>
> So this makes a good mystic a failed one?
>
Only if you insist that by not becoming fully enlightened they are a failure. By which measure almost all RL followers of 'mystic' philosophies would be failures - a harsh judgement that largely misses the point.
> Seems like becoming Humakti, severing all pre-existing ties, and
then
> severing one's cult ties would be a good start for being a mystic.
>
Would it? Few mystic philosophies really detach themselves from society in such a dramatic way. This might be how a Humakt-inspired mystic path[1] would start out.
> Basically, this makes me wonder whether a mystic may experience
> failures to refute distractions or seductions, or whether this
means
> once failed, never transcendent? Is mysticism forgiving?
>
Most followers of mystic paths in Glorantha also appear to believe in reincarnation in one way or another. Although I do not think we have seen canon confirmation for every such philosophy I think we can work on the assumption that being good (i.e. following the moral/ethical code to the best of your ability) will usually result in a favourable rebirth that will help on the path to enlightenment.
In the context of which a do-or-die dash for instant enlightenment in this lifetime would be regarded as doomed to failure by many (if not most) philosophies as at the least it indicates a harmful attachment to enlightenment itself. .
> Was old-Testament Job a mystic?
Goodness! Although I would certainly go along with the idea that some approaches to monotheism are really quite mystic in outlook.
[1] Which might be an interesting case of mis-applied worship to write up!
-- Nic
Powered by hypermail