The Historical Authenticity of Vampyric Magic as a Spiritual Practice

[peymanzkp]

Is vampyric magic a legitimate spiritual practice, given that it does not appear to have any clear historical basis in the PGM or in medieval Islamic and Christian magical traditions?

 

[Morell]

A legitimate practice is one that brings results, right? Does Vampiric Magic has practitioners with results? Yes.

 

[Wintruz]

Is vampyric magic a legitimate spiritual practice, given that it does not appear to have any clear historical basis in the PGM or in medieval Islamic and Christian magical traditions?

Even in the ancient world, the PGM wasn't regarded as an arbiter of magical legitimacy. Often, it was regarded with revulsion. When you mention Christianity and Islam, I presume that you mean grimoires? Grimoires form only one part of the magic of both the Christian and Muslim worlds. In any case, holding the grimoire tradition ("tradition" here is a bit misplaced actually, there's often deep logical contradiction within the same grimoire, let alone across texts) as the final judge of legitimacy is every bit as much an arbitrary decision as that of selecting an archetype and working with it to unlock inner potential.

As religions, especially in their mystical forms, I would argue that parts of both Christianity and Islam actually do remanifest in figure of the Vampyre. In some ways, the Vampyre represents tradition as seen through the prism of post-Enlightenment, anti-tradition discourse. Communion is the obvious example but so too attitudes towards aristocracy in an age of Rousseau, affinity with animals in a time of Kant's attempt to separate man as much as possible from the animal world, etc. Because Islam resisted Westernisation, the figure of the Vampyre didn't occur quite so much in the Muslim world (Anatolia is an exception) but it's extremely easy to read something like the Dervish's eternal longing in the archetype as it has evolved alongside the Islamic world's tension with the West.

 

[peymanzkp]

Even in the ancient world, the PGM wasn't regarded as an arbiter of magical legitimacy. Often, it was regarded with revulsion. When you mention Christianity and Islam, I presume that you mean grimoires? Grimoires form only one part of the magic of both the Christian and Muslim worlds. In any case, holding the grimoire tradition ("tradition" here is a bit misplaced actually, there's often deep logical contradiction within the same grimoire, let alone across texts) as the final judge of legitimacy is every bit as much an arbitrary decision as that of selecting an archetype and working with it to unlock inner potential.

As religions, especially in their mystical forms, I would argue that parts of both Christianity and Islam actually do remanifest in figure of the Vampyre. In some ways, the Vampyre represents tradition as seen through the prism of post-Enlightenment, anti-tradition discourse. Communion is the obvious example but so too attitudes towards aristocracy in an age of Rousseau, affinity with animals in a time of Kant's attempt to separate man as much as possible from the animal world, etc. Because Islam resisted Westernisation, the figure of the Vampyre didn't occur quite so much in the Muslim world (Anatolia is an exception) but it's extremely easy to read something like the Dervish's eternal longing in the archetype as it has evolved alongside the Islamic world's tension with the West.

Of course, by “legitimacy,” I mean something that has been repeated across different periods and among different peoples, producing essentially the same result. I think that the Greek, Islamic, and Christian traditions ultimately share the same underlying spiritual structures and practices, even if this may not appear so at first glance. Of course, I am speaking here strictly in the context of the occult sciences.

As for your view of vampyrism as a kind of reaction against the traditional world, I am not entirely convinced. First of all, I think this is a very broad and expansive interpretation of the concept. This is, in my view, a problem that is quite common in Vampyric Magick. There is a tendency to expand or redefine the concept in such a way that it becomes associated with things like pranayama or the absorption of planetary energies, and so on, which are essentially meaningless in this context.

Secondly, I don't think that such a sweeping approach to history, with broad generalizations being drawn from it, is particularly sound. The modern world may, at first glance, appear vampyric because of its colonial character, but I would ask: did the ancient Persians and Greeks not also engage in forms of colonialism and domination throughout their history? And what about the laws concerning jizya, which were associated with the Islamic conquests? Of course they did. Yet, at that time—or at least in the texts that have survived to us—we do not find an archetype comparable to the Vampyre.

So, I would be rather cautious about projecting the Vampyre archetype onto broad historical processes simply because we can identify superficial similarities between them.

 

[Wintruz]

Of course, by “legitimacy,” I mean something that has been repeated across different periods and among different peoples, producing essentially the same result.

I should take a moment to say that a large part of historical scholarship was the conclusion that magic as set out in grimoires was tried and found ineffective. Borchardt wrote that trying grimoires and finding they didn't work was “as much a part of the story of the magician as any other moment in the magical journey”.

Secondly, I don't think that such a sweeping approach to history, with broad generalizations being drawn from it, is particularly sound. The modern world may, at first glance, appear vampyric because of its colonial character, but I would ask: did the ancient Persians and Greeks not also engage in forms of colonialism and domination throughout their history? And what about the laws concerning jizya, which were associated with the Islamic conquests? Of course they did. Yet, at that time—or at least in the texts that have survived to us—we do not find an archetype comparable to the Vampyre.

There is a misunderstanding of my position here. I am talking about the vampire as a discrete European cultural response to the collapse of the Ancien Régime. The figure emerges from Romanticism (it's very strongly associated with Byron) and Romanticism was largely animated by hostility to the modernisation attempts of the Enlightenment. That reactionary quality then appears in counter-criticism as the vampire. This is the point in texts like Dracula, the title character is not just a predator, he's a predator from a different age and that age is being seen through modern eyes, the juxtaposition of Dracula's talking about hereditary alongside Van Helsing talking about new science, etc. It wouldn't be seen in older cultures in that way (though there are vampire-like beings in mythology of course) because there never was a secularisation attempt as enormous or successful as the Enlightenment before the eighteenth century. Obviously the vampire is only one of thousands of cultural responses to that attempt. I wrote a bit about the process here. I don't think colonialism as much to do with it (the Enlightenment was/is a colonial project) as Romanticism. For me, Vampyrism is essentially Romanticism turned into a initiatory system of self-knowledge and beauty-making.

First of all, I think this is a very broad and expansive interpretation of the concept. This is, in my view, a problem that is quite common in Vampyric Magick. There is a tendency to expand or redefine the concept in such a way that it becomes associated with things like pranayama or the absorption of planetary energies, and so on, which are essentially meaningless in this context.

I agree with this. Working with an archetype in this way must be personal but there are often attempts to shoehorn in concepts which are not only alien to the archetype but actively hostile to it. That being said, mixing things together which have no cultural or logical relationship to each other has been endemic in occultism since the Golden Dawn.

 

[Morell]

Of course, by “legitimacy,” I mean something that has been repeated across different periods and among different peoples, producing essentially the same result. I think that the Greek, Islamic, and Christian traditions ultimately share the same underlying spiritual structures and practices, even if this may not appear so at first glance. Of course, I am speaking here strictly in the context of the occult sciences.

Fair.

When we have to define vampirism or it's magic, we could distill it all into one sentence from Dracula novel and the Bible: The blood is the life.

Do you agree? If the vampirism is about drinking blood and/or life to gain power and/or strength, then we can see the very same basic practice across the cultures across the history, with more or less same intentions and sought for effects.

 

[peymanzkp]

Fair.

When we have to define vampirism or it's magic, we could distill it all into one sentence from Dracula novel and the Bible: The blood is the life.

Do you agree? If the vampirism is about drinking blood and/or life to gain power and/or strength, then we can see the very same basic practice across the cultures across the history, with more or less same intentions and sought for effects.

That's true, but we know that vampyric magic does not usually involve the literal use of someone else's blood or anything like that. If we take “blood” metaphorically, as a kind of life force that the magician draws upon to perform their workings, then our definition of this practice becomes so broad that, to me, it would be virtually indistinguishable from common spiritual practices.

For example, the Sun is also a source of life force, and it is used as such in planetary magic. The same can be said of the Divine Names in various religious traditions. In these traditions, the very sustenance of our world is ultimately dependent on the sustenance of God, so drawing upon divine power could likewise be understood as drawing upon a form of life force.

You see the problem: the common understanding of vampyre magic doesn't really capture what it is.

 

[Morell]

That's true, but we know that vampyric magic does not usually involve the literal use of someone else's blood or anything like that. If we take “blood” metaphorically, as a kind of life force that the magician draws upon to perform their workings, then our definition of this practice becomes so broad that, to me, it would be virtually indistinguishable from common spiritual practices.

For example, the Sun is also a source of life force, and it is used as such in planetary magic. The same can be said of the Divine Names in various religious traditions. In these traditions, the very sustenance of our world is ultimately dependent on the sustenance of God, so drawing upon divine power could likewise be understood as drawing upon a form of life force.

You see the problem: the common understanding of vampyre magic doesn't really capture what it is.

Good point. True.

Nothing exists in isolation. I think that any spiritual tradition can be considered as broad spectrum of traditions that are more or less connected together, taking into themselves various influences from the world around them. For example Christianity. There are nearly countless versions if this religion, tradition or traditions united by single thing: the Bible. Yet they vary so much that when you compare some of them, it's really hard to say that they are both same religion, in fact they tend themselves to claim that they are not. I think that spectrum is more natural to things than yes or no state.

I think that the same goes for vampirism. The practicing groups vary a lot. And putting some of them into same category would be refused by them.

 

[peymanzkp]

I should take a moment to say that a large part of historical scholarship was the conclusion that magic as set out in grimoires was tried and found ineffective. Borchardt wrote that trying grimoires and finding they didn't work was “as much a part of the story of the magician as any other moment in the magical journey”.

There is a misunderstanding of my position here. I am talking about the vampire as a discrete European cultural response to the collapse of the Ancien Régime. The figure emerges from Romanticism (it's very strongly associated with Byron) and Romanticism was largely animated by hostility to the modernisation attempts of the Enlightenment. That reactionary quality then appears in counter-criticism as the vampire. This is the point in texts like Dracula, the title character is not just a predator, he's a predator from a different age and that age is being seen through modern eyes, the juxtaposition of Dracula's talking about hereditary alongside Van Helsing talking about new science, etc. It wouldn't be seen in older cultures in that way (though there are vampire-like beings in mythology of course) because there never was a secularisation attempt as enormous or successful as the Enlightenment before the eighteenth century. Obviously the vampire is only one of thousands of cultural responses to that attempt. I wrote a bit about the process here. I don't think colonialism as much to do with it (the Enlightenment was/is a colonial project) as Romanticism. For me, Vampyrism is essentially Romanticism turned into a initiatory system of self-knowledge and beauty-making.

I agree with this. Working with an archetype in this way must be personal but there are often attempts to shoehorn in concepts which are not only alien to the archetype but actively hostile to it. That being said, mixing things together which have no cultural or logical relationship to each other has been endemic in occultism since the Golden Dawn.

I largely agree with what you're saying, or at least I don't really see much reason to disagree. But I think we're actually talking about two different things here.

It's true that the emergence of this particular archetype can be traced back to Romanticism, but I'm talking about the vampire within occultism, rather than in literature or philosophy. A phenomenon can emerge in literature, philosophy, or art without necessarily having any connection to other practices, particularly to occult practices.

So, although, as you say, the vampire archetype is rooted in Romanticism, its emergence within occultism is a much more recent phenomenon, dating mainly to the late 20th and 21st centuries. For example, approaches of this kind were not generally common before the Golden Dawn.

When I talk about the traditional legitimacy of this approach, I'm referring specifically to its presence in occult texts and traditions, rather than in literature. The fact that a particular phenomenon appears in literature or art does not necessarily mean that it can be understood as a spiritual practice.

If we look at contemporary film and literature, for example, we find things like killing gods, zombies, and so on. But their appearance in fiction obviously doesn't provide evidence that such things are possible as spiritual or magical practices.

 

[Morell]

I largely agree with what you're saying, or at least I don't really see much reason to disagree. But I think we're actually talking about two different things here.

It's true that the emergence of this particular archetype can be traced back to Romanticism, but I'm talking about the vampire within occultism, rather than in literature or philosophy. A phenomenon can emerge in literature, philosophy, or art without necessarily having any connection to other practices, particularly to occult practices.

So, although, as you say, the vampire archetype is rooted in Romanticism, its emergence within occultism is a much more recent phenomenon, dating mainly to the late 20th and 21st centuries. For example, approaches of this kind were not generally common before the Golden Dawn.

When I talk about the traditional legitimacy of this approach, I'm referring specifically to its presence in occult texts and traditions, rather than in literature. The fact that a particular phenomenon appears in literature or art does not necessarily mean that it can be understood as a spiritual practice.

If we look at contemporary film and literature, for example, we find things like killing gods, zombies, and so on. But their appearance in fiction obviously doesn't provide evidence that such things are possible as spiritual or magical practices.

I see.

No, I do not think that vampire as we have it now is known to occultism in history. It is very recent. I think that Stocker's generation created the concept through the literature, but actual occult stuff came only after them.

I just do not call that authenticity or legitimacy, as that suggests mindset that I disagree with. Just like I disagree with occult vampiric groups that claim their authenticity using made up history making themselves seem ancient. I don't see any reason for that kind of lie.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:08 AM

Oh, that came out wrong... I have to correct. I do not think that autenticity or legitimacy of any group can be based on how long they are in existence, being it a week or thousand years or even way more. Historical authenticity can only mean that the group exists long and if it is historically authentic, or we could say historically accurate, it means that it keeps practicing the same way as in the past.

Especially in the spiritual, or rather occult sense I think it is of very little value to seek out for the practices long in existence. The long history doesn't proof that the practice or any teaching is better than those developed recently.

 

[peymanzkp]

Maybe.

But I do think having a long historical lineage matters. People from different periods and cultures have practiced these things, and in some cases, they refined and developed them further over time.

Also, as Jason Miller has mentioned, there have been cases in the past where magicians, through a formal pact or agreement, bound certain spirits to particular names. So having an established historical tradition does matter.

By contrast, in vampyric magic, people sometimes try to invoke figures such as Dracula — someone who is, at least in part, a historical and literary figure. Perhaps something does happen as a result, but to me this seems much closer to something like chaos magic.

At best, one might be able to achieve results comparable to those found in established spiritual traditions. But this raises another question: we know that spiritual practices are time-consuming and require a great deal of effort. It may take a lifetime of practice to become highly proficient within a particular tradition.

If we only have one lifetime, wouldn't it make more sense to devote it to something that has been practiced, tested, and refined by many people throughout history, rather than experimenting with something relatively new that hasn't had enough time to develop and can sometimes be quite eclectic or even chaotic?

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 1:38 PM

Oh, that came out wrong... I have to correct. I do not think that autenticity or legitimacy of any group can be based on how long they are in existence, being it a week or thousand years or even way more. Historical authenticity can only mean that the group exists long and if it is historically authentic, or we could say historically accurate, it means that it keeps practicing the same way as in the past.

Especially in the spiritual, or rather occult sense I think it is of very little value to seek out for the practices long in existence. The long history doesn't proof that the practice or any teaching is better than those developed recently.

Maybe.

But I do think having a long historical lineage matters. People from different periods and cultures have practiced these things, and in some cases, they refined and developed them further over time.

Also, as Jason Miller has mentioned, there have been cases in the past where magicians, through a formal pact or agreement, bound certain spirits to particular names. So having an established historical tradition does matter.

By contrast, in vampyric magic, people sometimes try to invoke figures such as Dracula — someone who is, at least in part, a historical and literary figure. Perhaps something does happen as a result, but to me this seems much closer to something like chaos magic.

At best, one might be able to achieve results comparable to those found in established spiritual traditions. But this raises another question: we know that spiritual practices are time-consuming and require a great deal of effort. It may take a lifetime of practice to become highly proficient within a particular tradition.

If we only have one lifetime, wouldn't it make more sense to devote it to something that has been practiced, tested, and refined by many people throughout history, rather than experimenting with something relatively new that hasn't had enough time to develop and can sometimes be quite eclectic or even chaotic?

 

[Wintruz]

I largely agree with what you're saying, or at least I don't really see much reason to disagree. But I think we're actually talking about two different things here.

It's true that the emergence of this particular archetype can be traced back to Romanticism, but I'm talking about the vampire within occultism, rather than in literature or philosophy. A phenomenon can emerge in literature, philosophy, or art without necessarily having any connection to other practices, particularly to occult practices.

So, although, as you say, the vampire archetype is rooted in Romanticism, its emergence within occultism is a much more recent phenomenon, dating mainly to the late 20th and 21st centuries. For example, approaches of this kind were not generally common before the Golden Dawn.

When I talk about the traditional legitimacy of this approach, I'm referring specifically to its presence in occult texts and traditions, rather than in literature. The fact that a particular phenomenon appears in literature or art does not necessarily mean that it can be understood as a spiritual practice.

If we look at contemporary film and literature, for example, we find things like killing gods, zombies, and so on. But their appearance in fiction obviously doesn't provide evidence that such things are possible as spiritual or magical practices.

"Occultism" itself is a recent phenomenon (Alison Butler's book on how the Victorians invented a category called "occult" is worth anyone's reading time)...

Tarot, thought by most people to be deeply occult, only became associated with initiation in the 1780s. Occult cabala, as it's taught outside of specific Jewish religious contexts, largely comes from Eliphas Levi in the late 19th century. The idea that there's an initiatory tradition of magical wisdom is genuinely ancient (it's in the Roman Neoplatonists) but the representatives of that tradition regarded much of what would later be called "occultism" to be counter-initiatory. For example, the Neoplatonists, Sufis, Cabalists of the Medieval and Renaissance periods, regarded grimoire magic to be, in the words of Pico "neither based on any principles nor approved by any reliable author". In other words, irrational and lacking tradition and if you were working that kind of magic, they wouldn't consider you belong to a magical tradition at all but actually opposed to it. For most people today, "the occult" amalgamates things that used to be distinct and all of these historical nuances are lost.

So the idea that there's a ironclad "occult tradition" is a modern fiction. The closest to that historically were deeply religious, mystical traditions (Sufism, Neoplatonism, etc.) which regarded the ragbag of practices you're talking about, which would later be collected under the word "occult", as utterly lacking tradition or refinement (or reason for that matter). Wherever you set the bar for ideological purity, there will always be someone else who will set the bar more rigorously.

The vampire has been associated with magic for a long time. Interestingly, the folklore is that someone working grimoire-type magic or witchcraft could return as a vampire after death. That's a genuine Early Modern idea. It's echoed in Dracula where the count is turned, not by another vampire, but by going to a magical school called the "Scholomance", again another artefact of authentic folklore. That being said, seeing something of oneself in the vampire, taking it as an archetype and working with it in the Jungian sense is very modern, really only becoming identifiable from the 1980s onwards.

If we only have one lifetime, wouldn't it make more sense to devote it to something that has been practiced, tested, and refined by many people throughout history, rather than experimenting with something relatively new that hasn't had enough time to develop and can sometimes be quite eclectic or even chaotic?

I've never met an evangelical for grimoires before! In all seriousness, Vampyre work is not for everyone. It's a deeply personal, reflective path of individuation that goes deeply into the place for which there's no guidebook anyway: one's soul. If it's not for you, no one is forcing you to take it up.

 

[Morell]

Maybe.

But I do think having a long historical lineage matters. People from different periods and cultures have practiced these things, and in some cases, they refined and developed them further over time.

Also, as Jason Miller has mentioned, there have been cases in the past where magicians, through a formal pact or agreement, bound certain spirits to particular names. So having an established historical tradition does matter.

By contrast, in vampyric magic, people sometimes try to invoke figures such as Dracula — someone who is, at least in part, a historical and literary figure. Perhaps something does happen as a result, but to me this seems much closer to something like chaos magic.

At best, one might be able to achieve results comparable to those found in established spiritual traditions. But this raises another question: we know that spiritual practices are time-consuming and require a great deal of effort. It may take a lifetime of practice to become highly proficient within a particular tradition.

If we only have one lifetime, wouldn't it make more sense to devote it to something that has been practiced, tested, and refined by many people throughout history, rather than experimenting with something relatively new that hasn't had enough time to develop and can sometimes be quite eclectic or even chaotic?

No, long historical lineage doesn't matter. Can you imagine the power of Catholic and Orthodox priests after more than 1500 years of unbroken historical lineage of their tradition? Nor priests, Pastors, Imams, buddhist monks, none possesses power that would prove that tradition indeed matters.

In fact when you have the supposed tradition, just like with the religions, the most powerful one is usually the founder. His followers never achieve his skill in spiritual, mystical or magical. When there is someone within tradition or religion having great power or achieving enlightenment, they are not rule, but exception. The secret is, that magic art is the one of mastering your mind and will and then using them. But only those who get that, can achieve their goal of power or magic, or internal transformation, because they look within and do what their soul needs to evolve. Everyone else is looking outside of themselves.

I assume that there is some potential in having formed non-tradition. If you read Cult of Golgotha (follows with teachings after Enter the Desert, both books are in the library), you see that he author was student of magic teacher who taught him some stuff, than said him to go and create his own system that he was going to follow.

Ironically that is why you can achieve the same results with older practices as with the modern ones. You can have same quality of results if you believe spirits to be just in your mind, egregores, or sentient independent beings. It doesn't matter. What matters is work on yourself so you can become able to reach those forces and work with them.

Your worry about single lifetime is spot on. Even if we reincarnate, we still ave only lone lifetime. Next life will be wholly different story. Who knows what will be available and possible then? Focusing on this life makes sense wherever you believe in reincarnation or not. We only have one chance on this life.

Better than looking for the most valid or the most powerful magic system is to look within and ask yourself: what do you want? What kind of magic can you imagine yourself doing in 20 or more years? Yes, it's work, but better to invest in something you enjoy doing. No matter the magic system, the key is the work, especialy your internal work. Then you have learning of tools that you use, times, and all of that, but the only real tool you need is yourself, so any system that you dedicate yourself to, will bear results if you do the work.

Maybe these threads can inspire you in your research for what you want to actually practice. It is, after all, going to be your practice, your self-expression.

How did you decide which occult system to follow?

I'm always curious about other people's paths in the occult. I'm a bit of a basic bitch, so I've never truly dived into anything fully. There's so many interesting ideas out there and I find it hard to stick to one. I'd like to try this year to really focus on something, but I don't even know...

wizardforums.com

What *should* a novice be asking?

Obvious post title, I know, but stay with me. I’ve been lurking around in this forum for a few days now and I’ve been very moved by how knowledgeable, yet kind and welcoming this group is. So, thank you for that. It seems like newbies (like me) ask the same questions over and over again and...

wizardforums.com