>
>Peter Metcalfe begins to tear at a non-not-weighty and not-non-light
>topic, but is a rational approach the answer to mysticism? I fear not. We
>are all soup.
>So his strict redefinition of mysticism merely means that the magical
> >practices of Tantra (ie Martial Arts) and Bhakti (ie weird magicians)
> >are no longer mystical (or rather they are submystical) although the
> >God Learners in their ignorance might have still classified them as
> >mystical.
Where did these weird definitions come from? Tantra is not a martial art, and despite its association with women in phone-boxes offering five hour orgasms, its a Hindu method of achieving satori through deliberate manipulation of taboo and pollution. Its forbidden "five m's" include sex, inbibing wine and *gasp* chewing swollen grain. While western/californian 'translations' involve quote sacred sex unquote, Hindu traditions (always informal and secret - its a cultural antithesis to mainstream Vaishnite and Shaivite Hinduism) exhibit wide range of cultural taboo breaking at the instigation of secret enlightened master, and some of the required actions are *very* unsexy. (Most of you are roleplayers - use your imagination). Its a path where women can participate as equals and superiors, and is associated with Goddess worship - esp. Devi and Maha Kali.
There's nothing weird about Bhakti. Most Christian worship is a form of bhakti, although its a Hindu term and so isn't usually applied. Its a late medieval development of Hinduism, a break out from the Vedic/sacrificial tradition where you enter into a close personal, heart-centred relationship with the deity. It might be as father and son, prince and follower, (both hardly novel in the west) but it can also be as lover and lover, or father/mother to a deific son. its finest flowering is the Bhagavagita, and its probably best-known in the west through one its more fundamentalist Vaishnite manifestations - that bunch who offer flowers at airports and still sometimes do their mantra thing in public. You too, can be the gupti (cowgirl) that loves and is loved by Krishna. Did the earth move for you?
Greg's point makes sense, but the definitions you've offered in expanding it only muddy the waters.
> >FWIW Bhakti isn't strange as it sounds for it is defined in my sources
> >as ceremonial devotionalism to a God as opposed to ritual sacrifices.
> >Theistic Devotees and Disciples anyone?
Yes, it works for me as an analogy for theistic devotion and discipleship, though the published sources suggest that possession/emulation is a stronger motif for most theistic cults. You emulate the deity, you follow their mythic paths, you acquire their feats and characteristics, in a weak sense you become perfect as your thundery father is perfect. A bhakti slant might be an Orlanthi devotee, who frr instance, takes the role of Kero Finn as mother to the deity, or one of the son subcults, and explores that slant rather than strict emulation, or an Ernaldan who acts as wife to Orlanth, worshipping the Storm rather than the Earth, focusing on Orlanth *through* Ernalda..
> >In the interests of clarity, I'll start defining a few terms. Firstly
> >these submystical practices are exoteric (outer) as opposed to
> >the esoteric (inner) practices of the mystics. Although many
> >religious practices - such as the Orlanthi devotees - could be
> >grouped as exoteric, I'll restrict the term to those magical
> >practices that are derived from the (mis)application of mystical
> >wisdom to the material and immaterial worlds. Mystics generally
> >view exoteric seekers as people looking in the wrong place.
Clarity? Doesn't Greg's definition suggest that true mystics reject both inner and outer - neither material nor immaterial? Real world mysticism uses both Kataphatic (roughly, 'pertaining to speech', that which can be communicated in words, thoughts and symbols) and apophatic ('beyond speech', uncommunicatable, numinous, emptying, negative). This terminology may be better suited to the purpose at hand. You can construct a graph with kataphatic<-->apophatic on one axis and rational<-->affective on another, and graph most religious and spiritual proclivities, though it seems that Greg's definition (which frankly, puzzles me a bit), requires a third axis.
I would be interested in exploring some real world analogues for a *true* Gloranthan mystic. I'm a bit of a student of the early Christian mystics - the Desert and Eastern fathers and the Philokalia, but the Gloranthan distinction Greg makes is one I that is less than clear to me. (And I suspect to just about everyone else as well).
Cheers
John
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail