> I'm having another crack at interpreting Shinto into HW terms,
> and what with the 8 million kami and the like, I think the above
> suggests that the veneration model is the appropriate one. Quite
> interesting, really - at least one theory I have seen suggests that
> Shinto should be thought of as a mature animism from the Shugendo
> philosophy institutionalised into a structure very much like the
> saint/congregation/liturgist dynamic.
One could certainly argue that shinto isn't very much like HW "animism", in which the core practices seem to necessarily be ecstatic. And nor is it anything much like (Heortling-style) theism. So by a process of elimination, maybe it really is somewhat like veneration... (Personally I think the old-time Dara Happan theism might not be very different from this, though. All rituals and sacrifices, rather than anything much in the way of personalised experiential devotion.)
I'd suggest that to an extent, one should throw out some of this bathwater, and choose the _mechanic_ that seems to give you the best description of the practice concerned. i.e., whichever one "feels" best...
> Now, if I understand correctly, sorcery has no NECESSARY relationship
> with with veneration in structural (as opposed gloranthan specific)
> terms, right?
I see what you're saying; but then again, the whole distinction is made is such Glorantha-specific terms that it's hard to say.
> Liturgists use the sorcery mechanic, that would need
> to be kept, but do the GodLearner-descended sorcerers have a
> necessary relationship with this structure? I think not. I'd like
> to put real animist shugendo-practitioners into that role, that of
> the local wizard-type. Plausible?
I think that'd be a viable approach. Essentially you're saying the laity relate to the spirits in a formalised manner, and the "priesthood" in an experiential one, right?
Powered by hypermail