Re: Great Gods vs. Transcendent Principles.

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Other mail archives: !!!!!!> Visit the Search Engine of Lhankor Mhy <!!!!!!

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 19:31:48 +0100 (BST)

Nils Weinander replies to me, on "High God Worshippers":
> > rather than being part of any Mystical
> > Ultimate, so you could argue about whether such people were "True
> > Mystics" as such.
>
> Wouldn't that be the line of hardcore, all orthodox practice
> mystics (liek Mashunasan) and not necessarily objectively
> true?

One could say also that they weren't even "manifest mystics", in any conventional sense, since a relationship with a High God seems to me to be different from any relationship with any mystical Ultimate, whether than be an "orthodox" one or "manifest" one.

I do think that one could use mystical practices to achieve communion with a High God, however, so this is really something of a semantic quibble. If you're "only" seeking that, can you still be a "true" mystic?

> According to Vithelan theology, the High God Oorduren _is_
> liberation. I can't see how that can not be part of the
> mystical Absolute.

He's a part of it, and the route to it. But I don't think he _is_ it. (Or only one defined mighty funny.) For the other High Gods, this would be a even more problematic equation.