moon, lately I've changed my view of this, mainly 'cause of the digest. Anyhow, the question is how much is the nature (will) of the Goddess evident in the RMM (sorry Nick) model of the succession. There are various routes through which she could work. The Egi presumably are privy to her will (nature) and they must have "some" influence over which of the various "mandated" individuals becomes the vessel of the RE's various Parts. Also the previous mask, who has to know what She thinks (is), has some influence, in what state he left the empire, in what state he left the court.
Nick
Powered by hypermail