Golconda and conflicting themes.

[AnubisXy]

It's a very Western concept, the original Golconda, in that it is a state of redemption and forgiveness.

Grace.

So, yes, I would say that achieving a Nirvana like state is going about it the odd way forward. Mind you, I actually have the view the Kuei Jin are the cultural appropriations one there as they've attempted to adapt Saulot's own quest to themselves.

Because, of course, Saulot is MILLENNIA older than any of them.

It's like claiming that Buddhism was invented in California.

But then again, I strongly consider loathe the Dark Ages vilification of Saulot and attempt to warp Eastern mythology into his backstory. Let them stand on their own.

Maybe, maybe not. The Wan Kuei claim that they existed as the Wan Xian and many of them were thousands of years old when they were cursed and turned into Wan Kuei. Someone like Xue could have been just as old or older than Saulot by the time they met, even if he was much younger in terms of cursed condition.

At the same time though I think it's also kind of a meaningless debate. When it comes to spirituality, age doesn't really matter and a younger person could have much better spiritual ideas than a much older person. Hell, look no further than the Ashirra who base much of their society off the teachings of a mortal who lived only a "few" hundred years ago. Even if Xue was younger than Saulot, it's not unreasonable that he could have had various ideas that impressed Saulot, and caused Saulot to choose to study under him.

In fact if any of the Antediluvians would humble themself and choose to study under someone much younger, it seems like Saulot would be the first in line.

[AnubisXy]

Personally, when I use Golconda in a game, it's one of the pathways to transcending one's vampiric nature. This is something we see a number of times in the books, especially when looking at Antediluvians. Many of them are seeking ways to transcend their nature (Lasombra becoming one with the Abyss, Cappadocius seeking to enter the Underworld and find and replace God, Tzimisce, Malkav, Saulot, possibly Set, etc).

So in my games, I make it so that there are a number of pathways to transcendence, though most of them are pretty iffy. The Tzimisce on the Path of Metamorphosis insist that their methodology works. The Lasombra have experimented with methods of replacing parts of the body with the Abyss, trading out vampiric weaknesses for different ones. Some Baali seek to become demons and a few (like Ravana) have succeeded.

The thing that sets Golconda apart is that it's "easy" or at least easier than other options. It's a pathway that's open to any vampire of any clan of any generation. It doesn't require any sort of specialized arcane knowledge. You don't have to practice obscure disciplines. You don't need to devote yourself to some kind of Path (just stay on Humanity). You don't need to become a hermit and live a life of solitude.

[Prometheas]

Maybe, maybe not. The Wan Kuei claim that they existed as the Wan Xian and many of them were thousands of years old when they were cursed and turned into Wan Kuei. Someone like Xue could have been just as old or older than Saulot by the time they met, even if he was much younger in terms of cursed condition.

This is a bit tangential, but was the timeline ever resolved for that?

For Saulot to have studied under the Early Wan Kuei would mean that the Wan Xian would have had to have Already fallen, meaning their first three ages had passed by the time of the second city and the second city was supposed to be more ancient the Egypt. The KotE concept of ages also comes baked in with the idea that each age is shorter than the last until the sixth age, and considering the second city-to-modern day timeline was just the 4th and fifth ages, means the first three should have been Uber long.

This possibly means Caine's "First City" would have been closer to the ten thousandth city if we count eastern cultures alone(not even counting any other Fae/Were-critter/Mage/Demon weirdness going on in the other continents at the time like africa, australia, the americas, etc).

[adambeyoncelowe]

So I don't know what the guru you mentioned is drawing upon, but I can say quite confidently that Buddhist enlightenment (nirvana) does require you to be good -- at least, in all the traditions of Buddhism I've studied and practiced under.

The same seems to be true for Jainism, and I think it's probably likely to be true for Hinduism (since all the dharmic religions have a shared heritage in one way or another).

In Buddhism, you have to cultivate compassion, nonviolence and non-reactivity on the path to enlightenment. You can be wise without compassion or compassionate without wisdom, but then you aren't enlightened. Enlightened beings are usually described as having motherly love for all sentient life, and acting in a way that avoids causing even minor harm.

Gods in Buddhism are not usually enlightened beings and so act differently. Most forms of Buddhism that believe the gods are literal entities (and not embodiments of concepts or meditation tools) also believe you can only attain nirvana as a human. Gods are beings that are seen as having an incomplete state of grace, at best, as they are often selfish, deluded and superior (remind you of anyone in VTM?).

In general, Buddhist vows and precepts are guidelines rather than absolute rules, but they are all things we'd recognise as good in a Western context, even if we had to have some of the guidelines explained to us (e.g., why right concentration is so important).

As it happens, VTM Humanity covers Buddhist morality pretty well. E.g., selfish thoughts are discouraged in Buddhism (though it's not a matter of feeling guilty for having selfish thoughts, but rather taking positive steps to train yourself out of them and using mindfulness to steer unskilful thoughts back on track). Buddhists also try to avoid harmful or violent speech, because it can incite further problems.

In the game, I have no problem with the path to Golconda requiring Christian ethics. In canon, the path was apparently laid down by an archangel at the behest of God, so it makes sense that it should follow God's word. I think we just have to separate Humanity, in the sense of the path that was offered to Caine as a route to salvation, from 'being human'. The writers weren't always on the same page about that. Either Humanity is an integrity stat, separate from morality, or it's a morality stat and therefore just one of many paths that can be walked. As the game was written with a strong undercurrent of Christian millenarianism, I think we should lean into that: Humanity is about morality, not being mortal. Let Humanity as 'being human' be VTR's thing, because it works there!

That also said, I am in the camp that thinks there is more than one form of 'vampire enlightenment', and for vampires at least, it doesn't need to be like real-life Buddhist (or Jain or Hindu) enlightenment. These are monsters, descended from blood gods, after all.

Like AnubisXy, I believe Golconda is just one end state, but that Azhi Dahaka and others exist if you reach the pinnacles of the other paths. It's just that only Golconda has the benefits of reduced hunger and walking in the sun. The others make you some form of monster, as defined by the path itself. That might be why Azaneal, for example, became a demon — as part of his mastery over the Path of Screams/Evil Revelations. Someone on the Path of Typhon might become an avatar of Set or Typhon instead.

[AnubisXy]

This is a bit tangential, but was the timeline ever resolved for that?

For Saulot to have studied under the Early Wan Kuei would mean that the Wan Xian would have had to have Already fallen, meaning their first three ages had passed by the time of the second city and the second city was supposed to be more ancient the Egypt. The KotE concept of ages also comes baked in with the idea that each age is shorter than the last until the sixth age, and considering the second city-to-modern day timeline was just the 4th and fifth ages, means the first three should have been Uber long.

This possibly means Caine's "First City" would have been closer to the ten thousandth city if we count eastern cultures alone(not even counting any other Fae/Were-critter/Mage/Demon weirdness going on in the other continents at the time like africa, australia, the americas, etc).

I don't believe there was ever a strong timeline.

All that's been said is that at some point after the Deluge, Saulot traveled to the East. He was gone for a long time (it never said how long, hundreds or thousands of years) and studied under many people. While there he encountered Xue and studied under him. Xue was the first Wan Kuei to reach Golconda or achieve enlightenment after the fall of the Wan Xian and Saulot studied under him.

We don't know how long the First City was around for and it's possible that it really was the first city and existed for thousands and thousands of years before the Deluge finally wiped it out. At least looking at the Biblical perspective, there would many cities, kingdoms and nations at the time of the Deluge, so it's not like there was one and only one city at the time.

[Shadeprowler]

No definite time line was given
But the Land of Eight Million Dreams (and I think the thousand Hells) describes how the Yama King fooled the Dragon Kung Kung (I think that was his name) who caused the Deluge and the Wan Kuei was already fallen that time. so... IF we piece together the mentions and information sniplets scatered around in several books, Saulot's travel and meeting with Xue totally in the realm of possibility the way it was more or less desribed
Not to mention a few soruces claims Saulot was embraced not in the First but the Second city (those not really align with the rest, better to ignore it tho')

[Rhywbeth]

At this point in VtM, Golconda is whatever the ST says it is. I usually tend to borrow themes from the gnostic angle that tends to crop up in the WoD. The world is wrong, inherently unjust and can go fuck itself.

To me, Golconda isn't an external spiritual salvation or enlightenment per say, it's the consilidation of the rational mind and the beast. Sating the hunger within yourself by filling the void with your own soul, forming a complete being free of the drawbacks of vampirism with all the benefits. The answer to "A beast I am, lest a beast I become." Your sense of self and willpower must be strong enough to let the beast completely consume you and survive intact. Some view it as an act of rebellion. If you have been damned for a crime you never comitted, then give god the middle finger by destroying his shackles and stealing the power of his curse for yourself.

Part of me says that spitting in the face of the WoD and being kind in spite of the grimdark hellhole deserves a reward, and it should be humanity exclusive. The other part adheres to moral nihilism and says it's extremely fitting for said grimdark hellhole that the human concept of "good" is insignificant, morality has no place in the equation and all vampires can attain it. Besides, if they really are damned due to circumstances beyond their contol, all vampires deserve the ability to spit in the universe's face by undoing the curse but keeping the benefit.

[MyWifeIsScary]

Ditto

In the WoD, God's almost certainly not a good dude. Reality's a prison and the morality of God is suspect. If noddism is true, Caine murdered Abel due to an injustice on the part of God. If it's not true, well, the world sucks, isn't that God's fault? It'd thus be improper if we granted enlightenment purely to those with good morals or to those that live in accordance with God's will. Enlightenment doesn't come from being a good person, enlightenment comes from self actualization, transformation, transmutation... whatever.

Also it's just not punk if you only win by playing nice despite the infeasibility of both being nice and enacting some kind of wide-scale reform. "be Jesus" and perhaps encourage everyone else to be Jesus? Well, if you're stated correctly, you can do that, but it's not achievable for most characters and therefore most souls, and I'd like to believe everyone's capable of enlightenment.

The first few editions said "Morality is chosen, not ordained". Of course Revised threw that out the window and 5th took it out back and shot it, but I think it's not right to impose humanity on everyone. Self is about more than just being nice. Altruism for selfish goals is not fulfilment. Working out who you are exactly and what you want to be, and achieving it, is fulfilment.

[Prometheas]

So I don't know what the guru you mentioned is drawing upon, but I can say quite confidently that Buddhist enlightenment (nirvana) does require you to be good -- at least, in all the traditions of Buddhism I've studied and practiced under.

The same seems to be true for Jainism, and I think it's probably likely to be true for Hinduism (since all the dharmic religions have a shared heritage in one way or another).

That's not universally true. Jainism and Hindi are split into various sects with very different beliefs. Saying they all believe the same thing because they have similar roots is like saying all the pentateuch are all slightly different versions of the same religion because they all have roots in the same five books.

An example is the hindi denominations of Tantra that believe in reaching enlightenment through mastering the 7 chakras(or 9 chakra, or 13 chakras, or etc depending on sect). Opening the chakra doesn't mean following a moral guideline, its a philosophy built around overcoming the internal emotions that impede a practitioner from attaining their goals through mastery of the self. A person who has learning to open their chakras isn't necessarily a Good person and many sects make it a point to call attention to this.

Their are even sects of bhuddism that take an view that overcoming Dukka/dissatisfaction means that one must severe Positive connection with the world as much as it does the negative. In this view, Love and Kindness are just as poisonous as want as it sets up the expectations for good that will inevitably lead to the same cycle of disappointment and dissatisfaction/Dukkha as any other deviation from the paths would. This is completely at odds with the more popular idea that Bhuddism should strive for universal happiness, and some works of eastern fiction pint out that closely following the eightfold way and five precepts doesn't prohibit a morally dubious monk from committing atrocities like slavery or torture as long as they believe they are doing it for the right reasons.

Granted the above example is like gnostic philosophy in christianity. A smaller denomination taking the opposing, counter-culture interpretation of the popular understanding of a theology is nothing new.

[adambeyoncelowe]

That's not universally true. Jainism and Hindi are split into various sects with very different beliefs. Saying they all believe the same thing because they have similar roots is like saying all the pentateuch are all slightly different versions of the same religion because they all have roots in the same five books.

I didn't say they were all the same. I said they had shared heritage, which is why they all have related ideas such as merit, karma, dharma, atman (or anatman), nirvana, and so on.

But yes, I was speaking in generalities because otherwise it would be a PhD thesis.

An example is the hindi denominations of Tantra that believe in reaching enlightenment through mastering the 7 chakras(or 9 chakra, or 13 chakras, or etc depending on sect). Opening the chakra doesn't mean following a moral guideline, its a philosophy built around overcoming the internal emotions that impede a practitioner from attaining their goals through mastery of the self. A person who has learning to open their chakras isn't necessarily a Good person and many sects make it a point to call attention to this.

Well, Tantra refers to a very, very broad range of esoteric traditions in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, but it's often grossly misrepresented in English language sources.

