Arkat Cult conflict with Illumination

[mfbrandi]

3 hours ago, scott-martin said:

And it strikes me that a lot of these arguments are for Yudhishthira types worried about the fine points of dharma (can good dogs go to heaven) and not necessarily the Arjunas crowding the game table.

This strikes me as a bit hard on poor old Arjuna. He may not have been interested in arguing philosophy or theology; he did have his doubts about the coming bloodshed (kinstrife). Was he really just looking for an excuse to get stuck in? Krishna seems to be the one who is really uptight about it. When other bullshit arguments fail, the Top God reveals himself — and that has to be the dirtiest debating trick of all.

• The spirit, the ultimate reality
  that pervades the cosmos is impersonal.
  You should know, I am its embodiment.
  Act, and dedicate your actions to me.
  Those who truly devote themselves to me,
  in whatever way, will be released
  from the relentless wheel of birth and death …
  
  If a person is bound up, attached
  to the outcome of their action, then
  that action’s consequences, like a burr,
  will stick to them through this life and beyond,
  determining the nature of their rebirth.
  That is the unshakable law of karma.
  But those who do not grasp after results,
  who treat success and failure the same,
  are always satisfied. Although they act,
  they are really doing nothing — like a boatman
  rowing with the current, at his ease.
  Their actions do not stick to them, because
  they are free of yearning for results.
  In acting in this way, they are engaged
  in one variety of sacrifice,
  offering up their actions with simplicity,
  relinquishing all doubt and ignorance.

“I am the boss, do as I say, and it will go easier on you — if you don’t care who you hurt, you will not be accountable for your actions, you will be free. Don’t muddle your pretty little head with consequentialist ethics.” That doesn’t look like a moral argument, that looks like an appeal to self-interest. Classic tempter/devil on the shoulder ear-whisperings.

To make matters worse — from a Gloranthan moral panic over Chaos perspective (not mine) — Vishnu then reveals himself as Time the destroyer of everything: entropy, the ultimate Lord of Terror:

• I am time, destroyer of worlds.
  Even before you act, all these warriors,
  rank upon rank in the opposing armies,
  are already dead. I have destroyed them.
  From the perspective of eternal time,
  the everlasting present,
  those men you see lined up, eager for battle,
  full of the vigour of their youth and strength,
  are dead already.
  The bodies which have known cold and heat,
  pleasure and suffering, already carry
  death and decomposition in their bones.
  
  The Pandavas will be victorious. Now
  rise up, hero. Be my instrument!
  
  Arjuna’s limbs tremble in fear. He cries,
  “Praise, a thousand times praise to you!”

Now faced with a god who is and probably a lot more besides, it might take a brave person to say:

• You say these people are dead already.
  Why then try to argue me into killing them for you?
  
  Suppose I act without yearning for results
  but I do not do the thing
  that you so badly want me to do
  — what then?
  
  If you are attached to the outcome of our little chat,
  then come up with a decent argument.
  
  If you are not attached to outcomes
  — as you tell me I should not be —
  then button your yap.
  You are giving me a headache.
  
  I am not attached to the outcome
  of securing your approval
  of “playing” the law of karma
  to secure my own freedom
  — I do not grasp after it —
  therefore I am already free.

That is what the slightly interesting person says to a pushy God. Perhaps, they are even right.

The person who succumbs to “do this thing for me, and the consequence is that you will be free — don’t think of consequences, though: that would be very bad!” and supposes themself to be doing the moral thing is confusing right action and self-interest. That is, they are going over to the dark side. If Arkat is Arjuna (and likely Krishna, too), then he is himself Gbaji (or Gbaji’s dupe). But that will surprise no one. Much worse than that, he will be boring.

Of course, if only fear enters into it (no self-deception), we are likely in Dylan territory. 😉

Spoiler

• God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son”
  Abe say, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
  God say, “No,” Abe say, “What?”
  God say, “You can do what you want Abe, but
  Next time you see me comin’, you better run”
  
  Abe said, “Where do you want this killin’ done?”
  God said, “Out on Highway 61”

——————————————————————————————————————

On the upside, mention of PB made me dig out my Mahmoud Tabrizi-Zadeh records.

[Ormi Phengaria]

I think you maybe need to stop thinking of Krishna as a person when trying to understand what meaning his revelations to Arjuna actually possess. If you maintain that reductive framework, it's not surprising you are going to reach an authoritarian conclusion. But you may as well call a boulder authoritarian in its refusal to move.

[Darius West]

11 hours ago, g33k said:

But in the final analysis, the "limitless potential" of Chaos must include (because limitless) "the potential to utterly destroy Glorantha." 

 The notion of Limitless Potential is something of a lie imo.  Consider that Chaos is the product of defiling the Primal Plasma.  Now, the Primal Plasma may have had infinite potential, but does it really have more potential now it has been poisoned and turned into a cosmic cancer producer? I don't see it.  All I hear when someone says "the infinite potential of chaos" is the goggle-eyed greed of a soul overcome by the promise of chaotic power and the temptations of illumination.

[Darius West]

7 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

I am not attached to the outcome
of securing your approval
of “playing” the law of karma
to secure my own freedom
— I do not grasp after it —
therefore I am already free.

If that were true and he were free and unattached, Arjuna would not be moping about on a hillside, conflicted about the coming war.  Nor would he be seeking advice from Krishna.

It must be said that Arjuna is no Hojo Tokimune.  When Tokimune was told that the Mongols were going to invade Japan he famously said "This is the moment I was born for."

 

[mfbrandi]

6 hours ago, Ormi Phengaria said:

I think you maybe need to stop thinking of Krishna as a person when trying to understand what meaning his revelations to Arjuna actually possess. If you maintain that reductive framework, it's not surprising you are going to reach an authoritarian conclusion.

Hi, Ormi. Well, there are doubtless many ways of looking at the BG. Here are two:

• an exposition of a doctrine of non-attachment
• a justification of going to war

I wasn’t engaging with the first, only the second. As to whether I think it is supposed to be a justification of slaughter — I have no opinion on that. I only discussed it in those terms because Davecake said:

• If you read the Bhavagad Gita in context … you might find the idea of Arkat as … moral, and also a terrifyingly warlike killer more understandable.

So let us suppose for a moment that letting go of attachment to outcomes will de-stress us in this life and allow us to step off the hamster wheel of reincarnation — let us say that is true — does it follow that the actions we will then perform will be moral, even if they involve kinstrife (not a bugbear of mine, but it seems to worry Arjuna) and slaughter?

It seems to me that personal liberation — moksha, or whatever — and morally right action are two different things. Maybe I am wrong, but it does seem to be a Gloranthan theme, both in the knocking of the illuminate’s quest for personal liberation at the expense of those around them (usually heaped with a dose of false consciousness — but that is often, it seems to me, neglected in fan discussions) and in the dragon’s dilemma: do I pursue liberation and non-attachment, or do I succumb to entanglement and duty and through Utuma create the world? (Though perhaps Utuma is a bit of a dodge to try to square the circle of duty and liberation: in pursuit of duty, I die; in dying, I am freed. Perhaps not.)

Now maybe someone who is attached only to right action can achieve liberation through right action — and maybe right action is not goal-directed (some kind of virtue ethics, rather than consequentialist ethics) and I am happy to buy that the goal of right action — if it has one — is not the personal liberation of the actor. But that doesn’t get us any closer to the BG as a charter for champions of war and kinstrife — but that is OK, because maybe it isn’t and isn’t supposed to be. However, it seemed it was being dangled as such — and it wouldn’t be the first time — and I rose to the bait.

Long ago, a lecturer of mine accused Marx of this (more or less): Marx thought that it was right for the workers to win the class struggle, so he wrote into the laws of history that it was inevitable that the workers would win the class struggle. But of course, even if it were true that the workers would win (which we may doubt), that would not justify their victory (and the other way about, the rightness of their cause shouldn’t make us believe in the inevitability of their victory). It is not just atheist materialists who are prone to this sort of thing, religious types, too, should be on guard against having a personal god — or the impersonal laws of karma and the nature of Brahman — as enforcers of the moral order: those carrying out right action will be free; those on the path of liberation will be right. Are we really sure it is that simple? What is the source of our confidence?

[mfbrandi]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

If that were true and he were free and unattached, Arjuna would not be moping about on a hillside, conflicted about the coming war.  Nor would he be seeking advice from Krishna.

Sure, but neither did I say that Arjuna thinks that.

[mfbrandi]

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

All I hear when someone says “the infinite potential of chaos” is the goggle-eyed greed of a soul overcome by the promise of chaotic power and the temptations of illumination.

All I hear is:

• First there was nothing
  then
  — for no reason —
  there was something.

Chaos is that nothing, that is its “infinite potential,” and it offers me no power. From nothing we come, and to nothing — like it or not — we will return.

Now, if someone turns to a god (just the one) because that god offers rune magic to smite their enemies or raise their comrades from the dead, then that person — goggle-eyed or not — is greedy for power, no?

[g33k]

11 hours ago, Darius West said:

 The notion of Limitless Potential is something of a lie imo.  Consider that Chaos is the product of defiling the Primal Plasma.  Now, the Primal Plasma may have had infinite potential, but does it really have more potential now it has been poisoned and turned into a cosmic cancer producer? I don't see it.  All I hear when someone says "the infinite potential of chaos" is the goggle-eyed greed of a soul overcome by the promise of chaotic power and the temptations of illumination.

Note that the "Primal Plasma" concept is not a uniquely-true "Cosmological Truth;" it is but one of several ideas.  As this is Glorantha, it's likely that all of them are, in their own ways, "equally" correct.

See:
https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/chaosium-runequest-12/cults-of-terror/cot-history/cot-cosmology/

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by g33k

[Ormi Phengaria]

14 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

I wasn’t engaging with the first, only the second. As to whether I think it is supposed to be a justification of slaughter — I have no opinion on that. I only discussed it in those terms because Davecake said:

• If you read the Bhavagad Gita in context … you might find the idea of Arkat as … moral, and also a terrifyingly warlike killer more understandable.

I notice you elided the last sentence in my post, maybe considering it to be irrelevant. But what Krishna is doing in showing to Arjuna the Vishvarupa is not to go "I am God, remember that your concerns don't matter". It is to show Arjuna the entire universe. What he sees is truly terrible to him. He sees that no matter his personal actions or spiritual liberation, death and destruction and pain and fear are things which are just as much a part of his Lord as the sights of peace and preservation within Vishnu which he can bear.

14 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

It seems to me that personal liberation — moksha, or whatever — and morally right action are two different things.

That's correct, in all of these traditions as well as in Glorantha. What Arjuna discovered was the non-duality between himself and the universe. Whatever course he took would not separate him from Krishna. He already believed in the moral necessity of his war; what brought him distress is why this should even be the case, why any should be required to make the choice he had been putting off, between duty and kinship. His takeaway from the dialogue was that proper action preserves the dharma and his ultimate existence even as it destroys his own mortal existence, at least as he understood it.

Arkat is the same: he continued following his caste duties and his Justice even long after others seemed to observe him giving those things up. He had an insight much like Arjuna, in seeing that death and destruction and oblivion were a part of the universe. But this doesn't make those things good or even neutral on their face, for him or for anyone else. He was a mortal, with mortal concerns, who lived within the Middle World. And so he followed what he knew, what his heart told him, and what he learned.

[mfbrandi]

16 hours ago, Ormi Phengaria said:

why any should be required to make the choice he had been putting off, between duty and kinship.

But that makes it sound like he is just being squeamish: “I know this is the right thing to do, but it is awful/horrible/icky.” Doesn’t that make the thing dull — at least, the moral philosophers have nodded off — or farcically overblown? “But I don’t like olives.” “Behold, the end of the world! Now eat your dinner.”

Surely, the thing only bites hard if Arjuna thinks that he has a moral duty to fight the war and a moral duty not to slaughter kin — and no way to square the two, no way to convert them into the common currency of weight and see which side of the balance goes down. Incommensurability can be a bitch, and sometimes every action (even refraining from acting) looks wrong, not simply horrible.

At the very least, Arjuna has to think that kin slaughter is wrong, and someone has to think the war is right, no?

——————————————————
PS: If I don’t quote the entirety of someone’s comment, it doesn’t mean I think the unquoted bit is bad.

[Ormi Phengaria]

10 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

Surely, the thing only bites hard if Arjuna thinks that he has a moral duty to fight the war and a moral duty not to slaughter kin — and no way to square the two, no way to convert them into the common currency of weight and see which side of the balance goes down. Incommensurability can be a bitch, and sometimes every action (even refraining from acting) looks wrong, not simply horrible.

Yes, that they appear to be incommensurable is the problem. When he saw that he would have to fight his kin, he begins the discourse by questioning the necessity and value of his warrior duties. Proper action may not produce outcomes which are favourable to Arjuna of the Pandava, or in fact any individual being, yet it continues to be proper action, and continues to preserve the dharma. On its face, that doesn't seem very fair or even just, indeed it seems to subvert itself! And so it's not really about Arjuna's moral dilemma, it's an inquiry into the nature of all moral dilemmas, a kind of theodicy. The path of universal dharma (the warrior-ascetic) appears to differ from the path of self dharma (the householder), but this is illusory, they lead to the same place. The best path is to reconcile these and guard against illusion through personal devotion to Krishna. Perform proper action, but be equanimous about its outcome.

[Darius West]

On 9/27/2023 at 2:18 AM, g33k said:

Note that the "Primal Plasma" concept is not a uniquely-true "Cosmological Truth;" it is but one of several ideas.  As this is Glorantha, it's likely that all of them are, in their own ways, "equally" correct.

See:
https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/home/catalogue/publishers/chaosium/chaosium-runequest-12/cults-of-terror/cot-history/cot-cosmology/

 

The Unholy Trio specifically contaminated the well of the Primal Plasma turning it into the Chaosium.  That lore is set in stone afaiac.

[Darius West]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:43 PM, mfbrandi said:

Now, if someone turns to a god (just the one) because that god offers rune magic to smite their enemies or raise their comrades from the dead, then that person — goggle-eyed or not — is greedy for power, no?

And that is what the Arkati seek to stop.  Chaos is the death of the world, and the temptation to use it for personal benefit hastens that outcome.  That is part of the temptation of illumination.

[Darius West]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:25 PM, mfbrandi said:

Sure, but neither did I say that Arjuna thinks that.

I think we can agree that Arjuna is pretty downcast on that hillside, and is very receptive to Krishna's advice.

[Joerg]

5 minutes ago, Darius West said:

The Unholy Trio specifically contaminated the well of the Primal Plasma turning it into the Chaosium.  That lore is set in stone afaiac.

Source? The Chaosium is the organ of Glorantha that turns the "stuff outside" into Creation. It was there for all the elemental stages of the world, like the primal Darkness of space or the most ancient Sea drawn from Edzaroun.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Joerg

[mfbrandi]

13 minutes ago, Darius West said:

And that is what the Arkati seek to stop.  Chaos … the temptation of illumination.

But doesn’t it apply to anyone joining — say — Yelmalio for access to Sunspear, not only chaotics or illuminates?

(The greed for power bit, that is, not necessarily hastening the end of the world — although Greta Thunberg may think that applies, too. Anti-magic eco-Arkati sound like fun, though, right?)

[JRE]

Taking things one step forward, what if Third Age Arkat, which Argrath is a part of, has decided just that, after the horrors of the Monster Empire (and other catastrophes all over the place), the only way to break the cycle and stop Chaos being an existential menace is to break the Godtime, which means breaking all gods present at the casting of the net. Therefore the ending of King of Sartar.

Because as long as Chaos is part of the compromise, even if unwilling, it will always be there as a menace, it is its role. The only way to make integration possible is to break the shackles that make roles unchangeable.

Arkat/Argrath complete Sedenya's mission, and she becomes the White Moon.

[French Desperate WindChild]

2 hours ago, JRE said:

Taking things one step forward, what if Third Age Arkat, which Argrath is a part of, has decided just that, after the horrors of the Monster Empire (and other catastrophes all over the place), the only way to break the cycle and stop Chaos being an existential menace is to break the Godtime, which means breaking all gods present at the casting of the net. Therefore the ending of King of Sartar.

Because as long as Chaos is part of the compromise, even if unwilling, it will always be there as a menace, it is its role. The only way to make integration possible is to break the shackles that make roles unchangeable.

Arkat/Argrath complete Sedenya's mission, and she becomes the White Moon.

For me that’s the point 

I would not say breaking but severing

let the mundane world for mundane people and new arkati will not have to waste time protecting the godtime anymore from mundane chaotic (or acting for chaos from their perspective) but will focus to protect the mundane world from chaos agent

the alliance between Argrath and storm bull may drive to it :

when storm bullets react and are the best for that, arkati plan and act, and are the best for that (illuminated humakti, LM, Orlanthi… why not white lunars… etc )

 

then the great disaster from the sea has an explanation : Magasta and friends don’t want to be banned from the mundane waters

[soltakss]

9 hours ago, JRE said:

Taking things one step forward, what if Third Age Arkat, which Argrath is a part of, has decided just that, after the horrors of the Monster Empire (and other catastrophes all over the place), the only way to break the cycle and stop Chaos being an existential menace is to break the Godtime, which means breaking all gods present at the casting of the net. Therefore the ending of King of Sartar.

To a certain extent, pitting Argrath as Arkat means that Argrath needs the Monster Empire so that he can utilise Arkat's powers against the Lunars.

One big difference, of course, is that Arkat was the result of a Lightbringer Quest, he did not undergo a Lightbringer Quest himself. Argrath performed the Lightbringer Quest to bring back Sheng Seleris, as the only person capable of killing the Red Emperor, then dragged Sheng Seleris back to Hell. Like Harmast Barefoot, Argrath completes the Lightbringer Quest twice but on the second time he kills all the Deities. Does that mean that Chaos won in the end? Maybe in the same way that nobody knows whether Arkat of Gbaji was triumphant in the end, Argrath defeated the Lunar Empire but by doing so allowed Chaos to triumph.

[Akhôrahil]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Does that mean that Chaos won in the end?

My thesis is that the dragons win the HeroWars, using Argrath as their catspaw. After all, with the gods gone…

[mfbrandi]

On 9/30/2023 at 9:18 AM, JRE said:

the only way to break the cycle and stop Chaos being an existential menace is to break the Godtime

Or more simply: the Godtime war loop is the problem. Feeding the gods to Chaos isn’t part of beating Chaos, it is part of growing up, accepting linear time, and coasting gracefully toward heat death or whatever cosmological fate awaits us.

Clinging to the Gods War is a refusal to accept our own mortality and the mortality of everything we know and love. Everything ends — meets “the second and final death” — and the refusal to accept this causes pain. (I am sure some guy named Gark (or was it Bill) explained this to me much better in the Dog & Duck the other day.)

Argrath’s human supremacist rant — if not an invention of a later commentator — speaks for the “he didn’t really understand what he was doing, poor lamb” theory. As heroes on a grand scale reek, let’s go with that.

[Darius West]

On 9/28/2023 at 6:02 PM, mfbrandi said:

But doesn’t it apply to anyone joining — say — Yelmalio for access to Sunspear, not only chaotics or illuminates?

(The greed for power bit, that is, not necessarily hastening the end of the world — although Greta Thunberg may think that applies, too. Anti-magic eco-Arkati sound like fun, though, right?)

The point is, if you join a cult you are subject to the strictures of that cult.  If you break the strictures you face the spirit of retribution.  Illuminates don't face any spirit of retribution ever, and can break every cult stricture without suffering what they deserve.  THIS is what the Arkati object to.  Illuminates can infiltrate and abuse cults and hero quests with impunity, even chaos cults.

[Martin Dick]

34 minutes ago, Darius West said:

The point is, if you join a cult you are subject to the strictures of that cult.  If you break the strictures you face the spirit of retribution.  Illuminates don't face any spirit of retribution ever, and can break every cult stricture without suffering what they deserve.  THIS is what the Arkati object to.  Illuminates can infiltrate and abuse cults and hero quests with impunity, even chaos cults.

Well, there maybe no supernatural retribution, but there is plenty of Cube level retribution and suffering for initiates who break cult strictures

Edited October 3, 2023 by Martin Dick
Mistake

[Darius West]

30 minutes ago, Martin Dick said:

Well, there maybe no supernatural retribution, but there is plenty of Cube level retribution and suffering for initiates who break cult strictures

That assumes the illuminate is caught doing so.  And how do you propose to discipline someone who has just hijacked all your cult's magic?

[Martin Dick]

1 hour ago, Darius West said:

That assumes the illuminate is caught doing so.  And how do you propose to discipline someone who has just hijacked all your cult's magic?

If an illuminated initiate goes around openly or even covertly flouting cult strictures, sooner or later they're going to get caught and doubly so for PCs and while for normal cults they might work on three strikes and you're out, chaos cults are going to kill you on the first try normally, enjoy your life as a head hanging from the belt of the Thanatari High Priest.

As for who is going to discipline you, well sounds like a perfect job for a bunch of murder-hobo PCs or a couple of Orlanthi/Humakti rune priests and rune lords.

The illuminant hasn't hijacked the cult magic,they just now share it and it doesn't make them a superhero (well except Arkat) or even a hero, so a party of equivalent levels is highly likely to be able to discipline one illuminant.