> Which, IMO, means that there is, canonically, magical effects that derive from mysticism, and are not sorcery/spells, animism/charms, or theist.
> I think this is in conflict with the positions put forward by Peter and Nils?
Please do not waste time in providing interpretations of sources, declaring them canonical and then proclaim they conflict with what others have said. What you have provided is an interpretation of a canonical statement. I read the same statement differently and *validly*. That you see a different interpretation does not refute anything that I wrote.
> I disagree with Peter (presuming I understand his position correctly) that all of these superhuman effects derived from the mystic practice of Sivoli, Darja Danad, etc are simply sorcery, theism or animism mislabelled as mysticism by confused mystics (or even more confused God Learners).
This is what I wrote:
What I do say is that the Eastern definition of mysticism is different from the standard/God Learner
definition of mysticism. The Easterners say they are mystical and on their own terms, they are. In
standard terms, they are not mystical but their religion is sufficiently infused with mystical wisdom
that it has some effect upon their magic.
And also:
Or perhaps what the Easterner thinks of as mysticism and what the God Learner defines as mysticism are
two different things. 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.
I don't see anything there implying that the Vithelans or the God Learners are confused. If anything, it's that the Vithelans use a subjective definition of mysticism while the God Learners use an objective definition. I do wish you would stop imparting your own spin on what other people write in order to undermine their position. It's unnecessary and inflammatory.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail