> I think the difficult questions for me in
>the mystic debate are -
>- where do zen and related practices fit in to the
>gloranthan classification of religious practices?
This of course depends on what you mean by zen. It has several meanings in English. If you mean the moment of instant enlightment obtained through meditative practices then the latter is the key element: you meditate on it and it's the mystical pathway. The "instant insight" part is realizing what can not be realized, i.e.- that is is of the "third world" tht I've written about so many times (i.e.- tht which is neither physical not non-physical.) The fact that it has no practical application indicates that it, too, is a mystical prctice.
>- likewise, where does Tibettan mysticism and
>related practices,
>which certainly seems much closer to mysticism than
>any other sort of
>magic, but in which the manifestation of mystic
>powers is not considered failure?
Actually, if you mean the common and practical bo practices, this is animism. It is more like magical practices than most forms of Buddhism.
>- and perhaps where do esoteric alchemical
>practices fit?
For instance, taoist alchemy? It is clearly a sorcery tye of pracice, not mystical at all.
> I think a good answer to these questions
>would settle most of my mystic confusion.
I hope my answers are good enough.
I hope that they indicate that the mere title of "mystical" does not make a practice mystical. I hope that it is clear that many things claim to be mystical, but in fact, are not.
I think that my definition is clear enough. I think that everone is being confused by acepting the defintions of what is mystical instead of looking at my definition.
> I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there
>is only one true
>mystic practice and all the others are classified
>as failed mystics.
Yes, that is clear.
>Certainly doesn't seem to be the way any of the
>other magical
>traditions are treated in Glorantha - there is no
>one true theism or animism.
Yes, that is right.
> I also think that the line between true and
>false mystic
>practice is often quite subtle to those not
>actively practicing, and
>as such is probably inappropriate for rules
>treatment.
Which is why there are not rules for mysticism.
>The subtle
>differences in motivation between the entangled
>confused failed
>mystic and the occasional mystically appropriate
>bodhisattva like
>actions of the true mystic are perhaps best dealt
>with by subtleties
>of narrative, rather than trying to capture them in
>rules distinctions.
Nah. The ae all the same, and are all handled by the rules that are given in HQ. That is to say, they all have manifestations that are defined by one of the existing magical systems. There are no rules for mysticism.
>The problem with Gregs "non est hoc"
>approach to mysticism is
>the issues is leaves open, of which at least two
>spring to mind
>(actually three, but the third is a mostly rules
>problem)
> - what are all those guys that we used to
>think were manifest mystics? They aren't theists or >animists or sorcerers as we know
>them, though I'll agree that mysticism was never a
>particularly good
>fit either.
Manifest mysticism was based on tantric principles, which stillmay have some reality in Glorantha, but in most cases actually result in some form of other magical manifestation.
Magic based around Talents certainly
>seems fine for me,
>as a starting point. Have we just replaced the
>problem of 'how does
>mysticism work' with the almost exactly similar
>problem of 'how does
>that eastern tradition of internal focussed magic,
>sometimes used for
>martial arts buttkicking, work?' - with the
>additional twist that we
>still have actual mysticism to worry about.
The martial arts are generally based upon control of chi, as has been pointed out. If you use it then the chi manifests in some form, either matrial of immaterial, and thus is not mysticism.
> - what are all those guys who indeed seem
>to follow some form
>of ascetic orthodox mysticism, but don't
>necessarily follow the
>Patanjali renunciation of everything doctrine all
>the way? Are they
>all just now attempted mystics with a big 'failed'
>stamp? Are all
>followers of such paths doomed from the start, or
>can they achieve
>mystic insight later in their development and move
>on to a truer
>path? Does it matter?
I don't even have a clue who you are talking about here. I have not said that Patanjali renunciation is involved, and I don't have a clue how you'd differentiate ascetic orthodox mysticism from his form.
>What about the bodhisattvas?
Theraveda "mysticism" isn't mystical at all. Sorry. I've said that alrady.
>Is there a
>difference between an attempted mystic on the true
>path, but who
>fails, and an attempted mystic on a failed path,
>who is assumed to
>fail as a foregone conclusion?
Who cares? This kind of hair splitting is just mental wanking. I do't actually see what it has to do with the game and play. They are both the same: they are failed.
>Either way, it would seem we need to
>address the issue of how failed/entangled mystic
>practice works, and
Get the HQ book, and look atthe one cult that is of this nature in there. Which one? Guess. It should be obvious, even though I don't state it to be so.
>what sort of abilities these folk are likely to
>have - and its hard
>to see how they differ much from the abilities
>gained from what was
>formerly known as mystic practice, other than at
>the level of
>non-game addressable true transcendance. Certainly
>there are some big
>distinctions made as far as the question of true
>transcendance - but
>what has changed as far as the practice of failed
>mysticism goes?
As I said, take a look at the cult in the HQ rules for this answer. It's there. Clue: it is the archer.
> - and a third, much more practical problem
>- given that the
>HW mysticism rules are pretty bad*, and are no
>longer considered to
>have anything to do with mysticism either, what are
>we going to do
>about all those effects (such as many important
>theist secrets - eg
>Sever Spirit) that are defined using those rules?
You will have to get HQ and see what a finished game looks like. None of the HQ rules are defined that way. Check it out.
>This particular
>problem is really an opportunity to fix the rules
>so they actually
>work, freed from the consideration of reflecting
>mystic practice,
>which was always poorly understood at best. Though
>perhaps we have
>just replaced that with the also poorly understood
>problem of
>reflecting transcendant, yet not mystic, practice.
We have taken the opportunity and fixed it.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail