[Glorantha]Your Kralorela, my Kralorela

From: TERRA INCOGNITA <inarsus-ferilt-z_at_mrg.biglobe.ne.jp>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:04:14 +0900

Hello, Peter. Your opinion is perfectly "Glorantha is not RW China" attitude, I think it has something different flavor of Mark Galeotti or Alex and sounds fresh to me.

> At 11:39 PM 5/23/04 +0900, you wrote:
>
> >[Sheng Seleris: Life is Slavery (Perverted View of Kralorelan "Void"?
Saka
> >Morn = Zolathi Sect. Perhaps Sheng is Antigod in Eastern Cosmology, but
he
> >is Great Hero and Ruler of Pentian Nomads, see Description in Sons of
> >Kargzant. Pentians are not evil.)
>
> I agree that the Pentans are not evil but it does not follow that Sheng
Seleris
> is not evil.

What's the definition of Evil? Everything is under relative evaluation if you don't have absolute criteria. Dragonewts didn't oppose to Chaos. [Dragon Pantheon] Heart of Weakness somehow changed their mind and opposed Minion of Orxilli with OOO and Heort, because he was "Weak". Kralorela is very close to Land of Sortum [Antigods] than Vithela.

>
> >Yanoor's Great Deeds: Sunstop (Symbolic Meaning), Enemy of Non-humans,
> >Discussion with Vashanti? Formalism vs Mysticism? (Zen?)
> >Tolerant Attitude to Foreigners? and Sea-communication: Opening of Port
> >Lur Nop ]
>
> I don't think Yanoor had anything to do with founding Lur Nop. It would
> have been
> open in the mythic ages.

This is perfectly IMG stuff. Just like you made new input of Vadeli in Tradetalk #13.

> I do not believe Godunya can pass on through Utuma. He has already done
so
> when Sheng Seleris came and negated that by his return. Now he lingers in
a
> senile state waiting for a natural end.

This is new theory, certainly.

> >KRALORI MANDARINS
> >Alex: Not as a rule, individual mandarins would more typically be of the
> >Vashtanti tradition, they would personally construct or use mandalas,
> >other than in the vaguest of possible philosophical senses.
>
> I don't know where the Mandarin = Vashanti comes from. Mandarins are
> explicitly
> stated as beginning with Mikaday.

I think Mikaday started such, but Vashanti recovered (by its own fashion) after Vayobi's militaristic Era and much oblivion.

Mark Galeotti didn't openly say so, but hinted such and scribes are of Vashanti.

> I'm also don't understand what the Mandala is supposed to represent. The
> Circle of Infinite Dragons? That would be a Daruda innovation rather than
a
> Vashanti as the latter invented the Web of Righteous Knowledge.
>
> >So I think unity of Kralorela mainly maintained by practicality of
> >mandarins rather than conglomerate magico-bureaucrat network can be found
> >in LE.
>
> Kralorela's unity lies in the common respect of the eight provinces
> for the sagely traditions of the Emperors. In terms of governmental
> unity, they resemble an community of several nations (such as the
> Latin American Republics, the Anglo-American states, the Arab
> League and so forth) rather than a rigid empire. Each province has
> its own peculiar form of government with some oddities (like Boshan
> might be under military occupation) but the Sage of one tradition
> is recognized throughout Kralorela whereever he goes.

Your statement doesn't contradict to my idea IMHO. Currently, my main concern is Chi Ting. Bitter Struggle of Eunuchs and Mandarins.

>
> >KRALORELAN MANDALA
> >Terra: I think Kralori sorcerers (Thalurzni) use some kind of diagram to
> >make portal to the node of their spells, it is somewhat different from
> >Glorantha Western Malkioni Wizards.
>
> Kralori sorcery long predates Thalurzni and I would avoid ascribing each
> and every magical practice to an Emperor. Emperors are the founders
> of Sagely practices that govern/influence Kralorela.

I know it. Below is my latest post to Alex before you sent this mail to me.

{{{
Me:
>> I like your idea. To make a balance of Three World System, Old Genertela
Box
>> and Revealed Mythologies hinted Dragon Hsunchen and local adopted
"foreign"
>> Draconic Teaching. That might mean Kralori way has also relation to
Korgatsu
>> Tradition and certain type of Animism.

You:
<<I suspect so. Of course, the Kralori would never admit to being influenced by Mere Foreigners -- and probably by the hsunchen least of all, who are after all near neighbours, and I'm sure officially held in complete contempt. (The Tiger I'm sure is especially seen as a motif for all that's bad in the Kralori worldview: selfish, lustful, lazy.) But deep down, however well hidden, I think it exists. And certainly I think many Kralori religious practices, including those seen as 'draconic' by the Kralori, would be seen as animist by outsiders. (Especially God Learnerish ones...)>>

IMHO, various animal form martial arts have some relationship to various hsunchen clans, though in RW, Hatha Yoga Pradipika (Late age "Tantric" text of Yoga) considered the mystical possibility animal-form of physical human bodies.

>

Me:
> > > > Maybe Thalurzni Sorcery has similarity to Tantrism?
> > >

You:

<<I think Thalurzni is the source for both (with certain caveats about earlier and later work). For the practical reasons you mention, I'm sure the traditions have diverged significantly, but I think they have many elements in common. e.g., a (meditational) mandala may be very similar in appearance to a (sorcerous) talisman. And likewise to a geomantic scheme, or the correct configuration in a ritual magic...>>

Then can I assure you agree with Peter Metcalph's definition that Kralori don't have made effort to each Three Otherworlds to Imperial Cults? http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/HeroQuest-RPG/message/18594

<<Magic - oooh this is tricky. I generally think that Kralorela's world view embraces all types of magic ranging from no magic, the standard three, the material world, disorderly magic (Eurmal etc) and Underworld magic. Some Sagely traditions are proficient in some types of magic and deficient in others (i.e. the Mandarin tradition might have worshipped gods, great sages but very few spirits while the opposite might be true for the War-Dragon Tradition).

Borrowing on the Lunar Way, I think that a Sage in any tradition can learn all the magics of a given tradition regardless of Draconic source but is unable to learn any magic outside the Sagely tradition.

Thus far the Sagely magics. Now for the worshipped Dragon of each Province. I suspect its nature depends on the spiritual temper of its people with divine worship to the dragon of a mostly theistic population being more effective than other types of worship and so forth.>>

See Keith's definition of each emperor's cults as Wizardry Schools (He expanded Peter's idea into HQ format).
http://www.eiderweb.net/ignorance/kralori-exile.html Though I feel Mark Galeotti thinks Theistic Style is more appropriate.

That is interesting, but makes more difficult my attempt....

Me:
> >
> > Then do you want to put on
> > Theism - (similar to) Tibetan Mandala Practice.
> > Sorcery-Thalurzni-RW Feng-Shui Art? Or Opposite is true? Or this
dichotomy
> > is not appropriate?
>
> I'd have said the central purpose of the mandala was a "mystical" one
> (usual cautions and caveats). But certainly I'm sure different schools/
> traditions use similar devices in ways that manifest as various
> 'Otherworldly' powers. I'd guess that these are often sorcerous, but
> fitted into (or seen as fitting into) the 'Darudan magical scheme' --
> whatever that is. I think they are seen as dating make to Thalurzni --
> but equally, so are a lot of things. (I tend to think of Daruda as an
> enigmatic innovator, and Th. as a meticulous systematiser, and lots of
> Kralori religious practices being accounted for in terms such as "Daruda
> did such and such a thing, then Thalurzni wrote the following text
> explaining the meaning and correct usage of the underlying concept".)
>

Okay, I try different approach. From definition of Wizardry and Tantrism, not from Three Otherworlds or other Gloranthan peculiar phenomena. (Though in a sense I abandon my agnostic approach to Older Age to broader toleration of various idea, below is only one assumption.)

Wizardry is consequence of cause and effect, (and relation to Essence Plane, but please ignore this sense for a while) Say, western philosophy of Glorantha that Makan controls Glorantha according to its Ordered Scheme and Justice. Perhaps, Invisible God is similar to humans because Malkion loved his people (Malkioni) or he is just a machine and not similar to ash. (Mostali, Zzaburi?)

In Kralorela, New Dragon Ring once usurped the throne of Yanoor, and they are from West, Godlearner domain and their support, maybe their (Gilam de Estau = Shang Hsa) method had not particular similarity to their Sorcerous Way of things. But here I assume they have some similar methodology to that of Western contemporary Wizards.

Tantrism is an assumption of identification of human body and cosmos (Say, Glorantha, Atrilith, Cosmic Dragon) Human Body (not only its soul / spirit / essence, but physical body) has some kind of oneness to Cosmos, and thus have some kind of mutual relation or influence. (It might be similar to New Platonic Concept of Emanation from One True God.) But from Kralori POV, there is some difficulty, because (1) they are not monotheists (2) Cosmos was made not only from Cosmic Dragons, but from Orxilli, say: Chaos. (3) Dragons are NOT MEN. (In a sense of Ordanestyu refutation to Khorzanelm philosophy.) Thus, maybe part of Middle World is on its Tantric Way of things, but some parts are not on it. Though Godlearner Way and such tantric way of thinking might be combined, assuming Thalurzni "Sorcerous, Alchemistic" way has similarity to RW Tantric context.

Some Sandy Petersen's assumption before Revealed Mythologies....(Glo Compendium #4 p. 55)
<<I was trying to figure out more about the Kralori figure of Shang-Hsa, May-His-Name-Be-Cursed, who burnt all the books and did all sorts of bad things. One day I was thinking about how first there was Shang-Hsa, MHNBC and then Saintly Yanoor. And I wondered what happened to Shang-Hsa, MHNBC, because he wasn't killed or overthrown. And suddenly it became clear that Shang-Hsa, MHNBC, had become Saintly Yanoor!>>

I am not sure what he meant, except some assumption.

Here some parts of Revealed Mythologies,

<<MaoTzen was a great student of Darudism. From his post of meditation he discerned that the mass of humanity were a miserable lot, always in danger of illness, violence, and theft. This knowledge kept him from advancing towards his liberation. He decided that the task of liberating the universe would be easier if he taught to those ignorant peoples the secrets which he had learned. Thus, he reasoned, they would no longer provide him the distraction.
MaoTzen sent his consciousness to Yothbedta's Stream, where the souls of humans are sent upon the Clear Stream to the wombs of those who will bear them. MaoTzen told Yothbedta to send him to where he had discerned the worst suffering, and she did.

MaoTzen was born from the womb of a peasant in Hemkarba, where demons ruled. They called him Jerem, at first, but after he began performing his miracles and wonders he was called Great Rebel Gem. He taught people the way to move and sacrifice to make dragons friendly, and he taught them to understand draconic speech. Before MaoTzen left the land many dragons had wakened in it, attracted by the serenity and power he had opened. >>

and see my assumption to difference of ShangHsa (Failed, Youfish?) and Godunya (Succeeded, more traditional).
http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~BLUEMAGI/GodunyaKingBoggles.htm

Though both of them visited Hemkarba (Dragon Pass), one failed (condemned by populace of Kralorela after downfall) and another succeeded. (it is plausible he will be revered even after his Liberation), why?

 I assume their main difference is their attitude to Samsara (reincarnations) and Cosmic Perception. Suffering of populace can be necessary evil in such optimistic POV of Miracle Rescue, OR NOT.  Shang Hsa (in a sense) succeeded to share the pain of the populace, but Godunya failed. In other words, ShangHsa sought the definition of Void by Western Philosophy of Logic to the last, failed and identified it with Nihility. It is my assumption to Kralori Way = Mahayana Buddhism. (Though Peter Metcalph rejected objective reality of MaoTzen = Jerem = Gilam De Estau....)

You:
> > > Many Tibetan Mandalas have human (or more often, divine) figures, but
> > > not all such do (I don't believe). Certainly I'm not saying all or
most
> > > Kralori ones ought to! I think they may have as their 'themes'
> > > identification between mandala, mundane world, greater cosmos, and
> > > maker, in any permutation, combination or sub-set. 'Geomatic' and
> > > 'alchemical' meanings certainly are consistent with that.
> > >

Even in your Glorantha, I assume some (many?) people of Kralorela hate exarchs who fled to North and enjoyed good life by defeating mere trollkins while they suffered under the Yoke of ShangHsa and failed revolts of Heseroon Marn. Exarchs might have brought back Tantric Methods to mainland after Godunya overthrew ShangHsa, but some people (didn't escape from there) don't admit it is traditional way of Kralorela. I don't have enough knowledge about KoI, except some can be found at Lokarnos. com and MOB's website about movies.

I still think there is some similarity to enigmatic Zolathi = Saka Morn sect and Kralori tantrism, but don't have strong opinion on it, except RW example that relationship between tibetan Sakya sect and Mongolian Empire.

TI

}}}

>
> Moreover I think here you are trying to conflate the Mandala (Circle of
> Infinite Dragons) and the I Ching. I don't think they are the same
thing -
> one's to do with draconism and the other is a product of cosmological
> evolution (hinted at the Myth of the Three against One).
>

Your idea of Three against One is another new input. Then you think Three against One (Vithelan foreign idea) is a sort of I-ching. Mandala (In RW, Tantric) is more indegeneous....Again, ignoring RW source.

At least I can't assume Mark, Alex and you share same image for Kralorela. You might not have such need. I need such.

TI

--__--__--

To unsubscribe from the Glorantha Digest, send an "unsubscribe" command to glorantha-request_at_rpglist.org, or visit http://www.rpglist.org/mailman/listinfo/glorantha. Glorantha is a Trademark of Issaries Inc. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. -
Official WWW at http://www.glorantha.com Archives at http://www.kondalski.org/brian/Glorantha

End of Glorantha Digest Received on Wed 26 May 2004 - 03:19:35 EEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 04 Feb 2007 - 19:57:50 EET