There is no sharp dividing line between Vithelan theists and Vithelan mystics (eg Mairnali etc) - and certainly, I think that the Vithelan theists have more in common with the Vithelan mystics than they do with, say, Umathelan theists. The Four Worlds hypothesis argues otherwise, which is one of the things I think is rather silly about it.
>To the Vithelan theists the Vithelan Otherworld is natural
>and familiar, to the Vithelan mystic it is another part
>of the illusion to refute and a tempting one which makes
>it the more dangerous.
I think the 'otherworld is always alien' is a mistake along the lines of assuming that all mystics are ascetics. While I think all mystics agree that the otherworld is essentially illusory and worthless, they say that about the material world too, and differ in their attitude and response. I think its probably the same with the otherworld. Sure, there are hardcore orthodox mystics who think that there is no response to the otherworld except refutation, and they are going to treat the whole of it as alien. On the other hand, it seems very odd that, for example, a Mairnali mystic who treats worship of an enlightened deity as a pathway to enlightenment would find that deities otherworldly home as intrinsically hostile (not just to mystic insight, but to all actions). Or similarly, that a Pelorian mystic who is trying to follow the goddesses path to illumination would find themselves suffering alien world modifiers when directly trying to follow the goddess. The religions that combine mystic and theist elements surely contain things like otherworld areas designed to encourage mystic insight - why should these be hostile to mystics?
My root dislike of the Four Worlds idea is mostly due to the way it exalts 'objective' categorisation over culture.
Cheers David ------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #73
Powered by hypermail