I'm not following this. By my understanding, what Greg calls the "transcendent realm" corresponds to what theologians (in the first instance, and assorted philosophers and the like in the second) call the "transcendent realm", as specifically opposed to the "immanent realm".
Believe me, I'm normally in the first rank when it comes to telling Greg "your notation sucks!", but I don't see where it's misleading or inaccurate in this case.
The part of Greg's N-worlds cosmology (and diagrams thereof) I find most suspect is the absense of a "mystical otherworld", or if you prefer, the "line" direct from the inner world to the transcendent (or the mystical portion of the transcendent, or the separate "mystical transcendent" bubble, depending on which version of the diagram you like). In practice, I think every mystical tradition has certain "places" on the immanent otherside where their understanding is the dominant one, even though they're ultimately illusiary/conditioned/ magical, and which are essential to spiritual progress within that tradition, which is for all intents and purposes an "otherworld" (or portion thereof) for that tradition. (Though as Jerome says, it's more often the case that the otherworld(s) "stand in the path of mystics", as an obstacle, temptation, or false track.)
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #427
Powered by hypermail