Re: Great Gods vs. Transcendent Principles.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 20:06:51 +0100 (BST)

Me and Nils:
> > One could say also that they weren't even "manifest mystics", in any
> > conventional sense, since a relationship with a High God seems to
> > me to be different from any relationship with any mystical Ultimate,
> > whether than be an "orthodox" one or "manifest" one.
>
> Since the High Gods have one foot in the Ultimate, I think
> it is a relationship to the Ultimate.

I gotta disagree here. If having a relationship to something with a relationshup to the Ultimate was the equivalent of a direct relationship to the Ultimate, then we'd all be Liberated...

> > If you're "only" seeking [as below], can you still be a "true" mystic?
>
> Communion with the High God brings you to the Ultimate

Not in an automatic sense, I don't think. They may be a valid means to that end, of course. That's why I specifically said "only" such communion... (i.e. if one were to take the view of "see Vith/Aether/ other", and die a happy man.)

> > > According to Vithelan theology, the High God Oorduren _is_
> > > liberation. I can't see how that can not be part of the
> > > mystical Absolute.
> >
> > He's a part of it, and the route to it. But I don't think he _is_
> > it. (Or only one defined mighty funny.)
>
> According to non-pure mystic Vithelan theology, I think he is.
> I think Vithelan theists say that mystics find the Ultimate
> through Oorduren.

I think this perhaps just proves that ya pays yer Hero Points, and ya takes yer Ultimate choice... I think there's a strong whiff of "some Ultimates are more Ultimates than others" about the above.

---

End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #523

---