> BTW, I do not intend to begin arguing this, or defending it, or even
trying to
> explain it at length here. This is not the time or place for that. It's a
> Gloranthan discussion list.
I know you don't want to argue about this topic, but you mentioned what the
core argument between Hindus and Mahayana Buddhists, I suppose.
>
> Maybe.
> But my own perspective is that mysticism is its own objective,its own
power, and
> really has little or any play value.
> That said, some insights on this mystifying aspect of non-magic being used
in
> the world will be in the ILH2, whever that eventually comes out.
> I can only beg your indulgence and patience.
Good News. But anyway, both Teshnans and Kralori (my current concern) think that Lunar illuminates are wrong and false-Mystics.
>
> > : ...mysticism can only experienced directly, not
> > :described or made comprehensible by metaphor.
Or matter of beliefs. If you put on "One is right and another is wrong" attitude.
> Here is how to imagine it and drive yourself crazy. I have written this
before.
>
> Everything which people can know is in one of three categories.
> The physical, which includes all things that can be perceived with any of
the
> senses. Seometimes called things with form.
> The non-physical, which includes all things that can be perceived without
any of
> the phsyicl senses (courage, numbers, thoughts, dreams, etc.) Sometimes
called
> things without form.
> The things which are neither physical nor non-physical.
> In Gloranthan terms, the mystical.
I think this categorization can be found at RQ con2 Book as Lunar philosophy,
You mentioned ruler of Physical World is Malkion, that of non-physical world is Yelm, and that of Mystical World is Rufelza.
but you (or Lunars) are wrong. BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PHYSICAL AND NON-PHYSICAL. MAYBE ABOUT MYSTICAL, if you don't exist. I think the key difference of Hindus and Buddhists is about the concept of "Self", both of them thinks "self" is a sort of skin of onion, and if one (hindus? though I don't have enough speculation) believes in "Core" of superificial things, another (Nagarjuna, founder of Mahayana) denies it. I don't think taoists, mahayana buddhists, and maybe Kralori agree with Lunars. (Coincidentally, HQ rule refused the concept of Mystical difference among Spiritual, Mental and Physical powers....Maybe it is from Robin Laws, not from you.....)
<<*Buddhism Fourfolded Schism for Awareness.
Madhyamica: "Everything is Void"
Yogacara (Eight-folded System of Soul): Only there are "Mind". (I am not
sure this translation is enough.)
Sautrantika: Only things can be proved are true.
Sarvastivada: Things can be perceived are true.
Nagarjuna (Founder of Mahayana Buddhism) considered more upper is more better philosophy and considered inferior Theraveda and Hinduism Philosophy as lower level. And philosophers from him have insisted that Madhyamica teaching can be proved only by "reductio ad absurdum".
I don't know these words can be applied to the system of hinduism philosophy sects (including Yogists, AFAIK, Yoga Sutra hold some hints against the philosophy of Sautrantika, I think Raja Yoga insists some level of real existence of mind, but Mahayana rejects it in philosophical or religious level), but I don't know how Gloranthan Yogists debate against Tibetan Tantrists (much accustomed with influence from Indian Philosophy) and Mahayana Zen Buddhists (good at art of reductio ad absurdum.)>>
Thus, no difference between Self and Others. And intellectual understanding inevitably and logically reaches to Mercy to Everything, because there is no difference between I and You.
Thus, Lunars are false and all entrapped to illusional Hell of the Red Moon.
But if you decide Hindus are right and Mahayana is wrong, and Self (Purusha) has coherent substance, we obey your decision, for Hindus have plenty of proofs how Mahayana Buddhism is WRONG.
Simon's input:
<<There's an old Jewish saying. If you save a life, you save the world entire.
Simon Hibbs>>
Conversation with Kevin McDonald:
<<
[Me:]
Greg gregged.
Kevin:
> > 1) There are two main branches of Buddhism - Mahayana (the Great
> > Vehicle) and Theravada (Doctrine of the Elders?). Crudely put, Mahayana
> > buddhism emphasises compassion and holds the ideal of the Bodhisattva
> > (an enlightened being that refuses to go on to nirvana until all beings
> > are enlightened) as the ideal. Theravada stresses an individual's quest
> > for personal liberation, and has an outlook that more closely resembles
> > Greg's posts on mysticism in Glorantha.
>
Current Greg:
> Both concepts IN THEIR MYSTICAL FORM, have their place in Glorantha.
[Me:]
I am still not sure what kind of "Mystical" if it is not "failed-mysticism",
but....
http://glorantha.kondalski.org/g9index/2150.html
>>>What about the bodhisattvas?
>>
More Ancient Greg:
>>Theraveda "mysticism" isn't mystical at all. Sorry.
>>I've said that already.
Former Greg:
>Of course, there I mean mahayana, not theraveda.
[Me:]
I don't know whether Greg did these intentionally or not.>>
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail