This looks like Digest Fodder to me ...
Especially this first question:
> Also, how come Natha is an aspect of Natha?
Much like Idovanus, there are actually at least two entities called "Natha". There is Natha, "the" Red Moon ; and then there is "High Natha", who is a Form or Aspect of the Great Moon Goddess.
Unusually, the Higher Goddess takes the name of her current lower being, & not vice-versa. This is because "High Natha" is a High Goddess, and therefore unknowable from the POV of Lunar Philosophy.
> (All the
> aspects of the goddess are aspects of Natha, including
> Natha). Just exactly how much sense is that supposed to
> make?
Much of the transcendental variety ?
> I get all nice and cosy with the writeup in RGTG (admittedly
> not an officil source), which is all clear and sensible,
> and everything goes arse over tit again! I reckon this is
> a secret plot to Illuminate me by making it impossible
> comprehend anything about Lunar religion ;)
Guys: you've done a *great* job with the book !! ;-)
Julian Lord
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail