Satan Is A Vampire

[W_Adam_Smythe]

From a Church of Satan Grotto Master's handbook. A definition worth considering as we study Vampyres:

[Deidre]

I've been fascinated by vampire 'lore for a while, but I've never heard the concepts of magic, Satan and vampires all brought up together like this. I'll have to think on this. Hmm.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

One other thing along these lines to take into consideration is look at how many human beings have fed these ancient deities for centuries with heartfelt, emotional, and yes at times bloody belief.  

[Hapu]

Satan feeding off my energy is not an image I relish.

[Etu Malku]

I would tend to disagree that Satan is a vampire. I understand the connection to others connecting through you when you lead a ritual, in a way they can be understood as vampiric, but I don't get the Satan as vampire part.

LaVey mentioned 'psychic vampires' as those who drained your energy by being a pain in the ass and needy all the time. This certainly does not fit the vampire definition we hold these days, and it doesn't match up with the Grotto letter's association between Satan and vampires.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

As a general response:

This indeed is a passage from a Church of Satan Grotto Masters handbook.

Perhaps this is where (and I mean absolutely no offense) those who play spook show dress up while remaining faithful atheists miss the mark.

All of these deities, symbols, names, etc have been used for centuries because they work.

Whether or not you believe that the Devil exists or not, every time that you hold a ritual using His images, His names, His symbols, you are in effect feeding Him.  Think of how many have offered up their own energies similarly but with the belief that He is very real. You are raising up your own energy to add to that so you're belief/disbelief is irrelevant.

In this sense every deity does in fact have Vampiric nature. So to have all of their religions. They have enslaved human beings while feeding off of the energy raised and yes even the blood that has been shed in their name. Because of the length of time (centuries) that this has went on it is why their names, images, statues, symbols, all have power about them.

In the late 80's there was a punk fiction by J.G. Eccarius called The Last Days Of Christ The Vampire that played with some of the more shallow elements of this deeper theme. It could have just as easily been subtitled Jesus Lives Vampires Never Die.


While TSB did have an essay on psychic Vampires, this was a type of human being that LaVey was speaking about. The CoS did indeed still do lectures on topics such as Vampires and for those who have read Michael Aquino's CoS book there was even a ceremonial ritual called The Rite of The Undead that was written by Dale Seago who, at the time, held the title of Priest in the CoS.

 

[Km Anu]

As a general response:

This indeed is a passage from a Church of Satan Grotto Masters handbook.

Perhaps this is where (and I mean absolutely no offense) those who play spook show dress up while remaining faithful atheists miss the mark.

All of these deities, symbols, names, etc have been used for centuries because they work.

Whether or not you believe that the Devil exists or not, every time that you hold a ritual using His images, His names, His symbols, you are in effect feeding Him.  Think of how many have offered up their own energies similarly but with the belief that He is very real. You are raising up your own energy to add to that so you're belief/disbelief is irrelevant.

In this sense every deity does in fact have Vampiric nature. So to have all of their religions. They have enslaved human beings while feeding off of the energy raised and yes even the blood that has been shed in their name. Because of the length of time (centuries) that this has went on it is why their names, images, statues, symbols, all have power about them.

In the late 80's there was a punk fiction by J.G. Eccarius called The Last Days Of Christ The Vampire that played with some of the more shallow elements of this deeper theme. It could have just as easily been subtitled Jesus Lives Vampires Never Die.


While TSB did have an essay on psychic Vampires, this was a type of human being that LaVey was speaking about. The CoS did indeed still do lectures on topics such as Vampires and for those who have read Michael Aquino's CoS book there was even a ceremonial ritual called The Rite of The Undead that was written by Dale Seago who, at the time, held the title of Priest in the CoS.

My understanding is that these beings are composed of thought. Not so much a physical force, but a re-emerging manifestation of influence, concious because of us. Because we are concious. Thinking because we think. Acting because we act. It it's a force without a body, feeding on our beleif in it and our inability to not contemplate that beleif.

In channeling a force, we specify the form it takes. In channeling a God of conflict, will, and storms, psychodrama prepares me for a specific real life conflict. In overcoming the horror or that ritualistic psychodrama, the aspects of that entity engauge in a symbiotic contract. I give strength to its image and in turn it inspires my actions.

By becoming aware of the operations of these beings, regardless of what they are (and as presented above they may be specters, demons, gods, egregores, servitors, jungian archetypes,  symbolic associations of aspects of the psyche, w/e) we gain a great measure of control over these things, using their symbolism to compound our will before an event in the working of an operative ritual, or inspire an event in the context of an illustrative ritual.

