On 22/02/2013, at 2:30 PM, Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...> wrote:
> On 2/21/2013 4:45 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> I agree that this is an area that deserves to be looked at closely, and it would probably be more accurate to the Kabalt tradition as built on Sivolic tradition, or a later evolution of it. But Sivolic practice is described as being the basis for subsequent orthodox martial arts traditions, and Kabalt practice is an orthodox martial arts tradition, and also the basis for subsequent traditions, so clearly the two traditions share a lineage.
Just because you didn't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there. It is on page 61, in the section labelled 'Moving Venformism'. Exact quote "The Sivolic method, called the Whetstone, formed the basis for subsequent orthodox martial arts traditions."
> Darja Danad has little to do with Sivoli
> and everything to do with Kabalt.
If it had everything to do with Kabalt and absolutely nothing to do with Sivoli, it would presumably be limited to meditative practice. Kabalt practice derives from Mashunasan, whose method is purely meditative. Now, you could presume that DD came up with all the martial arts parts of his method purely out of whole cloth, OR you could presume that he drew on the well understood martial arts tradition native his homeland. >> And, of course, the two are described as being very similar in actual physical practice methods.
No. But Occams Razor would suggest that the many similarities between Darja Danad practice, and the explicit statements that both are part of the same lineage of martial arts, is best explained by them both being part of the same lineage of martial arts practices. It is a pretty straight forward theory that fits all the facts - if you have another theory, in which DD ignores the entire Sivolic tradition for some reason and independently creates a martial arts tradition entirely out of whole cloth, please throw it out for consideration.
>> I think this is an extreme position, not supported by Eastern myth (which is rife with apparent significant acts of mystic magic).
Well, for example, Mashunasan defeats Oorsu Sara using the power of Jerema Madoon. Later he makes several entire islands disappear, among other effects of Refuting Avanapdur. Do you think Mashunasan is not a mystic, or is using non-mystic magic here, or do you doubt these are magical acts at all?
> You can make Kabalt a straight theistic cult and nobody would be any wiser.
I have no doubt you are capable of convincing yourself that all the mentions of mysticism, and mystic figures, in connection with Kabalt are of no importance, as you have already convinced yourself that every magical act by a mystic isn't a mystic. But would that be correct?
>> Perhaps it might be better stated as mysticism does not perform active magical acts, but only passive or inward focussed magic
We could describe all animist effects using sorcerous 'command entity' spells and such if we wanted. The rules would work fine. But there is no sensible reason to do so, just as there is no sensible reason to describe all magic manifested by mystics as something else that they explicitly deny it to be. The main reason we don't describe all the passive or inward magics used by mystics using some other form of magic is because we would be assuming that all of Eastern Myth is an enormous web of lies designed largely to convince us of the existence of mystic magic that doesn't exist. I'm sure you can convince yourself of such a conspiracy theory version of Eastern myth. The question is, why?
> Are the Three Bean Circus or the Priests
> of Pavis mystical magicians because they do magic that has a similar
> effect to what Darja's monks did?
That sentence only makes any sense at all if you
a) consider the followers of Darja Danad striking heavily armed men dead with the touch of a stick as not a significant magic act. And Darja Danad striking the demon king Janadi dead with a bare handed blow not a magic act. Etc.
but
b) but DO consider DD hitting an unarmed prisoner with a stick, an eliciting a whimper (just as you would expect from a completely non-magical person hitting a prisoner with a stick) to be a magical act to significant that someone would found all subsequent martial arts traditions on it. And then go on to consider pacifying surrendered prisoners using a stick to be the similar as pacifying active combatants using a magical effect.
For extra credit, you may want to construct an explanation why, when Darja Danad 'remembered his patron' just before striking Janadi dead, he is either referring to someone totally different to Kabalt, or this is just a casual reminescence in the midst of battle totally unconnected to the striking a demon king dead with a bare handed blow. Because it seems essential to your case that the obvious explanation (that he invokes Kabalt to make a powerful magical blow) would mean that your representation of DDs magic is being 'peace magic' is pretty at odds with observation.
