Tag: comparative religion

An Encounter with Kali

mim

The descent into Bengal began with a vision. As our plane banked low over the hazy sprawl of Calcutta, I sat in meditation, quietly preparing for a long journey north to Sikkim for a series of tantric empowerments. Then, quite suddenly, a naked dakini appeared before me, dancing and beckoning. She seemed to be greeting me to Calcutta. I knew, or thought I knew, that it was Kali.

We stayed in a modest Baptist guesthouse chosen for its safety and low price, a short walk from Mother Teresa’s compound. It was late October, and the air was warm and humid. Calcutta felt down at heel, yet intellectual and dignified. My companions, all Tibetan Buddhist practitioners, decided to visit Mother Teresa’s place to pay homage. I hung back. They were sincere in their devotion to that famous nun, but something in me pulled in another direction. Although I had been raised Catholic, I felt a faint aversion to anything connected with the Catholic Church. I regarded the religion as problematic at that time. Still, seeing how genuinely excited my friends were, I encouraged them to go.

The next day I hired a taxi and arranged for us to cross the city to the Dakshineswar Kali Temple, the same temple where Ramakrishna had worshipped and experienced his visions of the Divine Mother and became enlightened. “We really must make the effort to see it,” I told the others, although I wasn’t sure why. The journey took nearly an hour through dusty streets and chaotic traffic. I had read that Kali was the patron goddess of Bengal, and that Dakshineswar was one of her most important shrines. The closer we came, the stronger the pull felt.

At the temple, a long line of Indian devotees wound through the courtyard, each waiting to glimpse the goddess and receive her blessing. We appeared to be the only Westerners there. I knew very little about the history of the temple at that point. All I knew was that I had always been intrigued by Ramakrishna among all the Hindu mystics and had always wanted to visit his temple and pay my respects.

The Temple and Its History

The Dakshineswar Kali Temple was founded in the mid-nineteenth century by Rani Rashmoni, a wealthy zamindar who, according to legend, dreamt that the goddess Kali commanded her to build a temple on the banks of the Hooghly River rather than journey by boat to Varanasi¹. Rashmoni had been preparing for the pilgrimage for months and had spent a small fortune, but on the night before her departure, Kali appeared in a dream and told her she need not travel at all. Instead, the goddess instructed her to raise a temple and enshrine an image that Kali herself would inhabit, blessing all who came to worship. The temple was completed in 1855 and the complex stands on land said to resemble a tortoise, a form considered especially auspicious in Shakta-Tantra cosmology².

Architecturally, the main temple is built in the navaratna (nine-spired) style typical of Bengal, raised on a high platform overlooking the river³. Surrounding the sanctum are twelve identical Shiva shrines aligned along the Hooghly’s edge, a small Radha-Krishna temple, and bathing ghats for pilgrims⁴.

Inside the sanctum resides Bhavatarini, a fierce aspect of Kali known as “Saviour of the Universe,” depicted with one foot on Shiva’s chest⁵. The mystic Ramakrishna served as the temple’s priest and carried out years of intense spiritual practice within its grounds, transforming the site into one of India’s holiest centers of Shakti worship⁶. The atmosphere is thick with incense, bells, flowers, and the hum of a thousand mantras. Once inside the gate you feel the city’s chaos fall away.

As we stood in line, something unexpected happened. An Indian guard suddenly appeared, motioned to me and a Buddhist friend, and beckoned us forward. Without explanation, we were led past the waiting crowd directly to the inner sanctum. The goddess stood before us, draped in red and gold, eyes alive in the flicker of ghee lamps. When I received prasad, it tasted sweet and delicious, and I felt a surge of a deep, penetrating love. It was so overwhelming that I began to cry.

As a Tibetan Buddhist, I had always regarded Hindu deities as somehow inferior and secondary to the Tibetan ones who were the representations of the ultimate truth. My practice had centered on Vajrayogini and Chakrasamvara, not on Kali. Yet there, when the experience of divine love engulfed me in the Dakshineswar temple, I felt an unmistakable recognition.

Years later, after surviving the catastrophic unraveling of my own tantric path due to the betrayal by male Buddhist teachers, the exposure of their sexual abuses, and the psychic annihilation that followed, I began to study the origins of tantra in earnest. Through the research of Alexis Sanderson and others, I learned what my experience at Dakshineswar had already shown me: that the yoginī tantras of Tibetan Buddhism arose from the same crucible of medieval Hindu Śaiva and Śākta practice⁷. Vajrayoginī, the red goddess of my own initiations, was in essence a Buddhized form of Kali. The goddess in both traditions can give blessings and boons, but she can become, in an instant, a terrifying and destructive demon with her own set of intentions and cosmic laws.

That insight came at great cost. The deeper I studied, the more clearly I saw that tantra, in both Hindu and Buddhist forms, was inseparable from forces of domination, secrecy, and power. The same ecstatic current that once inspired devotion also lurked behind manipulation and abuse. In the West, these darker currents were long dismissed or hidden, until the many scandals of 2017 tore the veil away.

My visit to Kali’s temple remains a paradox. In that moment I felt only grace: the raw, overwhelming presence of the divine feminine. But in hindsight, I experienced Kali as both mother and destroyer, blessing and devourer. She welcomed me to Calcutta with open arms, but in time, in her Buddhist form as Vajrayogini, she stripped me of everything I held dear in order to completely destroy my body, mind, and soul. By the grace of the highest divinity, the eternal Christian God, I survived and am still alive to tell the tale.

Notes

  1. Dakshineswar Kali Temple, Wikipedia, last modified 2025.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.; see also Dakshineswar Kali Temple official site, Places in Dakshineshwar (dakshineswarkalitemple.org).
  5. Dakshineswar Kali Temple, Britannica.
  6. Ibid.; Ramakrishna’s association documented in Swami Nikhilananda, The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna (New York: Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Center, 1942).
  7. Alexis Sanderson, “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period,” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, ed. Shingo Einoo (Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009), 41–350.

What If the Kundalini Serpent Fire Was Once Angelic?

mim

What if some of the radiant beings that ancient texts call Seraphim, the fiery, serpentine angels who once circled the throne of God, fell from that high order? The Hebrew word saraph itself means both burning one and serpent. In that ambiguity lies a bridge between the flaming spirits of heaven and the serpent powers found in other traditions.

Across the world, in the Sanskrit Purāṇas and yogic literature, there are also serpentine intelligences: the Nāgas, the Kundalinī energy, and the goddess figures who appear surrounded by flames. The sage Patañjali, author of the Yoga Sūtras, is deeply linked with serpent symbolism. In Indian mythology, he is sometimes described as an incarnation (avatāra) of the serpent deity Ādiśeṣa, or Ananta, the cosmic serpent who supports Viṣṇu. Ādiśeṣa is said to have descended to earth to bring knowledge that would relieve human suffering. This connection is why Patañjali is often portrayed with a serpent hood behind his head or a serpent body below the waist. Whether or not serpent spirits literally whispered the Yoga Sūtras to him, serpent imagery pervades yogic and tantric cosmology. The Nāgas are keepers of divine wisdom, and Kundalinī is envisioned as a coiled fiery energy at the base of the spine that awakens through disciplined practice. Over time, these motifs merged into a vision of serpentine power as both the source and the path of revelation. Suppose these mythic beings were echoes of the same order of spirits, glimpsed through another cultural lens. If the Seraphim of the Old Testament were “burning ones,” what would a fallen Seraph look like to those who encountered its power? Perhaps like the Kundalinī Śakti, a current of fire roaring through the body, consuming and transformative, perilous and hideous.

In Tibetan tantric art, figures such as Vajrayoginī blaze with this same imagery. She stands wreathed in flame, hair flying, a garland of human heads around her neck: a being of immense energy and occult knowledge. To her accomplished devotees she is enlightenment embodied, but to others overwhelmed by her force, the experience could resemble an encounter with a terrifying, cosmic intelligence that feels at once divine and frightfully destructive.

In Christian cosmology, the Seraphim stood closest to the divine light, their essence described as pure burning love. If the story of the angelic rebellion is true, the fall of Lucifer and his host might be understood as the perversion of that love for God turned inward toward self-worship. The Seraphs, if any joined that rebellion, would have fallen from the highest heaven to earth yet carried the memory of their incandescent proximity to the Most High. After such a fall, their nature would remain fiery but unmoored, no longer worshipping the divine but seeking vessels in which to become divine objects themselves, demanding reverence rather than giving it. Their rebellion took the form of imitation, of becoming godlike and leading humans away from God through elaborate systems of spiritual artifice. Seen through that lens, the serpent fire that rises in the body could be a vestige of this celestial descent, a remnant of the same luminous essence striving to return upward yet incapable of abiding in heaven because of their grave sin. In mythic terms, these fallen Seraphs might not have become the grotesque demons described by some exorcists but radiant, fallen intelligences deprived of their proper axis.

Catholic exorcists often describe demons as denizens of hell, creatures of stench, mockery, and degradation that feed on blood and fear. Yet if a third of the angels fell, the fallen host was not of one kind alone. Tradition holds that beings from all nine choirs joined the rebellion, from the lowly messengers to the highest Seraphs who once blazed before the throne. After the fall, these spirits lost their divine orientation but not their essential nature: fiery where they had been fiery, clever where they had been wise. In rebellion they became hierarchies of distortion, a dark mirror of heaven. Some manifest as the grotesque forms exorcists encounter; others as subtler intelligences still bearing the trace of their former luminosity. And what of the Nephilim, the offspring of the “sons of God” and human women? When they died, it is said, they became wandering spirits of great malice. “Demon,” then, is not a single species but a spectrum of fallen orders, each expressing what it once was in a corrupted form. As one exorcist observed, each fallen angel is a species unto itself. A fallen Seraph would perhaps appear differently from a fallen Power, Dominion, or Nephilim spirit.

If the Kundalinī or tantric fire represents contact with that residual Seraphic current, it may explain why it bears both a luminous and a destructive face. The energy feels ancient and intelligent. The ecstatic experiences described in yogic ascent mirror, in certain sense, a fallen entity yearning to return to its source. The agony that often accompanies a kundalini awakening—the painful burning, the psychic rupture, and the sense of another will within—could be the friction between that powerful celestial energy and the humble human vessel struggling to contain it. Whether one interprets this as possession or not, the pattern remains: what was once angelic becomes dangerous when severed from its orientation toward God and seeking to inhabit a human host.

Whether understood theologically, psychologically, or experientially, the speculation remains: serpent fire is something that seeks to burn within human beings, hoping to be redeemed and adored rather than condemned.

Spiritual paths that promise transcendence through serpent fire often walk a razor’s edge where illumination meets peril. Tantric Deception seeks to explore that tension, showing how practices that seem to lead toward light may instead open gateways into spiritual posession and darkness. What begins as ascent toward divinity can turn into descent into hell, both in this life and beyond. To approach the serpent fire is to confront both heaven and the echo of its fall, a perilous imitation of grace. One might call it a race to the bottom. The fallen angels made their choice long ago, and according to Christian theology there is no return for them. Those who follow, worship, or seek to become like them will share their fate in the same fire reserved for their fallen gods, a place described in Scripture as the final dwelling of the devil, his angels, and all who reject the true light. There they are said to be cast into a lake of fire that burns without end, cut off forever from the presence of the Most High God, where the torment born of rebellion becomes eternal.

The “Civilized” Shaman: Geoffrey Samuel and the Tension at the Heart of the Tibetan Religion

mim

In Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies, Geoffrey Samuel offers a sweeping anthropology of Tibetan religion that refuses to take Tibetan Buddhism at face value. He finds a living tradition shaped by older and more unruly forces beneath the polished scholastic surface of the monasteries. What emerges is a civilization of monks and magicians, of disciplined philosophers and ecstatic ritualists. His argument is simple but radical: Tibetan Buddhism is the result of Indian Buddhist ethics and philosophy meeting the shamanic substratum of the high plateau.¹

Two orientations: clerical and shamanic

Samuel organizes Tibetan religion around two poles. The first, the clerical or monastic orientation, descends from Indian Buddhism with its monasteries, ethical codes, and scholastic systems of thought. It values restraint, karmic causality, and the gradual cultivation of enlightenment. The second, the shamanic orientation, grows from indigenous Tibetan practices centered on ritual efficacy, spirit interaction, and the manipulation of unseen forces. This orientation values power (dbang) more than purity and treats ritual specialists not as moral exemplars but as technicians of spiritual power.²

These two strands were never simply reconciled. Tibetan civilization attempted to domesticate the shaman. The ecstatic healer and spirit-fighter was refashioned into a lama, wrapped in robes and scriptures yet still capable of commanding spirits, averting misfortune, or destroying an enemy through ritual means. The civilized shaman is not a metaphor. It is a social type, the institutionalized magician of a literate Buddhist society.³

Dark rituals and the question of subjugation

The most uncomfortable continuity between these worlds lies in the domain of ritual violence, what Tibetan sources call drag-po or wrathful rites. These practices are directed not toward enlightenment but toward control: the binding, subduing, or annihilation of obstructing forces, whether demonic, psychic, or human.⁴

Samuel interprets these rites not as moral aberrations but as necessary expressions of the shamanic orientation within a Buddhist frame. Indian Buddhism had long flirted with magical power but kept it at the margins of monastic life. In Tibet, ritual mastery became central. The same lama who taught compassion might also perform a subjugation rite, using effigies, mantras, and visualizations of wrathful deities to annihilate obstacles, whether spiritual or human. Such practices, found in the Nyingma and Kagyu tantric cycles and institutionalized in monastic ritual manuals, embody a logic foreign to classical Indian soteriology yet native to shamanic cosmology, the idea that power must be met with power.⁵

What makes these rites “civilized” is not their ethical domestication but their integration into a bureaucratic religion. The Tibetan monastery became a regulated arena for managing violence and transforming it into ritual performance. The monastic code that forbade killing also licensed symbolic destruction: paper effigies burned, dough figures pierced, and demons tamed through mantras.⁶ This was how a society of monks could still believe in, and even engage in, acts of ritual aggression.

Power and legitimacy

Samuel’s analysis is more about social structure than theology. The clerical orientation secured legitimacy through moral authority and learning, while the shamanic orientation maintained relevance through immediate and pragmatic results. The former built monasteries; the latter kept communities going amid famine, disease, and invasion. Tibetan Buddhism’s durability, he argues, comes from this uneasy synthesis. The scholar-monk and the ritual adept needed each other: the first to lend doctrine and order, the second to command the spirits that haunted every valley and household.⁷

In this light, the dark rituals of subjugation are not aberrations but instruments of governance. They discipline the chaotic powers of the landscape just as the monastery disciplines the passions of the mind. To them, the wrathful deity is not a contradiction of compassion but its shadow: compassion armed.

Rethinking the “Buddhist” in Tibetan Buddhism

Samuel’s greatest contribution may be to unsettle what we think “Buddhist” means. By treating Tibetan religion as a field of interacting orientations rather than a single orthodoxy, he exposes the limits of modern, idealized Buddhism. The vision of Tibet as a purely pacific, philosophical culture depends on forgetting the tantric rites that promise to destroy human enemies or subjugate spirits.⁸ Samuel does not moralize about this tension; he historicizes it. The so-called civilized shaman is a figure born of necessity, mediating between an imported moral system and an indigenous world of volatile gods.⁹

A note on tantra as the mediating field

Samuel does not treat Hindu tantra as a third, independent strand within Tibetan Buddhism. Rather, he presents tantric practice as the meeting ground of the clerical and shamanic orientations. By the time tantra reached Tibet, Indian Buddhism had already absorbed many Śaiva and Śākta elements. What Tibet inherited, therefore, was a fully developed tantric Buddhism rather than a simple blend of Buddhist and Hindu ideas. In Samuel’s account, tantra provided the channel through which shamanic power could operate within a clerical framework. It was the mechanism that allowed ecstatic and ritual techniques to coexist with the disciplines of monastic scholarship.

He also describes tantric Buddhism in Tibet as a two-way exchange. The imported Indian systems of Hevajra, Guhyasamāja, Cakrasaṃvara, and others were reinterpreted through local cosmologies of mountain gods, territorial spirits, and ancestral deities. The result was what he calls “tantricized shamanism” or “shamanized Buddhism.” While Hindu tantra was one historical source, the Tibetan tantric complex became a hybrid formation that expressed shamanic cosmology through Buddhist doctrine.¹⁰

The afterlife of the civilized shaman

Civilized Shamans was published in 1993, before the wave of globalized Tibetan Buddhism tried to reframe lamas as psychologists or humanitarians. Yet its insight remains vital. Beneath every system of enlightenment lies a system of control. The Tibetan synthesis worked precisely because it did not abolish the shamanic element. It incorporated it, turning ecstatic violence into liturgy and spirit warfare into cosmology.¹¹

For those interested in understanding tantric practice, especially the darker currents of subjugation and protection, Samuel’s anthropology is a cautionary mirror. It reminds us that ritual power is never purely symbolic. Even when intellectualized, it retains the logic of coercion: to bind, to summon, to annihilate. Tibet’s civilization was built on mastering such forces. The tension Samuel describes is not an accident of history but a model of how Tibetan religion evolved. Civilized shamans appear wherever doctrine meets magic, wherever ethics must coexist with power. Tibet made that paradox explicit.¹²

Notes

  1. Geoffrey Samuel, Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993), 11–13.
  2. Samuel, Civilized Shamans, 11–12, 134–136.
  3. Ibid., 478–480.
  4. Ibid., 238–240.
  5. Ibid., 259–262.
  6. Ibid., 468–471.
  7. Ibid., 465–469.
  8. Ibid., 244–246, 478.
  9. Ibid., 479–482.
  10. Ibid., 66–74, 242–243, 476–478, 480–481.
  11. Ibid., 476–479.
  12. Ibid., 481–482.

The Question of the Soul: Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism

mim

The question of what the soul is, whether it exists, and what happens to it after death lies at the center of the world’s major religious traditions. Christianity, especially in its Catholic tradition, affirms the soul as eternal and God-given. Hinduism has multiple schools, often affirming an eternal self or ātman. Buddhism, including Tibetan Buddhism, rejects the idea of a permanent self or soul and instead speaks of mind and consciousness as a conditioned stream of awareness without enduring essence.

The Christian and Catholic Understanding of the Soul

Christianity teaches that every human being has a unique, immortal soul created by God. According to Catholic doctrine, the soul is the spiritual principle of the human person. It is eternal in destiny, surviving bodily death, and directed either toward communion with God or separation from Him.

Scriptural sources include Genesis 2:7, where God breathes life into Adam and he becomes a living soul [1]; Matthew 10:28, where Jesus warns of the danger of losing the soul [2]; and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which affirms that the soul is created by God and immortal [3]. In this view, the soul is not an impersonal principle but a personal identity, judged and redeemed by God.

Hindu Views on the Self (Ātman)

Hinduism is diverse, but most of its classical schools affirm the existence of ātman, the true self. The Chandogya Upanishad teaches “tat tvam asi” (you are that), affirming the identity of the self with Brahman [4]. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares, “This self (ātman) is indeed Brahman” [5]. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that the self is eternal and indestructible [6].

Distinguishing Hindu and Christian Concepts

Both Hindu and Christian traditions speak of something enduring at the core of human existence, but they do so in different ways.

Christianity teaches that the soul is created by God, personal, and accountable before Him. It does not preexist from eternity but comes into being by His will and remains dependent on Him for existence, judgment, and salvation.

In Hindu thought, Advaita Vedānta emphasizes the identity of the self (ātman) with Brahman, dissolving individuality into the absolute. Dvaita and many Bhakti traditions instead teach that the self remains distinct yet eternal, existing in relationship with the divine. In all of these cases, the ātman is uncreated and co-eternal with ultimate reality, not brought into being by God.

Thus, while both traditions sometimes use personal and sometimes abstract language, the Christian soul and the Hindu ātman play very different roles. The soul in Christian theology is a created person before God; the ātman in Hindu philosophy is an eternal essence, whether one with Brahman or distinct in devotion.

The Creator God in Christianity and Hinduism

Christianity affirms one personal Creator God who brings the universe into being from nothing and sustains it in existence.

Hinduism presents a wide range of views. In Bhakti traditions, deities such as Vishnu, Shiva, or Devi are worshiped as supreme creators. Vedānta schools affirm Brahman as the ultimate source, though in Advaita this is not a personal act of creation but the manifestation of māyā. Other schools such as Sāṃkhya and Mīmāṃsā reject a creator altogether, viewing the universe as self-arising.

Thus, while Christianity grounds the soul in a personal God who creates and judges, Hindu thought ranges from devotion to a personal creator to cosmologies where no creator is necessary.

Buddhist Rejection of the Soul

Buddhism arose in part as a rejection of the Hindu doctrine of ātman. In the Anattalakkhana Sutta, the Buddha declared that none of the five aggregates of existence constitute a self [7]. The doctrine of anātman (no-soul) became central.

Mind and Consciousness

In Tibetan Buddhism, mind and consciousness are viewed as a stream of awareness, conditioned by karma. The Abhidharma-kośa describes consciousness as momentary and dependent [8]. Unlike Christianity and Hinduism, which affirm an eternal principle (soul or self), Buddhism denies it, calling belief in permanence a delusion.

Yet questions arise. If there is no soul, then what suffers in the hell realms described in Tibetan texts? The Bardo Thödol warns of the horrors of the Vajra Hell, a realm said to be utterly without escape [9]. The Hevajra Tantra declares that those who violate tantric commitments “will not be liberated for as many eons as there are atoms in the universe” [10]. The Cakrasaṃvara Tantra and later commentaries also teach that breaking tantric vows leads to vajra hells without release [11].

This presents a paradox: if there is no enduring self, who is suffering eternally?

Tibetan Buddhist Schools Under Examination

Madhyamaka – Nāgārjuna’s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā argues that all phenomena, including the self, are empty of inherent existence [13]. But if the self is an illusion, how does karma persist? If Vajra Hell is eternal, how can something that does not exist suffer forever?

Yogācāra (Mind-Only) – The Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra introduces ālayavijñāna, the “storehouse consciousness,” which preserves karmic seeds [14]. Though intended to avoid affirming a self, it functions much like one: carrying memory, identity, and karma. Hinduism here provides a comparison: the Bhagavad Gita teaches that the self carries karma through many births [6]. Yogācāra denies the term “soul,” yet reintroduces something strikingly similar. Christianity differs again: not a karmic storehouse, but a personal soul created by God.

Dzogchen (Great Perfection) – Dzogchen teachings, such as the Kunjed Gyalpo (All-Creating King), speak of rigpa, primordial pure awareness that is timeless and luminous [15]. Though Dzogchen denies that rigpa is a soul, the resemblance is striking. If rigpa is eternal, pure, and the ground of all experience, how is this different from what Christians call the soul or Hindus call ātman? The denial seems rhetorical rather than substantive.

Vajrayāna and Deity Possession – Tantric scriptures describe deity yoga, in which practitioners invite deities to merge with them [16]. If there is no self or soul, what exactly is being merged with or possessed?

Conclusion

Across Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, the question of what endures, what we might call the soul, self, or consciousness, reveals fundamentally different views of human identity. Christianity anchors personhood in a created, immortal soul made by God and accountable to Him. Hinduism envisions an eternal ātman, uncreated and either one with or distinct from the divine. Buddhism, in contrast, denies any enduring essence, seeing the sense of self as a conditioned process. Yet in its Tibetan forms, teachings on karmic continuity, primordial awareness, and tantric transformation often edge back toward affirming something that functions like a self.

From long immersion in both Catholic and Tibetan Buddhist traditions, I have come to believe that the Christian vision alone sustains coherence between moral responsibility, continuity of consciousness, and the promise of redemption. It affirms not only that we exist, but that we are known and loved by the One who created us. Against the shifting alternatives of an impersonal absolute or an empty stream of awareness, in my opinion, the Christian understanding of the soul remains the clearest expression of what it means to be human before God.

References

[1] Genesis 2:7, The Holy Bible (ESV).
[2] Matthew 10:28, The Holy Bible (ESV).
[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part I, Section Two, Chapter One, Article 1, §366.
[4] Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7, in Radhakrishnan, S. (trans.), The Principal Upanishads.
[5] Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5, in Olivelle, P. (trans.), The Early Upanishads.
[6] Bhagavad Gita 2.20, in Zaehner, R. (trans.), The Bhagavad-Gita.
[7] Anattalakkhana Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 22.59), in Bhikkhu Bodhi (trans.), The Connected Discourses of the Buddha.
[8] Vasubandhu, Abhidharma-kośa.
[9] Bardo Thödol (Tibetan Book of the Dead), in Evans-Wentz, W.Y. (ed.).
[10] Hevajra Tantra, Snellgrove, D.L. (trans.), The Hevajra Tantra: A Critical Study.
[11] Cakrasaṃvara Tantra, in Tsuda, S. (trans.), The Samvarodaya Tantra.
[12] Hevajra Tantra, ibid.
[13] Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, Kalupahana, D.J. (trans.).
[14] Yogācārabhūmi Śāstra, Xuanzang (trans.).
[15] Kunjed Gyalpo (All-Creating King), in Namkhai Norbu (trans.), The Supreme Source.
[16] Cakrasaṃvara Tantra and Hevajra Tantra, ibid.

Occult Parallels Between Freemasonry and Tibetan Tantric Buddhism

mim

When most people hear the term Freemasonry, they think of an old-world fraternity, moral instruction through symbolism, and discreet handshakes. When they hear Tibetan tantric Buddhism, they imagine serene monks, compassion, and meditation. The public image of both is carefully cultivated, and in both cases, that image obscures a deeper, more esoteric reality.

Layers of Secrecy

Freemasonry is famously structured in degrees. Early initiates learn benign moral allegories; the deeper teachings are said to be revealed only at the highest levels, with rumors persisting about a Luciferian current unveiled around the 33rd degree. Likewise, Tibetan tantric Buddhism presents an accessible outer face, with philosophical teachings and an emphasis on compassionate practices, while reserving its most potent techniques for advanced initiates. These require formal empowerment ceremonies (wangkur) and vows (samaya) that bind the disciple not only to the guru but also to the unseen entities invoked in the practice.

Initiations and Oaths

In both systems, entry into the deeper mysteries requires swearing oaths. In Masonry, the vows historically invoked dire consequences for betrayal, couched in symbolic language. In tantric Buddhism, the initiatory vows carry the threat of karmic ruin, disease, or worse for breaking them. From a critical perspective, these oaths are more than quaint tradition. They function as binding contracts with what practitioners believe are spiritual forces. Those who view the occult with suspicion might identify these forces not as enlightened beings or symbols, but as demonic entities.

Hidden Entities and Magical Practice

Strip away the Buddhist philosophical overlay and Tibetan tantra reveals a highly ritualized form of magic. Complex visualizations, mantras, and mudras serve not merely as meditation aids, but as precise methods of summoning and merging with non-human intelligences. This is not unlike the ceremonial magic that underpins parts of Masonic symbolism, particularly in its higher degrees, where the initiate engages with archetypes, symbols, and names drawn from older mystery traditions. Both traditions cloak these operations in the language of self-improvement and enlightenment, but the mechanics of calling upon unseen forces, entering altered states, and channeling power remain strikingly similar to ancient magical rites.

Shared Roots in Ancient Occultism

Freemasonry draws openly from the Hermetic and Kabbalistic streams of Western esotericism, both of which trace their roots back to the mystery schools of the ancient world. Tibetan tantric Buddhism, though filtered through the Buddhist canon, absorbed elements from pre-Buddhist Bön shamanism, Indian Tantra, and Himalayan spirit-worship. From this angle, both may be considered descendants of the same primordial magical worldview: that reality can be manipulated through ritual, symbol, and alliance with non-physical beings.

The Public Face vs. the Hidden Core

The genius of both systems is their dual-layered structure. The public face draws in seekers with ideals of morality, compassion, and personal growth. The hidden core, accessible only through successive initiations, operates in a world of occult allegory, ritual precision, and spirit interaction. Whether one calls those spirits Buddhas, angels, demons, or archetypes depends largely on one’s interpretive lens. From a Christian lens, it is clear that both systems engage with fallen angels.

Freemasonry and Tibetan tantric Buddhism, at first glance, seem to occupy opposite ends of the cultural spectrum, one a Western fraternal order, the other an Eastern spiritual tradition. Yet both can be read as initiatory magical systems that mask their deeper workings behind an accessible moral or philosophical front. For the uninitiated, this outer layer is all they will ever see. For those who pass through the degrees or empowerments, the real initiation may lie in forging a relationship with the very forces their public image denies. And that is where the parallels become most disturbing.

These similarities are not vague or coincidental. They are structural, symbolic, and functional. Strip away the public image and both systems follow the same blueprint: they lure the seeker with ideals, bind them with oaths, then initiate them into rituals that channel demonic forces. Below is a side-by-side look at how the two traditions mirror each other in startling detail.

Freemasonry vs. Tibetan Tantric Buddhism: Structural & Occult Parallels

AspectFreemasonryTibetan Tantric Buddhism
Outer PresentationFraternal order promoting moral improvement, philanthropy, brotherhoodCompassion-based philosophy, meditation, cultural preservation
Initiatory Structure3 public degrees (Entered Apprentice → Master Mason) followed by higher Scottish Rite or York Rite degrees culminating in the 33rd degreeThree turnings of the wheel of Dharma leading to tantric initiation (Vajrayana), then advanced empowerments and yogas
Vows/OathsOaths of secrecy and loyalty; historical versions included symbolic penaltiesSamaya vows taken during empowerments, with karmic penalties for violation (illness, misfortune, spiritual ruin)
Hidden CurriculumEsoteric symbolism, Kabbalistic and Hermetic philosophy, rituals involving archetypal forcesAdvanced deity yoga, mantra recitation, visualization, and energy-body work aimed at merging with yidams (tutelary deities)
Entities InvokedAllegorical architect figure, angels, and names from older magical traditions; higher degrees hint at Lucifer as light-bearerDeities, protectors, and Buddhas invoked in ritual, often fierce or wrathful forms with clear pre-Buddhist shamanic traits
Magical ToolsCompass, square, tracing boards, symbolic implements; ritual words and gesturesVajra (dorje), bell, mandalas, mudras, mantras, tormas (substitutes for sacrificial offerings), visualized palaces
Source TraditionsHermeticism, Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, medieval guild ritualBön shamanism, Indian Tantra, Himalayan spirit practices overlaid with Buddhist philosophy
Outer vs. Inner TeachingsPublicly moral, privately esoteric; higher levels teach occult philosophyPublicly compassionate, privately tantric; higher levels teach deity invocation and magical union
Binding MechanismOaths tie member to lodge and brotherhood, reinforced through ritual dramaSamaya ties disciple to guru and the deities invoked, reinforced through ritual visualization and mantra
Potential Root ParallelsMystery schools of antiquity, ritual magic, symbolic initiationsMystery schools of antiquity, ritual magic, symbolic initiations (via Eastern streams)

When we see these parallels laid bare, the comforting illusion of ancient wisdom starts to crumble. The robes and rituals, whether in a Masonic lodge or a Himalayan temple, are not neutral cultural artifacts. They are technology for binding humans to hidden powers, likely demons. Those who hold the keys to these systems know exactly what they are doing. The question is not whether the forces behind them exist, but whether the seeker truly understands who or what is answering when the call is made.

Tantric Āveśa and Demonic Possession: A Comparative Exploration

mim

Āveśa (Sanskrit) refers to a state of spiritual possession or divine inhabitation in which a deity or sacred power “enters” and dwells within a person. The word literally means “an entering” or “fusion,” describing the incorporation of divine power into the human body. Such forms of sacred possession have long been central to Indian Tantric practice, invoked for both worldly benefits (bhoga) and spiritual liberation (mokṣa). This is often contrasted with demonic possession in Christian theology, typically characterized as an involuntary affliction by an evil spirit.

Cross-cultural studies note that spirit possession can be either voluntary or involuntary, and it is interpreted differently depending on the tradition. Western occult traditions, such as Luciferianism, may view possession by a demon as desirable, even leading to a so-called “perfect possession.” In Christianity, however, even voluntary possession by a demonic force is considered evil. The question then arises: who or what possesses the practitioner in Eastern contexts?

Towards the end of my 35 years in Tantric Buddhism, I came to believe that the force presenting itself as a deity was, in fact, demonic. In what follows, I will examine the phenomenon of āveśa in two major esoteric traditions, Hindu Tantra (especially Shaiva lineages such as Kashmir Shaivism), and Tibetan Vajrayāna Buddhism. I will contrast these forms of divinely sanctioned possession with demonic possession in Christian and occult frameworks, drawing from historical sources, academic analysis, and personal experience.

Āveśa in Hindu Tantric Traditions

Scriptural Origins and Tantric Development

The Sanskrit root ā-viś (to enter) appears in early Indian texts, foreshadowing the later Tantric elaboration of āveśa.1 From the 5th to 11th centuries, Tantric scriptures across Śāiva, Śākta, and Buddhist milieus incorporated āveśa into ritual practice. Scholar Vikas Malhotra describes āveśa as the “entrance or fusion of oneself with the deity,” central to both magical and liberatory goals.2

These practices utilized mantras, mudrās, and nyāsa (installing mantras on the body) to induce the deity’s presence. Often this process was linked to śaktipāta, or the descent of divine energy. Over time, āveśa came to refer not just to deity possession, but a range of spiritual states culminating in union with Śiva.3 In contrast to exorcism (removing evil spirits), this adorcistic form of possession aimed to invite a divine presence.

Kashmir Shaivism and Samāveśa

In the Trika system of Kashmir Shaivism, the term samāveśa refers to full ontological immersion in Śiva-consciousness. Abhinavagupta, a 10th-century Hindu philosopher and Tantric adept, defined it as a merger of individual and divine being, sometimes accompanied by shaking, trance, or devotional ecstasy.4 Rituals such as nyāsa or advanced mudrā usage were seen as ways to divinize the body. Kṣemarāja, a key Trika commentator, emphasized that the body itself becomes a vessel for cosmic forces, eroding the sense of ego.5

This idea extended to daily ritual. The practitioner installs divine presences into various body parts—e.g., “May Brahmā be in my genitals, ViṣŇu in my feet, Śiva in my heart”—until the self is transformed.6 Āveśa was also connected to śaktipāta dīkṣā (initiation by grace), which Abhinavagupta saw as the guru’s transmission of divine force into the student.

Historical sources and hagiographies portray this not as pathology but sacred awakening. In the Bhakti tradition, saints like Caitanya and Rāmakṛṣṇa exhibited signs interpreted as divine possession, a loss of ordinary consciousness during worship or dancing in states of trance. In goddess worship, the ecstatic state of bhāva can evolve into full possession by a fierce Devī or goddess.

Induced Trance in Ritual Practice

Possession is not accidental; it is often deliberately induced. Contemporary folk-Tantric rites like Theyyam in Kerala reenact this vividly. The performer undergoes intense ritual preparation, dons a sacred headdress, and becomes a vessel for the deity. His demeanor, voice, and movements change dramatically, and devotees approach him as a god.7 These techniques including fasting, music, sacred garb, and mantra, parallel ancient Tantric rituals meant to induce āveśa.

Importantly, this experience is consensual. A priest may invite a deity for oracular guidance or blessing. The Tantric yogi similarly invites identification with Śiva. As Frederick Smith notes, such possession is the most valued spiritual experience in many Indian settings.8 Advanced yogis even practiced para-kāya praveśa, the entry of one’s consciousness into another’s body, a form of high-level āveśa.9

Āveśa (Possession) in Tibetan Vajrayāna Buddhism

Deity Yoga and Guru Inhabitation

Though the term “possession” is less used, Vajrayāna emphasizes divine inhabitation. In Deity Yoga, one visualizes oneself as a yidam (meditational deity) and invites the deity’s wisdom aspect (jñānasattva) to merge with the visualization (samayasattva). Through mantra and meditation, the practitioner dissolves ego and identifies as the deity.

While framed as an enlightened act, in practice there is no safeguard against malevolent forces. Many Tibetan rituals derive from the Yoginītantras, esoteric texts filled with wrathful, dangerous dākinīs. These entities are unpredictable and must be carefully propitiated. Practitioners hope to merge with them for wisdom and power, but failure often results in spiritual collapse or madness. One either becomes “enlightened” or is destroyed.

My personal experience, including participating in two three-year retreats, led me to conclude these deities are not divine but demonic. After prolonged practice, I experienced terrifying possession states, torturous sensations, and an uncontrollable kundalini awakening. While there were moments of bliss and magical phenomena, the final result was spiritual devastation.

Guru Yoga and Transmission

Guru Yoga, especially in the Nyingma and Kagyu lineages, mirrors āveśa. The practitioner visualizes the guru dissolving into them, merging body, speech, and mind. This is intended to produce an inseparable union. Some historical accounts even describe instant enlightenment via physical gestures or verbal commands from a master, a form of mind-to-mind transmission akin to possession.

Some Vajrayāna practices involve obvious demon possession. The Nechung Oracle, for example, enters trance during elaborate rituals, allowing the deity Pehar to possess his body. Frightening physical changes, voice alteration, and strength are observed. The practice is structured around phowa, a method of ejecting consciousness to allow divine entry.10

Possession as Initiation and Transformation

Both traditions treat āveśa as transformative. In Hindu Tantra, samāveśa may mark initiation or realization. In Vajrayāna, empowerment rituals symbolically install the lineage mindstream into the disciple. When successful, the practitioner believes they have merged with divine consciousness.

The experiences are often euphoric and expansive. Yet, as I learned, they can also become nightmarish. The forces one invokes may not be what they seem. While traditions insist the entities are enlightened or benevolent, there is no proof. Many undergo trauma, dissociation, and spiritual breakdown.

Christian Views of Possession: A Stark Contrast

In Christian theology, possession is demonic by nature. The demon enters uninvited or through occult involvement, and exorcism is the remedy. Symptoms include revulsion to the sacred, altered voices, and loss of control. Unlike tantric āveśa, the demon is not a divine aspect but an evil other. (I should note that the kundalini energy always felt “other” to me, but I was encouraged to see it as a positive experience.)

Catholic doctrine states that even voluntary occult involvement is condemned, seen as opening a door to bondage; the soul remains untouched, but the body and mind may be dominated. Consent may be partial or misguided, but once entered, the demon seeks destruction.

Only the Holy Spirit is seen as a positive presence, and even then, Christian traditions speak of inspiration rather than possession. Some Pentecostal expressions resemble Eastern possession states, but many Christians believe these, too, are counterfeit Holy Spirit experiences linked to kundalini phenomena.

Scripture offers stern warnings:

All the gods of the nations are demons.” — Psalm 96:5 (Septuagint) “They sacrificed to demons, not to God.” — Deuteronomy 32:17

In conclusion: āveśa is framed as a sacred merging in Tantra, but my experience revealed it as demonic deception. Beneath the ritual beauty lies spiritual subjugation. As an exorcist once warned me: Be careful who or what you invite to abide within.

Footnotes

  1. “A Brief Study of Possession in Hinduism Part II: The Spiritual Context,” Indic Today. 
  2. Vikas Malhotra, ĀveŚan and Deity Possession in the Tantric Traditions of South Asia. 
  3. Ibid. 
  4. “The Fulcrum of Experience in Indian Yoga and Possession Trance.” 
  5. Ibid. 
  6. Indic Today, op. cit. 
  7. “Theyyam,” Wikipedia. 
  8. Frederick M. Smith, The Self-Possessed: Deity and Spirit Possession in South Asian Literature and Civilization. 
  9. Yogasūtra III.38. 
  10. “Nechung Oracle,” Wikipedia. 

Forgiveness in Christianity vs Wrath in Tantric Tibetan Buddhism

mim

In Tantric Tibetan Buddhism, forgiveness is not traditionally emphasized as it is in Christianity. Tibetan Buddhism places greater emphasis on karma, the universal law of cause and effect. According to this view, actions inherently produce outcomes, and there is little scope for simply “forgiving” or releasing someone from the karmic consequences of their deeds. Instead, purification practices are prescribed to cleanse one’s negative karma. If they are not done effectively, retribution is a given.

Ken McLeod, a prominent Western teacher and translator of Tibetan Buddhism, highlights this point clearly in an article titled, “Forgiveness is not Buddhist.” He writes, “In Tibetan Buddhism, forgiveness isn’t really addressed in the same way as it is in Christianity. Instead, there’s an emphasis on purification and insight into the nature of mind and action.” [1]

Practitioners engage in rituals and meditation practices, such as Vajrasattva purification practices, visualizing negative karma being cleansed. However, these rituals differ fundamentally from the Christian idea of interpersonal forgiveness. They are personal acts of purification rather than relational acts of forgiving or seeking forgiveness from another person or deity.

Although the emphasis in Tibetan Buddhism is allegedly on compassion (karuna), a larger concept of retribution is often at work behind the scenes. Compassion in Buddhism is the profound desire to alleviate suffering universally, extending even to one’s perceived enemies. Tantra, paradoxically, emphasizes karmic retribution that allows the guru to “payback” perceived slights and disrespect secretly using black magic techniques or “rituals of subjugation.”

Personal Account: The Dark Side of the Teachings

My own experience underscores the stark absence of forgiveness in Tantric Tibetan Buddhism. During a tantric ritual of annihilation, I desperately begged forgiveness from the guru for any perceived wrongdoing, hoping for mercy or compassion. I honestly did not know what I was being punished for. The guru, however, demonstrated not even the slightest bit of forgiveness or mercy. This painful event highlighted for me the profound differences between the compassionate forgiveness taught by Jesus Christ and the severe, impersonal karmic logic of Tantric Tibetan Buddhism.

Forgiveness in Christianity

In Christianity, forgiveness occupies a central and explicit place. It involves both human interpersonal forgiveness and divine forgiveness through the mercy and grace of God. Christianity explicitly encourages believers to forgive one another as God has forgiven them through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross.

Forgiveness in Christianity is relational, deeply rooted in repentance, reconciliation, and restoration of relationships with God and with others. It implies a personal release from the debt of sin through God’s grace, rather than the impersonal balancing of karmic scales.

Jesus teaches explicitly on forgiveness, such as in the Lord’s Prayer (“Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us”), emphasizing the interconnectedness of receiving and giving forgiveness. Forgiveness is portrayed not merely as a spiritual virtue but as a fundamental practice essential to spiritual health and salvation itself.

Western Practitioners and Misplaced Assumptions

Many Western practitioners of Tibetan Buddhism unconsciously overlay their Judeo-Christian cultural and moral values onto the tantric Buddhist teachings, often at their own detriment. They assume the presence of forgiveness and personal mercy that simply do not exist in the traditional tantric framework. This mistaken belief can lead practitioners to misunderstand or misinterpret the intentions and actions of teachers, making them vulnerable to exploitation and emotional and physical harm. Ultimately, recognizing these fundamental differences can lead to safety, and protection from mistaken spiritual paths. For more about the guru’s ability to engage in karmic retribution see here, here, and here.

[1] Ken McLeod, “Forgiveness is Not Buddhist,” Unfettered Mind, https://unfetteredmind.org/forgiveness-is-not-buddhist/ (accessed April 9, 2025).