Re: Monasticism and Mysticism.

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_eGHXGYDdnU0ClWzmreg3yDi0MrOoIFmkEIKgTAF3FuLgkKcWaSUjMImpySKjgJt2CdN>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:23:14 +1300

Peter Larsen wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_VYX7WfgYCX4Mea2hT3ghgvYmDIGXFednqVOl8ldUt3iE3K7MAf9xtjmqvZMb-6_I2ohZLPkCkXXeHH7xb5kKFcKdWg.yahoo.invalid
>> wrote:

Me>> I don't see how that follows - [[Buddha]] rejected extreme austerity thus no
>> austerity is required?

> No, austerity is neither required or not required.

Except that mediating under a bo tree without moving is a mystical austerity. Just because he rejected the extreme practice, it does not follow that no austerity is required.

>> I'll bite. Why is it a shame? If you are wanting to play monastic type
>> characters (say Vithelan Sages) you can do so but pretending they are
>> practicing mysticism in their off-time is rather credibility straining.

> Because, in the real world, the practices that are the equivalent of
> Gloranthan mysticism take a whole range of forms. Ascetic monasticism being
> one.

Again, what sort of gloranthans (analogous to RW mystics) have to be simulated using rules for mysticism and not conventional magic?

>> Except that I had previously argued [[theistic etc monastics]] 
>> _are_ practicing mysticism (I've even discussed Taleo Lumine in the
>> Tower of Yelm).

> Right, but their practice, to some degree, starts before they wall
> themselves into the tower, correct?

Their practice is embedded in the religion. You don't need special training to stare at the sun for hours while reciting a prayer to Yelmalio. Why do we need mysticism rules to simulate these people?

> Um, I don't think it was a case of failing mysticism 101. It was more like
> failing the oral defense of your dissertation and negotating for a lesser
> terminal degree of some sort. Or, if you prefer, Christ saying to the Devil,
> "OK, I'll take that rulership of the world; screw saving humanity"

I see we are getting sidetracked. I'm only interested in the following questions:

1. How does failing mysticism lead to cool powers which require the rules that every mystic walk about with the potential to cast the searing eyebolt of doom?
2. How does the gloranthan examples of Sheng Seleris and Oorsu Sara actually require that mystics have the capacity to be adventurers requiring their own rules so they go out and use their powers for good and avoid falling into temptation?

If such is not your position then I struggle to see what the argument is. My position is that when people want to play mystics, they can easily play people with the look and feel of mystics (ie a wandering monk) who operate with conventional magic and have to work their way to curbing their inner unrest to they become true mystics (using the Staffordian defintion). What's your position?

--Peter Metcalfe