I think the difficult questions for me in the mystic debate are -
- where do zen and related practices fit in to the gloranthan
classification of religious practices?
- likewise, where does Tibettan mysticism and related practices,
which certainly seems much closer to mysticism than any other sort of
magic, but in which the manifestation of mystic powers is not
considered failure?
- and perhaps where do esoteric alchemical practices fit?
I think a good answer to these questions would settle most of
my mystic confusion.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there is only one true
mystic practice and all the others are classified as failed mystics.
Certainly doesn't seem to be the way any of the other magical
traditions are treated in Glorantha - there is no one true theism or
animism.
I also think that the line between true and false mystic
practice is often quite subtle to those not actively practicing, and
as such is probably inappropriate for rules treatment. The subtle
differences in motivation between the entangled confused failed
mystic and the occasional mystically appropriate bodhisattva like
actions of the true mystic are perhaps best dealt with by subtleties
of narrative, rather than trying to capture them in rules
distinctions.
The problem with Gregs "non est hoc" approach to mysticism is
the issues is leaves open, of which at least two spring to mind
(actually three, but the third is a mostly rules problem)
- what are all those guys that we used to think were manifest
mystics? They aren't theists or animists or sorcerers as we know
them, though I'll agree that mysticism was never a particularly good
fit either. Magic based around Talents certainly seems fine for me,
as a starting point. Have we just replaced the problem of 'how does
mysticism work' with the almost exactly similar problem of 'how does
that eastern tradition of internal focussed magic, sometimes used for
martial arts buttkicking, work?' - with the additional twist that we
still have actual mysticism to worry about.
- what are all those guys who indeed seem to follow some form
of ascetic orthodox mysticism, but don't necessarily follow the
Patanjali renunciation of everything doctrine all the way? Are they
all just now attempted mystics with a big 'failed' stamp? Are all
followers of such paths doomed from the start, or can they achieve
mystic insight later in their development and move on to a truer
path? Does it matter? What about the bodhisattvas? Is there a
difference between an attempted mystic on the true path, but who
fails, and an attempted mystic on a failed path, who is assumed to
fail as a foregone conclusion? Either way, it would seem we need to
address the issue of how failed/entangled mystic practice works, and
what sort of abilities these folk are likely to have - and its hard
to see how they differ much from the abilities gained from what was
formerly known as mystic practice, other than at the level of
non-game addressable true transcendance. Certainly there are some big
distinctions made as far as the question of true transcendance - but
what has changed as far as the practice of failed mysticism goes?
- and a third, much more practical problem - given that the
HW mysticism rules are pretty bad*, and are no longer considered to
have anything to do with mysticism either, what are we going to do
about all those effects (such as many important theist secrets - eg
Sever Spirit) that are defined using those rules? This particular
problem is really an opportunity to fix the rules so they actually
work, freed from the consideration of reflecting mystic practice,
which was always poorly understood at best. Though perhaps we have
just replaced that with the also poorly understood problem of
reflecting transcendant, yet not mystic, practice. Anyway, obviously
an issue for a more rules oriented forum.
Cheers
David
cf Its a Kind Of Magic, by Nick Brooke. If you imagine Nick singing,
imagine me as a backing singer.
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest