From: David Cake (dave@starfish.net.au)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 2000 - 11:45:27 EET
Alex
>It seems mildly ironic that Kralorela is positively crawling with
>dragons, and you seem to think their religion has nothing much to do
>with 'dragons',
Dragon Pass is positively crawling with dragons, and their religion
is currently fairly hostile to them. The only dragon we really now about
seriously interacting with the natives is Thrunhin Da, whose contribution
to Kralori religion is the rather undraconic sounding cult of the Orca.
And the Darudans mainly revere the sort of 'dragon' that looks less
like a dragon and more like a wacky mystic guy, and doesn't do anything
particularly draconic. Basically, they look a lot like plain mystics who
talk some dragon talk, but don't walk much dragon walk.
Now, I grant you, they spend a lot of time thinking about draconic
things - but really, what is the difference between Darudism, and Vithelan
mysticism with a strong draconic motif?
Basically, what I am asking is what actual draconic powers does
Darudism use - are the Five Dragon Warriors examples of what Darudism can
do when it gets going, or are all such manifest acts of draconism the
terrible misunderstandings of immanent mastery, leaving Darudist draconism
something observed mostly in the warning against.
I guess we have to fall back on Peters rather convincing comparison
of Darudism with dragonnewt practices - which looks good at first.
>Darudists aim to become dragons through various methods but
>refrain from manifesting overt draconic powers because to do
>so will inhibit their spiritual advancement. This path is
>littered with failures (immanent masters, CanShu) that have
>caused much damage. Yet the Darudists are not adverse to
>using these failures (immanent masters) for their own ends.
But lets compare them to Vithelan mysticism, replacing the word
Orthodox mystics aim to become enlightened beings through various methods but
dragon with enlightened being, and just removing the word draconic entirely.
refrain from manifesting overt powers because to do
so will inhibit their spiritual advancement. This path is
littered with failures that have
caused much damage. Yet the mystics are not adverse to
using these failures for their own ends.
So I still don't see how the Darudists differ from orthodox mystics
>while you're simultaneously convinced that the city-
on that comparison, except perhaps a little more ethical pragmatism on the
last sentence.
Perhaps what I am saying is perhaps Darudists would be a bit more
distinct if they actually had some dragon related abilities that anyone was
allowed to use ever.... if the Five Dragon Warriors were Darudists not
POIM, we could point and say - look, Darudan Draconism in action. But it
seems that every incidence of actual draconism is labelled an unfortunate
error that has nothing to do with Darudism at all. Which just seems wrong
to me.
Or at least, some version of Darudism (and I am quite willing to
entertain all sorts of interpretations) that differs in an interesting and
obvious way from orthodox mysticism other than by not using draconic magic
(as opposed to not using other magic).
>dwelling, intensively agrarian, hsunchen-hating kralori are really
>harbouring a hotbed of neo-hsunchenism, Dave.
Nah, that would be a misrepresentation - for most Kralori, hsunchen
practices are nothing more than folk tales and the occasional decorative
motif (though even that appears to differ from your version of the
orthodoxy - I thought the Kralori fought with the Hsunchen and denigrated
them officially, but I didn't think that meant all the people hated them).
But I think that the Hsunchen tribes were sometimes conquered and
assimilated, rather than exterminated, and culturally, assimilation works
both ways to some extent. But thats only some parts - most of the empire
has only stories of hsunchen, its just a few people in the outer provinces
that have hsunchenish folk customs.
Cheers
David
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 20:57:00 EEST