Tibetan Magic and Mysticism [Paperback]

THE MAJOR PROBLEM:
The major problem with this book in a nutshell is the author's misunderstanding of relative and absolute bodhicitta (or "emptiness" as it is understood in Buddhism) and I can probably sum it up pretty simply: the Clear Light is not Brahman-Atman. When Tibetan Buddhists use conventional terms like "source" to describe the basis of consciousness, for example, it is very easy to misinterpret if you don't have the foundation to understand it and this is the problem here. This was the same problem in the Evans-Wentz translations of Tibetan Book of the Dead and the Tibetan Book of Great Liberation which have since been corrected, thankfully, by subsequent translations. There is no "first cause" in Buddhism. No God. No Brahman and no Atman. To refer to Clear Light in this way shows a very basic misunderstanding of Buddhism 101. I could go in more detail on this point, but to try to explain how the 3 characteristics of the nature of mind relate to emptiness and the conventional reality would be a time-consuming piece of writing. Anyone quick to point out that Buddha never said whether or not there was a God are wrong. He actually did say there wasn't a God, right to Maha Brahma's face, in fact.

OTHER PROBLEMS:
While this book may deserve a 2 star rating for being well-written and having some entertainment value for the reader (in other words, the author fulfills his job of being competent as a writer in the business of making readable books), it is not a book I would recommend for anyone curious about Tibetan Magic and especially not for someone involved seriously in Tibetan Buddhism or one day hopes to be seriously involved in Tibetan Buddhism. This book will give you some very wrong ideas.

This book very much reads like an assignment. It should be noted that the author writes about many magical subjects for Llewellyn books; it looks like he's authored approximately 20 different books about different kinds of magic. Llewellyn is probably the biggest New Age publisher in the world and they are certainly partially responsible for mucking up the waters of various traditions. I was a victim of this myself. This tendency didn't start with Llewellyn, but closer to the time period of those "renaissance" men and women of the Golden Dawn and the New Thought movement at the turn of the last century.

Tibet was one of the last mysterious cultures to be discovered and the New Agers jumped all over that. Books like the Evans-Wentz version of the Tibetan "Book of The Dead" and "The Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation" had enough major errors in translation to seriously mislead anyone who studied them. Not only did people misunderstand Tibetan Buddhism (and Buddhism in general), but they also took their wrong ideas and appropriated them to other cultural beliefs like Wicca or Thelema or Vedanta. New Agers have treated everything as if it's a big puzzle game where different cultures are really talking about the same thing in different languages. There have been several books written about a sort of "key to the mysteries," usually mapping out Eastern traditions against a "western" Kabballist background. Well, it's not all the same thing. It's romantic or a "mind-blowing" notion to think so, I suppose, but it's simply not the case.

It is apparent that the author basically does some research and then writes a book on the subject, almost as if he has been given a homework assignment. Otherwise, how could he possibly be familiar with 20 different aspects of magic from various cultures? It takes a bit longer than the average lifespan to really understand different cultures, unless perhaps you are just mapping them all out on a Kabballah framework (which is standard practice and exactly why the waters have been so mucked up). I'm sure I could do the same thing myself as I have 20-some years experience studying various occult texts and I joined a Western Mystery Tradition (B.O.T.A.) prior to becoming involved with Tibetan Buddhism.

It took me a few years to get oriented and see that Tibetan Buddhism was really NOT saying the same thing at all and when I understood the difference, I realized that Buddhism made much more sense and I dropped my other studies completely. I was very lucky to have been introduced to the "highest teachings" of Tibetan Atiyoga as well, which took quite a bit longer to sort out. It is exactly this knowledge and experience I have acquired that qualifies me to assess this particular book.

Also, for those occult dabblers who are involved in anything and everything they can get their hands on (not uncommon), let me just assure you right off that this book will not do anything for you. There is nothing you haven't heard elsewhere (mind over matter, creation of magical thought-forms, etc.). It is the details that would distinguish these ideas, but there is not enough detail to give you any real starting point to accomplish anything remotely authentic. A much better book called "The Cult of Tara" is an impressively massive collection of Tibetan Rites, but even with all the rites spelled out in front of you, it is hopeless to try to make any real sense of it. This is because it's not book-learning stuff. This is a culture which requires a teacher and that teacher gives transmissions and empowerments. The author of Tibetan Magic actually even makes this point himself when he discusses that initiation requires a literal energy transference from guru to chela. Now, you chaos magicians and do-it-yourselfers are probably thinking, "So what! I initiated myself into Golden Dawn, Thelema, Wicca, etc., so why should this be any different? Well, Tibetan Buddhism really doesn't work like that and it doesn't play well with other philosophies and pantheons.

The reason it doesn't play well with other traditions is because it is not like other traditions. The Buddhas and bodhisattvas and the dharma protectors, dakas and dakinis, gurus, lamas and students all preserve the dharma because they know it is something special and unique. Yidams are not goetic demons you can simply "whip up." This is why all Tibetan Buddhist teachers respect other religions and will even compare and contrast (as lamas and rabbis have done with Kabballah, for example), but they always emphasize that it is important to note the differences as well as the similarities.

And that is this author's first mistake: he does not treat Buddhism as truly different from other traditions. Rather, he does the standard New Age mucking of the waters. In the first few pages, he mentions Aleister Crowley, which gives you some indication of where he's coming from. Crowley mish-mashed traditions on the Qaballist Tree of Life more masterfully than perhaps anyone. Later on, he explicitly states that the Clear Light of Mahammudra and Dzogchen is the same thing as Brahman-Atman of Hindu tradition and a footnote points out that all of this is very similar to the Kabballah's "infinite light." Well, I've studied all these traditions in depth and I can tell you this is wrong. Unsurprisingly, here is a Llewellyn author with the same old attitude: "it doesn't matter, whatever you want to call it, these cultures are talking about the same thing!" No, they're not.

He follows this up with an explanation of maya from Hindu tradition and explains that this has been integrated into most Buddhist traditions. The simplicity with which he describes maya and equates it with Buddhist tradition reveals a lot about his lack of knowledge and experience with Buddhism. This lack of experience is highlighted by something else: the simple fact that he repeatedly refers to Alexandra David-Neel's "Magic & Mystery In Tibet" at the start of many a chapter where he is introducing a new aspect of Tibetan Magic. You could seriously read her book instead and you'll be much better off. Alexandra David-Neel's "Magic and Mystery In Tibet" is certainly where this author drew most of his inspiration. He obviously just researched every item she discusses in that book. But, his research is superficial and worthless for the most part.

FUNNY THINGS: Where he has translated Tibetan prayers, for some reason, he has translated them in a King James Biblical fashion, complete with "thee, thy and thine" type speech. Why? These texts weren't translated into English in the 1800s or something. Most Tibetan texts, especially the sort of prayer he has here, weren't translated into English until the end of the 20th century; certainly way past the time when it was appropriate to talk in flowery old English speak. The author tried to make it "holy" and "authentic" sounding by giving it a classical King James feel. Odd.Another little funny thing is the cover art. Notice the "B" in "Tibetan" in the title. Why a Greek letter form would find itself in the title of this book is beyond me.

People who have the New Age mentality will think I'm being needlessly judgmental and authoritarian: "like, I just don't get it, man!" But anyone involved with Tibetan Buddhism at least will know exactly what I'm saying and will not waste their time on this one. But, seriously, new agers, I don't recommend this for anyone. Not even you.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. He quotes Geshe Kelsang Gyatso! Icing on the cake! ;-)

This book is more like an "Idiot's guide to Bon," although it covers both Buddhist and Bon concepts. The topics are various, and include information on the khor-lo and rlung (Tibetan chakra and energy channels, not unlike Chinese energy meridians.)

It covers the basics fairly well, and provides a good look at the founding beliefs of Tibetan mysticism (encompassing both Bon and Buddhist perspectives.) Various visualisation and meditation rituals are given in detail, and intended effects and sensations are described. Prayers and mantras are listed as well, along with various rituals for summoning deities from the Tibetan pantheon.

Several sections deal with Gtum-mo, or Tibetan yoga, which involves breathing, posture, and visualization. You also get an abbreviated lesson from the book of the dead, as it describes the process of dying and decomposing physically, and progressing through the bardos.

In short, this book has a little bit of everything, giving the reader a general overview of the practices and mindset of the Tibetan mystics (Bon or Buddhist.)

› Go to Amazon U.S. to see both reviews  2.5 out of 5 stars