Realizing Buddha Nature Beyond Vampiric Immortality

[Voidking]

This is my opinion, perhaps we have a misconception on what nirvana is or how it feels, and we assume that nirvana i.e. self annihilation or the cessation of self activity, implies death of the "individuality", and what is "individuality"? I would say that self annihilation pertains to the notion of self as an ego and I-maker, one who believes his doing things and who claims the sense of doership, in Nirvana, the sense of doership drops, but you still operate within the world of karma, you still can enjoy life, create , destroy, wage war, have sex... you just dropped the identification with the body-mind.

I believe that people who have attained Nirvana or Moksha, be it the Buddha Shakyamuni, Sri Ramana Maharshi or any similar person, they are immortals as consciousness, but died as body-mind. Disciples of Ramana Maharshi were crying that their guru is departing from this life, and he said to them, "stop being stupid I'm not going anywhere", the body is dying, but "that" is immortal. See it like this, one cell of your body died, but you are the entire body and still alive, you do not identify yourself with a cell (and the cell certainly have a sense of individuality and fighting for its survival).... Ramana Maharishi as body-mind/cell died, but the true Ramana as body will live forever.

You have a plethora of yogins and maha-siddhas who have attained sahaja, occult powers, and immortality, some famous names are Mahavatar Babaij (the founder of Kriya Yoga School), Sri Gorakhnath (the ascetic hatha yogin), Sri Matsyendranath (the revivalist of Hatha Yoga and the founder of the KAULA yogini cult and the Kaula tradition-whoch is mostly associated with Vamamarga and sexual tantras + bodily mudras), you have Saraha the founder of Mahamudra, the great yogin Milarepa, the famous Naropa (six yogas of Naropa), Virupa... and many many others.

The point is apparently you can achieve the highest state and still maintain a sort of individuality, you can still operate, create and destroy while in Moksha, Nirvana, Kaivalya, Sahaja, Jivanmukta, call it whenever you want, all are labels pointing to "that" from a different perspective.

 

[Galahad]

Do you think it would be possible to attain a true kind of permanently existing self through vampirism and then branch off into realizing buddha nature so instead of deifying the self the traditional way, one attains immortality then dissolves the self into buddha nature rather than some karmic causes and effects which motivated you to become a certain kind of person so that one can continue experiencing that state of bliss eternally without the problem of impermanence? I've heard that clear light is akin to realizing buddha nature or something very close to it and I question whether or not the attainment of clear light would make the path of a magician significantly easier or more bearable in the face of the obstacles one expects to encounter along the way. Also, might it not make the loneliness of the path no longer painful? I'd like to hear your take on the matter.

You know, I've heard what you're saying about there being no you to experience the bliss but how is it that figures like Padmasabhava and the like seem to still have an individuated consciousness besides having directly realized being a part of all things? Is there not someone there within that energetic field which makes him, him? Also, there are buddhists who have attained clear light through dream yoga and the like but they're clearly not gone or entirely dissolved because they are still alive and with us today. If the experiencer is gone and there is no bliss to be experienced, isn't this somewhat of a contradiction to the existence of a bodhisattva who is said to have realized buddha nature and abides in bliss yet has not exited the wheel of samsara because not all beings have been liberated? I don't think Nirvana is an appropriate goal for me but there are vampiric sorcerers like Alexander W. Dray or people from the temple of set who claim to be able to fend off the astral decay and attain an immortal state beyond which there is no return and no possibility of death. I'm struggling with this idea that one can become immortal and realize buddha nature (since there is no governing authority on how unethical or twisted you can become until you realize buddha nature) and clear light is a state of realization that can't be defiled or altered by anything and is not subject to the laws of karma or cause and effect so it must be a kind of permanent state of bliss. No?

There is an interesting tension here between some very developed thoughts and a mundane understanding of what constitutes proper morality. In the oldest Buddhist traditions, as in the pagan West, virtue was the barometer for conduct rather than a quietist dependence on not rocking the cosmic boat (I'd imagine this latter ethical code developed in response to Confucianism). Virtue is an aristocratic, that is to say Vampyric, preoccupation.

As you've mentioned the Temple of Set, it's worth understanding that the general understanding of immortality there (symbolised by the Vampyre) is that the consciousness is refined so dramatically through initiation and life-experience that it withstands the "shock of death" (this idea is treated in Anne Rice's 'Vampire Chronicles' series). When we set aside socialised "boxes and categories" of how "good and evil" should look, there is actually not much between the Setian Vampyre and the state of bodhisattva. Both exist as energised, metaphysically independent beings who are aware of nirvana but who, while fully divinising themselves, have resisted being blown out. Both interact with the world in various ways and that can include materially: bodhisattvas will dispense material wealth if it will help you to achieve a higher state. Both receive influxes of bliss because they derive their energy from higher sources, much as a body that digests high quality food will experience better feelings than the body that lives on junk.

In practical terms I would say this: all true paths require you to fully develop yourself. A courtship exists between you and the Universe and, like a bride, the Universe wants everything to be perfect before any consummation occurs. That means going on quests to prove yourself, it means becoming a good "householder" (not literally but in the sense of well-managing your energies and faculties), it means individuation. If, at the end of that Work, you choose to dissolve into the Nothing, or if you choose to continue on as an independent being, is perhaps a bridge best crossed when you're there rather than here. Whatever vision of the Future Self we subscribe to, while we're here, we're all either doing the same Work or avoiding doing that Work.

 

[sherab]

here is actually not much between the Setian Vampyre and the state of bodhisattva.

I would say only at a very generic level. The basis of the bodhisattva path as I understand it is the vow to strive for the liberation of all sentient beings. I'm not sure how that would correlate to a Setian Vampyre's path (or even what defines such a path, but it doesn't sound like it involves this). For example, Shantideva in the Way of the Bodhisattva states:

All the joy the world contains
Has come through wishing happiness for others.
All the misery the world contains
Has come through wanting pleasure for oneself.

trans Padmakara

This sounds like exactly the opposite of what has been described so far.

There also generic similarities between a dog and other mammals as well, but the differences are quite important. Which is not to say that everyone has to have a pet dog rather than say, a cat or a rat or a hamster.

 

[Galahad]

I would say only at a very generic level. The basis of the bodhisattva path as I understand it is the vow to strive for the liberation of all sentient beings. I'm not sure how that would correlate to a Setian Vampyre's path (or even what defines such a path, but it doesn't sound like it involves this). For example, Shantideva in the Way of the Bodhisattva states:

Across a former account on this site, I described ideas of the Vampyre from the Western Left Hand Path tradition (they're still floating around in the LHP section). Webb's book is a standard, public go to guide if you're interested in reading further.

I am no expert on the Mahāyāna tradition. However, my understanding is that "wanting pleasure for oneself" is condemning desire from the perspective of ego-identity. That is, it is the unthinking human "I want it" that's being condemned, while pleasure as a fact of existence, without greed/attachments, is not being condemned. Surprisingly, this fits perfectly with the Setian Vampyre which is not identified with the ego (or the "social parasite" as this tradition calls it). In the Setian tradition, the Vampyre actually goes to considerable lengths to move beyond the ego, not through dissolution but by seduction. This entails using pleasure as a way of controlling the body and dissolving the ego, essentially saying "I give you bliss when you move beyond the infantile, unthinking 'gimmie' state".

Obviously, there are clear distinctions in aesthetics and self-perception between these paths and, as hinted in my first reply, there are moral issues that apply to a particular perspective, a perspective which I would actually connect with the ego/social parasite. What I am arguing here is that from a different perspective, dare I say a "higher" perspective, those "moral" distinctions are revealed to be human attachments. What Works, simply works.

 

[LadyBoi]

What I am arguing here is that from a different perspective, dare I say a "higher" perspective, those "moral" distinctions are revealed to be human attachments. What Works, simply works.

I thought so. Now is there a real merging point where one can realize Buddha nature in the face of eternity for a vampiric sorcerer? Most vampiric sorcerers don’t seem too interested in this from what I’ve read but I don’t want to feel pain or depression in an environment I’ll be locked into indefinitely. I want to be blissed out and abiding in said state permanently. I want to be permanently happy like a Buddha but I don’t want to sacrifice my individual consciousness. If I merge with someone or something and this someone/something is unconcerned with me and there’s no memory of me left over, how could I truly be the one experiencing what the person I’ve merged with is experiencing? I wouldn’t be experiencing from their point of view because there’s no me anymore. If I can’t remember who I was how can I be the one experiencing if I’m now not me? It would be more like dissolving oneself into food or power for the being is what I would think. I prefer to realize that Buddha nature within and it seems to be possible because siddartha was able to do it without merging himself with another being. I still don’t know. Setting aside all the moral and temporary human things, this state seems to be achievable regardless of one’s personal motivations no?

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 9:28 AM

This sounds like exactly the opposite of what has been described so far.

But is the realization of Buddha nature possible irrespective of whether or not one cares about others suffering? A few messages back I quoted some scripture where siddartha is seen to have a selfish interest in the pursuit of realizing buddha nature. Isn’t Buddha nature truly Buddha nature and something unconcerned with anything that happens or doesn’t happen in samsara, universal happenings, worldly life, etc? Isn’t it a kind of primordial, eternal foundation like experience which is undefiled by all other things?

 

[sherab]

However, my understanding is that "wanting pleasure for oneself" is condemning desire from the perspective of ego-identity.

From my POV, the issue is that the self is an illusion, like an imagined snake in place of a rope. The basic principle is to let everything go and not cling (because, ultimately, nothing can be clung to). Once this happens, the totality unfolds as it does, spontaneously. The snake may still appear even though we realize it is an illusion. Appearances can still appear, but it is like lucid dreaming instead of regular dreaming.

How desire is handled depends on each Buddhist tradition--- some may renounce, some may transform, some may let it self-liberate, etc. Morality is not based on good or evil, but on aligning with the goal of liberation (or aligning with the truth, aka the dharma). At some point, it all needs to be dropped--- all concepts, goals, etc. have a distorting effect. Once illusion, seen through, the positive qualities of Buddhahood begin to arise spontaneously. Again, this is all specific to traditions. The dharma expresses according to the specific needs of the individual.

To geek out a little, it seems to me a lot of Western esotericism/occultism is based on a more neo-platonic model (although there are of course many varieties). So for instance, many in the West accept a mind-independent "objective truth" that can be discovered along with a correlation theory of truth.

Some Mahayana Buddhist models reject this--- there is only what appears to sentient beings, yet minds tend to manifest in certain ways allowing for a coherence model of truth. So I would personally say sometimes the differences aren't merely on the surface, but tend to run a little deeper than that.

Post automatically merged: Tuesday at 2:32 PM

Isn’t it a kind of primordial, eternal foundation like experience which is undefiled by all other things?

From a Mahayana perspective, I would say the basis of the mind is dynamic emptiness. If it were solid or fixed in some way, it would be dynamic. This dynamic emptiness is unaffected by the appearances that arise just like a dreamer is unaffected by the dream, or the sky is unaffected by clouds that come and go. The Mahayana tradition also state that compassion spontaneously arises from this dynamic emptiness when it is not full of distorting habits and limited views. So as one nears Buddhahood, this compassion will naturally arises, and if it doesn't, then one is not nearing Buddhahood.

The Pali suttas are often not aimed at Buddhahood (although they can be), but arhatship, individual liberation. The methods to achieve this involve renunciation and developing strong states of concentration. From a Mahayana perspective, this is a small view since it excludes helping all other sentient beings. The Mahayana might further state that arhatship is temporary, and these arhats will eventually leave their cessation to continue to Buddhahood. However, people who tend to be thought of as close to arhatship tend to radiate love and compassion as well IME.

But that's just my opinion on it.