[Glorantha]We're not al'us?

From: TERRA INCOGNITA <inarsus-ferilt-z_at_mrg.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:20:04 +0900


http://glorantha.temppeli.org/search.php?keywords=Mandala Here started someone (Alex?) began to apply Tibetan Mandala ritual to Kralorela practice, though I feel it is something alien to mainstream of China, but Kralorela is not China..... Religion of Tibet is a "Tantric" Branch of Mahanaya Buddhism, but it isn't equal to mean that they blame on other paramita Mahayana sects....

http://www.gloranthadigest.com/cgi-bin/message.py?ref=10389

http://www.gloranthadigest.com/cgi-bin/message.py?ref=10977 Alex:
<<To an extent/sort of. The exarchs and archexarchs can only attain such positions by 'fitting in to' the imperial religion, but they play a role very different from the guys who sit around monasteries all day, drawing mandalas a grain of sand at a time, and talking in profound-sounding self-contradictory aphora. You might say this is because they're sacrificing their own mystical progress for the good of the well-being of the corporate empire; you might say it was because they have minimal actual Darudans powers or knowledge (or interest) in the first place. Both may well be true to some degree and I suspect official pronouncements of Kralorela will be constructively vague on to what extent. (Of course in a sense, both can be true simultaneously.)>>

My post to Nils Weinander:
<<Dear Nils:
Thank you for your toleration to my limited english ability....

After all, I bought japanese edition Yoga Sutra translation and abandoned the idea to read only english edition you recommend......though I formerly determined to use it as my training to learn English. :-(

But what I (and ordinary foreign yogists) who mean main text of "Yogism", it seems that the text of Yoga Sutra is beyond the concern of those who want to learn it from the point of view of other religions, for its influence is mainly from the later movement (usually) called "tantrism" that was later edited by sect influenced from Vedantha philosophy and cult of Shiva and Shakti, yoga sutra doen't mention anything about Kundalini and chakras, it is similar to learn about taoism [by] only reading about Lao Tzu, or to learn about Christianity [by] only reading about New Testament.

The Japanese Scholar who put on the japanese translation mentioned "Patanjali" only briefly, but I cannot find how far he has been turned into an object of worship among later age yogists from the brief paragraph. (Though the japanese author doubted this "Patanjali" as an identity of an individual, rather the text was a result of many original author's effort....)

It seems that Ramakrishna can be seen as a sort of a restorationist of tradition, for if Yoga Sutra is considered as main canon from him, it is likely that later "depraved version" texts are degraded, and "pure" yogism is considered from this more philosophical and metaphysical, "scientific" (I am not sure this term is appropriate) attitude.

Anyway, I should learn more about the differences of Indian Philosophy Sects: like that of Vedanta (modern main stream philosophy in hinduism) and classic Sect [Sankhya] (that was Patanjali's own.)

HATHA YOGA PRADIPIKA
http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/hathayoga-pradipika-chapter1.html YOGA SUTRA
http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/yoga-sutra.html

[About Glorantha,
I am still not sure how Patanjali's idea is related to Durapdur and Atrilith, or these teachings of Stillness (Nenduren) Unrealisation (Mashunasan) and Nothing (Larn) are considered as some of buddhism and yogism sects, it is likely that Greg used the point of view of hindus, thus chinese and tibetan philosophy tend to be underestimated.]>>

Nils' reply
<<
Hi Terra!

Me:
>>After all, I bought japanese edition Yoga Sutra translation and
>>abandoned
>>the idea to read only english edition you recommend......though I
>>formerly
>>determined to use it as my training to learn English. :-(

That was probably a wise choice, it is a very dense text and not the best to practice english on.

>>But what I (and ordinary foreign yogists) who mean main text of
>>"Yogism", it
>>seems that the text of Yoga Sutra is beyond the concern of those who
>>want to
>>learn it from the point of view of other religions, for its influence
>>is
>>mainly from the later movement (usually) called "tantrism" that was
>>later
>>edited by sect influenced from Vedantha philosophy and cult of Shiva
>>and
>>Shakti, yoga sutra doen't mention anything about Kundalini and
>>chakras, it
>>is similar to learn about taoism only reading about Lao Tzu, or to
>>learn
>>about Christianity only reading about New Testament.

Nils:
Yes, I think that is correct observation. The Yoga Sutra contains the "orthodox core" of yoga, distinct from the religions which have subsequently used yogic techniques and terminology. Yoga as presented in Yoga Sutra is independent of religion and would work for atheists or christians as well as for hindus and buddhists.

>>The Japanese Scholar who put on the japanese translation mentioned
>>"Patanjali" only briefly, but I cannot find how far he has been
>>turned into
>>an object of worship among later age yogists from the brief
>>paragraph.

Not at all, I think.

>>(Though the japanese author doubted this "Patanjali" as an identity
>>of an
>>individual, rather the text was a result of many original author's
>>effort....)

Nils:
My online encyclopedia says that there was an historical person Patanjali who live around 100 BCE. He was a philologist who worked on indian grammar. The Yoga Sutra is attributed to an author with the same name and it has been discussed whether it is the same person. It is likely though that the Yoga Sutra was written around 300-400 CE.

>>It seems that Ramakrishna can be seen as a sort of a restorationist
>>of
>>tradition, for if Yoga Sutra is considered as main canon from him, it
>>is
>>likely that later "depraved version" texts are degraded, and "pure"
>>yogism
>>is considered from this more philosophical and metaphysical,
>>"scientific" (I
>>am not sure this term is appropriate) attitude.

That also sounds reasonable.

