>> From: Nils Weinander <nils_at_weinander.org>
>> To a mystic,
Warning! Warning! Can of worms!
>> wouldn't conception and childbirth be a
>> failure? Conception would mean acknowledging the
>> reality and possibly individuality of the child.
>
>But there are all kinds of Mystics (or mystics, at
I want to make this clear: mystic to me (here and now) means that the focus of worship/practice is on the realm that is neither material not nonmaterial. I know that is gobblygook to most people, which is why most people are mislead about what mysticism is. Nonetheless, it is what I understand about it, and also what I mean when I use the term in HQ/Glorantha.
The net result is that tantra is not really mysticism, nor is bhakti. The former concentrates upon the material world to reach mystical state, the latter uses the immaterial world. Both, however, generally wind themselves up in their respective states, not in the mystical.
>least). In Revealed Mythologies we have the example
>(in which names escape me) of the two sages, one of
>whom had sex all the time and the other never had sex.
These are, of course, equivalent to tantric and traditional mysticism. Even here on earth debate rages about whether the former is actually mystical.
I am using mystical to define traditional mysticism. The term, even on earth, is often misapplied. Some forms of Buddhism, for instance, are not mystical at all.
> The beautiful queen fell in love with the wrong one,
>of course. I don't think anyone's saying the one that
>never had sex is not a mystic.
>Also, in the HW rules, I thought there was a type of
>Mystic that attempts to integrate himself into the
>world, the commonest result being a martial artist.
My intent on that was to make the integration method the same as tantra. I currently consider most martial art methods to NOT be mysticism. Or rather, they are misused mysticism. It's pretty complex but I look forward to explaining it all in detail later. Sorry that the "later" does not satisfy those of you interested now.
>Finally, most folks in mystically oriented societies
>are going to be heavily influenced by mysticism, but
>they still have to get along from day to day.
The day-to-day mystic of course uses the bhakti method of worship. Considering that all bhakti practices focus on an intermediary to reach the mystical stage, I don't consider it mysticism as I have defined it above.
>Perhaps
>there is a mystic strike that guarantees lust,
>conception, healthy pregnancy, etc.
In my new rules the mystic strike doesn't exist. It's old rules, unsatisfactory to my perspective.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail