David Cake:
> > 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?
>
<< This of course depends on what you mean by zen. It has several meanings
in English.
If you mean the moment of instant enlightment obtained through meditative
practices then the latter is the key element: you meditate on it and it's
the mystical pathway. The "instant insight" part is realizing what can not
be realized, i.e.- that is is of the "third world" that I've written about
so many times (i.e.- that which is neither physical not non-physical.) The
fact that it has no practical application indicates that it, too, is a
mystical practice. >>
I think Greg defines his new definition almost completely from methodology, not from social group or indivisuals trapped to one world system (and older Glorantha magical circumstance, such concurrent methods are punished by local orthodox groups), short world and common magic fill these gaps.
Magical Method and social group is divided.
>
> >- 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?
>
> Actually, if you mean the common and practical bo practices, this is
animism. It is more like magical practices than most forms of Buddhism.
>
Kralorelan Draconism certainly involves methodology of tibetan tantric
buddhism IMHO at least in Glorantha ITHW categorization. (In japan,
certainly some tantric buddhism sects call themselves "esoteric" Buddhism
against ordinary "revelational mysticism") , but dragon magic is alien to
gloranthan humanity and Kralorelans seems to think that it is linked to
Vithelan mysticism, (I don't think dragonewts agree with it.)
> >- and perhaps where do esoteric alchemical
> >practices fit?
>
> For instance, taoist alchemy? It is clearly a sorcery type of practice,
not mystical at all.
>
> The martial arts are generally based upon control of chi, as has been
pointed out. If you use it then the chi manifests in some form, either
matrial >of immaterial, and thus is not mysticism.
AFAIK RW Taoism is very complexed and disordered practice on the whole some of them very highly philosophical and metaphysical (not active), others are opposite, if Greg extremely places his definition from this point, most (all?) of Gloranthan social practices involve three worlds, IMHO. Four World Directional cosmology might collapse.
Greg:
> I hope my answers are good enough.
> I hope that they indicate that the mere title of "mystical" does not make
a practice mystical. I hope that it is clear that many things claim to be
mystical, but in fact, are not.
> I think that my definition is clear enough. I think that everone is being
confused by acepting the defintions of what is mystical instead of looking
at my definition.
I think I understand what Greg wants to say.
>
> >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.
>
> Nah. The are all the same, and are all handled by the rules that are given
in HQ. That is to say, they all have manifestations that are defined by one
of the existing magical systems. There are no rules for mysticism.
>
> As I said, take a look at the cult in the HQ rules for this answer. It's
there. Clue: it is the archer.
It seems that it is wise to wait and buy a set of HQ at least for now.
>
> >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.
> Manifest mysticism was based on tantric principles, which stillmay have
some reality in Glorantha, but in most cases actually result in some form of
other magical manifestation.
IMHO "Tantric" is a term that induces confusion for several RW "mystical" martial artist sects think it is corrupted, sensual form of mysticism, like Zen Buddhism Samurai, and various imagery of RW "stoic" martial artists in movie.....hinduistic term is sometimes not good, I think. Sorcery (chi control) versus Animism (Beast Form Martial Art?)?
In Vithelan mythology, certainly at least the east isles inhabitants thinks from them, "Mysticism" derived....
>
> > - 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?
>
> I don't even have a clue who you are talking about here. I have not said
that Patanjali renunciation is involved, and I don't have a clue how you'd
differentiate ascetic orthodox mysticism from his form.
AFAIK, Patanjali's practice can always be reduced to the term of Renunciation. For it approves the spirit of Bagavad Gita, though. (But certainly I remember I might be the man who first mentioned Patanjali in this discussion.)
>
> >What about the bodhisattvas?
>
> Theraveda "mysticism" isn't mystical at all. Sorry. I've said that
already.
So, at least Kralorelan emperors are not mystics in their practice.
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail