On 25/02/2013, at 5:19 AM, Nils Weinander <nils_at_...> wrote:
> Charles:
>
>>> There is no mystic magic. Mysticism is by definition non- >>> magical and there is no mystical otherworld. There are plenty >>> of examples in the eastern myths of mystics using magic, but >>> that magic is like any other Gloranthan magic: originating >>> with spirits, gods or essences. >> >> I'm not sure that this is entirely correct. >> >> My understanding is that mystics do get magic through their >> practices. Mystics that remain on the path think that these magics >> are inconsequential (I've been looking for a reference but can't find >> it right now). >> >> There seem to be three magics that mystics get. >> >> Refutation - the ability to discard the effects of magic upon >> themselves. As everything in Glorantha is magic, for a 'powerful' >> mystic, this becomes pretty wide ranging.
I don't think labelling a category of effects as 'clearly supernatural, but not "magic"' is useful as terminology.
>
> Which means that refutation works not only on magic, but
> also on freezing tempreatures, aging, sword blows etc.
Absolutely. Which means it is clearly capable of what appear to be overtly supernatural effects. I prefer to simply call anything that is capable of creating overtly supernatural effects "magic", and leave the metaphysics of how it does so to discussions of metaphysics not everyday terminology.
> Peter:
>
>>> "Pure" mystics don't use magic, but most mystic schools of >>> the present day have incorporated worship, and magic, in >>> their practice. >> >> I disagree but more importantly I think that this discussion of this >> supposed degeneration is unproductive because it wastes time >> describing how the cult has changed from one abstractly described >> state to another such state. I think it better to describe how the >> cult thinks and functions now.
Yes. I think the mystics care far less about purity of path than we do. You make tradeoffs in practice to make it easier for mere mortals to follow.
> Ultimately, these practices may be detrimental to reaching
> the final goals, but so few ever reach that far that the
> advantages outweigh this potential drawback.
It isn't even always that simple. Sivolic practice, for example, requires its practitioners to live healthily, and improves their health as part of its practice. That is a restriction for some, but a bonus for many. Kambolic practice is valid, but easy to fall off the path through distraction. That is another tradeoff.
Yep.
>>> Worship of the High Gods was codified by the High Gods >>> Chaquandarath. >> >> Codified isn't quite the right word as it implies a dogmatic >> approach to religion whereas I think the Chaquandarth priests >> are rather laid back and easy going.
Yes, perhaps systematised or similar? I see high worship as following a great many taboos or restrictions on behaviour, but that the ordinary person is not even particularly encouraged to follow most of them, so impractical are they. Not even being in the presence of certain substances or professions, some of which are common, for example. >> There is another approach to attaining this state - through the >> worship of Oorduren. Because the direct worship of Oorduren by the >> priests of Chaquandarath is impossible because of what Oorsu Sara >> did, most people have to follow the path of his human sages - >> Mashunasan, Niang Mao, Larn Hasamador and Nenduren/.
Yep. Oorduren is the mystic for the gods, not for humans. Humans follow one of the sages (or usually one of the schools ultimately derived from one of those sages, but with a range of accumulated other practices along the way).
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail