In the Tarot, the Fifteenth Arcanum, The Devil, the basic image is of two people, a man and a woman, bound in chains to a central winged figure which is usually taken to be 'the Devil' as is commonly understood.
It’s worth noting that in the demonic orders there are not only the fallen entities of the celestial hierarchies (with the exception of Seraphim) but also of entities of non-hierarchical origin, ie. entities who derive their origin not from a spiritual but a mental source.
In Tibetan mystical practice, we find the phenomenon of the conscious practice of the creation and destruction of demons, or tulpas, as they are known.
This practice derives from the occult training of the will and imagination. The training consists of three parts: the creation of tulpas through concentrated and directed imagination, then their evocation and, lastly, the freeing of consciousness from their hold on it by an act of knowledge which destroys them – through which it is realised that they are only a creation of the imagination, and therefore illusory.
The aim of this training is therefore to arrive at a disbelief in demons after having created them through the force of imagination and having confronted their terrifying apprehension.
Alexandra David-Neel, who wrote with a deep knowledge of the subject, said:
"I have questioned several lamas on this subject (of incredulity). “Incredulity comes sometimes,” answered a geshes (graduate) from Derge (a town in Kham, Eastern Tibet). “Indeed, it is one of the ultimate objects of the mystic masters, but if the disciple reaches this state of mind before the proper time he misses something which these exercises are designed to develop, that is fearlessness. Moreover, the teachers do not approve of simple incredulity, they deem it contrary to truth. The disciple must understand that gods and demons do really exist for those who believe in their existence, and that they are possessed with the power of benefitting or harming those who worship or fear them. However, very few reach incredulity in the early part of their training. Most novices actually see frightful apparitions.”
(She assumed that ‘He who does not believe in demons would never be killed by them’, but was instructed otherwise: ‘According to that it must also follow that a man who does not believe in the existence of tigers may feel confident that none of them would ever hurt him even if he were confronted by such a beast.’)
“Visualising mental formations, either voluntarily or not, is a most mysterious process. What becomes of these creations? May it not be that like children born of our flesh, these children of our mind separate their lives from ours, escape our control, and play parts of their own? Must we not also consider that we are not the only ones capable of creating such formations? And if such entities (tulpas, magical creatures) exist in the world, are we not liable to come into touch with them, either by the will of their maker or from some other cause? Could one of these causes not be that, through our mind or through our material deeds, we bring about the conditions in which these entities are capable of manifesting some kind of activity?. . .One must know how to protect oneself against the tigers to which one has given birth, as well as against those that have been begotten by others.”
(Alexandra David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet, London, 1967, pp. 146-148)
The French magician Eliphas Levi saw in demons – such as incubi and succubi – only creations of human will and imagination, projecting, individually or collectively, their content into the malleable substance of the ‘astral light’ and thus engendering demons, which are therefore engendered in Europe in exactly the same way as the Tibetan tulpas.
The art and method of ‘making idols’, forbidden by the Second Commandments, is ancient and universal. It seems that at all times and everywhere demons have been engendered.
Both Eliphas Levi and the Tibetan masters are in agreement not only with respect to the subjective and psychological origin of demons but also with respect to their objective existence. Engendered subjectively, they become forces independent of the subjective consciousness which engendered them. They are, in other words, ‘magical creations’, for magic is the objectification of that which takes its origin in subjective consciousness.
Demons that have not arrived at the stage of objectification, ie. at that of an existence separate from the psychic life of their parents, have a semi-autonomous existence which is designated in modern psychology by the term ‘psychological complex'. C. G. Jung regarded these as parasitic entities, which are to the psychic organism what, for example, cancer is to the physical organism. A psychopathological ‘complex’ is therefore a demon, when it has not come from outside but is engendered by the patient himself. In its state of gestation it is still not born, but it certainly has an almost autonomous life of its own, nourished by the psychic life of its parent. C. G. Jung said on this subject:
“It appears as an autonomous formation intruding upon consciousness... It is just as if the complex were an autonomous being capable of interfering with the intentions of the ego. Complexes do indeed behave like secondary or partial personalities possessing a mental life of their own. (C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion; trsl. R. F. C. Hull, The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 11, London, 1958, pp. 13-14)
Such an ‘autonomous being, capable of interfering with the intentions of the ego’ and which ‘possesses a mental life of its own’ is nothing other than what antiquity understands by the term ‘demon’.
How are demons engendered? They are the misbegotten fruit of the will and the imagination, born in the psychic life of an individual. A desire that is perverse or contrary to nature, followed by the corresponding imagination, together constitute the act of generation of a demon.
As regards the Card of the Fifteenth Arcanum, the two personages, the one male and the other female, attached to the pedestal of the central personage of the card are not fallen humanity in thrall to the Devil, as one might be tempted to believe (excuse the pun). Rather, on the contrary, it is they who are the parents of the demon and they have subsequently become enslaved by their own creation. They represent perverse will and imagination (both have horns representing mental activity) contrary to nature, which have given birth to an androgynous demon, ie. to a psychic entity endowed with desire and imagination, which dominates the forces that engendered it.
With respect to generation effected collectively, known by the term egregore – is likewise the product of will and imagination, which in this case are collective.
+++
The function of the shaman, and the sin-eater, is closely associated with this.
The role of the logismoi in Orthodox psychology is also closely associated with this process.
It’s worth noting that in the demonic orders there are not only the fallen entities of the celestial hierarchies (with the exception of Seraphim) but also of entities of non-hierarchical origin, ie. entities who derive their origin not from a spiritual but a mental source.
In Tibetan mystical practice, we find the phenomenon of the conscious practice of the creation and destruction of demons, or tulpas, as they are known.
This practice derives from the occult training of the will and imagination. The training consists of three parts: the creation of tulpas through concentrated and directed imagination, then their evocation and, lastly, the freeing of consciousness from their hold on it by an act of knowledge which destroys them – through which it is realised that they are only a creation of the imagination, and therefore illusory.
The aim of this training is therefore to arrive at a disbelief in demons after having created them through the force of imagination and having confronted their terrifying apprehension.
Alexandra David-Neel, who wrote with a deep knowledge of the subject, said:
"I have questioned several lamas on this subject (of incredulity). “Incredulity comes sometimes,” answered a geshes (graduate) from Derge (a town in Kham, Eastern Tibet). “Indeed, it is one of the ultimate objects of the mystic masters, but if the disciple reaches this state of mind before the proper time he misses something which these exercises are designed to develop, that is fearlessness. Moreover, the teachers do not approve of simple incredulity, they deem it contrary to truth. The disciple must understand that gods and demons do really exist for those who believe in their existence, and that they are possessed with the power of benefitting or harming those who worship or fear them. However, very few reach incredulity in the early part of their training. Most novices actually see frightful apparitions.”
(She assumed that ‘He who does not believe in demons would never be killed by them’, but was instructed otherwise: ‘According to that it must also follow that a man who does not believe in the existence of tigers may feel confident that none of them would ever hurt him even if he were confronted by such a beast.’)
“Visualising mental formations, either voluntarily or not, is a most mysterious process. What becomes of these creations? May it not be that like children born of our flesh, these children of our mind separate their lives from ours, escape our control, and play parts of their own? Must we not also consider that we are not the only ones capable of creating such formations? And if such entities (tulpas, magical creatures) exist in the world, are we not liable to come into touch with them, either by the will of their maker or from some other cause? Could one of these causes not be that, through our mind or through our material deeds, we bring about the conditions in which these entities are capable of manifesting some kind of activity?. . .One must know how to protect oneself against the tigers to which one has given birth, as well as against those that have been begotten by others.”
(Alexandra David-Neel, Magic and Mystery in Tibet, London, 1967, pp. 146-148)
The French magician Eliphas Levi saw in demons – such as incubi and succubi – only creations of human will and imagination, projecting, individually or collectively, their content into the malleable substance of the ‘astral light’ and thus engendering demons, which are therefore engendered in Europe in exactly the same way as the Tibetan tulpas.
The art and method of ‘making idols’, forbidden by the Second Commandments, is ancient and universal. It seems that at all times and everywhere demons have been engendered.
Both Eliphas Levi and the Tibetan masters are in agreement not only with respect to the subjective and psychological origin of demons but also with respect to their objective existence. Engendered subjectively, they become forces independent of the subjective consciousness which engendered them. They are, in other words, ‘magical creations’, for magic is the objectification of that which takes its origin in subjective consciousness.
Demons that have not arrived at the stage of objectification, ie. at that of an existence separate from the psychic life of their parents, have a semi-autonomous existence which is designated in modern psychology by the term ‘psychological complex'. C. G. Jung regarded these as parasitic entities, which are to the psychic organism what, for example, cancer is to the physical organism. A psychopathological ‘complex’ is therefore a demon, when it has not come from outside but is engendered by the patient himself. In its state of gestation it is still not born, but it certainly has an almost autonomous life of its own, nourished by the psychic life of its parent. C. G. Jung said on this subject:
“It appears as an autonomous formation intruding upon consciousness... It is just as if the complex were an autonomous being capable of interfering with the intentions of the ego. Complexes do indeed behave like secondary or partial personalities possessing a mental life of their own. (C. G. Jung, Psychology and Religion; trsl. R. F. C. Hull, The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 11, London, 1958, pp. 13-14)
Such an ‘autonomous being, capable of interfering with the intentions of the ego’ and which ‘possesses a mental life of its own’ is nothing other than what antiquity understands by the term ‘demon’.
How are demons engendered? They are the misbegotten fruit of the will and the imagination, born in the psychic life of an individual. A desire that is perverse or contrary to nature, followed by the corresponding imagination, together constitute the act of generation of a demon.
As regards the Card of the Fifteenth Arcanum, the two personages, the one male and the other female, attached to the pedestal of the central personage of the card are not fallen humanity in thrall to the Devil, as one might be tempted to believe (excuse the pun). Rather, on the contrary, it is they who are the parents of the demon and they have subsequently become enslaved by their own creation. They represent perverse will and imagination (both have horns representing mental activity) contrary to nature, which have given birth to an androgynous demon, ie. to a psychic entity endowed with desire and imagination, which dominates the forces that engendered it.
With respect to generation effected collectively, known by the term egregore – is likewise the product of will and imagination, which in this case are collective.
+++
The function of the shaman, and the sin-eater, is closely associated with this.
The role of the logismoi in Orthodox psychology is also closely associated with this process.
Do you have a link to a website with more information and context? Or any book title to recommend? 