Category Archives: Yoga

Everyone imagines they know what yoga is, but the notion commonly rests on the misconception that yoga is all about postures and breathing exercises. In fact, the development of postures and breathing came at a relatively late time and only forms a branch of Hatha Yoga—a branch that is not in any way a sum of even that specialised knowledge. Yoga, which is linked etymologically to ‘yoke’, includes both the goal and the means. The ‘union’ that is implicit is also mistaken for a uniting that takes place between two distinctly separate things, whereas it is really more of a return to one principle that has no second, so is more in the way of a fullness of realisation or total knowledge that involves the destruction of all ignorance concerning the true state of affairs.

The origin of yoga is far more ancient than is usually supposed. There are two darshanas or points of view within the Hindu doctrines that are closely linked, these being the principial cosmology of Shankhya, and the Yoga-Sutras attributed to Patanjali. Modern scholarship always insists on attributing traditional knowledge to an individual author, whereas names like ‘Shankhya’ are not the names of a personage but descriptive more of a specialised knowledge or science not in any way comparable to conventional scientific theories. Shankhya literally has the meaning of ‘category’, which is meant in the sense of synthetic knowledge of true principles (tattvas). Patanjali, who wrote down the aphorisms (sutras) of the yoga theory and practice, based on the Shankhya cosmology, does not refer to one person; it is a family name, indicative of a school of thought as a collective entity.

Furthermore, the great antiquity of yoga is made clear in the Sanskrit source texts and the commentaries on them by the ancient sages. Yoga practice is inseparable from the Shankhya teaching and that is attributed to Kapila, who is identified with Hiranyagarbha, the Lord of the Universe in the present cycle or Manvantara. It is written that Kapila had acquired the sum total of all knowledge of the Manvantara previous to this present one, of which according to Hindu cosmology we are now at the end of the final phase called Kali Yuga.[1] Owing to the degradation that takes place at the end of a cosmic cycle it thus became necessary to write down the theory and practice of yoga about two thousand years ago—before that it was not necessary as knowledge was passed down through oral tradition.

When the knowledge was in danger of being forgotten and lost forever, Patanjali wrote it down in a concise form, which is known as the aphorisms or Yoga-Sutras. The nature of the ancient Sanskrit language is such that it requires commentaries to determine the meaning. The true meaning can only be construed by those who have direct knowledge of what is being written about, as opposed to the study of scriptures alone. For this reason much gets lost in translation into modern languages; this is all the more so when the translators lack the knowledge, as is the case with scholarly or academic commentators. The important thing is that knowledge in the way it is meant here cannot be learned without a valid teacher.

To repeat what was said earlier, the Shankhya darshana is a synthetic cosmology or a ‘natural science’ that was drawn from what already existed in the Vedas, and even thousands of years earlier, before anything was written down. It rests on ‘true principles’ (tattvas). It is not in any way a material science, in so far especially as ‘matter’ has no direct equivalent word in any ancient language. Matter itself is a modern theoretical notion based on a strictly limited view of causality, which shall here be briefly explained: Conventional scientific theories are insistent that all things perceptible by the senses, or perceptible by the senses supported by special machines or instruments, have a causal relation with other things of a similar ‘material’ class, and that also rests on an assumption that matter is in itself inert, requiring something else to move it. A material cause is not only sought for material things but is also sought for in things that are obviously subtler than gross matter. For example, it is becoming increasingly accepted, especially by the public, whose access to conventional science is limited to generalised presentations of what are in fact extremely specialised theories, that the mind, or what composes the mind, is caused by the brain, the physical organ. That owes to neuroscience, which as with all conventional sciences, seeks to restrict reality to what its own specialised and so extremely limited field can imagine. All such theories are, by their very nature as ‘invented knowledge’, constantly changed when new theories are produced; so there is always a kind of ‘falling behind’ where public acceptance of the ‘new facts’ amounts to acceptance of an ‘old fact’.

Such a way of theorising about nature and reality is the complete reverse of all ancient and traditional knowledge, which while prone to adaptation over time, never changes in its essential principles. Traditional doctrines assert that all things have a causal basis in a higher or subtler principle and are known thereby.

[1] See ‘Cosmic Cycles’, Nu Hermetica.

This description is adapted from our book Thunder Perfect Gnosis.

Influence of Buddhism on Occultism and Neo-Hinduism

Posted on 8th November 2025 by Metamorphosis

Buddhism, since more than a century ago, has been denatured and used by those with a hidden agenda to subvert the whole world towards long-term acceptance of the anti-traditional, anti-spiritual movement. Since the Theosophists held their first ‘Parliament of the World Religions’ on the 11th September 1893 the campaign has been remarkably successful. It was the aim of the Theosophists to introduce a new world religion that would homogenise all orthodoxy, ultimately replacing revealed religion with a counterfeit designed to propagate Western values and idealism. From there emerged Neo-Advaita or Neo-Hinduism, which is defined by its subversive propagation of that same idealism under the cover of its teaching Hindu studies to the West. This disguised anti-traditional movement first gained popularity through the very lucrative alliance between Swami Vivekananda and the Theosophists.

Let us go back to the beginning. Once a new, psychologised Buddhism had been introduced as a viable support to the ambitions of the Theosophists, the de-natured, tranquilised Buddhist panacea was eagerly taken up by psychologists in all areas of the theoretical science. According to an article by Seth Zuihõ Segall, ‘Buddhism and Psychology’,

Over the past century-and-a-half psychologists, psychiatrists, and psychoanalysts have analysed, pathologised, misinterpreted, appreciated, assimilated, adapted, and or converted to Buddhist ideas and practices. At the same time, psychological approaches to Buddhism have led to ‘naturalised’ and ‘psychologised’ forms of contemporary Buddhist practice, especially in ‘convert’ Buddhist communities.[1]

Left: Allan Bennett, friend and mentor to Aleister Crowley.

The powerful though intensely negative Shunyavada or No-Self ‘void’ theory all but swept away first the occultists, already willing to play host to any attack on tradition.[2] Our story begins in the late nineteenth century, while Vivekananda was taking centre stage in the anti-traditional campaign of the Theosophists. The notorious black magician and drug addict Aleister Crowley at first rejected Buddhism on the grounds that it is pessimistic as demonstrated by the Four Noble Truths, which he summed up as ‘Existence is Sorrow’. Allan Bennett, his friend and spiritual mentor in the Neo-Rosicrucian Order of the Golden Dawn, also a Theosophist, sensibly refused to accept Crowley’s absurd claim to be the New World Teacher of a ‘New Aeon’. Bennett, who was ordained with the Buddhist monk name Bhikkhu Ananda Metteyya, continued to campaign along with his Theosophist friends to establish Buddhism in England and Ireland.[3] It is curious to relate that later in life Crowley leaned increasingly to an orientalist interpretation of his Book of the Law, which was produced by means of spiritism when it was not simply fabricated by one who sought fit to personally identify himself with the Antichrist. This is so much so that one might even say Crowley became a crypto-Buddhist.

This ‘secret Buddhism’ was facilitated quite early on when another friend of Crowley contrived to interpret certain lines from the aforesaid book with the mathematical pseudo-formula 0 = 2. Put in more exact terms, this is expressed as the formulaic (+1) + (-1) = 0. The problem with this affirmation of ‘nothing’ or Buddhistic ‘emptiness’ is that it is not correct—the equation does not work, as any mathematician will tell us. The formula actually adds to 1 and that is all. A positive (+1) is not negated by having a negative value added to it.[4] The error is very much in keeping with the arguments of Buddhism though, which is where Crowley derived the false notion that two equal and opposite things cancel each other out leaving zero. However, they do not cancel out—which is a metaphysical impossibility otherwise they would both be nothing to start with. Instead, two equal and apparently opposite things are resolved in their transcendent, unitive principle. The false ‘cancelling’ argument has been used in Buddhism as a refutal of all else but the human mind. While insisting that the mind, as with everything else, is nothingness or ‘emptiness’, as with the Shunyavada ‘void’ theory, integral to that path in all its manifestations, Buddhists use this empty notion to deny that anything exists as a higher principle to the mind. Thus, in the denial, they actually affirm the mind as sole reality, even if it is ‘empty’. So according to them, it really is all nothing. Crazy as it sounds, this is the essence of Shunyavada Buddhism, though we will freely admit that in no tradition, even a heterodox one like Buddhism, should the teaching be confused with the goal.

In more recent times than those of Crowley and his disciples, the same erroneous lines of thought—ideas that nonetheless have great appeal to the ‘men of reason’ who cannot reach any further than the narrow limitations of their modernist ideologies—was a considerable influence on the occult fantasist and orientalist Kenneth Grant. No doubt for reasons of gaining an easy influence over his would-be followers, he applied the ubiquitous Shunyavada ‘void’ theory to the classical Qabalistic qliphoth or ‘shells of dead matter’, as moderns have interpreted this. The idea is that demons are ‘masks of emptiness’. It is therefore worthwhile to conjure demons, according to this thesis, with names taken from any source imaginable or available so as to acquire some sort of knowledge concerning reality or space—or ‘something’, as the goals of Grant’s invented tradition were always placed in extremely obscure and usually self-contradictory terms. When he was most clear on the great purpose of his peculiar brand of occult experimentalism, he defined it for members of his Typhonian Order as the ‘dissolution of all world governments’. Laudable as that might seem, the plan actually involved facilitating cracks or ‘fissures’ in the psychic or subtle defences of the world so that demonic forces or the Qliphoth as they are termed in the Qabalah could claim the earth and return it to conditions resembling the most nightmarish fantasies of the horror fiction writer H.P. Lovecraft. Owing to this deliberate (or strategic) obscurity—for there is in fact really ‘nothing’ at all behind Grant’s skewed reasoning—those who followed Grant have tended to pursue very ordinary, profane fetishism, which came about through the heavy sexualisation of all Grant’s fantasies, usually focussing on onanistic voyeurism. Others have watered down the pseudo-doctrine until it becomes no different from New Age popular psychological theories such as ‘exploring your dark side’ for the purpose of becoming a better human being; such simplistic morality lurks wherever such bourgeois manipulation gains a hold on the kind of minds susceptible to it.[5]

It is interesting to note how pervasive the 0 = 2 confabulation has proved to be, for Swami Sarvapriyananda, Minister of the Vedanta Society of New York, has mentioned it while giving a lengthy and elaborate justification of Buddhism. He presumably has no idea it is sourced from the works of Crowley as he cited a contemporary Western philosopher as its origin. He had also mentioned the Buddhistic ‘cancellation’ argument against all higher principles, a line of thought that he seems to find strangely compelling, so much so that he successfully completed a course in Buddhism at the prestigious Harvard University. The Swami seems to have been led through his association with postermodernist academia to go so far as tearing out the roots of his own lineage and tradition, publicly declaring that the ancient sages Gaudapada and Adi Shankaracharya were ‘wrong’ when they rejected the Buddhistic ‘void’ theory. A weak argument against the accusation of nihilism that the classical sages made against the Shunyavada ‘void’ has been suggested by the Swami, though it is nothing new, on grounds that the meaning is not ‘nothing’ but ‘no-thing’. This became very popular among the followers of Kenneth Grant, decades previously.

Swami Sarvapriyananda has also used this argument in his defence of Buddhistic emptiness, in which he has falsely claimed—to the delight of the postmodernist pundits—that there is really no difference between Shunyavada and Advaita Vedanta or at least, the goal is the same and that Shunyavada is a “mirror image” (in his words) of Advaita Vedanta. As a ‘satanic’ inversion of Advaita Vedanta, the mirror image analogy works but it seems the Swami is as yet unable to see that the inversion of a doctrine is in no way equal to the doctrine it is falsifying, and that furthermore the goal is not liberation but enslavement to the deepest illusion of all, that of the negation of the Self (Atma). For this reason Buddhism has been called ‘No-Self’, an entirely negative point of view as it denies all metaphysical principial reality. As for the ‘no difference’ between Advaitan Non-dualism and the Buddhist No-Self void theory, this amounts to saying there is no difference between an incomplete heterodox doctrine and a complete metaphysical one.

The obvious shortcoming of the ‘no-thing’ apology is that it only negates all objects of mind. That means there is only pure subjectivity as the Real, so long as we do not take that to mean mere psychological subjectivity. The Shunyavada ‘void’ School, however, rejects subjectivity as keenly as it denies objectivity! The notion that Buddhism and Advaita are then either comparable or even identical is also impossible on these grounds. An inevitable consideration now arises: if it is all about ‘no things’, no objects, what need do we have of Buddhism? We can do that with Ashtanga Yoga very well and it will also take us much further. Unlike the populist, westernised forms of Buddhism, we are not there required to adopt the profane attitude of atheism or indeed any such narrow-minded, heterodox teachings.

In Swami Sarvapriyananda’s small book Fullness and Emptiness: Vedanta and Buddhism, it is claimed that Advaita and Buddhism ‘spring from the same source’, while grossly misrepresenting then denouncing traditionalists for saying the same thing only more exactly. The fact that Buddhism was always a heterodox darshana is entirely omitted from this work, which typifies the approach taken by Neo-Hinduism, a term that expressly denotes the Western influence. For example, anything that does not fit with the core political and social agenda of the postmodernists is relegated to an ‘Old Hinduism’, as though antiquity counts against it automatically without any need of further explanation. The scholarly Foreword to the book, though not written by Swami Sarvapriyananda, makes an unfounded, malicious attack on traditionalism in two places, deliberately inverting the point of view of the Perennialist school of thought founded by the master metaphysican René Guénon. While this is no doubt due to incomprehension of the Primordial Tradition thesis put forward by Guénon, there is no justification for such outright lies.

However, the tactic of misrepresenting or even completely inverting what an author has written based on traditional doctrine is alway used by the anti-traditional movement to condemn something without need to supply evidence or reasoning.[6] If any evidence were needed for the ‘satanic’ inversion of spiritual truth employed here, it is declared in this same text that anciently, ‘spiritual experience’ actually followed establishment of a reasoned or rational point of view, instead of reason following a spiritual influence, as it properly should be and always is in the case of genuine metaphysical doctrines.[7]

Finally, the title of Sarvapriyananda’s book, Fullness and Emptiness: Vedanta and Buddhism, once again asserts the ‘mirror image’ view, while ignoring the fact that a totality or ‘fullness’ (Sanskrit purnam), which has its equivalent in the classical Greek pleroma, cannot be either a complement or an opposition to ‘emptiness’, which is pure negation. From the metaphysical point of view, if we were to accept fullness and emptiness then what happens is that emptiness, being nothing, is removed and only Brahma, the fullness, remains. This however is automatically limited by the hypothesis as it only extends to the principle of Pure Being, and Advaita goes one step further than even that. In this way, Buddhism, or at least Buddhism understood like this, is like Ashtanga Yoga but stopping in the beginning stages, where the content of the mind is eliminated by the practice and yet nothing further is realised. From the point of view of yoga practice, it is very hazardous for the practitioner.

Pervasive Buddhism: Notes

1. University of St Andrews, 6th June 2024: Article

2. Occultism is a field that was once marginalised but that has recently been declared acceptable by the new generation art establishment. To do that, they have subverted and misrepresented the work of historical artists, to make it seem as if they were pioneers in the Neo-Socialistic idealism that now pervades the fields of both art and literature. See our article, ‘Art and the Occult’:
https://www.ordoastri.org/colquhoun-ithell-surrealism-occult/

3. The anti-traditional plans of Bennett’s Theosophist cohorts included the ‘liberalisation of Christianity’. See René Guénon, Theosophy: History of a Pseudo-Religion.

4. Curiously, the formulaic 0 = 2 can be made to work but none of its advocates have understood how because they wanted to affirm the Buddhistic ‘void’. If the Zero is taken as metaphysical Zero, which means it does not represent quantity but is an analogy for the supreme principle, which is unmanifest, then it may be understood that the unmanifest contains all manifest and unmanifest possibilities.

5. See the third section of our book, Thirty-two paths of Wisdom [Ordo Astri].

6. Perennialism is somewhat inaccurately equated with Traditionalism. Guénon himself would not describe himself as either Perennialist or Traditionalist, and said there is a difference between Traditonalism and Tradition. Perennialism is ‘that which endures’.

7. It must be mentioned also that there are some who deliberately confuse the pure intellectual (and spiritual) Perennial Wisdom of Guénon with a different and political ‘perennialism’, which Guénon had no part in whatsoever. Postmodern scholars, on the other hand, always have a social-political agenda at the core of their obfuscation for they reduce all spirituality to ‘ordinary life’. For the same reason they reduce all ancient doctrines to ‘philosophy’, so it is no different to the theories and speculation that they build their careers on. All traditional scriptures insist that the knowledge is from a non-human (or supra-human) source—but that is well beyond the reach of academics to comprehend. On the contrary, it merely enrages them and they use everything at their disposal, including outright lies, to suppress the truth.

The photograph of Allan Bennett is thought to originate from early archives of the Buddhist Society of Great Britain and Ireland and later the Theosophical Society. Original publication: Bennett, Allan; Metteyya, Ananda. The Religion of Burma and Other Papers. A M S Press, Inc. ISBN 9780404167905. Immediate source: Archive Library.

Books by Oliver St John

Podcast Metaphysics of the Real: RSS.com
On RSS you can listen on 15 platforms, including Apple, Spotify, Amazon, etc.

Metaphysics of the Real podcast on YouTube Channel

Mantra Yoga and Initiation

Posted on 2nd November 2025 by Metamorphosis

The mantra is extremely important in all initiatic traditions as it is the primary means of conveying diksha or ‘initiation’ within the Orders or groups. Various meanings of the Sanskrit term also include ‘consecration’, ‘preparation’ and most interestingly, ‘new vision’, as seeing and knowledge often have the same meaning.

When the guru gives a mantra to a sadhaka, it is called japa as that implies continuous repetition. While that is not the only use of the mantra, japa is valuable as a means of controlling the mind and stabilising the knowledge, and can be very efficacious as a support to meditation. The word or phrase can itself be the object of meditation. The whole question of diksha is contentious and some prefer not to discuss the subject at all, which is understandable. One should certainly not discuss one’s personal mantra. Very often the same mantra will be given to a group; it is still ‘personal’ when it has been conferred, even if used by all the followers of a particular guru.

This article is from our book, Advaita Vedanta—Question of the Real.

Why is diksha contentious? Very often novices will pester us for japa or diksha when they have read or heard about it somewhere and sense its importance. However, that feeling does not take account of their readiness to receive it, especially in the real initiatic sense. Impatience is a clear indication of unworthiness, although there is no reason at all why it should not be requested. In so far as it really can transmit initiation then once received it is permanent, and this is why it has been said that no member of an Order can ever leave it, since it is an integral part of being. Those who do leave an Order, as of course happens frequently, especially in the volatile times we live in today, were never truly members so their departure is no different than someone dissociating from any profane club, association or society. Even if initiation were given, they would not have received it.

Mantra in Initiation

This brings up a very important question regarding initiation, in whatever way it is given. We will not discuss here the absurdity of ‘self-initiation’, which is very popular in neo-spiritualism, and will only state here that it is an oxymoron arising from sheer ignorance. Initiation must be transmitted from one who has knowledge of more than a theoretical order, or if not, then at least from one that has received authorisation to initiate from within an Order. Initiation, as we have said, may be given sometimes but not received. Likewise a seed may be cast upon stony ground and so will not flourish.

At the highest level diksha is no less than what is called guru darshana, where the samadhi of the guru is transferred to the practitioner at least temporarily—in which case they have to work on it of course. There are other cases where the person may receive a spiritual influence but owing to their lack of preparedness, its effect is detrimental—although this is usually temporary and it is known that sometimes the power has been subsequently removed by the guru. In such a case, they were not able to withstand the direct transference from the mind of a Brahma-jnanin. It will then become apparent that the giving of a mantra or diksha is far more than the practice within the Order of the Golden Dawn where a seasonal ‘password’ is given, or in some later derivatives of that, where the Neophyte has to figure out a ‘secret word’ from a code given in the ritual.[1]

A real mantra is never merely invented or made up. The word or phrase will often be one well known from the Gita or Upanishads, for example, in which case the question arises as to how then can it be in any way ‘secret’ or indeed personal? It is special because it has been given in the way we have indicated. It is not merely a word, there is power behind it, which is the power of transmission. The guru will also give personal instruction in how to pronounce it and how to use it, which may be different according to the individual.

The secret then is not in a word itself, as is the case with shruti (‘direct’) texts. This is further explained by the bija mantra, where not only a word is given but also a deity, called Ishta Devata, the ‘chosen deity’. The mantra in this case is linked to the deity and usually a name of the deity is included, as with the much celebrated Om Nama Shiva-ya. There are countless examples in scripture and in hymns of praise. The most important of all of them is Om or AUM as it is a name of Brahma and much else besides.[2]

The three letters A, U, M are merged into one figure. The chandra-bija is at the top, which literally means ‘moon and dot (or point)’. All mantras include what is also called the bija-nada, which is indicative of subtle sound, not uttered physically. The bija ‘point’ is placed over the mantric word to indicate this. It is for the same reason—of the very subtle nature of this sound—that AUM is referred to in the Vedas indirectly, as Pranava, which is AUM or Brahma Nirguna.[3] This can be taken to mean, ‘a boat that carries us away from world illusion and to the Real’. This is further indicated by the moon and point.

It is often said in books or literature that mantras are to be sounded aloud with the voice. While this is sometimes done, it is not the way to enter the mystery of the bija-nada. It is therefore best to utter the word silently. In the highest form of the nada, it is not uttered at all, not even mentally, but is heard though not with the ears or even the inward sense of hearing. In this case, what is actually experienced is completely indescribable. There are lesser degrees of this, which amount to more indirect forms of knowledge.

The yantra, ‘image’, is also used extensively, and there are countless examples even within Hinduism, let alone neo-spiritualism where symbols are invented as often as they are drawn from a valid tradition. Apart from these—some of which can be effective—the best are no doubt to be found within the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs. Some of the most effective within the Tantras, and which are also very well known, also happen to be the simplest, for example the point within a triangle:

The purpose of this is to meditate, using the bindu in the centre as the focal point. Such a yantra should preferably be hand drawn and painted by the sadhaka. While it can be meditated on externally, as with the mantra it is best when it is transferred to the subtle sense of vision in the first instance. After that, depending on the skill of the operator, the image itself is lost and the real knowledge of the symbol is known directly.

Another form of yantra is the image of the Ishta Devata. This is used in combination with the bija mantra. Traditionally, the idea is to build the image of the deity imaginatively in as much detail as possible. In practice, some are better at this than others, and in fact it is not really essential, especially as the idea is not to stay with the imagination; ideally, the created ‘picture’ is replaced by the vision of the deity, which is not at all the same thing as imagining it. Although it is not in any way a supreme realisation or something of that order, there are ‘degrees’ or levels of reality and the vision is of a higher order generally than mere visualisation. This practice is also part of what is called Ishvara Pranidhāna in the Yoga-Sutras.

Mantras and Chakras

Finally, a word should be said regarding the use of bija mantra images and sounds associated with the chakras. There is much of this written about in popular books and elsewhere, and that removes such practices entirely from their traditional use, so we will not give here a list of them. One might gain the impression, even from what might appear to be authoritative sources that the use of mantras extends no further than a means of helping with bodily health or psychological problems. In fact, using them ignorantly in the ways often suggested can be harmful—often the best thing that can happen is that nothing happens at all. Why is this? The methods are ancient and while the main use of these was spiritual, that does not mean that a spiritual influence will have a beneficial effect on one that uses them without knowledge and without a guru to guide them.

Even in tradition, mantras can be used for material purposes and this is not necessarily illegitimate but obviously there is ignorance prevailing in the person using them in this way, exactly as in the case of magical talismans. Our recommendation is to use the mantra and yantra for spiritual purposes, which means knowing the Real as the ultimate goal.

Notes

1. For example, using the Western colour correspondences to the paths of the Tree of Life in the King Scale: blue, yellow, orange-yellow, emerald green, blue-black: MABYN, a transliteration from Hebrew, sometimes rendered without the yod.
2. One should refer, in the first instance, to the Mandukya Upanishad, which is the authoritative treatise on AUM.
3. Thus repetition of the sacred AUM is called Pranava Japa.

Books by Oliver St John

Podcast Metaphysics of the Real: RSS.com
On RSS you can listen on 15 platforms, including Apple, Spotify, Amazon, etc.

Metaphysics of the Real podcast on YouTube Channel