Magic

The Brill Dictionary of Religion Edited by Kocku von Stuckrad . Revised edition ofMetzler Lexikon Religion edited by Christoph Auffarth, Jutta Bernard and Hubert Mohr Translated from the German by Robert R. Barr Volume III M-R BRILL Leiden ·Boston 2006 This book is printed on acid free paper. Dustjacket design and photography by Celine Ostendorf and Ivo Romein. Despite our efforts we have not been able to trace all rights holders to some copyrighted material. The publisher welcomes communications from copyright holders, so that the appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission matters. Original German language edition: Metzler Lexikon Religion, vol. 1-4. Stuttgart, Germany. Copyright© J. B. Metzlersche Verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag 2000. Vol. 1 published 1999 as: Metzler Lexikon Religion. Gegenwart- Alltag- Medien. Band 1: Abendmahl -Guru. Herausgegeben von Christoph Auffarth, Jutta Bernard, Hubert Mohr, unter Mitarbeit von Agnes Imhof und Silvia Kurre. Stuttgart · Weimar, vii xi 1999. ISBN 3-476-01551-3. Vol. 2 published 1999 as: Metzler Lexikon Religion. Gegenwart ·- Alltag ·- Medien. Band 2: Haar- Osho-Bewegung. Herausgegeben von Christoph Auffarth, Jutta Bernard, Hubert Mohr, unter Mitarbeit von Agnes Imhof und Silvia Kurre. Stuttgart · Weimar, 1999· ISBN 3-476-01552-1. Vol. 3 published 2000 as: Metzler Lexikon Religion. Gegenwart- All tag- Medien. Band 3: Paganismus -Zombie. Herausgegeben von Christoph Auffarth, Jutta Bernard, Hubert Mohr, unter Mitarbeit von Agnes Imhof und Silvia Kurre. Stuttgart · Weimar, 2000. ISBN 3·476 .. 01553-X. Vol. 4 published 2002 as:. Metzler Lexikon Religion. Gegenwart - All tag - Medien. Band 4: Text- und Bildquellen, Filmographie, Zeittafeln, Gesamtregister. Herausgegeben von Christoph Auffarth und Hubert Mohr, unter Mitarbeit von Benita von Behr, Jutta Bernard und Kirsten Holzapfel. Stuttgart· Weimar, 2002. ISBN 3-476-01554-8. 535 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-data LC Control Number ISBN (Vol. 1): 90 04 12429 2 ISBN (Vol. 2): 90 04 12430 6 ISBN (Vol. 3): 90 04 12431 4 ISBN (Vol. 4): 90 04 12432 2 ISBN (Set): 90 04 12433 o ©Copyright 2006 by Koninldijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1be Netherlands. Koninldijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martin us Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 0 I923, USA. Fees are subject to change. Printed in The Netherlands 1129 1134 • Macrocosm The microcosm/macrocosm analogy regards the human being as a 'little world' and as an image of the 'big world' (the cosmos) that stands in relationship with it or is influenced by it (thus, by way of example, that certain constellations of stars determine human destiny;--+ Astrology). Various religions, and Weltanschauung traditions, host a conception of these chains of laws: by way of example, in -> Buddhism and -+ Lamaism they are present in the correspondences of the cosmos or stars and the energy channels in the human body; they also prevail in ritual practice (Tantrism, Yoga), and in the Tibetan --+ Mandala. In the alchemical symbol of the egg God's creation is rehearsed 'in little: 1be purpose of microcosm and macrocosm analogies is to evoke the aspect of totality (holism), a concept found today in alternative medicine (body/soul/mind), as well as in esoteric concepts. -+ Astrology, Esotericism, Meaning/Signification futta Bernard Magic Origins of the Term 'Magic' Attempts at Definition and Their Critique The term "magic" has served to indicate, in the history of Western culture, a variety of ideas and of practices, often related to religion and/or science. Consequently, the term has been historically defined and understood in many different ways, according to the context in which it has been used. The ancient Greek term mageia, which is at the origin of all modern words related to 'magic; had a Persian origin, and served to indicate, since its adoption by Greek culture, religious activities considered to be exotic, unsanctioned, or forbidden. The term kept these mostly negative connotations in Roman culture, where it was translated as magia. Especially during the late Hellenistic period, however, more positive connotations of magic began to manifest themselves, as appears in contemporary documents such as Apuleius's (c. 125-170 CE) Apologia and the so-called "Greek Magical Papyri:' In this context magic was used not so much to describe the practices or the beliefs of others, as had been mostly the case so far, but positively claimed and self-assumed by the authors. The rise of Christianity, however, would add new weight and contents to the negative connotations of magic, which would remain dominant in Western culture until very recent times. The subsequent conflict between negative and positive views of magic remains one of the most significant, and for a long time underestimated, aspects of Western culture. Since the second half of the nineteenth