I also have David's need for an answer on how to handle various mystic-feeling examples. As a side point:
> I think the difficult questions for me in the
> mystic debate are -
. . .
> - 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?
This is one of the terminology problems I pointed out. Calling mystics that have not attained transcendance "failed" implies a dead end -- no further opportunity for attaining transcendance. "Attempted" or "partial" or "budding" or something like that works better for me. No one is a failed mystic until they die (and maybe not then).
I'd say something to the effect that they could also stop tying or leave the path of mysticism, but we all know that to attain transcendance, you have to give up transcendance as a goal and any path you travel will only entangle you.
> I'm uncomfortable with the idea that there is only
> one true mystic practice and all the others are
> classified as failed mystics.
There's that word again. Instead of seeing them as failures, I see these budding mystics as having achieved a mystic insight into some inner, spirit, divine, or sorcerous worls thingie. When they become true mystics, they effectively vanish from the game.
> 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.
A few big differences:
- there is no "mysticism world"
- mysticism is compatible with, an present in many
strains of, common magic, animism, theism, and
sorcery, even if you have concentrated your magic (or
at least I'd say so in any game I ran)
- there are many schools that Gloranthans would
recognize as "mystical": typically, these are where
someone who had a mystical insight set up a school to
teach the powers he gained. He may or may not also
teach his students how to get "partway" to true
mysticism; i.e., to transcend many of the things that
are necessary, but not all of them.
> 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.
I agree. I know saying so breaks a rule, but we should all transcend those anyway.
> 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)
Without re-quoting them, I'd also like to know the answers to David's questions. They are good ones. I know how I would play them if they came up in play, but my knowledge of real world mystics is woefully short compared to others on the list.
--__--__--
End of Glorantha Digest
Powered by hypermail