“He confounds the Raja with the Hatha Yogins, whereas the former have nothing to do with the physical training of the Hatha nor with any other of the innumerable sects who have now adopted the name and emblems of Yogins. . . . the true Raja Yogins . . . have no more to do with Shiva than with Vishnu, or any other deity. Alone, the most learned among the Shankara’s Dandins [i.e. a class of yogi-ascetics connected with the Advaita Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy established by Adi Shankaracharya] of Northern India, especially those who are settled in Rajputana, would be able – if they were willing – to give some correct notions about the Raja Yogins; for these men, who have adopted the philosophical tenets of Shankara’s Vedanta are, moreover, profoundly versed in the doctrines of the Tantras – termed devilish by those who either do not understand them or reject their tenets with some preconceived object.” (H. P. Blavatsky, “The Yoga Philosophy,” “A Modern Panarion” p. 338-339)

“Some of the “White” Tantras, especially the one treated upon in the present article [Note: This was in reference to the Mahanirvana Tantra], contain extremely important information for Occultists.” (H. P. Blavatsky, Footnote to “The Tantras”)

“As there are both magic (pure psychic science) and sorcery (its impure counterpart) so there are what are known as the “White” and “Black” Tantras. The one is an exposition, very clear and exceedingly valuable, of occultism in its noblest features, the other a devil’s chap-book of wicked instructions to the would-be wizard and sorcerer.” (H. P. Blavatsky, Note to “A Description of The Tantrik Mystic Rites”)

The following is an extract from the article The Secret of Daiviprakriti – The Light of The Logos and mostly addresses Hindu Tantra and the Theosophical view of Tantra. An extensive study of Tibetan Buddhist Tantra in the light of Theosophy now has its own article, as of January 2025, and is no longer part of this one.

Earlier in this article we said: “Later we will dispel the concerns that many Theosophists might have upon seeing any mention of tantra by showing from H. P. Blavatsky’s own explanations that there is such a thing as “white tantra” and that the sexual tantra of black magic is only one side of tantra. Sri Vidya has always been considered only as a form of “white” or “right-hand” tantra and, significantly, it is closely associated with Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta.” It is also closely associated with, and viewed positively by, T. Subba Row, Bhavani Shankar, and the Masters of Wisdom, as we have now shown.

In another article, The Great Tsong-Kha-Pa, we said, in relation to Tsong-Kha-Pa, the great Tibetan Buddhist reformer and – according to Theosophy – another of Gautama Buddha’s embodiments: ““Tantra” itself is not a bad word and merely means “continuum” or “expansion.” In one sense it can be looked upon as a synonym for practical occultism. Theosophists sometimes speak of the Book or rather Books of Kiu-Te or Khiu-Ti, having seen HPB and the Masters refer to them, but probably very few Theosophists realise that the term “Kiu-Te” (or “rgyud sde” in Wylie transliteration) is simply the Tibetan translation of the Sanskrit word “Tantra.” The Books of Kiu-Te are therefore literally the Books of Tantra. Tantra is not always something sexual. HPB states that there is such a thing as “white tantra” which is of the nature of white magic, and such a thing as “black tantra” which is the opposite.”

And even if a teaching or system does not call itself tantric, if it deals with all or most of such subjects as (1) the occult constitution of the human being and the cosmos, (2) the correspondences or metaphysical links that exist between the various forces of Nature, (3) parts of the body and their occult correspondences and connections to higher energies or higher planes, (4) the esoteric side of colours, sounds, and sacred words or mantras, (5) Kundalini, (6) chakras, (7) recognition and reverence in one way or another of Shakti or the feminine – then it is the very definition and epitome of what tantra actually is. The introduction into it of selfish motives, sexual practices, and immorality, makes it black tantra. But it can exist perfectly well and happily in its pure form, as white tantra.

Let’s see HPB’s “Theosophical Glossary” entry for “Tantra”:

“Tantra (Sk.). Lit., “rule or ritual”. Certain mystical and magical works, whose chief peculiarity is the worship of the female power, personified in Sakti. Devî or Durgâ (Kâlî, Siva’s wife) is the special energy connected with sexual rites and magical powers– the worst form of black magic or sorcery.” (p. 319)

So sexual tantra and sexual magic is the worst form of black magic and is considered sorcery. There is a big difference between what most Westerners think of as sexual tantra and what the sexual tantra of Hindu and Tibetan Buddhist tantric practice actually is.  

But “Devi” is actually a generic term (literally “Goddess”) and is applied in Hinduism to all forms and personifications of the Shakti, so we hope Theosophists will do their own research and study and not simply assume that wherever and whenever “Devi” is mentioned anywhere it is automatically referring to “the special energy connected with sexual rites.” 99% of the time it is not – let us remember that HPB has specifically stated that she is not infallible and has also stated that she is not an expert in Hindu philosophy nor its terminology but rather an expert in the Esoteric Philosophy, especially of the Esoteric Buddhist School and Brotherhood – “I have never boasted of any knowledge of Sanskrit, and . . . I never pretended to teach Sanskrit or explain Occultism in that language. I claimed to know the esoteric philosophy of the trans-Himalayan Occultists and no more. . . . learned and (even not very learned) Sanskrit-speaking Brahmins, . . . [know] the value of Sanskrit terms better than I,” she said in “Re-classification of Principles” – and if one blindly assumes that “Devi” is automatically referring to something of the nature of black magic, then even Bhavani Shankar’s “The Doctrine of The Bhagavad Gita” will be viewed as a book of black magic, whereas it is nothing of the sort! As we saw earlier, he calls Daiviprakriti the Devi, “the Great Goddess.”

And, at the risk of sounding critical, it must be added that the word “tantra” does not actually literally mean either “rule” or “ritual.” The word literally means “continuum” in the sense of “to expand, to weave, to produce on a loom” etc.

“Tântrika (Sk.). Ceremonies connected with the above worship. Sakti having a two-fold nature, white and black, good and bad, the Saktas are divided into two classes, the Dakshinâchâris and Vâmâchâris, or the right-hand and the left-hand Saktas, i.e., “white” and “black” magicians. The worship of the latter is most licentious and immoral.” (p. 319)

Noting that there is a dark side to Shakti, some Theosophists – who quite rightly consider black magic as something very serious and to be thoroughly avoided – may conclude that it is thus best to ignore Shakti and leave her well alone. There are a few Theosophists who think this about Shiva also and who consider the very small amount of HPB’s statements regarding the “dark” side of what Shiva represents to be sufficient grounds to stay well away from, or even warn against, any study, discussion, or feeling of reverence for Shiva, thus ignoring that virtually everything she and the Masters said about Shiva was in fact very positive, placing him on an extremely high pedestal, and even directly declaring that “He is a god of the first order, and in his character of Destroyer higher than Vishnu, the Preserver, as he destroys only to regenerate on a higher plane.” (“The Theosophical Glossary” p. 301, Entry for “Siva” – see also The Real Significance of Shiva)

Of course, no student of Theosophy is under any pressure to accept or believe anything, nor to feel a certain way (if we accept reincarnation, then a particular inherent reverence or attraction towards either Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti is likely to have been carried over in our samskaras, i.e. skandhas), but we are encouraged to be genuinely open-minded and fearless in our pursuit of truth.

From Adi Shankaracharya (“Shankara-Acharya” literally means “Shiva-Teacher”) onwards, Advaitis have always been predominantly Shaivas (i.e. devotees or reverers of Shiva) rather than Vaishnavas (i.e. devotees or reverers of Vishnu). But to repeat something we said earlier: “There is no actual difference between Shiva and Vishnu, however, and Bhavani Shankar uses the name of Shiva interchangeably with that of Krishna or Vishnu, as did Adi Shankaracharya, who taught that the wise person sees no essential difference or distinction between Hara (Shiva) and Hari (Vishnu). In fact, Krishna himself in the Bhagavad Gita (Chapter 10, verse 23) asserts himself to be Shankara, another well known name and synonym of Shiva. Nevertheless, the name and identity of Shiva has always been associated with the more esoteric side of spiritual pursuits, studies, and practices, perhaps because, as H. P. Blavatsky confirms in “The Secret Doctrine,” “Siva is pre-eminently and chiefly an ascetic, the patron of all Yogis and Adepts . . . Rudra Siva, the great Yogi, the forefather of all the Adepts – in Esotericism one of the greatest Kings of the Divine Dynasties. Called “the Earliest” and the “Last,” he is the patron of the Third [i.e. Lemurian], Fourth [i.e. Atlantean], and the Fifth [i.e. ours, the Aryan or Indo-Caucasian] Root-Races.” (Vol. 2, p. 282, 502)

It is worth remembering that Theosophy tells us there is a light and a dark side to everything, to every force and energy in the Universe. That does not just apply to Shakti and/or Shiva. Even in the Bhagavad Gita, as in other Krishna-centred and Vishnu-centred scriptures, it is hinted at and in some cases directly shown that Krishna and Vishnu too have a “darker” side to them that is not really any better or purer than that of Shiva or Shakti, even if it may generally be of a somewhat different character. But naturally, a spiritual aspirant’s focus should be on the lighter, brighter side, the truly spiritual side, of each and all.

And HPB says in the above “Glossary” quote that the Shaktas (or Shakti devotees) of the “right-hand” path are in fact white magicians, practitioners of white magic. “White magic” means good, beneficent, altruistic, selfless use of occult powers and forces and is what the Adepts or Masters of Wisdom practise and apply. If we were to avoid or ignore or fear everything that is known to have a dark side, we would have to avoid even occultism/esotericism itself, in which case none of us would even be reading this today!

The Dakshinachara and Vamachara which HPB speaks of are not the names of particular sects or schools or groups but are the generic terms or designations “right hand” and “left hand” and relate to the nature and type of tantra that is studied and practised. Certain forms of Hindu tantra are universally recognised as being “right-hand” or white tantra, such as the Sri Vidya tantra with which Adi Shankaracharya and Advaita Vedanta were/are connected. Even that, however, is nowadays sometimes promoted to the public (never by the Advaita mathams or monasteries but rather by individual “guru” figures, often desirous of attracting a personal following etc.) as a way of acquiring wealth and fulfilment of personal desires by occult means, thus degrading a truly sacred esoteric system and turning it into a form of black magic.

Regarding the fact that there is such a thing as white tantra and that it is pure and good, we can also find statements by HPB such as: “Some of the “White” Tantras, especially the one treated upon in the present article [Note: This was in reference to the Mahanirvana Tantra], contain extremely important information for Occultists.” (Footnote to “The Tantras”) And: “As there are both magic (pure psychic science) and sorcery (its impure counterpart) so there are what are known as the “White” and “Black” Tantras. The one is an exposition, very clear and exceedingly valuable, of occultism in its noblest features, the other a devil’s chap-book of wicked instructions to the would-be wizard and sorcerer.” (Note to “A Description of The Tantrik Mystic Rites”)

So let us, as Theosophists, not demonise the word “tantra,” lest we shut ourselves off from esoteric truth through a misguided and fearful closed-mindedness and give a bizarrely puritanical impression of Theosophy to others, particularly Indians and Tibetans as well as the ever-growing number of Westerners who have made themselves more familiar with Indian and Tibetan religious philosophy than are most Theosophists. What we should be focusing on in this regard is the distinction between white and black tantra, which is something most people, especially in the West, are unfortunately currently unaware of.

This is all gone into in much greater depth in the article the above is excerpted from (The Secret of Daiviprakriti – The Light of The Logos) and in the new article Theosophy and Tibetan Buddhist Tantra.

Please make use of the site search function (the magnifying glass symbol at the top of the page) and visit the Articles page to see the complete list of over 400 articles covering all aspects of Theosophy and the Theosophical Movement.

~ BlavatskyTheosophy.com ~