[Liu]

While I  agree that it can be an enjoyable notion that one's deity is feeding on one, I'd rather consider it a more symbiotic relationship.

Sure we are giving our energy to the devil by doing what we feel to be in line with its will and by devoting ourselves to it. But we are doing that not (only) because it would compel us but also because doing so benefits us as well, in some way or another.

Or what are you doing for your deity that you don't derive any benefit from?

In more traditional religions it seems a bit more common to serve one's deity without getting much back, but even there it likely depends on the person in question whether they have a symbiotic or abusive relationship.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

@Km Anu Much of this is indeed related to thoughtform Magic. In that you are feeding the form with belief and that allows it to take on a life.

@Liu Quite correct it is a symbiotic relationship. In fact, that is exactly what it states in the Grotto Master's Handbook: Satan himself is a Vampire who will reward you only as long as you feed him.

That is the give/take.

[Etu Malku]

An archetype is a Platonic First Form and Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. Not until recently has Satan taken on his new 'positive' form, as he has usually been portrayed as something essentially destructive in nature. Thoughtforms are not archetypes, a thoughtform is a manifestation/extension of one's consciousness or more likely a group or even global consciousness. There has not been any objective manifestation of Satan as far I know of.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. There has not been any objective manifestation of Satan as far I know of.

Actually, just as Christ is a title and not Jesus's last name, so to is Satan a title.

An archetype is a Platonic First Form and Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. Not until recently has Satan taken on his new 'positive' form, as he has usually been portrayed as something essentially destructive in nature.

Says who? That is entirely dependent on you're perspective. For instance, I see enlightenment of man as a very positive thing. I also see nothing wrong with indulgence or making improvements.

Thoughtforms are not archetypes, a thoughtform is a manifestation/extension of one's consciousness or more likely a group or even global consciousness.

Largely Magic is mindstuff.

[Km Anu]

An archetype is a Platonic First Form and Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. Not until recently has Satan taken on his new 'positive' form, as he has usually been portrayed as something essentially destructive in nature. Thoughtforms are not archetypes, a thoughtform is a manifestation/extension of one's consciousness or more likely a group or even global consciousness. There has not been any objective manifestation of Satan as far I know of.

It becomes an archetype when the person gives it that form. It must be channeled using whatever modality the practitioner can most easily consider.

[Etu Malku]

Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. There has not been any objective manifestation of Satan as far I know of.

Actually, just as Christ is a title and not Jesus's last name, so to is Satan a title.

An archetype is a Platonic First Form and Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. Not until recently has Satan taken on his new 'positive' form, as he has usually been portrayed as something essentially destructive in nature.

Says who?

Jung and the majority of psychology.

[Etu Malku]

An archetype is a Platonic First Form and Satan is related to the devil or trickster archetype. Not until recently has Satan taken on his new 'positive' form, as he has usually been portrayed as something essentially destructive in nature. Thoughtforms are not archetypes, a thoughtform is a manifestation/extension of one's consciousness or more likely a group or even global consciousness. There has not been any objective manifestation of Satan as far I know of.

It becomes an archetype when the person gives it that form. It must be channeled using whatever modality the practitioner can most easily consider.

An archetype/first form exists regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not.

[W_Adam_Smythe]

Again, this is from the subjective perspective of the sources you are citing in as much as the Grotto Master's Handbook reference is subjective to it's author.

Likewise, an Archetype has also been fed. 

Rather than digress, let's swing this topic back around to it's op and your initial objection:

I would tend to disagree that Satan is a vampire. I understand the connection to others connecting through you when you lead a ritual, in a way they can be understood as vampiric, but I don't get the Satan as vampire part.

You would have to sort out your own disagreement there. The concept of Satan as a Vampyre has also been explained in other responses.

LaVey mentioned 'psychic vampires' as those who drained your energy by being a pain in the *** and needy all the time. This certainly does not fit the vampire definition we hold these days, and it doesn't match up with the Grotto letter's ***ociation between Satan and vampires.

Even here.

In the particular essay that you mention Anton LaVey himself offers a subjective perspective of Vampyres. However, I do strongly encourage you to read page 140 (or depending on the copy that you have, the last couple of pages of the chapter entitled "Life at the Edge of the World") of Blanche Barton's The Secret Life of a Satanist.

You will see that in that he offers a different (what some may even say contradictory to his essay in TSB) perspective on Vampyres.

Likewise, it was also pointed out in another post with references that the CoS did indeed have different perspectives on Vampyres other than the one essay that you cite in TSB.

I do hope that this information has been of use to you.