>> Some schools of Buddhism probably believe that, but others would say that
> the austerity was a side effect, unnecessary to what followed.
If the schools of Buddhism are not practicing austerity, then they are for the purposes of HQ gloranthan discussion, no longer mystical and can easily be simulated by theism/sorcery/animism. I was speaking of the original teachings in asking whether austerity was required and I really don't want to get bogged down discussing the merits of subsequent buddhist philosophies and so have to bow out of this particular topic.
> It doesn't, except maybe in the case of draconic mysticism where the cool
> powers seem to be one-use (and self-policing).
I don't think that's the case and I've outlined my interpretation of draconism and Ingolf earlier.
> The closest we get is
> something like the powers exibilted by Illuminates, who are, at best, badly
> flawed mystics whose powers should be as dangerous to them as to the people
> and society around them.
Thinking further on this, I would treat Illumination (Classical) as being a Truth based (or should it be Illusion?) Talent and allow the illuminate to augment his magic with it - the result being that it becomes invisible to the gods and other sundry benefits.
Lunar Illumination is a different creature and I'll have to think further.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail