No, they transcend.
someone wrote:
> > Hmmm .... actually, from Greg's explanations during the High Philosophy of
>> Glorantha (HPG) seminar, all of the worlds (except for some
>>hypothetic isolated
>
>Oh please <insert higher power here>, let there be a seminar transcript of
>that seminar somewhere for some of us are too lacking in funding to go to
>conventions.
Seconded.
Alex wrote:
>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.)
I'm with Alex. The example that springs readily to mind is Tibettan buddhism - a very mystical tradition, but one that quite definitely has a specific conception of the otherworld and how to deal with it. Sure, they would admit to its illusory nature (isn't everything?), and it is in the end something that must be overcome for spiritual development, but nonetheless its a native otherworld. A relevant example, too, as its a tradition that seems to come up often in discussion of Kralorelan traditions.
Alex wrote:
>The part of Greg's N-worlds cosmology (and diagrams thereof) I find
>most suspect...
I think my biggest single problem with Gregs N-worlds cosmology can be expressed somewhat obscurely by saying N should be a real number, not an integer. There should be shades of tradition that are nonetheless valid.
Cheers David ------------------------------
End of The Glorantha Digest V8 #433
Powered by hypermail