It's not really a distinct tradition of its own but a term to refer to all the esoteric texts and practices of these traditions (so it's sort of like the Gnostic gospels and the Sufi dervishes, to borrow your analogy).

In both Hinduism and Buddhism (and sometimes Jainism), Tantra usually supplements the core teachings, rather than replacing them.

It's also important to note that many of these teachings can be heretical or contentious within mainstream traditions -- they're as much an essential part of these religions as Kabbalah is of Judaism and Christian esoteric traditions are of Christianity. (With the notable exception of trans-Himalayan/Tibetan Buddhism, which has a lot of Tantric activities, but still within a mainstream interpretation of things like nirvana.)

That is to say, they can be a part of it, but they would usually constitute a second (or third) canon, rather than a primary one. In most cases, they are also considered secret texts, so they aren't widely taught or even spoken about to outsiders.

There is a history of 'gurus' using Tantra, or alleged Tantric practices, for their own purposes. Given the prohibition on sharing, I am always sceptical of how accurate their teachings are.

Their are even sects of bhuddism that take an view that overcoming Dukka/dissatisfaction means that one must severe Positive connection with the world as much as it does the negative. In this view, Love and Kindness are just as poisonous as want as it sets up the expectations for good that will inevitably lead to the same cycle of disappointment and dissatisfaction/Dukkha as any other deviation from the paths would. This is completely at odds with the more popular idea that Bhuddism should strive for universal happiness, and some works of eastern fiction pint out that closely following the eightfold way and five precepts doesn't prohibit a morally dubious monk from committing atrocities like slavery or torture as long as they believe they are doing it for the right reasons.

As you correctly identify, mainstream Buddhism would consider this an extreme or contrary interpretation, for sure. Attachment is to be avoided, but the alternative is non-attachment rather than detachment.

Similarly, most descriptions of enlightenment require developing mental and emotional traits, rather than avoiding emotions entirely. Then there's accumulating merit, which requires more than merely morally neutral actions (merit is not a neutral term, by definition).

This is so even in Sanskrit and Pali. 'Merit' is a translation of 'punya' or 'punna', and is beneficial, protective, and only generated by good thoughts and actions. Before Buddhism came along, I understand it referred more to meeting ritualised obligations (e.g., ancestor worship), but the eventual change of meaning also influenced Hindu and Jain uses of the word.

Granted the above example is like gnostic philosophy in christianity. A smaller denomination taking the opposing, counter-culture interpretation of the popular understanding of a theology is nothing new.

I think you're right. That's why I kept it to generalities about the mainstream consensus on these religions. There's a difference between 'obscure sect x with canonically extreme views says this' and 'Buddhism says this', essentially.

All that said (and I appreciate this is already a long and off-topic post, so I'm trying to bring it back together), I think there is an illustrative example here.

Just as there might be a Buddhist monk who thinks he can attain nirvana by avoiding all attachment, or that he can gain enlightenment without goodness and kindness, there are likely vampires with similar delusions. Take the Inconnu of Hunedoara Castle, who believe retreating from humanity is enough to find Golconda. Or the vampires who emulate humane behaviour without really believing it, and as such will never reach the heights of Humanity 10.

[Prometheas]

Just as there might be a Buddhist monk who thinks he can attain nirvana by avoiding all attachment, or that he can gain enlightenment without goodness and kindness, there are likely vampires with similar delusions. Take the Inconnu of Hunedoara Castle, who believe retreating from humanity is enough to find Golconda. Or the vampires who emulate humane behaviour without really believing it, and as such will never reach the heights of Humanity 10.

I'm going to be honest, I like the idea of "The devil has a point". Having everything be cut-and-dry with the good guy being completely right and the villain being delusional just sounds Boring.

I like the idea that the opposite counter philosophy has just as much of a point as the popular version, as otherwise it's essentially morality boils down to the lowest hanging fruit we have. "Everyone go home! The big questions were answered a long time ago by people better than you." and questioning them doesn't just make you a bad person, it makes you delusional and wrong.

I'd rather have people like "Yaldabaoth was the main villain" gnostics or "emotion severing" bhuddists be given seats at the Theo-philosophical big-boys table rather than dismissed for not being the intended message.

[adambeyoncelowe]

I'm going to be honest, I like the idea of "The devil has a point". Having everything be cut-and-dry with the good guy being completely right and the villain being delusional just sounds Boring.