century, scholars working in the social sciences (anthropology, sociology, psychology) and in the study of religion have repeatedly tried to define the term as a more or less universal category of human thought and/or behavior, in contrast with (and often in opposition to) other broad categories such as --> 'religion' and-+ 'science: In so doing they have often translated into scholarly discourse some of the old polemical dichotomies that have marked the history of this notion in the West. Tl criticize, der the i of magi' compr01 would b, has not revitalizi it has sh ences, to recent S\ not inch ject of ar understa concepts new fielc fered, an that had magic sti Given th during tl which ha restricts i tions oft sociologi thevario1 been con The most alist scho (1854--1 s evolution Their the presence than soci Tylor, oft unlike Fr sharp dis several oJ ForTylor exclusive for the ot of accide reality. It understo of'primi1 play a sig of his "m magical" rational, the religi Magic • 1135 tg as a 'little mds in relathat certain . Various re:se chains of rare present channels in 'oga), and in )d's creation m analogies vin alterna- "tta Bernard ｾｲｮ＠ culture, 'or science. erstood in been used. lern words ｾＧ＠ since its ｾｸｯｴｩ｣Ｌ＠ unmotations iuring the tgic began :has Apull Papyri." ces or the y claimed er, would :ic, which mes. The :remains .spects of 1g in the study of miversal often in 'science: 1e of the min the West. These abstract, universal definitions of magic have been increasingly criticized after the Second World War, and especially since the 1970s, under the impact of postmodern and postcolonial theories. Scholarly notions of magic have been seen as ethnocentric and inherently biased, thereby compromising an objective understanding of the phenomena to which they would be applied. As a consequence, if magic as a strict theoretical problem has not disappeared altogether, as is shown by several recent attempts at revitalizing its use as a valid scholarly category, it seems nevertheless that it has shifted, from the center of methodological debate in the social sciences, to its margins. For instance, it is perhaps significant to note that in a recent survey of the most important terms in religious studies, magic was not included at all. 1 At the same time, however, magic has become the object of an increasingly large number of detailed historical analyses, aimed at understanding the evolution of its concept (or, rather, the constellation of concepts associated to it) in Western history. The recent development of a new field specifically devoted to the study of Western-> esotericism has offered, among others, a convenient frame for the historical study of a subject that had been neglected, from that perspective, for too long. For this reason, magic still shows signs of great vitality as an object of scholarly study. Given the great complexity and breadth of the scholarly debate on magic during the last 130 years, and of the number of theories and definitions which have been proposed during this span of time, the following summary restricts itself to the main figures and stages of this debate. Several classifications of theories of magic have been proposed: evolutionist, intellectualist, sociological, emotionalist, functionalist, depending on the aspects on which the various definitions of magic have focused or the ways in which they have been constructed. A Cornucopia of Classifications The most important authors belonging to what has been called the intellectualist school are the British Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) and James G. Frazer (1854-1941). These two authors were also particularly influenced by the evolutionist theories of their times (-+ Evolutionism; Theory of Evolution). Their theories have been defined as intellectualist because, in their view, the presence of magic could be explained in terms of processes of thought, rather than social behavior, mostly related to a primitive stage of human evolution. Tylor, often considered as the founder of modern anthropology, did not, unlike Frazer, elaborate a full-fledged theory of magic, nor did he trace a sharp distinction between religion and magic, but he dealt with the subject in several of his works, mainly in his highly influential Primitive Culture (1871). For Tylor magic is the result of a wrong association of ideas, typical (but not exclusive) of the 'primitive man: The primitive man mistakes the subjective for the objective plan, and thinks that objects associated in his mind because of accidental similarity or analogy should also be connected in objective reality. It is mostly on the basis of these illusory connections, sometimes understood as impersonal principles or forces, that magic works in the view of'primitive man: 1he belief in spiritual beings, on the other hand, does not play a significant role in Tylor's definition of magic, and is rather at the basis of his "minimum definition of religion" (-+ Animism). Tylor contrasts the magical way of thinking of the primitive man especially with the supposedly rational, scientific one of the modern man, and only to a lesser extent with the religious one. In the economy ofTylor's ideas, therefore, the distinction Edward B. Tylor 1136 • between magic and science was much sharper than the one between magic and religion. fames G. Frazer Sociological Interpretations Frazer systematically presents his ideas on magic beginning with the second edition of his classic The Golden Bough (1900). According to him, magic is clearly and neatly distinguished both from science and religion, and they form together a sort of triad. The distinction is not only intellectual, but also in terms of evolution. Frazer posits that magic, religion, and science belong to three successive stages of human evolution, which go from the most primitive to the present, modern and enlightened stage. Frazer's distinction between the three modes ofthought is obviously inspired by Tylor. Magic is based on wrong associations of ideas, religion on the belief in spiritual entities, and science, having emancipated from both, represents a finally valid, objective view of reality. But Frazer introduces an interesting nuance in giving also a positive connotation to magic. The latter is in fact closer to science than _religion (although it represents a more primitive stage on the evolutionary scale) because it recognizes the presence of natural, immutable laws governing the universe, however mistakenly primitive man understands them. Religion, on the other hand, renounces the idea of universal natural laws because it prefers to believe in the intervention of gods or other spiritual entities, whose range of action would not be limited by any natural regularity. It is interesting to notice, in this respect, that religion is supposed to deal with those entities with an attitude of veneration or submission. However, magic and religion can find themselves mixed sometimes, when the belief in spiritual beings is not accompanied by this attitude of veneration, but rather by one of coercion. In the latter case these beings are treated like inanimate agents. In this manner Frazer, who was following here the ideas ofW Robertson Smith (1846-1894), was clearly giving a scholarly coat to a distinction (veneration vs. coercion), which had been used polemically in traditional theological discourses on magic, and which would remain highly influential in subsequent scholarly discourses on magic. Frazer also elaborated and systematized the explanation of the wrong association of ideas on which magic was supposed to be based. For him magic can be of two kinds: 'contagious' (when two objects that have been in physical contact are imagined to maintain a reciprocal influence even after they are separated), or 'homeopathic' (when the reciprocal influence is a consequence of the similarity of the two objects). Some early sociological interpretations of magic can be found already in the writings of the British historian of Semitic cultures, W. Robertson Smith (Lectures on the Religion of the Semites, 1889). Robertson Smith's ideas on magic influenced later, in the early years of the twentieth century, the French group of scholars gathered around the figure of Emile Durkheim (18581917). Durkheim himself (Les Formes elementaires de Ia vie religieuse, Fr., "The Elementary Forms of Religious Life"; 1912), and more systematically his colleagues Marcel Mauss (1872-1950) and Henri Hubert (1870-1927) (Esquisse d'une theoriegenerale de la magie, Fr., "A General Theory of Magic"; 1904) addressed the problem of magic within the context of their largely shared ideas on religion and society. Instead of focusing on the mode of thought of individuals, like the English intellectualists, this group of French sociologists preferred to emphasize the social conditions in which the phenomenon of magic develops. According to them, religion is the expression of a socia Religious the social and its air against, th anti-socia and margi in anygiv1 to one ove Despite rather eas· cent as we nature. It 1 theories oJ of them w interpreta1 Not onlytl of magic., losopher F Marett's ap the associa ofbothma in a primit ratherbelo pression 'n explanatio1 more comf relieved by in a symbo This explar tionalist th Bronislaw the history an in dispel previous a1 reports, M the object 1 linowski m is provoke, control of· different fr It is intew positive fw to overcorr of help. It of magic t< Under the ideologica Jar history ----------------------------------------------------------ween magic of a social structure and serves to maintain the cohesion of a community. Religious rites are, therefore, public and directed at the common wealth of the social group. Magic, on the other hand, is practiced on a private basis, and its aims are mostly individualistic. They at best ignore, and at worst go against, the common interests of the community. Thus, magic represents