Tantrism and Magic
ONE is accustomed, in the West, to attribute to Tantrism a 'magical' character, or at least to believe that magic plays a predominant role in it. There is here an error in interpreting what concerns Tantrism, and perhaps also what concerns magic, about which our contemporaries have only, in general, extremely vague and confused ideas as we have shown in one of our recent articles. We shall not at present return to this last point; but, taking magic strictly in its proper sense, and supposing that it is really, thus, that one understands it, we shall only ask what, in Tantrism itself, could give occasion for this false interpretation, for it is always more interesting to explain an error than to confine oneself purely and simply to its statement.
First of all, we shall recall that magic, no matter how inferior an order it belongs to itself, is nevertheless an authentic traditional science. As such, it can legitimately have a place among the applications of an orthodox doctrine, so long as it is only a subordinate and very secondary place which befits its essentially contingent character. On the other hand, given that the effective development of particular traditional sciences is, in fact, determined by conditions proper to such and such an epoch, it is natural and in some sense normal that the most contingent of them develop mainly in the period when humanity is the furthest from pure intellectuality, that is, in the Kaliyuga, and that they, thus, assume, while remaining within the limits assigned to them by their own nature, an importance that they never could have had in earlier periods. The traditional sciences, whatever they be, can always serve as 'supports' to rise to knowledge of a higher order, and it is this which, more than what they are in themselves, gives them a proper doctrinal value. But, as we say on the other hand, such 'supports' must generally become more and more contingent as the cyclic 'descent' is accomplished, so as to remain adapted to the human possibilities of every epoch. The development of the inferior traditional sciences is, therefore, in short, only a particular case of this necessary 'materialisation' of the 'supports' we have spoken of, whilst, at the same time, it naturally follows that the dangers of deviation become all the greater as one goes further in this direction. And that is why a science like magic is manifestly among those that gives way most easily to all sorts of deformations and illegitimate usages. Deviation, in all cases, is moreover only imputable, definitively, to conditions intrinsic to this period of 'obscuration', which is the Kaliyuga.
It is easy to understand the direct relation that all these considerations have with Tantrism, a doctrinal form specially adapted to the Kaliyuga. And if one adds, as we have anyway indicated, that Tantrism most especially insists on 'power' as a means and even as a possible base for 'realisation', one cannot be surprised that it must give by this very fact a fairly considerable importance, even, one might say, the maximum importance compatible with their relativity, to the sciences that are capable, in one way or another, of contributing to the development of this 'power' in a given domain. Magic obviously being in this situation, there is no dispute that it finds a place here. But it must be clearly said, that it cannot in anyway constitute the essential in Tantrism. To cultivate magic for itself, even besides to bring as one's goal the study of the production of 'phenomena' of whatever type, is to imprison oneself within illusion instead of striving to be free of it. This is only deviation and consequently,
it is no longer Tantrism, an aspect of an orthodox tradition and a 'path' destined to lead the being to true 'realisation.'
One generally freely admits that there is a Tāntric initiation, but most often without taking into account what is really implied by this. All that we have exposed again and again, on the subject of spiritual ends being without exception the same for every orthodox initiation, exempts us from labouring this point. Magic as such, referring exclusively to the 'psychic' domain by very definition, certainly has nothing initiatory about it, therefore, even if it happens that an initiatory ritual brings into play certain apparently 'magic' elements, it necessarily, by the goal it assigns to them and by the way it uses them in conformity with this goal, 'transforms' them into something of a wholly different order, in which the 'psychic' will no longer be but a single 'support' of the spiritual. And, thus, it will no longer really be a question of magic, any more than, for example, it is a question of geometry when one ritually makes the diagram of a yantra. The 'support' taken in its 'materiality', if one can express it, thus, must never be confused with the character of superior order which is essentially conferred on it by its destination. This confusion can only be the act of superficial observing, incapable of seeing anything whatever beyond the most external formal appearances, which is indeed the case of almost all who, in the modern West, have wished to occupy themselves with these matters, having always brought with them all the incomprehension inherent to the profane mentality. It is, moreover, this very confusion which, we remark in passing, is equally the point of departure of those 'naturalist' interpretations which they presume to give all traditional symbolism.
To these several observations, we will add yet another of a somewhat different character. One knows the importance of those Tāntric elements that have penetrated certain forms of Buddhism, those that are included in the general designation of Mahāyāna. But, far from being only a 'corrupted' Buddhism, as it seems
fashionable to say in the West, these forms on the contrary represent the result of an entirely traditional adaptation of Buddhism. That one can no longer, in certain cases, easily rediscover the proper character of original Buddhism, is of little importance, or rather, merely testifies to the extent of the transformation that has thus operated. One can then ask this question: how can such a thing have really been the doing of Tantrism, if the latter was really nothing more nor less than magic? There is here an impossibility perfectly evident to anyone with the least knowledge of traditional realities. It is, moreover, at depth, the very impossibility that the inferior should produce the superior, or that a 'plus' should come from a 'minus'. But is not this absurdity precisely the one found implied in all 'evolutionist' thought of modern Westerners, and which through this contributes, in large measure, to falsify irremediably all their conceptions?