Tag: tantra

Tantra’s Hidden Origins: Magicians, Sorcerers, and the Non-Literate World of Ancient India

mim

Modern scholarship on tantra has often treated it as a sophisticated religious system rooted in elite textual traditions and later integrated into high philosophical frameworks. In Buddhist contexts, especially in Tibetan scholastic traditions, tantric practice is frequently interpreted through the lens of Madhyamaka philosophy and incorporated into systematic doctrinal models. In these settings, tantra is positioned as the highest and most effective form of religious practice, supported and rationalized by philosophical analysis. There is truth in this account, but it reflects a later stage of development, the priorities of literate traditions that preserved texts, not necessarily the conditions under which tantra first emerged.

A growing number of scholars have challenged this retrospective model. Ronald M. Davidson’s study, Magicians, Sorcerers and Witches: Considering Pretantric, Non-sectarian Sources of Tantric Practices, offers a particularly forceful corrective: tantra cannot be adequately explained as the product of elite intellectual systems alone, nor as a simple inversion of orthodox traditions such as the Vedic corpus or the dharmasūtras.¹

Instead, Davidson argues that tantra must be understood within a much broader social and ritual field, one that includes non-literate practitioners whose activities long predate the emergence of tantric traditions as such. These figures, magicians, sorcerers, witches, and seers, were not marginal anomalies. They formed a durable and widespread presence in Indian religious life, operating across ancient, medieval, and even modern periods.² Their repertoire included healing, cursing, divination, spirit invocation, and various forms of ritual manipulation. These were not abstract techniques but effective practices. Some were performed in cremation grounds, involving work with corpses or restless or malevolent spirits: textual sources describe specialists who could animate a corpse or compel it to speak, a practice later associated with so-called vetāla rites. Others performed rituals to harm enemies, cure illness, or divine hidden information by invoking local deities or spirit beings. Such practices circulated widely and were recognized across Buddhist, Jain, and Brahmanical sources, even when criticized or prohibited. Many of these practices including corpse animation, harmful spells, and spirit work, would today be grouped under what is often called ‘witchcraft,’ though they were not understood as a single category in their original context.

Crucially, these practitioners were not “tantric.” They did not articulate soteriological goals of liberation, nor did they belong to the sectarian, lineage-based systems that later came to define tantric traditions.³ Their work was primarily practical rather than philosophically systematized, oriented toward immediate results rather than metaphysical coherence. Yet it is precisely this domain of practice–pragmatic, adaptive, and often non-literate–that Davidson identifies as a significant source for the later development of tantra.

This argument challenges a longstanding assumption in the study of Indian religions that authoritative origins must be found in texts. Much of the scholarship on tantra has privileged literate, intellectual traditions, in part because these are the sources that survive. But this creates a methodological distortion. If literacy rates in premodern India were extremely low, as Davidson notes, perhaps in the range of five percent, then any account of religious development that focuses exclusively on textual production necessarily excludes the overwhelming majority of practitioners.⁴ Tantra, emerging in such a context, cannot be reduced to what its later textualizers said about it.

The alternative Davidson proposes is not a single counter-origin, but a different model altogether. Rather than tracing tantra to one source, whether Vedic, Buddhist, or Śaiva, he describes a “multi-nodal” formation, meaning a network of multiple, overlapping sources in which diverse practices and traditions contribute to its development over time.⁵ Among these, the ritual activities of non-sectarian specialists play a crucial role. These practitioners developed techniques, terminologies, and ritual logics that were later appropriated by tantric communities. The process was neither systematic nor uniform. It was selective and intermittent, shaped by local needs and conditions.

In this light, tantra appears less as a coherent invention and more as a process of accumulation. Davidson characterizes this process in terms of bricolage: the assembling of new systems from pre-existing materials.⁶ Tantric traditions did not create their ritual repertoire out of nothing. They drew upon an already existing pool of practices—many of them associated with figures who operated outside the boundaries of orthodox religion—and recontextualized them within new ideological frameworks.

This perspective also clarifies why attempts to define tantra in purely oppositional terms have limited explanatory power. Some scholars have suggested that tantra emerges as a deliberate inversion of orthodox norms, particularly those codified in the dharmasūtras. Yet Davidson points out that such a model fails to account for the diversity of tantric practices. If inversion were the governing principle, one would expect a consistent pattern of reversal. Instead, the evidence reveals a heterogeneous collection of rituals, many of which do not correspond neatly to any orthodox counterpart.⁷

What this suggests is that tantra is not primarily a reaction against orthodoxy, but a reconfiguration of practices that existed alongside it. This is an important distinction. The categories of “orthodox” and “heterodox” begin to lose their explanatory clarity when we consider the extent to which ritual knowledge circulated outside formal institutions. The activities of magicians, sorcerers, and similar figures were not simply deviations from a normative system; they constituted an alternative domain of religious practice with its own internal logic.

The implications of this shift are quite significant. If tantra is, at least in part, a product of such practices, then its later intellectualization represents a secondary development. The philosophical frameworks that now define tantric traditions, whether in Buddhist or Hindu contexts, may be understood as attempts to systematize and legitimize practices that originated elsewhere.

It also complicates modern efforts to present tantra as a purely elevated or refined system. The desire to align tantra with high philosophy, particularly in contemporary interpretations, risks obscuring the conditions of its formation. Davidson’s analysis suggests that tantra’s roots lie not only in monasteries and scholastic debates, but in cremation grounds, village rituals, and the magical practices of specialists who worked with forces that formal religion often sought to regulate or marginalize.

To acknowledge this is not to reduce tantra to merely “magic,” nor to deny its later philosophical sophistication. It is to recognize that its development cannot be understood without taking seriously the contributions of those who operated outside the textual and institutional frameworks that scholars have traditionally privileged. Tantra, in this view, is not the product of a single tradition or a moment of divine revelation as is often taught. It is the outcome of a long process of interaction, appropriation, and reinterpretation across multiple domains of religious life, many of them outside the philosophical and textual traditions that later claimed to define it. In other words, tantra begins exactly where most scholars have not been looking—in the diverse and often non-literate ritual practices of magicians, sorcerers, and other specialists in ancient India.

Notes

  1. Ronald M. Davidson, “Magicians, Sorcerers and Witches: Considering Pretantric, Non-sectarian Sources of Tantric Practices,” Religions 8, no. 9 (2017): 188.
  2. Davidson, 2017, pp. 1–2.
  3. Davidson, 2017, p. 1.
  4. Davidson, 2017, p. 4.
  5. Davidson, 2017, pp. 2–3.
  6. Davidson, 2017, p. 1.
  7. Davidson, 2017, p. 2.

Guru Possession in Tibetan Buddhism: Power, Devotion, and the Loss of Autonomy

mim

What does it mean to be possessed?

In its most literal sense, possession refers to a person being overtaken by another force, such as a spirit, deity, or entity, that overrides their ordinary sense of control. This idea appears across many cultures in forms like trance, mediumship, and ritual invocation.

There is also a more subtle way to understand possession. It can describe a condition in which a person’s thoughts, emotions, loyalties, and identity become so deeply shaped by another that their independence begins to fade. The individual still appears outwardly intact, but internally their center of gravity has shifted.

After years of deep immersion in Tibetan Buddhist environments, I came to experience something that felt unmistakably like a form of possession. This is not a claim about official Tibetan Buddhist doctrine, which goes to great length to avoid that term, but a description of how the dynamics of devotion and authority unfolded in lived experience.

The Guru in Tibetan Buddhism

In Tibetan Buddhism, the role of the guru is central and highly elevated. Teachers such as Padmasambhava, Tsongkhapa, and Patrul Rinpoche all emphasize devotion to the spiritual teacher as a powerful means of transformation. The guru is described as the embodiment of awakened awareness and the source of blessings that lead the student toward realization.

In tantric practice, this relationship becomes especially intense. The student is encouraged to visualize the guru in an idealized form, merge their mind with the guru’s mind, and regard the guru as inseparable from themself. In theory, this is meant to dissolve the ego and reveal deeper awareness. In practice, it can become spiritual hijacking and inhabitation by a highly realized vajra master.

Charisma and the Aura of Power

Many Tibetan gurus possess a powerful form of charisma that is difficult to describe but easy to feel. It may appear as a kind of luminous presence that affects the emotional atmosphere around them. Students often report feelings of clarity, devotion, and euphoria in their presence.

Traditional accounts describe gurus as having extraordinary powers, sometimes referred to as siddhis. These may include heightened perception and an uncanny facility to read the minds of others as well as an ability to transmit meditative experiences into the minds of others. Stories circulate within communities about moments of insight or events that seem to confirm the guru’s special status. These magical capabilities have a strong effect. Over time, they reinforce the perception that the guru operates beyond human limits. That perception deepens one’s conviction that the guru isn’t ordinary but a godlike presence.

The Shift Toward Total Influence

At a certain point, devotion can cross into something absolute and intractable. The student’s sense of truth begins to align with the guru’s words. Emotional life becomes tied to the guru’s approval. Identity becomes shaped by the role of being a disciple. Doubt is no longer a neutral process but is seen as a failure of faith or commitment. Independence starts to disintegrate and students often become infantile, needing to discuss all their major life decisions with the guru, rather than act independently.

In my experience, this is where the language of possession begins to feel appropriate. It captures the sense that one’s inner center has been replaced by another’s influence.

Psychic and Energetic Dimensions on an Inner Level

Tantric Buddhism makes extensive use of visualization and subtle body practices. In guru yoga, students are instructed to imagine the guru sitting above their heads. The preliminary disciplines of Tibetan Buddhism (called ngondro) are designed to condition the mind and body for a major transformation. At the culmination of the practice, the guru dissolves into the practitioner, becoming inseparable from their awareness. Students are trained to dissolve their ordinary identity and merge with a more elevated form. This process is not superficial but reshapes perception at a deep level.

Over time, the boundary between self and guru can begin to dissolve. The guru’s presence may feel internal, continuous, and directive. Thoughts and emotions can be shaped in ways that are difficult to trace back to their origin. In a positive framing, this may be experienced as guidance or protection. The practitioner may hear the guru’s voice both internally and externally, offering direction, reassurance, or correction.

Within advanced tantric practice, particularly in forms associated with highest yoga tantra, this dynamic can deepen further. The guru and the yidam (meditational deity) may be experienced within the subtle body not as abstract symbols, but as vivid and intimate presences. At times, this can take on an erotic or deeply affective quality, often described in traditional language as the union of bliss and awareness.

The practitioner may experience powerful currents of energy moving through the inner network of channels and chakras. These movements can generate intense sensations of expansion, pleasure, and emotional fullness that feel complete and self-validating. From the inside, this can feel like direct spiritual guidance operating through the body itself.

At the same time, this is also a point of vulnerability. When identity and authority converge so completely, it becomes difficult to distinguish between one’s own agency and the influence of the internalized figure of the guru. In my experience, this dynamic can become a powerful mechanism for control.

Exclusivity and Control in the Outer Realm

This internal dynamic is often mirrored externally. In many communities, strong emphasis is placed on extreme loyalty to a single teacher. Seeking instruction from others may be discouraged or framed as a sign of fickleness or lack of devotion.

This creates a closed environment in which the guru becomes the primary source of meaning and authority. The student’s world gradually narrows, and alternative perspectives become harder to access, both intellectually and emotionally. Questioning the structure can feel destabilizing, not only in a social sense, but at the level of identity itself.

Hidden Dynamics

The more difficult aspects of these relationships are rarely visible in the beginning. New students often encounter warmth, insight, and a sense of belonging. Over time, as more complicated dynamics emerge, there may be increasing pressure to conform. Questioning or leaving can begin to feel impossible.

Because the relationship with the guru is embedded in sacred language, what might otherwise be recognized as manipulation or a violation of boundaries is instead interpreted as a higher teaching. This reframing makes it difficult to evaluate the situation clearly.

Deities, Power, and Obligation

Tibetan Buddhism includes many practices involving meditational and protector deities. Traditionally, these are understood as symbolic or as expressions of enlightened qualities. In lived experience, however, they can take on a more immediate spiritual and psychological presence.

Students may come to feel that the guru’s authority is supported by unseen forces. There may be a growing sense that resistance carries consequences that are not entirely understood or controlled. This adds another layer to the relationship. The influence of the guru extends beyond direct interaction and into belief, imagination, fear, and the manipulation of supernatural wrathful entities.

A Darker Interpretation

After years within this system, I began to interpret these dynamics in a more troubling way. The guru does not simply receive respect or devotion. The guru becomes the focal point of identity investment for many individuals at once. Each student focuses their attention and emotional energy on the same person. Students are encouraged to offer their body, speech, and mind to the guru, as well as time and support to the guru’s many projects. Physical offerings of money and goods are implicit. Over time, this concentration of devotion can inflate the guru’s sense of authority and power, and make criticism nearly impossible. The guru becomes someone who can do no wrong within the closed system that surrounds him. He becomes the absolute monarch of the community.

For the student, the result is often a complete erosion of autonomy. One’s sense of self becomes secondary to the structures that support the guru’s role and influence. On an esoteric level, it can feel as though one has been absorbed into another’s stream of being. Even though Tibetan Buddhist texts do not describe this as possession, this is essentially what is happening. The guru taps into powerful magic that binds the disciples and bends them to his will.

The success of the Tibetan Buddhist tantric system depends on many interconnected elements functioning correctly. If one aspect of the practice is misunderstood or misapplied, the entire process can shift and go awry. What is presented as liberation can instead become a dangerous entanglement, leading to destruction and annihilation.

In that state, the practitioner may no longer be guided, but completely overtaken and absorbed, unable to separate their mind, body, and will from the overpowering structure they have entered.

Enlightenment or Inversion? A “What If” Reflection on Lucifer’s Original Role

mim

There was a moment in a recent interview with the Catholic exorcist Fr. Chad Ripperger that struck me. [1]

While speaking about Satan he said,

“Lucifer was his originally assigned name. “Lucifer” comes from a root meaning “to bear light.” He was supposed to enlighten our minds, that was his originally assigned task, and he refused to do so.”

That line intrigued me because if Lucifer’s original function was to enlighten, and he rejected that role in rebellion against God, then a natural question follows: What would a fallen angel do with that original mandate?

The Inversion Principle

Later in the same interview, Fr. Ripperger describes something even more striking:

“Beelzebub is the inversion of the Holy Spirit. Lucifer is the inversion of [Christ] the Second Person of the Trinity… And Satan is the ‘Father of Lies,’ so the inversion of God the Father. So you basically have this unholy trinity.”

If that’s true, then inversion isn’t incidental but structural and Lucifer’s rebellion becomes a mirroring, a distortion, and a counterfeit. What if Lucifer didn’t abandon his original assigned task of enlightening, but instead inverted it? What if instead of leading minds toward truth, he developed systems that simulate enlightenment while directing souls away from God?

A Familiar Word: Enlightenment

The word itself appears across a wide range of esoteric and mystical traditions such as Buddhist tantra, certain strands of Freemasonry, occult systems, and various Eastern philosophies.

But what does “enlightenment” mean in each context?

In Christianity, truth is revealed by God and received through grace, but in many esoteric systems, enlightenment is something achieved, often through hidden knowledge, ritual, and disciplined technique. In tantric traditions, enlightenment involves engagement with spiritual forces or entities other than the Biblical God.

If a being like Lucifer wanted to draw souls away from God, not by force, but by deception, what would be the most effective strategy? Probably not obvious evil, but something that resembles truth while subtly redirecting it in a parallel system that is a convincing alternative. Wouldn’t he create a spiritual landscape that feels ancient and profound, but is ultimately oriented away from the Creator?

From that perspective, several contrasts begin to stand out:

1. Creator vs. Non-Creator Frameworks

Biblical Christianity affirms a personal God who created all things. Many non-theistic or differently structured systems do not center reality on a personal Creator, and may instead describe it as arising through interdependent processes or consciousness.

2. One Life vs. Many Lives

Christianity teaches that we live once and then face judgment. Traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism describe cycles of rebirth (samsara) across many lifetimes.

3. Grace vs. Technique

In Christianity, salvation is not earned but given. In esoteric systems, advancement is often tied to occult knowledge, initiation, and disciplined practice.

4. Prohibition of Magic vs. Ritual Use

The Bible consistently forbids sorcery and magical practice. Tantric traditions incorporate rituals, mandalas, invocations, and even practices described as subjugation or destruction of enemies.

That last point raises a difficult question: how do such practices relate to broader Buddhist teachings on compassion and non-harm?

5. Apostolic Succession vs. Spiritual Lineage

In Catholic Christianity, spiritual authority is understood to flow through apostolic succession: a historical, traceable line from Christ to the apostles and through the bishops of the Church. This succession is not merely symbolic; it is understood as a transmission of authority grounded in Christ Himself, preserved through sacrament and doctrine.

In Tibetan Buddhism and related traditions, there is also a strong emphasis on lineage. Spiritual authority and teaching are passed from guru to disciple in an unbroken chain, often tracing back to an enlightened master. In Tibetan Buddhist lineages it traces back to the Buddha himself. Initiation into practices, especially in tantric contexts, typically requires empowerment from someone within that lineage.

At a structural level, the resemblance is striking. Both systems emphasize continuity, transmission, and authorized access to deeper spiritual realities. But within the framework of inversion, the similarity itself becomes significant.

If Lucifer’s rebellion operates through mirroring and distortion rather than outright opposition, then a counterfeit system would not discard the idea of transmission but it would replicate it in altered form. Instead of a lineage grounded in divine revelation and safeguarded by the Church, one might expect a lineage grounded in esoteric knowledge, initiation, and experiential realization.

In that sense, what appears to be parallel structure could be interpreted as inversion: a system that retains the form of authorized transmission while redirecting its source and purpose.

Which leads to a deeper conclusion: if both claim lineage, continuity, and authority, you must discern the true source of that transmission, whether it originates from the Most High God or from something that imitates Him.

Are These Just Different Paths?

At this point, some might object: what if these are simply two different paths to the same ultimate reality? What if “God” in Christianity and “enlightenment” in other systems are just different expressions of the same truth? But that idea becomes difficult to sustain when the core claims directly contradict one another. A personal Creator who judges the soul is not the same as an impersonal reality with no creator. A single earthly life followed by judgment is not the same as endless cycles of rebirth. Grace given by God is not the same as enlightenment achieved through occult techniques. These are not minor differences but fundamentally opposed descriptions of reality. Within the framework of inversion, this matters. If one system is true, then a parallel system that contradicts it cannot simply be an alternative route to the same destination, it must lead somewhere else entirely.

The Question of Power

Another detail from the interview adds an important layer. Fr. Ripperger describes cases in which individuals gained accurate hidden knowledge through demonic influence:

“The demons would tell her, ‘This is what your husband’s doing,’ etc. And it was accurate… that’s how you know it’s true—it’s actually accurate.”

Accuracy, in itself, is not proof of goodness. Many systems, ancient and modern, promise access to hidden knowledge, insight, or power. But the deeper question is: what is the source of that knowledge?

A Counterfeit System?

If we follow this line of thought, a possibility emerges. A fallen angel, originally designed to enlighten, could create entire systems that:

  • Mimic divine structure
  • Offer real spiritual experiences
  • Provide accurate, but limited or misleading, knowledge
  • Encourage self-deification (“you will be like gods”)
  • And ultimately redirect worship, trust, and dependence away from the Biblical God

In that light, the serpent’s words in Genesis begin to look less like a one-time event and more like a recurring pattern:

“You will be like God.”

Not through obedience, but hidden knowledge, technique, and transformation.

Final Thought

If Lucifer’s original role was to enlighten, and he rejected God, then the question is not whether enlightenment exists. The question is where each path promising “enlightenment” ultimately leads.

Footnote:

  1. Interview with Tucker Carlson and Fr. Chad Ripperger:
    https://youtu.be/Of3ys0dmyYc?si=U630YmXL0sF0-C2-

Tibetan Buddhism and the Reality of Possession

mim

Tibetan Buddhism is marketed in the West as a path of the highest integrity. It is described as a philosophical system with techniques for developing mindfulness, compassion, and ultimately for attaining enlightenment. What is rarely stated plainly is that Vajrayāna tantric systems are structured around ritualized spirit possession and identity takeover.

A 2022 doctoral dissertation, Āveśa and Deity Possession in the Tantric Traditions of South Asia by Vikas Malhotra, documents that possession became central to medieval Tantric practice, including Buddhist Tantra that later developed into Tibetan Vajrayāna.[1] The Sanskrit term āveśa literally means “entering into.” In Tantric contexts, it refers to the fusion of practitioner and deity. This was not marginal but foundational.[2]

Deity Yoga Involves Possession

In Tibetan Deity Yoga, practitioners visualize themselves as a deity, recite its mantra, adopt its gestures and identity, and are instructed to experience no separation between themselves and that being. Modern teachers frame this as symbolic or psychological and as a method to realize emptiness. But examined historically, it follows the structure of possession technology:

  • Invocation
  • Descent of power
  • Identity fusion
  • Altered agency
  • Bodily and psychological signs

Medieval Tantric texts describe possession markers such as trembling, ecstasy, altered consciousness, and loss of ordinary identity. These same phenomena and mechanisms are reported in Vajrayāna contexts.

Guru Yoga and Human Possession

There are also uncomfortable truths concerning Guru Yoga. In this practice, the visualized guru dissolves into light and enters the disciple. The disciple experiences the guru’s mind as inseparable from their own. Empowerment is described as a descent of blessing into the subtle body. The dissertation notes that in Tantric systems, even advanced humans could possess others in positive ways. [3]

  • The guru embodies enlightened power.
  • Through initiation, that power descends.
  • The disciple becomes a vessel.
  • Identity shifts from individual to lineage-bearer.

This is ritualized human-to-human possession. It is framed as a positive transmission, but is it really? What are the implications of inviting another human being in to possess you? If you examine the numerous exposés of abuse in Vajrayāna communities over the past few decades, you might wonder why anyone would let a fallible human being enter and possess them. As someone who lived through egregious abuse by a supposedly enlightened Vajrayāna master, I can speak from personal experience. Guru yoga creates a framework in which another human being is granted intimate internal authority over your mind and identity. Why would anyone knowingly consent to that dynamic? They probably wouldn’t if they knew that spiritual possession is what actually happens during guru and deity yoga.

Why This Is Glossed Over

The fact that this is glossed over in Tibetan Buddhist teachings should give one pause. Why isn’t this discussed up front? It is because possession sounds primitive and carries negative psychiatric and colonial baggage. For these reasons, traditions seeking Western legitimacy avoid the term and conceal the reality beneath layers of theological and philosophical euphemism. The issue is not vocabulary, but whether practitioners are told clearly what is structurally taking place. If Vajrayāna depends on ritualized possession through deity and guru incorporation, that should be stated plainly.

In Western religious history, especially within Christianity, possession has long been regarded as negative, spiritually dangerous, and psychologically destabilizing. It is associated with loss of agency, vulnerability to manipulation by demonic entities, and the need for protection or exorcism. It is not treated as spiritually glamorous. It is treated as a serious risk.

Yet when similar identity-dissolving dynamics appear within an imported spiritual system, they are often elevated, aestheticized, and shielded from scrutiny. The language changes but the underlying structure does not.

Why does ritual possession provoke alarm in one context but reverence in another? Why does a shift in metaphysical framing automatically neutralize the concern? If this would raise red flags in a Western church, why should it be exempt from examination in a Tibetan temple?

The historical record is clear. Possession is not peripheral to Tibetan Tantra. It is embedded in its ritual core. If that is so, then practitioners deserve to confront that reality consciously rather than encounter it disguised as harmless symbolism or elevated mysticism.

Footnotes

[1] Vikas Malhotra, Āveśa and Deity Possession in the Tantric Traditions of South Asia: History, Evolution, & Etiology, PhD diss., University of California, Santa Barbara, 2022 .

[2] Ibid., discussion of possession becoming central to Tantric praxis .

[3] Ibid., discussion of positive forms of human possession .

[4] Ibid., integrated model of possession as embodied transformation .

The Four Activities: How Tantra Organizes Power, Control, and Harm

mim

In Vajrayana Buddhism and related tantric systems, practitioners are taught that enlightened activity manifests in four fundamental modes, often called the Four Activities. These are commonly translated as Pacifying, Enriching, Magnetizing, and Subjugating. In Sanskrit they correspond to śāntika, pauṣṭika, vaśīkaraṇa, and abhicāra. In Tibetan sources they are known as zhi, rgyas, dbang, and drag po.

Doctrinally, the Four Activities are described as spontaneous expressions of awakened compassion. An enlightened being pacifies obstacles, enriches virtue and resources, magnetizes beings toward the Dharma, and subjugates harmful forces. This presentation emphasizes intent and realization, assuring the student that such actions, when performed from enlightenment, are free of karmic stain.

Yet this sanitized description obscures a more uncomfortable reality. Historically and textually, the Four Activities function as classificatory frameworks for large compendiums of ritual technologies. These include magical spells, rites, visualizations, mantras, and talismanic operations designed to bring about very specific effects in the world. Such effects include healing and calming, increasing wealth or longevity, attracting and binding others, and coercing, harming, or destroying enemies.

This dual framing creates a tension that is rarely examined openly within modern Buddhist discourse.

The Four Activities as Magical Technologies

Tantric manuals from India and Tibet make explicit that the Four Activities are not metaphors. They are actionable ritual categories. Tantras such as the Guhyasamāja Tantra and the Hevajra Tantra, along with later ritual compendiums such as the Sādhanamālā and abhicāravidyā genre texts, provide detailed instructions for rites aimed at controlling weather, influencing rulers, compelling lovers, paralyzing rivals, or causing illness and death.[1]

These materials make clear that tantric ritual was never confined to inner transformation alone. The Four Activities structured a full spectrum of practical interventions into social, political, and psychological life.

The Sādhanamālā

The Sādhanamālā is a large Sanskrit compendium of tantric ritual manuals compiled in India roughly between the 8th and 12th centuries CE.

It is Buddhist, specifically Vajrayana or Mantrayāna, and not Śaiva, even though it shares techniques and ritual logic with non-Buddhist tantric traditions. The text consists of several hundred sādhana instructions for meditation and ritual practice focused on Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and tantric deities such as Tārā, Avalokiteśvara, Mañjuśrī, Vajrayoginī, and Hevajra.

Many of these sādhanas are explicitly or implicitly classified according to the Four Activities. They include ritual prescriptions for pacifying illness, enriching wealth or lifespan, magnetizing kings, patrons, or disciples, and subjugating enemies. The intended effects are practical and worldly as well as soteriological.

The Sādhanamālā was translated into Tibetan in parts and circulated widely in Tibet. Tibetan ritual literature draws heavily on this material, even when the Indian source material is not foregrounded explicitly.

Standard scholarly references include: Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, Sādhanamālā, Baroda, 1925–1928, and
David Snellgrove, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism, Shambhala, 1987.

Abhicāravidyā Texts

Abhicāravidyā is not a single book but a category of ritual literature.

The Sanskrit term abhicāra refers to rites of coercion, harm, or destructive magic. Vidyā means a spell or magical formula. Abhicāravidyā texts are therefore manuals of destructive or coercive rites.

In Buddhist tantra, such texts describe subjugation practices including immobilization, madness, illness, death, expulsion of consciousness, and rites intended to cause death, sometimes described as ritual killing by proxy. These rites are usually justified as actions taken against enemies of the Dharma, oath breakers, or beings deemed karmically irredeemable.

These texts circulated in India among tantric specialists and were selectively translated into Tibetan, often under euphemistic titles or embedded within larger ritual cycles. In Tibet, their contents were reorganized under the heading of drag po, or wrathful activity.

Important examples of Buddhist abhicāra material appear in:

The Guhyasamāja Tantra and its explanatory tantras
The Hevajra Tantra
The Sarvatathāgatatattvasaṃgraha
Later ritual manuals attributed to figures such as Nāgārjuna and Padmasambhava

Because of their ethical volatility, abhicāra rites were rarely taught openly. Access was restricted, which is one reason modern practitioners often underestimate how central such practices were historically.