I like the idea that the opposite counter philosophy has just as much of a point as the popular version, as otherwise it's essentially morality boils down to the lowest hanging fruit we have. "Everyone go home! The big questions were answered a long time ago by people better than you." and questioning them doesn't just make you a bad person, it makes you delusional and wrong.

I'd rather have people like "Yaldabaoth was the main villain" gnostics or "emotion severing" bhuddists be given seats at the Theo-philosophical big-boys table rather than dismissed for not being the intended message.

Again, that isn't what I said. I think you're reading my comments in bad faith at this point.

Villains can have a point. I didn't say they couldn't. I enjoy playing villains and anti-heroes just fine. Most of my games are set in the Sabbat. But Humanity objectively has a hierarchy of sins. If you violate them, you aren't getting to Golconda.

That isn't to say vamps can't believe in the Abelene Heresy instead. There is literally already a Path for that.

My point about delusions was about evil vampires pretending to follow Humanity and thinking they were excelling at it when, objectively, they would have a low Humanity rating and so cannot.

(And this is very in-keeping with canon anyway, as there are several NPCs who are doing just this in the game already. I gave an example in Hunedoara Castle.)

That's one situation in which that vampire is kidding themselves. That's not me saying all villains are wrong and all heroes are right. It's not me saying 'everything has to be cut and dry' either.

In VTM, you can believe in Gnosticism all you want. But as a Path, it would be distinct from the Path of Mainstream Christianity, or whatever.

That doesn't make the Gnostics wrong -- but it would mean they wouldn't excel at the Path of Mainstream Christianity if they didn't actually believe in it.

[MyWifeIsScary]

Villains can have a point. I didn't say they couldn't. I enjoy playing villains and anti-heroes just fine. Most of my games are set in the Sabbat. But Humanity objectively has a hierarchy of sins. If you violate them, you aren't getting to Golconda.
.

I don't think he is.

Humanity objectively has a "Hierarchy of Sins", but IRL sins don't have an objective hierarchy and there's no objective proof that being a good person grants you anything. Humanity isn't humanity, as far as anyone can tell. Thus why should Humanity be the One True Way when there's no reflection of that in reality? Good art reflects reality. Author fiat doesn't. In DAV, all Roads are equal, and it's great. In modern nights, one is above the rest? Really? What even is humanity? Is it actually how good you are, or is it the effort of your ego to stave of the Beast? If it's the former, why do we have 1-5 dice of conscience to let us off?

[Prometheas]

Again, that isn't what I said. I think you're reading my comments in bad faith at this point.

Villains can have a point. I didn't say they couldn't. I enjoy playing villains and anti-heroes just fine. Most of my games are set in the Sabbat. But Humanity objectively has a hierarchy of sins. If you violate them, you aren't getting to Golconda.

That isn't to say vamps can't believe in the Abelene Heresy instead. There is literally already a Path for that.

My point about delusions was about evil vampires pretending to follow Humanity and thinking they were excelling at it when, objectively, they would have a low Humanity rating and so cannot.

(And this is very in-keeping with canon anyway, as there are several NPCs who are doing just this in the game already. I gave an example in Hunedoara Castle.)

That's one situation in which that vampire is kidding themselves. That's not me saying all villains are wrong and all heroes are right. It's not me saying 'everything has to be cut and dry' either.

In VTM, you can believe in Gnosticism all you want. But as a Path, it would be distinct from the Path of Mainstream Christianity, or whatever.

That doesn't make the Gnostics wrong -- but it would mean they wouldn't excel at the Path of Mainstream Christianity if they didn't actually believe in it.

I don't think he is.

Humanity objectively has a "Hierarchy of Sins", but IRL sins don't have an objective hierarchy and there's no objective proof that being a good person grants you anything. Humanity isn't humanity, as far as anyone can tell. Thus why should Humanity be the One True Way when there's no reflection of that in reality? Good art reflects reality. Author fiat doesn't. In DAV, all Roads are equal, and it's great. In modern nights, one is above the rest? Really? What even is humanity? Is it actually how good you are, or is it the effort of your ego to stave of the Beast? If it's the former, why do we have 1-5 dice of conscience to let us off?

I think this might be miscommunication.


I believe adambeyoncelowe is saying that an emotion severance bhuddist and a orthedox? Bhuddist would be on different path of the same road. Like how path of heaven and path of humanity are both paths on the larger Road of humanity.

[CTPhipps]

Let's just move on from RL religious practices please.