>
>> - though even this would appear to be explicitly refuted for Darja Danad, who is described as being able to 'project his mystical power outward', which sounds indistinguishable from a magic act to me.
We could, indeed, assume that every single time in the Eastern mythology where mystics (god, demigod or human) are described as performing an overtly magic act, this is just God Learners being confused. Of course, it would make a mockery of the entire thing, and there is exactly as much reason to do so as there is to, for example, presume that every reference to animism in Pamaltelan myth is just God Learners getting similarly confused.
> The statement
> that Darja Danad could project his mystical power outwards is one
> written from within the Eastern point of view. A God Learner looking at
> Darja Danad's power projection would describe it in terms of affinities,
> spells or spirits.
Write, so you think the Easterners are confused/lying when they refer to mystic magic, and Mashunasan (for example) is really casting sorcerous counterspells or something.
>> And refuting or disspelling or resisting an act of magic is still an act of magic, and no one doubts that mystics do this all the time.
No, the argument is about whether mystics perform magic acts that are mystic in nature. As you don't seem to be denying any longer that mystics such as Mashunasan (or Vith, Oorduren, etc) perform magic acts, we are left only with the possibilities that the Sage and his followers are either mistaken or lying about whether those acts are mystic in nature. Either would constitute a pretty solid claim that most of Eastern myth is a lie.
> Since Priests, Sorcerers and
> Shamans are known for dispelling or resisting magics all the time, I
> fail to see how Eastern Sages doing similar acts mandates the existence
> of mystical magic.
No, you just think the Eastern Sages are either lying, or massively deluded, about it. The Great Eastern Magic Conspiracy Theory.
> For example Vith's refutations of the Three Antigods
> are similar to Zzabur's actions in the Wars of Low Magic yet nobody sees
> the need to make Zzabur a mystic so that he can do what he does.
But neither has anyone decided to claim that because earthquake magics could be performed by Lodril or Maran Gor, when Zzabur sinks continents he is clearly using divine magic and lying about it.
>>> While it is often claimed that this is the case, there is ample evidence that many practitioners of mysticism are interested in the magic it has as a byproduct, including some of those that are revered by mystics - eg the heroes of the Austerity War. It may well be that they shouldn't be so interested, but that is a subtly different question.
>> So, there seems general disagreement with your assertion that mysticism has no magic effects (even if it is a byproduct, rather than a goal, of mystic practice), and I, at least, specifically disagree even with that.
I'll let David define his own position.
>
> As for your response, I don't think the heroes of the Austerity War are
> the mystics that David Scott was talking about.
Of course not, they were the counter example I presented.
>> Of course, there is always the possibility that these apparent mystic practices are in some way a hybrid form of magic where mysticism is used only to enhance other magical effects.
Strengthening attachment to a concept isn't the same thing as manifesting magic powers. Even if mystic practices are only able to enhance other forms of magic (and there is ample evidence, IMO, that they do more than this) that would still be more than 'strengthening attachment to a concept'.
>> While that doesn't appear to be the case for the effects manifested by (say) Mashunasen,
Only if you presume that Mashunasan manifests these magical acts using one of the other three forms of magic. Either you think he is capable of performing magical acts through mysticism alone, or you think these acts are actually (mystically enhanced, i guess).
>> If it makes you semantically happier, martial arts magic could be >> construed as largely involving strengthening affinities or natural >> magic. But I think to entirely divorce magical martial arts acts from >> mystic practice would be quite misleading,
As I understand it, you merely claim that mysticism has no part to play in any of the magical abilities they manifest, and that mysticism is more or less epiphenomenological - that we could remove mysticism from them, and nothing about the magical abilities manifest would change.
> The remainder of the Darja Danad debate I'll sadly have to put to one
> side as the style of responses has become unproductive.
A cynic might suggest that is a way of saying you found the lines of argument presented did not lead where you wanted them to lead. You began the lines of this argument that are based on close reading of individual lines of sources. Sorry you didn't like where they went.
Regards
David
Powered by hypermail