an anti-social phenomenon, which can explain why it is frequently forbidden and marginalized. On the other hand, magic and religion seem to be found in any given social structure, and no chronological precedence is attributed to one over the other, as Frazer had believed. Despite the difference of approach from the intellectualist school, it is rather easy to see that this sociological interpretation of magic is reminiscent as well of older polemical discourses on magic, mostly of a theological nature. It could be argued that, with the intellectualist and the sociological theories of magic the stage was set for all later discussions on the topic. Most of them will in fact build, often critically, on the ideas of these two different interpretations of the phenomenon. 1 the second m, magic is n, and they ual, but also ence belong n the most . distinction ylor. Magic in spiritual .1ts a finally ting nuance tct closer to :tage on the immutable nan under)f universal )ds or other any natural is supposed ubmission. imes, when ｾｯｦ＠ venera; are treated 1g here the 1olarly coat Jolemically 11ld remain Frazer also ociation of c can be of cal contact f are sepaequence of ｾ｡､ｹ＠ in the son Smith .'s ideas on the French im (1858ｾｩ･ｵｳＬ＠ Fr., ematically )70-1927) of Magic"; eir largely ｾｭｯ､･＠ of of French 1 the pheｾｸｰｲ･ｳｩｯｮ＠ Magic • 1137 ,. Not only the French sociological school criticized the intellectualist theories of magic. Also in England, in the same years, the anthropologist and philosopher R. R. Marett ( 1866-1943) elaborated a different kind of criticism. Marett's approach has been called emotionalist, because he does not focus on the association of ideas, but on the human emotions that he sees at the origin ofboth magic and religion. In his view, and in opposition to Frazer's theories, in a primitive culture magic and religion do not differentiate themselves, but rather belong to a continuum. For this reason, he has preferred to use the expression 'magico-religious' in that context. However, he also gives a specific explanation of magic as distinct from religion, which applies especially to more wmplex cultures. Magic arises from emotional tensions that cannot be relieved by operating directly on their source, and must therefore be solved in a symbolic or ritual way. R. R. Marett This explanation was particularly influential and stood at the origin ofJunetionalist theories of magic, as expressed by the Polish-born anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942). Malinowski is particular important in the history of anthropology for having advocated participant observation as an indispensable tool for studying and understanding other cultures. Unlike previous anthropologists, who studied 'primitive' cultures on second-hand reports, Malinowski spent long periods of time with the groups that were the object of his research, on the Trobriand Islands (Pacific Ocean). ForMalinowski magic offers the means to solve situations of emotional stress, which is provoked in primitive man by a lack of technology and, consequently, of control of the natural environment in which he lives and operates. Magic is different from religion, because, unlike the latter, it is always goal-directed. It is interesting to note that, in Malinowski's view, magic seems to acquire a positive function, because it can help both the individual and the community to overcome difficult situations in which neither science nor religion may be of help. It is of course tempting to relate this new, relatively positive vision of magic to the new approach of field-research and participant observation. Under the impact of a direct contact with the 'primitive' populations, old ideological assumptions concerning magic, obviously related to the particular history of Western culture, began perhaps to show their limits. B. Malinowski 1138 • L. Levy-Bruhl E. E. Evans-Pritchard Another author who must be mentioned here, more because of the influence he has had on later discourses on magic than for his direct treatment of the subject, is Lucien Levy- Bruhl (1857-1939). Levy-Bruhl did not produce a definite theory on magic, but he was particularly interested in understanding the functioning of primitive mentality and its difference from modern, scientific mentality. In his view primitive, or pre-logical, mentality is based on a particular way of thinking which he calls 'participation: This way of thinking is not considered as erroneous, childlike, or pathological. It is just based on different premises, and, being consistent with those premises, cannot even be considered as 'irrational: Participation, unlike scientific thought, is not based on causality. The mystical mind of the primitive sees a relation of identity and consubstantiality between persons and objects. The primitive can therefore believe in direct action on reality in a way that would be incompatible with normal causality. Several authors, including the English anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard (1902-1973), criticized Levy-Bruhl for supposing that it is possible to divide humanity between those who have a pre-logical mentality and those who have a scientific one. As a consequence, late in his life he modified his theory and admitted that both mentalities could be found in all cultures, including the modern Western one. Levy-Bruhl's ideas on pre-logical mentality represented an important step in that they helped emancipate 'primitive' man from the prejudice of being incapable of sound reasoning. He tried to understand his way of thinking on its own terms, and not only in relation to modern Western thinking, and thereby paved the way for later developments in the same direction, such as C. Levi-Strauss's structuralism. In his definition of magic, Malinowski had given universal value to his findings in the field, although they had been originally limited to a particular area of the Pacific(--> South Sea). Other authors engaged in field-research after him criticized this aspect of his work and followed a different direction. Such is the case with the aforementioned Edward E. Evans- Pritchard. In his classic study on an African population, Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic among the Azande (1937), Evans-Pritchard defined magic only in the terms of the culture he had studied, without pretending to make any conclusions on a supposedly universal nature of magic. In that context, therefore, magic refers to and translates a set of concepts, which have already their own specificity in the culture at issue. In so doing Evans-Pritchard broke with a tradition of universal, abstract definitions of magic, which he knew very well (Theories of Primitive Religion, 1965). The influence of his ideas will begin to be felt especially after the Second World War, but since then, social scientists have found it increasingly difficult to avoid the theoretical and methodological problems posed by the use of magic as a universal category. It is noteworthy that three of the most influential anthropologists of the post-war period, C. Levi-Strauss (b. 1908), Clifford Geertz (b. 1926), and Edmund Leach (1910-1989), despite their considerable differences on other points, have either come to the conclusion that magic as a scholarly concept should be dissolved, or have ignored the issue altogether, no doubt considering it as irrelevant for the needs of the discipline. On the other hand, recent ambi-· tious attempts at reviving magic as a universal scholarly category, such as D. L. O'Keefe's Stolen Lightning (1982), have not been able to create a wide consensus among scholars. During Martino on then identity the prob views (lY recurren has cont ture. De ation of Magic,2 of magic defining field of n meant tc 1 Finally,< that rese years. Th Western finds the periods 1 scholarly lar and t research. less intefl too in th I. TAYLOR Literatur BELlER, w in: Metho• Graham, ll Ernesto, M (English) I 1,2 (1933), Wouter J., Tylorand J Emergenct CHESI, Bri! fremden I History in Modernity Lawrence, Making M 2004; Suu York/Lond Rationalit) Magic-Rei Magic • 1139 of the influence reatment of the not produce a in understandfrom modern, ntality is based m.' This way of ogical. It is just premises, canentific thought, : sees a relation cts. The primi' that would be :vans-Pritchard ssible to divide md those who ified his theory ures, including rentality repretive' man from to understand on to modern 1pments in the !ue to his findo a particular field- research rent direction. itchard. In his 1 Magic among e terms of the 1clusions on a ｾＮ＠ magic refers wn specificity a tradition of well (Theories :gin to be felt dentists have ｾｴｨｯ､ｬｧｩ｣｡＠ s noteworthy t-war period, mund Leach points, have :pt should be sidering it as recent ambigory, such as :reate a wide During the post-war period two authors among others, the Italian E. de Martino (1908-1965) and the American R. Styers (b. 1958), have focused on the role that discourses on magic have had for the shaping of the cultural identity of the West and for the rise of modernity, and have helped to assess the problem of magic in new, potentially very fruitful ways. In De Martino's views (Magia e civilta, 1962) Western culture has been characterized by the recurrence of an anti-magical polemic, which, by a sort of dialectical process, has contributed creatively in defining the particular features of Western culture. De Martino sees in many of the scholarly theories of magic a continuation of this polemic under a new form. Styers, on the other hand (Making Magic, 2004), has focused more specifically on the importance of discourses of magic for the development of modernity. In his view, these discourses, in defining the illicit in three particular fields (the field of religious piety, the field of reason, and the field of sexuality), have tried to regulate them in ways meant to be compatible with the project of modernity. Magic as Polemical Discourse Finally, apart from the social sciences, it is probably in the field of history that research on magic has shown the greatest vitality in the past twenty years. This scholarly output, insofar as it focuses on the history of magic in Western culture, seems to be able to avoid the problems of definition, as it finds the term magic used in an ernie sense in the literature it studies. Most periods of -> European history of religion have been the object of recent scholarly studies focused on magic. The Greco-Roman period in particular and the medieval period have been explored by new groundbreaking research. The period after the -+ Enlightenment, which has attracted so far less interest from scholars than other periods, is now beginning to be studied too in that perspective. Magic in Historical Research 1. TAYLOR, Mark C. (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious Studies, Chicago/London 1998. Literature BELlER, Wouter W, "Religion and Magic: Durkheim and the Annee sociologique group", in: Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 7,2 (1995), 163-184; CUNNINGHAM, Graham, Religion and Magic: Approaches and Theories, New York 1999; DE MARTINO, Ernesto, Magia e civilta, Milan 1962; EvANS-PRITCHARD, Edward E., "The Intellectualist (English) Interpretation of Magic;' in: Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts, University of Egypt 1,2 (1933), 283-311; Idem, Theories of Primitive Religion, Oxford 1965; HANEGRAAFF, Wouter J., "The Emergence of the Academic Science of Magic: The Occult Philosophy in Tylor and Frazer;' in: MoLENDJIK, Arie L./PELS, Peter (eds.), Religion in the Making: The Emergence of the Sciences of Religion, Leiden 1998, 253-275; KIPPENBERG, Hans G./LuCHESI, Brigitte (eds.), Magie: Die sozialwissenschaftliche Kontroverse iiber das Verstehen fremden Denkens, Frankfurt/M. 1978; KrPPENBERG, Hans G., Discovering Religious History in the Modern Age, Princeton 2001; MEYER, Birgit/PELS, Peter (eds.), Magic and Modernity: Interfaces of Revelation and Concealment, Stanford 2003; O'KEEFE, Daniel Lawrence, Stolen Lightning: The Social Theory of Magic, New York 1982; STYERS, Randall, Making Magic: Religion, Magic, and Science in the Modern World, Oxford/New York 2004; SuLLIVAN, Lawrence E. (ed.), Hidden Truths: Magic, Alchemy, and the Occult, New York/London 1989; TAMBIAH, Stanley Jeyaraja, Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality, Cambridge 1990; VERSNEL, HendrikS., "Some Reflections on the Relationship Magic-Religion;' in: Numen 38,2 (1991), 177-197. 1140 • Mandala -> Amulet, Electricity, Enlightenment, Esotericism, Evil Eye, Evolutionism, Occultism, Paganism/Neopaganism, Power, Rationalism/Irrationalism, Religion, Science, Witch! Persecution of Witches Marco Pasi Mandala 1. In its general meaning, a mandala is a circle that divides a sacred place from the profane sphere. In Tibetan Buddhism(--> Lamaism), the concept designates a diagram bringing central doctrinal content to graphic expression, and serving as an aid for meditation. Through the aspects of a mandala, viewers may recall their religious tradition, and have practical meditation experiences as well. The basic form of the mandala consists in a concentric arrangement of circles and squares, together yielding a symmetrical, closed area. It represents a two-dimensional palace installation. There are also three-dim ensional representations. Inside the three outer circles, there is a rectangle, the 'Celestial Palace.' Its basic outline resembles the shape of the universe in Tibetan cosmography, and the four palace gates correspond to the four directions of the heavens. The midpoint is formed by the 'lotus center: whose analogy is the axis of the world, Mount Meru. In the center, a ---+ Buddha or bodhisattva is often to be seen, and other deities can also be represented there. Thus, there are numerous figures and symbols around the mandala, varying with particular doctrinal systems. There are not only picture-mandalas, but mandalas on the ground as spatial models made of colorful rice. Besides their ritual function, they are intended to represent the reciprocal relationship between --> macrocosm and microcosm. 2. The goal of meditation consists in simultaneously rendering the particular central form of a mandala visible, and experiencing it within oneself. To this purpose, the person meditating first imagines the form within her or his body, and then visualizes an external image of it. Finally, he should recognize that all of the images have sprung from his own mind, and are ultimately empty. · Literature BRAUEN, Martin, Das Mandala. Der heilige Kreis im trantrischen Buddhism us, Cologne 1992; DAGYAB, Loden S., Tibetan Religious Art, 2 vols., Wiesbaden 1972; Tucci, Giuseppe, The Theory and Practice of the Mandala: With Special Reference to the Modern Psychology of the Subconscious, London 1969. -> Buddhism, Image!Iconoclasm, Lamaism, Meditation, Tibet Thomas Schweer