> I think you are missing the point about the draconic experience, the direct contact/confrontation/integration with the Ultimate. Kapertine is not a hell, but a realm exposed to the Ultimate in a soul-eroding way. Having gone there resulted in Ingolf's draconic magic. Not having gone any further resulted in them being "one-use magics" lost after application.
Ingolf did not go to Kapertine until after his eyes/the Black Dragon came for him (although he does go to the realm of Fantazandar where Kapertine is).
As for the one-use nature of his draconic powers, the relevant statement is:
"Members [of the Long Mountain Dragon School] were contemplative and knew that, in theory, they acquired draconic traits that were to be used only in times of meditation and ritual sheddings."
History of the Heortling Peoples p48
If you replaced Kapertine in your paragraph with Fantazandar then the paragraph works. I would say however that it is the particular philosophy of the Long Mountain Dragon School that lead to Ingolf's magic being one-use nukes rather than a general practice of draconic magic.
>> On the subject of failures, it only said that Ingolf failed and
>> that neither Burin or Jagaran became True Dragons as Obduran had.
> History of the Heortling Peoples mentions the proponents of the faster way, especially Isgangdrang. Ingolf is a proponent of the older way.
I don't think so. The faster way is the Forwards Faction while the other faction are the Here and Nows. As the Here and Nows gained control, "Material objectives of the empire thus became easier to accomplish but the precarious spiritual balance was lost" (KoS p188). Ingolf seems to be in the faster faction rather than the slower faction (although he is really a Pick-upper opposed to the Up-toppers).
> Since you discount anything Greg doesn't explicitely put into writing, I'm reduced to making the statement that there is no source stating that any of these did become a True Dragon.
The Sun Dragon is a True Dragon - it is mentioned as having come to Prax in the Second Age in Nomad Gods and it fights like the True Dragons in the Dragon Pass boardgame.
> The EWF era texts mention that IsgangDrang was a Great Dragon - a creature whose physical appearance was all you would expect in a True Dragon, not the ancestral variant.
You really have to cite the source. HotHP says this about Isangdrang
"His life charts the Right Left-hand Path. It is the perfect draconic method for every human being (in the EWF) to become a True Dragon. Obduran the Flier made it possible but Isangdrang made it practical.
[...] Isangdrang is a human being in form, but has proved to many Dragons that he is, in fact, a bearer of Draconic Power [a statement also made of Obduran on the same page FWIW - PHM]"
History of the Heortling Peoples p43.
The distinction between Great Dragon and True Dragon is one applied to Ingolf on p48. I shall observe that in both cases, the text is mightily oddly written if it were the case that only Obduran out of all the EWF had become a True Dragon.
On an aside, I think Obduran was a True Dragon _before_ he assimilate the Absolute and the mention of the True Dragon there is an error/thinko for the next level of draconic consciousness.
>> They could have easily been boddhisvattvas following the example
>> of the Inhuman King.
> That's where my theory insists that bodhisatva has to have reached the full enlightenment/draconic existence before being able to use its powers for his people.
I really don't see that. I don't see the justification for it in the gloranthan sources nor is there any justification for it in the status of boddhisvattva. All (Mahayana) Buddhism says about the Boddhisvattvas is that they delay their progression to Nirvana to help others. There's nothing about Buddhists being forbidden to help others magically before they are capable of Nirvana.
> So on which side do you put Lorenkartagan in this debate [between Ingolf and Godunya - PHM]? Isgangdrang had been retired by Alakoring, Sun Dragon by Karvanyar, so Lorenkartagan is the only named non-Obduranic EWF leader who you think may have become a True Dragon left at this time. He may have retreated into the puzzle canal, though.
It's not necessary for him to have a position. He may have been disliked by both sides for being a complete and utter snake or he may have avoided taking a position out of intense doubt. Other motivations are possible.
> We know that Isgangdrang started out the same as Ingolf, as a disciple of Obduran, but Isgangdrang deviated.
It's not said that Isangdrang deviated nor is it said that Ingolf was a disciple of Obduran. The earliest mention of Isangdrang is 775 ST while the earliest mention of Ingolf isn't until 933 ST. Assuming both were active 50 years draconically before that time making a name for themselves, Isangdrang has a headstart of one-and-a-half centuries over Ingolf.
> Since Obduran and Ingolf clearly followed the mystical path, and one succeeded while the other squandered his advancement for entanglements, but started anew, we get the situation where a mystical student decides that his master's (proven) teachings are inferior to his own.
I don't accept that form of reasoning as it doesn't happen in other gloranthan philosophies nor RW religions. Isangdrang and others would not have decided that Obduran's proven teachings are inferior. What they did do was to apply Obduran's teachings and insight to areas of thought that Obduran had not investigated in his lifetime (ie how to run a draconic society).
>> Or perhaps it's just better just to junk the concept of
>> mystical failure in analysing the EWF and analyse it in terms of
>> political power struggles.
> There is nothing wrong with analysing the political and magical power struggles in the EWF.
I didn't say that. What I did say was that your use of a particular concept (mystical failure) in analysing the EWF was unsupported by the sources and unnecessary. Given that you are now articulating your theories without using the concept, I don't have a great problem any more. I may disagree in parts or most but it's just theories at this stage.
>> Given that Mao Tzen's path was originally valid,
> An originally valid mystical path, according to how I read the sources. Mao Tzen then deviated, and at some point failed to remain a mystic.
The only deviation from the mysticism that the Kralori source ascribe to Mao Tzen is some silly crackpot notion about him reincarnating within his son (whereas all it really meant was that Gilam d'Estau's father was also called Gilam d'Estau), all because the Kralori couldn't accept being conquered by a draconic foreigner.
>
>> I think that the Path of Immanent Mastery is valid Draconic Magic
> Then what are the manifest False Draconic powers Elder Secrets tells us about? "Attain perfection of ..." transformative magics?
>
False Dragon Powers is really Kralori propogandra. History of the Heortling Peoples says of the Immanent Masters that they became Great Dragons but none ever became True Dragons or more.
>
> It is not an error to use such powers as long as this furthers your development,
This is just awful writing. It's like reading a biblical verse that says "Love One Another so long as it furthers your Spiritual Development". One doesn't follow mystical paths to further spiritual development, one acts according to what is right and what is wrong. If helping others is a Good Thing then it is a Goal rather than something that should only be done in pursuit of mystical enlightenment and not at other times.
Avoid describing draconism in such naked terms of self-interest. You don't do it for the Lunar Way or the Orlanthi so you shouldn't inflict it on draconists.
> We also seem to agree that Isgangdrang managed to remove his displays of draconic powers from his self-advancement on the mystical path.
I don't agree mainly because I'm not sure what I wrote that it is you are agreeing with.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail