Hugh B. Urban

A thoughtful account of the influence of 'sex magic' within (and on the cultural shift from) Victorian values through modernity to the current post-modern melange of consumerism and radical individualism. Urban looks at the issues through key figures and 'schools' and his book shows how Ronald Hutton has opened a space for other academics who can offer serious insights into our contemporary condition by exploring previously taboo subjects despite the fears of their academic peers.

Randolph, show more Reuss, Crowley, Evola, Gardner, LaVey and Spare are all studied through a glass that has its mildly Marxist moments (and is no worse for that). However, if you are looking for a sex book as opposed to an analysis and source for the social treatment of sex, forget it - this is a wonderfully anti-aphrodisiac text. You will never see Western Tantra in the same light again. A strong recommendation and a significant contribution to cultural studies. show less

In this lucid book, Urban provides an overview of the development of discourse about “Tantra” and “Tantrism” in India and the West from the 18th through the 20th century. He emphasizes the interplay of categories across cultural boundaries and in relation to political and economic change in the formation and development of the idea of Tantra. Although the book is informed by an awareness of post-colonial tactics of scholarship, it does not indulge in a simplistic narrative of show more imperial conquerors determining the identities of colonial subjects, but looks at more complex dialogues and dialectics.

The text includes studies of Tantra in religious, political, literary, scholarly, and commercial contexts. Figures treated include Sri Aurobindo, Arthur Avalon, Swami Vivekananda, Mircea Eliade, Julius Evloa, Oom the Omnipotent, Aleister Crowley, Osho, and others. Urban describes a trajectory “from a tradition associated with secrecy, danger, and occult power to one associated primarily with sexual liberation and physical pleasure.” (265) Unlike many other academics, he does not condemn or dismiss the more recent developments, but instead attempts to contextualize them with respect to a range of phenomena that have always been contested and subject to changes in valuation.

The book is divided into six principal chapters plus an introduction and conclusion, each of which is subdivided into a set of two-to-six-page essays, making it highly digestible. Each essay is headed with one or two epigraphs, which—while insightful and well-chosen—almost inevitably recur in the essays that they lead, often after prose intended to present the ideas that are then summed up by the quote. The overall effect of this process is to confront the reader with the same idea two or three times in succession, in basically the same manner, resulting in a halting sense of redundancy within many of the essays. Otherwise, the writing style is highly engaging.

In the chapter on “The Cult of Ecstasy” Urban observes the confluence of the traditions of European occultism and magic with 20th century neo-Tantra, pointing out incisively that “Tantra has increasingly been associated and hoplessly confused, not only with the Indian erotic arts like those of the Kama Sutra, but also with Western erotic-occult practices like those of Crowley and the OTO.” (228) But he himself contributes in some measure to the confusion when he writes, “Crowley’s practice is the clearest example of sexual magic combined (and perhaps hopelessly confused) with Indian Tantra.” (219) In fact, Crowley never identified any of his practices with Tantra. As Urban notes, Crowley referred in passing to “the follies of Vamacharya (debauchery)” in The Equinox. The claims of biographers Symonds and Sutin regarding Crowley’s supposed study of Tantra in Asia are unconvincing. “Tantra” and Tantric terminology are conspicuously absent from Crowley’s technical instructions for OTO initiates. That sort of synthesis had to wait for the “Creative Occultism” of Crowley’s student Kenneth Grant. Grant’s own interest in Tantra was probably to blame for the fact that Crowley actually got around to mentioning it in his last book-length work Aleister Explains Everything (published posthumously as Magick Without Tears). Even then, Crowley merely wrote vaguely of having studied “numerous writings on the Tantra,” among other sources of Indian lore. (MWT 232) Grant’s craving for Tantric instruction was finally satisfied by David Curwen, a full OTO initiate who had not received his Tantrism through OTO. This relation is documented in Grant’s correspondence memoir Remembering Aleister Crowley. (47-49)

In a topic as rife with controversy as the history of representations of Tantra, such points of dispute are sure to arise. Urban compellingly presents some of the reasons why Tantra is such a focus for contention, and how it deserves the continued attention of scholars in its popular and innovating manifestations as well as its elite and traditional ones. show less

What is religion? Can religion be copywrited? Does religion have a moral and ethical responsibility to br moral and ethical? Does wearing a collar and a cross constitute a church? In a nearly 300-page book on church, can one expect t least one mention of Christ?

Urban asks most of these questions, but he fails to answer any of them. Partially these stems from his desire that the reader comes to their own answers, and partially because he fears reprisals from Scientology. And, this fear, of show more itself, speaks quite loudly that Scientology is not an entity easily fitting into a religious rubric. show less

Somewhat misleading. The Church of Scientology, by Professor of Religious Studies Hugh Urban, promises to report on what it means to be a religion. To some extent, it does that – but the amount of text devoted to the philosophy of religion is small compared to the discussion of the history of Scientology, and Urban makes no comparison between Scientology and other religious movements. Still, I had only very general knowledge of the history of Scientology so that part was instructive; I show more still have very little knowledge of the actual dogma of Scientology because (and as Urban points out) most of that material is “secret” and Scientology has been litigious to the extreme against people who reveal it.


It sees fairly clear that Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard adopted “the religion angle” (his words) to get tax-exempt status for Scientology. Urban notes the details of that would make a full fledged book in themselves; in the 1950s Scientology was essentially a multinational corporation with numerous branches and spin-offs. When the IRS initially refused tax-exempt status, one entity was overlooked – the California Church of Scientology. Scientology responded by essentially transferring all assets to the CSC. The IRS eventually withdrew tax-exempt status from the CSC as well, and Scientology responded with a whole series of lawsuits, plus an undercover program to infiltrate the IRS and FBI and gather personally damaging information about high officials in both. After a series of raids on Scientology offices by the IRS and FBI, and burglaries and document theft at IRS and FBI offices by Scientology, there was a closed door meeting between the IRS and Scientology officials (L. Ron Hubbard had passed to a higher plane of existence by then, in an RV in hiding in California), and in 1993 the tax-exempt status was restored. Urban does make the interesting point that regardless of what you think of Scientology, the way tax-exempt status works puts the IRS in the position of deciding what is and is not a religion in the US. Some scholars have then argued – again, regardless of what they might think about Scientology – that this gives the IRS the power to “establish” a religion – which is a violation of the Establishment Clause.


Urban’s discussion of Scientology’s “secret” documents is also instructive. One progresses through Scientology ranks by taking various courses, at considerable expense – it’s in the medium six figures to get to the highest level. If the courses necessary to get to these levels were freely disseminated Scientology would lose a lot of revenue. The Church of Scientology has gone to considerable lengths to prevent that; when secret Scientology documents were made public as evidence in court cases, Scientologists would show up in hundreds, pack the court offices to the extent no one else could get in, check out every document copy, and return them just before closing. The Internet has, unfortunately for Scientology, been more difficult to deal with; despite lawsuits against Google and Wikipedia “secret” documents have turn up repeatedly. Scientology has sought copyright and trade secret protection (Urban seems not to understand the difference – to be fair neither do a lot of Scientology critics) and there have been raids on various private residences to confiscate computers holding Scientology documents. Urban again makes the interesting point; regardless of what you might think of Scientology, do religions have the right to keep secrets – essentially the same protection that (say) the Coca-Cola company has for its formula?


Talmudic scholars have commented that it’s best to take the most difficult cases first – then everything else is easy. Scientology certainly makes for some difficult cases. Good for an introduction to Scientology, and evoking a lot of interesting ideas. Some general illustrations; well footnoted and with a good bibliography. show less