>>Anyway, I should learn more about the differences of Indian
>>Philosophy
>>Sects: like that of Vedanta (modern main stream philosophy in
>>hinduism) and
>>classic Sect Sanka (that was Patanjali's own.)

I wouldn't call Vedanta modern main stream as the main vedanta philosopher was Shankara who lived around 700-750 CE. But, I can only agree, I would like to learn more as wel, but it is the subject of a lifetime's study!

Me:
>>[About Glorantha,
>>I am still not sure how Patanjali's idea is related to Durapdur and
>>Atrilith, or these teachings of Stillness (Nenduren) Unrealisation
>>(Mashunasan) and Nothing (Larn) are considered as some of buddhism
>>and
>>yogism sects, it is likely that Greg used the point of view of
>>hindus, thus
>>chinese and tibetan philosophy tend to be underestimated.]

Nils:
As usual, the real world parallalles must be limited. Greg uses them for inspiration, but he doesn't translate things directly to Glorantha. That said, I think Mashunasan's teaching is a lot like a practical application of the principles of the Yoga Sutra.

Nenduren and Larn are more uncertain, but it is important to remember that there isn't much left of their ideas in "modern" Glorantha. It is Mashunasan's teaching that proved successful, so almost all modern orthodox mysticism is base on his Unrealization method.

I have tentatively suggested a similarity between Larn and theravada buddhism.



Nils Weinander
We sail on a ship made of dreams
>>

One more post to Nils:
<<Hi, Nils. Thank you for kind reply.

All of my opinion about Tantric Kralorela can be found at http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~BLUEMAGI/TantricKralorela-e.htm

About tibetan canons, AFAIK, their sutras include many prefix / suffix "yogas" and "tantras", that makes me very confusing.....Greg likes to use the latter term [from point of view of yogists], I want to use the former [from point of view of buddhists], but suddenly I realise that neither of usage is right if we want accuracy!

>
> >>Anyway, I should learn more about the differences of Indian
> >>Philosophy
> >>Sects: like that of Vedanta (modern main stream philosophy in
> >>hinduism) and
> >>classic Sect Sanka (that was Patanjali's own.)
>

Nils:

> I wouldn't call Vedanta modern main stream as the main vedanta
> philosopher was Shankara who lived around 700-750 CE. But, I
> can only agree, I would like to learn more as wel, but it is
> the subject of a lifetime's study!

Mircea Eliade wrote some about classic Sankhya (accurate spelling) Sect Philosophy in his "Encyclopaedia of Religion", if I understand correctly about his writing, Patanjali's concept to each souls (prusha) are "tragically" lonely, solitary and independent. The Japanese Author seems to want to put it to opposite side of Vedanta. (Though I admit I don't know at all about the latter, and the book was inevitably translated by frequent use of Buddhism terms....)

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Yoga_and_Hindu_Philosophy.htm

> As usual, the real world parallalles must be limited. Greg
> uses them for inspiration, but he doesn't translate things
> directly to Glorantha. That said, I think Mashunasan's
> teaching is a lot like a practical application of the principles
> of the Yoga Sutra.

If I can apply my poor supposition I wrote above and if I can literally read the meaning of these simple english words, Nenduren's "stillness" is more similar to the ideal condition of Yoga Sutra than Mashunasan's "unrealisation", but it is likely contrary as far as I read about Vithelan myths and Mashunasan....But my understanding of Yoga Sutra is of course, still very limited.

Sincerely:
TI>>

Excerpt from my Tantric Buddhism Note:
[ If I can roughly and quite crudely divide RW East and South Asian Polytheistic "Mystical" teaching into two....

Indian Practice of Yoga seems to be an object of suspicion by Chinese. As a reluctant supporter to mysticism based on the Indian standard "de facto" of Samsara, indian concentration on personal liberation is uncomfortable in north relatively harsh climate. Mahanaya Teaching (accepting worship of boddhisattva) overwhelmed Theraveda, as original text of highly spiritual and metaphysical Yoga Sutra was ignored and sensual, tantric Hatha Yoga practice (Kundalini, Martial Arts etc..) was only accepted in various regions outside of India like Tibetan Buddhism and Taoism.

North People might blame on south people as selfish who only keep in mind on personal liberation, while south people quite likely condemn that north mystics attachment to material world and illusion to communion (as relation of Mahayana and Theraveda). Greg's notion about failings of Ingolf and ShangHsa that "failed in practice by the illusion of suffering other people" quite likely following southerners view to the relation of person and society, if Greg chose Yoga Sutra for the model of his Vithelan writing. So in HQ category of magical definition, Mahanaya Buddhism and Taoism might be difficult to be regarded as "mysticism" in Glorantha. It might be categorised as Theism, as Mark roughly did to majority of Kralori teaching.

Only magic which achieved the ideal of RW islamic mysticism (sufism) in Glorantha, "all of religion are merely candle lights which overshadow the Creator's face." only in limited sence is of course, lunars in their slogan, "We are all us.". Malion assumed that Great Mystery, like "Great Orlanth" related to such mystical existence and liberation.]

Maybe in Glorantha, only lunars believe everyman's equlity through "mystical" perspective.....

Greg's refuting to other "Mysticism" definition can be found at here.... http://glorantha.temppeli.org/search.php?keywords=illusion+Greg+Stafford&qsall=Metasearch

http://glorantha.temppeli.org/digest/gd9/2003.05/2113.html

--__--__-- Received on Mon 09 Feb 2004 - 07:24:33 EET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 04 Feb 2007 - 19:57:43 EET