Key scholarly discussions include: Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, Columbia University Press, 2002, and Alexis Sanderson, “The Śaiva Age,” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Tokyo, 2009.

Relationship to Tibetan Buddhism

Tibetan Buddhism inherited these Indian materials largely intact. The Four Activities framework in Tibet is not an innovation but a systematization of Indian tantric categories.

What changed in Tibet was less the ritual content than the doctrinal rhetoric surrounding it. Destructive and coercive rites were reframed as compassionate acts performed by realized beings. This rhetorical move allowed the practices to survive while softening their public presentation.

When Tibetan teachers speak of the Four Activities today, they are standing on a ritual foundation built by Indian Buddhist tantra, including the Sādhanamālā and abhicāravidyā traditions, whether this inheritance is acknowledged or not.

In Tibetan contexts, this ritual material was further systematized. The Four Activities became a classificatory framework under which thousands of rites were organized. Fire pujas, effigy magic, thread-cross rituals, and sexual yogas all find their place within this scheme.[2]

The ethical difficulty is obvious. While pacifying and enriching activities can be interpreted charitably, subjugation practices explicitly involve violence, coercion, and psychological domination. Tibetan ritual manuals state that subjugation rites can cause madness, death, or rebirth in hell realms for the target, often justified by vague claims that the victim is an enemy of the Dharma.[3]

Subjugation and Buddhist Ethical Dissonance

From the standpoint of Buddhist ethics, subjugation is the most troubling of the Four Activities. Buddhism is grounded in non-harming and the cultivation of compassion. Yet subjugation rituals rely on wrathful intent and instrumental harm. Traditional defenses argue that enlightened beings act beyond dualistic morality because they have transcended good and evil.

For modern Western practitioners, these explanations often remain abstract. Teachers rarely teach subjugation practices explicitly, and students are encouraged to interpret wrathful deities symbolically. This produces a form of cognitive dissonance. The practices exist, are preserved, and are sometimes performed within group pujas, but disciples can maintain psychological distance by not understanding the wrathful practices or details. Ignorance becomes a form of insulation.

Magnetizing Activity and the Binding of Disciples

Magnetizing activity is often portrayed as benign. It is described as the compassionate attraction of beings to the path. Yet tantric texts are explicit that magnetizing rites are used to influence minds, bind loyalty, and generate devotion.[4]

In ritual manuals, magnetizing practices are used to attract lovers, patrons, followers, and students. They involve visualizations of cords, hooks, nooses, and substances entering the bodies of targets to incline their thoughts and emotions. These are not metaphors for persuasion. They are magical technologies of attachment.

Within guru-disciple relationships, magnetizing activity takes on a particularly disturbing dimension. Once a student takes tantric initiation, they are bound by samaya vows. These vows often include lifelong loyalty to the guru and lineage until enlightenment is achieved.[5]

The power imbalance is severe. The teacher is positioned as the embodiment of awakening. The student is warned that doubt, criticism, or separation leads to spiritual ruin.

What If Enlightenment Is Not Reached?

Traditional literature assumes enlightenment will be reached. But what if it is not. What if the practitioner becomes disillusioned, traumatized, or psychologically destabilized.

In such cases, the Four Activities do not disappear. The same ritual logic that binds can also be used to punish. Tibetan sources describe the use of subjugation rites against oath breakers, samaya violators, and enemies of the lineage.[6]

Modern scholars and psychologists studying tantric communities have documented patterns of dependency, identity collapse, and long-term trauma following abusive guru relationships.[7] Magnetizing activity, in this light, resembles a spider’s web. Attraction is not neutral. It is structured, adhesive, and difficult to escape.

Conclusion

The Four Activities are not merely poetic descriptions of enlightened compassion. They are historical and functional systems of magical action. To ignore this is to misunderstand tantra at its core.

Subjugation challenges Buddhist ethics directly. Magnetizing challenges them more subtly. It operates through devotion, love, and surrender, making it easier to accept and harder to question. For Western practitioners kept deliberately ignorant of these dynamics, the result is not safety but vulnerability and the possibility of ruin.

An honest engagement with tantra requires confronting these practices without romanticism, without denial, and without pretending that malevolent harm disappears simply because it is cloaked in sacred language.

Footnotes and Sources

  1. Alexis Sanderson, “The Śaiva Age,” in Genesis and Development of Tantrism, Tokyo, 2009.
  2. Samten Karmay, The Arrow and the Spindle, Mandala Book Point, 1998.
  3. Ronald Davidson, Indian Esoteric Buddhism, Columbia University Press, 2002.
  4. David Gordon White, Kiss of the Yogini, University of Chicago Press, 2003.
  5. Jamgön Kongtrul, The Torch of Certainty, Shambhala, 1977.
  6. Stephen Beyer, The Cult of Tārā, University of California Press, 1978.
  7. Mariana Caplan, Halfway Up the Mountain, Hohm Press, 2011.

The Tantric Image That Is Never Explained

mim

Among the many images that circulate quietly within Tibetan tantric lineages, there are several that are never explained to most practitioners and never shown outside advanced ritual contexts. One such image, often embedded within long Mahākāla rites and other high-level tantric liturgies, depicts a bound, pierced, weapon-studded human figure marked with mantras, seals, and symbolic restraints. To the uninitiated, it resembles a wrathful medical diagram or an esoteric curse talisman. To insiders, it represents something much more disturbing.

These images are not symbolic reminders of compassion, nor are they abstract metaphors for ego-death. They are ritual instruments. Specifically, they are used in rites intended to punish, bind, obstruct, or destroy the lives of those who are deemed to have broken samaya—the sacred vows binding a tantric practitioner to their guru, lineage, and yidam deity.

This fact is rarely discussed openly. When it is mentioned at all, it is framed euphemistically as “removing obstacles,” “protecting the Dharma,” or “subjugating harmful forces.” What is almost never acknowledged is that, within some tantric systems, the “harmful force” being targeted is a former disciple.

Why Beginners Are Never Told

Students entering Tibetan Buddhism are typically introduced through ethics, meditation, philosophy, and aspirational ideals: loving-kindness, compassion, non-violence, and wisdom. Tantric Buddhism is presented as a fast but benevolent path, dangerous only insofar as it requires devotion and discipline.

What they are not told is that questioning, criticizing, or emotionally reacting to a guru can itself be framed as a samaya violation. Nor are they told that certain rituals explicitly teach that lineage holders have the right, and sometimes the obligation, to retaliate metaphysically against perceived betrayal.

Beginners are warned vaguely that breaking samaya leads to “terrible consequences,” often described as karmic rather than intentional. The implication is that the universe itself will respond. What is left unsaid is that these consequences may be deliberately invoked, ritualized, and sustained by human agents acting within a tantric framework.

The unspoken lesson is simple: dissent is dangerous.

The Yidam Is Watching

At the core of highest yoga tantra is the yidam deity, the meditational deity with whom the practitioner forms an exclusive, intimate bond. The yidam is not merely visualized as an external symbol but is gradually internalized, embodied, and ultimately identified with as one’s own enlightened nature.

This process is often described in modern terms as psychological transformation. In traditional terms, however, it is far closer to classical possession.

The practitioner receives initiation from a master understood to be fully realized–meaning fully inhabited by the yidam. Through empowerment, mantra recitation, repeated visualization, and ritual invitation, the practitioner repeatedly invites the deity to enter their body and mind. Over time, the boundary between practitioner and deity is intentionally dissolved.

This is how the yidam “monitors” the practitioner: not metaphorically, but through total psychic access. Thoughts, emotions, doubts, and impulses are no longer private. They are offerings or offenses.

Within this framework, enlightenment, siddhis, and protection are granted conditionally. The deity gives, and the deity can withhold. More disturbingly, the deity can retaliate.

“Sons” of the Deity and Absolute Obedience

Advanced tantric systems often refer to lineage masters as the “sons” of the yidam. These are the men who have fully merged with the deity through practice. Disrespecting such a figure is not treated as a social conflict or ethical disagreement; it is framed as an attack on the deity itself.

This becomes especially dangerous in cases involving sexual relationships between guru and disciple. While not every such relationship is abusive, many are. In some cases, a guru expects sexual access as a demonstration of devotion and service. When the disciple becomes distressed, confused, or resistant, or when she later speaks out, the guru’s response is not accountability but punishment.

From within the tantric logic, the guru is not merely a man abusing power. He is a god-being whose will cannot be questioned. The disciple’s suffering is reframed as karmic purification or divine retribution.

Ritual Retaliation Is Real

There is a tendency among modern defenders of Tibetan Buddhism to dismiss accounts of retaliation as superstition or paranoia. Yet whistleblowers, both Western and Asian, have repeatedly documented actions taken against former disciples over months or years. In the most extreme cases, these are not momentary curses but sustained practices intended to ruin health, relationships, livelihood, and sanity.

I personally have known three gurus who engaged in such retaliatory behavior. These were not fringe figures. They were respected, accomplished masters with devoted followings. The rituals were not symbolic. They were methodical, intentional, and experienced by the practitioners themselves to be effective.

This is witchcraft in the plain sense of the word. It is no different in structure or intent from Haitian vodou curses or European malefic magic. The only difference is the religious branding.

The Ethical Contradiction at the Heart of Tantra

This raises an unavoidable question: how can a system that claims descent from the historical Buddha whose teachings emphasize non-harming, restraint, and compassion contain practices that deliberately destroy human lives?

The answer lies in tantric exceptionalism. Within these systems, ordinary Buddhist ethics are considered provisional. Once one enters the tantric domain, morality becomes subordinate to obedience, secrecy, and power. A guru possessed by a wrathful deity is no longer bound by conventional ethics because the deity is not.

Publicly, tantric masters speak constantly of compassion and loving-kindness. They smile, bless, and perform virtue with great skill. Privately, nothing is free. Every empowerment creates obligations. Every vow tightens the noose. And the deeper one goes, the more rigid and unforgiving the system becomes.

The Real Danger

Not all Tibetan Buddhist teachers engage in these practices. Many do not. But the fact that some of the most accomplished masters have done so for centuries means the danger is structural, not incidental.

The real threat of tantric Buddhism is that it weaponizes devotion, sanctifies possession, and normalizes ritual violence while hiding behind the language of Buddhist compassion and enlightenment.

Until this is openly acknowledged, aspirants will continue to walk blindly into systems that can, and sometimes do, destroy them, all in the name of awakening.

Thomas Merton’s Exploration of Tibetan Buddhist Mysticism and His Untimely Death

mim

Thomas Merton remains one of the most fascinating and controversial figures in modern Catholic spirituality. A Trappist monk whose writing reached millions, he invited readers into a life of contemplation shaped by silence, inner stillness, and spiritual inquiry. By the 1960s, his search had expanded far beyond the borders of Christian tradition and into the world of Eastern mysticism. His journey raises important questions about discernment, authority, and the possibility that some mystical experiences do not come from God at all.

Why Merton looked East

Merton believed that Western Christianity had lost something essential. He felt that institutional concerns and intellectual debate had overshadowed direct experience of God. Eastern religions appeared to preserve a contemplative path in a purer form. Like many in the post–Vatican II era, he saw dialogue with non-Christian religions as an opportunity rather than a threat.

But such openness came with a cost. Many Catholics of his time assumed that all deep mystical traditions shared a common source. The idea that spiritual experiences could arise from contrary or even deceptive origins was rarely discussed. This lack of discernment created a vulnerable generation of seekers who treated Eastern practices as spiritually neutral when they were not.

Merton’s early interest in Asia

Long before traveling to Asia, Merton was reading Zen, Taoism, Advaita Vedanta, and Sufi mystics. He approached them with sincere curiosity, but also with a growing assumption that truth could be gleaned from any direction. His writings from this period suggest a desire for universal contemplative experience, sometimes without sufficient attention to the distinct theological and spiritual claims behind each tradition.

This tendency to universalize mystical experience would shape his final years.

Meeting the Dalai Lama

In 1968, Merton traveled to Dharamsala and spent several days with the Dalai Lama. Their meetings were warm and genuinely contemplative. Merton admired the Dalai Lama’s kindness, discipline, and clarity. The Dalai Lama later remembered Merton as the first Christian monk who came to him not as a tourist or academic but as a fellow practitioner of deep prayer.

Yet admiration does not erase theological differences. Tibetan Buddhism denies a creator God, embraces reincarnation, and employs esoteric tantric practices that involve deities outside the Holy Trinity. From a Christian point of view, this difference is huge. The Church has long taught the discernment of spirits: mystical experiences must be tested, because deceptive spiritual forces can imitate peace, clarity, and even compassion. Merton did not always express this caution.

Encounter with Kalu Rinpoche

Merton also met Kalu Rinpoche, one of the most respected Tibetan meditation masters of the twentieth century. He attended teachings on Mahamudra and was deeply impressed by the monastic discipline he witnessed. Kalu Rinpoche even invited him to undertake a long hermit retreat. Merton seemed drawn to the idea.

But Tibetan Buddhism contains layers of esoteric practice that Merton, like most Westerners of his time, did not fully understand. The serene exterior of Tibetan spirituality often conceals tantric rituals, spirit invocation, and hierarchical guru devotion that are fundamentally incompatible with Christianity. Later revelations of abuse and occult manipulation inside some of the major Tibetan lineages show how incomplete the Western picture had been. Merton could not have known this, yet his enthusiasm reflected a lack of discernment that would affect many who followed in his footsteps.

What else he explored

Merton’s range of interests was broad. He read Zen masters, Taoist sages, Hindu philosophers, and Sufi poets. He studied Christian hesychasm with new energy and sought common threads among all traditions. His impulse was generous, but generosity is not the same as spiritual clarity. Christian prayer directs the soul toward union with God. Eastern meditation, especially tantra, aims at dissolving the ego and merging with non-Christian spiritual entities.

These are not complementary goals but representative of different spiritual destinies.

Bangkok and a mysterious death

After leaving Dharamsala, Merton traveled to Bangkok to speak at an international monastic conference. On December 10, 1968, he died in his cottage shortly after giving a lecture. The official explanation was accidental electrocution from a faulty fan. Yet no autopsy was performed, and the circumstances were poorly documented. The inconsistencies have fueled speculation for decades.

His death came at a moment when he was moving more deeply into Buddhist thought. Whether he intended to integrate aspects of Tibetan practice into Christian monasticism remains unknown. His passing has an unfinished quality, as if he was on the edge of a major spiritual shift whose implications were never tested.

Why Merton still matters

Merton’s life challenges readers to seek authentic spiritual contemplation, not just intellectual understanding. It also warns Christians that not every path that promises depth is aligned with God. Eastern systems often carry metaphysical commitments and spiritual forces that stand in real conflict with Christian revelation. Without a strong framework of discernment, even sincere seekers can be misled.

Merton’s writings still inspire, yet his story also stands as a cautionary tale. The longing for mystical experience is real and often holy, but it must be shaped by sound doctrine and a sober awareness that not every spiritual path leads toward God.

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 Moral Logic of Ritual Killing in the Wrathful Practices of Tibetan Buddhism

mim

This piece follows up on my previous essay, “Tantric Deception: Black Magic and Power in Tibetan Buddhism,” which explored Solomon FitzHerbert’s study of tantric statecraft and the normalization of ritual violence in seventeenth-century Tibet. In this post, I turn to an even more revealing feature of FitzHerbert’s findings: the Fifth Dalai Lama’s own moral reasoning about ritual killing.

In his autobiography, the Fifth Dalai Lama confronts the criticism that tantric rituals of destruction should not be directed “against ordinary people.” His response is stunning in its candor: “We do not need to be ashamed of this,” he writes, “as it is taught in the Tantras.”¹ He goes further, citing the eight kinds of spirits who “fiercely execute the punishment” on behalf of the enlightened adept.²

Here the Great Fifth is not apologizing for violence; he is codifying it. FitzHerbert explains that the Dalai Lama invokes a moral category known as the ten fields of liberation (sgrol ba’i zhing bcu), a rubric for identifying the kinds of people whose killing can be ritually justified in tantric Buddhism.³ These include those who “cause harm to the Buddhist religion,” “bring dishonour to the Three Jewels,” “endanger the life of the guru,” “slander the Mahāyāna,” “sow discord among the vajra community,” “prevent others from attaining siddhi,” or “pervert views concerning karma and its retribution.”⁴

In other words, violence against the enemies of the dharma was not merely tolerated; it was systematized. The moral categories of Buddhist tantra aligned precisely with the ideological boundaries of religious loyalty. To kill an “enemy of the faith” was to enact liberation through wrathful compassion, a punitive act performed in the name of spiritual duty. In this context, the term liberation does not refer to enlightenment but serves as tantric code for killing.

The crucial question, then, is this: who decides who counts as an enemy of the dharma? It is the guru, a figure endowed with godlike authority, who makes that determination and authorizes the strike, much as a mafia boss sanctions a hit within his own organization.

Such ideas did not remain abstract. As FitzHerbert shows elsewhere, the Dalai Lama’s government ritualized the deployment of these doctrines in warfare and political suppression.⁵ What we see in these passages is the theological backbone of that policy: a cosmological logic that made violence both righteous and karmically justified.

When the “Fields of Liberation” Become Personal

The ethical implications of this doctrine extend far beyond the seventeenth century. Its structure, dividing the world between defenders and destroyers of the dharma, still echoes in the tantric imagination today. Within closed guru/disciple networks, where authority is absolute and ritual power is personalized, this logic can turn inwards toward vulnerable disciples.

When a teacher is accused of abuse–sexual, financial, or psychological–some may interpret criticism of that teacher as slander of the Mahāyāna or harm to the guru, two of the very offenses listed in the ten fields of liberation. Under this view, the accuser becomes a threat to the vajra community itself. The rhetoric of “vajra hell,” karmic downfall, or spiritual ruin can be mobilized as a form of punishment.

Even when no public or obvious ritual of destruction is performed, the doctrinal framework legitimizing wrathful retribution remains intact and the teacher may privately extract revenge. A teacher who sees himself as an accomplished tantric adept may claim to act from “enlightened wrath.” Certainly he convinces himself that is the case. He may claim his retribution is not from malice but from a compassion that destroys obscurations and seeks to protect his community from dissenters. In this way, spiritual authority can blur into coercion, and the old metaphysics of tantric punishment can be redeployed against dissenting students.

Thus, the problem is not simply historical. It lies in a theological grammar that still allows destructive acts to be reframed as enlightened means. When criticism is recast as “slander of the dharma,” and when the guru’s person is identified with the deity itself, retaliation can be justified as upholding the sacred order.

Facing the Doctrine Honestly

When Western seekers encounter Tibetan Buddhism, we are often presented with an image of serene compassion, untainted by coercion or cruelty. Yet the Fifth Dalai Lama himself dismantles that illusion. He writes without hesitation that violent tantric rites are legitimate instruments of enlightened rule. The “theatre state” of seventeenth-century Tibet was the political expression of doctrines like the ten fields of liberation.

If the tradition is to be understood honestly, these passages should be part of an open and very public conversation. The Fifth Dalai Lama’s own words make clear that within tantric ethics, destruction is allowed, and killing can be framed as an act of perverted compassion. The challenge for modern practitioners and scholars alike is to recognize how this same moral architecture can exist whenever authority claims transcendence from accountability.

Footnotes

  1. Solomon G. FitzHerbert, “The Fifth Dalai Lama and the Tantric Politics of State Formation in Seventeenth-Century Tibet,” Arts Asiatiques 27 (2018): 88.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Ibid., 89.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid., 74–83.

Tantric Deception: Black Magic and Power in Tibetan Buddhism

mim

I am amazed that the PR for Tibetan Buddhism in the West managed for so long to conceal the extent of black magic practiced by lamas in Tibet historically and even to the present day. This concealment, aided and abetted by the squeamishness and obliviousness of some scholars, has to stop. In the dharma centers I was involved in, anything dark in Tibetan lore was relegated to the Bön religion, and the implication was that once Buddhism took hold in Tibet, any kind of evil acts such as harming or killing sentient beings was completely off the table. The truth is that black magic is in the lexicon of the highest lamas in the lineage as well as ngakpas and others. I believe these techniques are used liberally and current scholarship is finally exposing it.

Solomon G. FitzHerbert’s study of the mid-seventeenth century makes the core point plainly. He argues that tantric ritual and the rhetoric of ritual violence were central to how the Ganden Phodrang state established and legitimated power, not a peripheral curiosity. He writes that Tibetan sources “more than compensate” for the lack of hard military data with abundant materials about the “legitimation and maintenance of authority” through ritual technologies and narratives.¹

Before the rise of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Tibet’s Tsang rulers were already forging political alliances through tantric warfare. FitzHerbert shows that the Tsang kings deliberately patronized lamas famed for their mastery of wrathful and repelling rites. The most favored were the hierarchs of the Karma Kagyu, the “black hat” Karmapa and the “red hat” Zhamarpa, along with the Jonang scholar Taranatha, who was also enjoined to perform repelling rituals on behalf of his patrons.² Their alliances were explicitly religious and martial: an “ecumenical alliance in the name of defending religion and Tibet from foreign armies.”³

Among the Tsang rulers’ most celebrated ritual specialists was the Nyingma master Sokdokpa Lodrö Gyeltsen (1552–1624), self-styled “Repeller of Mongols.”⁴ A disciple of Zhikpo Lingpa, Sokdokpa was the main heir to the revealed cycle Twenty-Five Ways of Repelling Armies (Dmag zlog nyi shu rtsa lnga).⁵ His Mongol-repelling rites were widely famed, and he worked directly with the Tsang ruler Phuntsok Namgyel. One elaborate rite performed in 1605 to coincide with a Tsang military offensive involved producing “some 150,000 paper effigies of enemy soldiers.”⁶ These were ritually destroyed to annihilate the opposing force, with Bonpo specialists also enlisted for their expertise in magical harm.⁷

According to FitzHerbert, Phüntsok Namgyel successfully forged a broad anti-Geluk alliance using tantric technologies of protection and destruction.⁸ After his death, “reputedly at the hands of offensive magic being hurled at him by the Shabdrung Nawang Namgyal (Zhabsdrung Ngag dbang rnam rgyal) (1594–1651), founder of the state of Bhutan,”⁹ his son Karma Tenkyong (1604–1642) inherited a weakened position. The Shabdrung’s tantric assault, still treated in Bhutanese and Tibetan sources as a historical fact, thus became the legendary moment when a ruler famed for weaponizing ritual power was himself undone by it. It is one of the rare episodes where the logic of esoteric warfare entered the realm of accepted political history.

This is where the Fifth Dalai Lama comes into focus. FitzHerbert shows that in the 17th century the Great Fifth cultivated and systematized an official repertoire of destructive and protective rites in service of government aims. In his words, the Dalai Lama showed a “lifelong concern with learning, authoring and instituting an armory of defensive and offensive rituals for the mobilization of unseen forces” for the state.¹⁰ That program contributed to the Ganden Phodrang’s reputation for “magical power,” and helped stage what FitzHerbert calls the grandest “theatre state” in Tibetan Buddhist history.¹¹

FitzHerbert details three overlapping strategies. First, the new government suppressed, marginalized, or co-opted rival traditions of war magic associated with other schools, including Karma Kagyu and strands within Nyingma, while appropriating selective cycles that could be redeployed under Geluk authority.¹² Second, it rebuilt Nyingma institutions such as Dorjé Drak and Mindröling under Ganden Phodrang patronage, folding their esoteric prestige into the state project.¹³ Third, it sponsored new state rituals based on the Dalai Lama’s own visionary experiences, further centralizing ritual power in Lhasa.¹⁴

The rhetoric was not merely devotional. Lamas and ritual specialists acted as “bodyguards” whose professional task was destructive magic on behalf of patrons.¹⁵ Chroniclers attributed battlefield outcomes to the rites of powerful tantrikas. FitzHerbert highlights Chökyi Drakpa, famed for the Yamantaka cycle known as the “Ultra-Repelling Fiery Razor,” which centered on rites of “protecting, repelling and killing.”¹⁶ In one report, after deploying these rites against a Tümed encampment, “nothing was left behind but a name.”¹⁷

To grasp how such violence could be framed as meritorious, FitzHerbert shows the tantric logic that recasts killing as an enlightened “action” when performed by an empowered adept. The adept receives empowerment, performs extensive propitiation to forge identification with the deity, and then “incite[s]” and “dispatch[es]” oath-bound spirits to defend the dharma. By manipulating the five elements and the “public non-reality” of appearances, the practitioner can pacify, increase, control, or destroy, including against human enemies.¹⁸ The moral frame is clear in the sources he cites and translates. Killing is made licit because it is tantric, ritually purified and redirected as enlightened activity.¹⁹

FitzHerbert also situates Tibetan practices within a longer Indo-Buddhist lineage of war magic. He surveys Indian materials that speak of sainyastambha or army-repelling rites, and notes that the Hevajra states that “black magic for paralyzing armies,” is part of its “manifold purpose” and that the Kālacakra includes descriptions of war machines and siege methods such as “catapults, traps, siege towers, and so on,” alongside esoteric harm and protection.²⁰ He further notes the use of human effigies and effigy destruction in offensive rites against enemies, a hallmark of Tibetan ritual repertoires that drew on wider South Asian and even Indo-European precedents.²¹

Western idealization of Tibetan Buddhism has depended on ignoring this record. The lamas who administered and celebrated these rites were not outliers. They were the architects of a political order that fused charisma, ritual terror, and doctrinal justifications into a program of power. State-sponsored ritual violence was normalized in chronicles and hagiographies as enlightened means. The fact pattern is no longer obscure. It is all in the sources, and FitzHerbert has laid them out.

Although FitzHerbert’s focus is on state-sponsored ritual violence, similar technologies of harm have long been used by individual lamas against perceived enemies including, at times, their own disciples. The anthropologist Geoffrey Samuel has noted that the ritual power claimed by tantric masters can be turned inward, weaponizing spiritual authority to punish dissent or enforce obedience.²² In one well-documented episode from the nineteenth century, the treasure-revealer (tertön) Dorje Lingpa was said to have struck down a rival practitioner through wrathful ritual means, his death interpreted locally as a karmic consequence of opposing the lama’s command.²³ Such stories attest to a cultural logic in which ritual, psychic, or physical violence by enlightened masters could be valorized as the just expression of awakened power. I have personally been a victim of this deluded violent ritual power by Tibetan masters.

If Tibetan Buddhism is to be understood honestly outside Tibet, this history needs to be taught in dharma centers and discussed in scholarship without euphemism. The tradition’s own categories allow for destructive ritual and sanctified killing under certain conditions. Pretending otherwise does not protect the innocent devotees who arrive at dharma centers with open hearts seeking methods for developing compassion and loving kindness in service of enlightenment. Indeed, one must ask what kind of enlightenment tradition could allow, even glorify such violence.

Notes

  1. FitzHerbert, Rituals as War Propaganda, 91. FitzHerbert, Solomon G. “Rituals as War Propaganda in the Establishment of the Tibetan Ganden Phodrang State in the Mid-17th Century.” Cahiers d’Extrême-Asie 27 (2018): 49–119: https://www.persee.fr/doc/asie_0766-1177_2018_num_27_1_1508. (I first came across FitzHerbert’s article via a post on Adele Tomlin’s website http://www.dakinitranslations.com.)
  2. Ibid., 95–96.
  3. Ibid., 95.
  4. Ibid., 96.
  5. Ibid., 96.
  6. Ibid., 97.
  7. Ibid., 97.
  8. Ibid., 101.
  9. Ibid., 102–103.
  10. Ibid., 94.
  11. Ibid., 95.
  12. Ibid., 96.
  13. Ibid., 97.
  14. Ibid., 98.
  15. Ibid., 93.
  16. Ibid., 100.
  17. Ibid., 101.
  18. Ibid., 71.
  19. Ibid., 72.
  20. Ibid., 98–99.
  21. Ibid., 99.
  22. Geoffrey Samuel, Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993), pp. 429–432.
  23. Cathy Cantwell and Robert Mayer, “Representations of wrathful deities in treasure literature,” in Tantric Revisionings: New Understandings of Tibetan Buddhism and Indian Religion (Leiden: Brill, 2008), pp. 131–133.