Since this thread quickly degenerates into semantic and terminological quibbling, I feel obliged to make on up front: the Lunar tradition is Nysalorean Illumination (hence the qustion about Arkat is usually posed in such terms); there are a couple of references to "Enlightenment" in the eastern/Kralori context; and what the dragons do, one might very well ask....
> All enlightenment is basically the same, but it is the *attitude* towards
> it that varies and determines it's effects.
I think this is _to a certain extent_ Greg's view, depending on how on interprets the phrase 'basically the same'. I think he would agree that they're the same 'at some deep level'. (For those unfamiliar with such Greggly utterances, compare "all women are the Great Goddess, ATDL", or "all religious experience is ultimately at the same, ASDL", similar statements about the 'identity' of two gods who certainly don't _act_ identically, etc, etc (pardon my paraphrases).)
However, they're clearly not the same *as manifest in the world*, whether or not they originate from the one Transcendent place. As proof of this assertion I wish to enter into evident: Exhibit A, a Nysalorean Illuminant; Exhibit B, an Arkat cultist; and Exhibit C, a True Dragon...
> For example, Lunars feel that enlightenment is intrinsically good, though
> it does need some controls or "healing". Lunars teach that it is
> acceptable, even expected, to use Enlightenment, within these contraints,
> to gain power to advance some greater social good. In our campaign, these
> "controls" take the form of a more strict Buddhist meditation as an
> additional technique to free-form Zen-like riddles.
Not sure I follow. In what way is 'strict Buddhist meditation' a form of moral restraint? (Buddhists believe that meditation (as well as koans, for Zen Buddhists) are techniques to achieve Awakening, and that moral conduct is a prerequisit for this; one doesn't achieve Awakening, _then_ start to worry about morality...
> Arkati feel that enlightenment is intrinsically bad, and definitely in need
> of controls. I see them as western style monks in their approach. They
> teach that it is very very risky to use Enlightenment to gain power, since
> they mistrust it so much.
I somewhat agree with your comparative statements, but with the large caveat that 'enlightenment' as experienced as 'Nysalorean Illumination' and 'enlightenment' as experienced as 'Arkati Consciousness' are not the same on a pragmatic, observable level, even if we hypothetically remove both the Illuminant and the Arkati from their socio-mythic context immediately upon achieving this state. How they _got_ there also matters crucially, and these are very different indeed.
> Who knows what Dragons think?
The Kralori. But that just moves the problem down a level. ;-)
> Taking a modern analogy, enlightenment is a bit like a homosexual realizing
> their orientation and "coming out" today. Some see it as natural and
> liberating, some as a terrible sin against God and morality. These
> attitudes, on the part of the person coming out and his or her associates,
> determine the effect much more than the actual event itself.
I think this analogy is seen to deconstruct itself, in the light of my comments, above. ;-) ;-)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail