> If the purpose (and proven result for some) of the study would be to
> achieve
> insight and further one's transcendence of the material world, then he
> would
> be a mystic.
>
> I heartily agree.
> Asceticism by itself does not make a mystic. Meditation and focus do not
> make a mystic. Attempting to see the "reality" behind this false world and
> transcend, usually through a dedicated path that has been demonstrated by a
> Master, is what makes mysticism different.
>
> heartily agree, although I will point out that the part begining "usually
through a dedicated" applies to all Gloranthan spiritual practices....
> In most paths (real world and Glorantha), attachment to mundane concerns,
> relationships with people and communities and concerns of the body all
> inhibit the ability to "see" beyond the false world and move along the path
> of transcendence. Sufficiently detached masters can probably ignore the
> world as they pass through it, only "existing in the now", doing but not
> caring about what they do. Novices are greatly aided by seclusion,
> hence monasteries.
>
I agree with this less. Certainly a lot of mysticism is like this, but engaging with the community via understanding that there is no substantive difference between "you" and "them" can also be mysticism. "All mystics withdraw from the world" is as true as "all mystics are ascetics" -- that
is, much of the time but nowhere near all of it. Really, the goal of transcending is the only necessary marker of the mystic, and the first day apprentice is, in this sense, infinitely more free than, say, Humakt, whohas not yet realized that he is trapped in the world.
Peter Larsen
Peter Larsen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail