Jump to content

Talk:Tantra/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tantra FAQ and other untitled comments

Is the FAQ released under a compatible license with Wikipedia?

No - see [1]. "reproduction for profit or for non-electronic distribution prohibited without the express permission of the copyright holders."

Questions about tantra. Add your quistions and we will try to answer them in the article.

How do you learn to feel your spritual energies ?

Where/how can your find people who pratise tantra ?

What is the names of the tantra vedas. And what year are they from ?

Is there a good reason for writing the adjective as "tantrik" in this article and not "tantric"? Google suggests that the latter is much more common. Searches for the former spelling lead to an American phallic cult that does not seem to be representative of the main body of knowledge.

Solri 08:45 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT) I've changed to "tantric", though both spellings are common. If anything, I prefer "tantric" since it makes it obvious that we're dealing with an English adjective derived from the Sanskrit, not an actual Sanskrit word. I've revised the article extensively - I hope I haven't been too brutal.

Anonymous User : I am a new Wikipedia user. Since the Tantras are all Hindu shastras that are self-proclaimed followers of the Vedas, I have edited some of the page, including a reference by Woodroffe. It is obvious that whoever wrote this is much more aware of the Tantric offshoot known as Vajrayana Buddhism. IF you wish to give an accurate description of Tantra, than describing Yoga (foundationally a Hindu concept) and Tantra (the post-Vedic, nondualist (advaitin) Hindu yogins and Shiva-Shakti bhaktas) as they exist, and then giving a separate section on Vajrayana Buddhism, would be more accurate. For remember, it is entirely a Hindu concept that Shiva and Shakti are the dual, manifest principles of Para Shiva, while Vajrayana cleaves along different lines. In spite of Mahayana Buddhism artificial creation of 'wisdom beings' that are actually so many Hindu gods and goddesses, like Ma Tara (said to be another form of Ma Kali in the Chandi Path and the older Puranas), the Tantras of the Abhinava Gupta and other schools represent Shiva-Shakti worshippers, who are clearly Hindu and not Buddhist. So representing the bifurcated nature of Hindu and Buddhist schools, and then perhaps for the sake of Western readers, referring to the ridiculous 'American' schools, this article achieves better coherence.
In general, I do not disagree with the most of this - though the Tantras are all Hindu shastras - is factually inaccurate, and far too a broad generalisation. There are plenty of tantras which are not Hindu shastras at all. Take for example the Kalachakra, Guhyasamaja, Yamantaka, and even Heruka Chakrasamvara and Hevajra tantras; there are hundreds, if not thousands, more examples. The root tantras of e.g. Guhyasamaja -even according to modern scholars- go back to the early 5th to 7th century CE, whereas most Hindu tantric shastras are dated around the 11th - 13th century CE by most modern scholars. The Buddhist/Hindu origins debate will continue for a long time no doubt. Regarding WP, I consider the best option is to disambiguate the term. For, despite the best intentions of many practitioners and scholars, "Tantra" still means kinky Indian sex for most people. (20040302)

I find this quite funny: "According to John Woodroffe, the foremost scholar on Tantra". Sir John may have been one of the first Western scholars to be really interested and translated tantric texts, but the foremost of all - no. The foremost scholars of tantra have been and will be found in the traditional schools of tantra.

This article should discuss different schools of tantra: Kaula, Mishra and Samaya. There is very good article on topic of tantra by Swami Jnaneshvara (disciple of Swami Rama Tirtha) http://www.swamij.com/tantra.htm Also http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0050.htm reflects some light on the topic. --Arjuna 04:41, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removed Link To Tantra.com

Tantra.com is a neotantra sex website, and more to the point it is a commercial website- who the hell is putting it up here? I think I removed it once before.... Advertising is NOT allowed. ThanksShiva bakta 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

Section on Kundalini added

Added some text on Kundalini, and how it relates to Hinudism, esp Theory of Karma. Are any sections too confusing-pls let me know. I have also added a section on Left/Right Handed path, based on my own personal knowledge and experience.

Some people might say why include Kundalini at all, as it is such a secertive field. But I disagre. Many New Agers and so called Neo Tantriks have spread a lot of bullshit. Kundalini is now just a way of sex enjoyment, or method of getting supernatural powers. Its original purpose, Nirvana or Moksha, has been lost. This leads to a lot of superstistion like a certain Lady in India who claims to open Kundalini in few hours! The reader has to be very careful about being ripped off, and so any information is good. Shiva bakta 09:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

I went ahead and removed this section. See kundalini. The article on kundalini might be a better place for this material.TheRingess 01:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates section on Vedas

The previous section on Hindu Tantra said stuff like "Vedic rituals and Tantra are different". I have rewritten the section to show why they are not, giving references from books that are easily available in the West. I also added a section to show why Hindu tantra discourages free sex. It is based entirely on my knowledge of Ayurveda and Yoga. Do my Buddhist friends agree with me- what is your philosophy? user:Shiva_bakta

I agree with your point, but have deleted the reference to aurobindo and changed the accusatory tone of the paragraph. I also made the section more objective and less opinionated. - supernaut76

Like to see two sections on this topic Hindu - Buddhist.

Hello! I would like to see this section on "Tantra" to be broken down into two sections! Hindu and Buddhist as there are diffenrences between them and as they belong to different religions. --Mitrapa 02:09, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)Mitrapa

I agree. Although there is some cultural cross-over, and certain Tantras are shared by both Buddhism and Hinduism, modern traditions differ wildy in interpretation and praxis. (20040302 09:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC))

==> I have put a section on the similarities between Tantra. The differences are merely in the Religious Dogma- What Hindus call Shiva, Buddhits call Buddha, and the Shaktas call Mother. Shiva bakta 08:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

Tantra classification

There are three types of Tantric Sex: White, Gray, and Black. White Tantra never ejaculates nor reaches orgasm in order to awaken consciousness. Gray Tantra elongates the sexual act, and sometimes concludes with orgasm/ejaculation, but without any longing towards awakening consciousness. Black Tantra always concludes with orgasm/ejaculation in order to awaken consciousness. It is said that White Tantra awakens consciousness to the absence of desire, while Black Tantra awakens consciousness into desire.

I am fairly well read on the topic of tantra and I have never seen this classification system. Is this from some neo-tantric writings? I'm pretty sure it is not a traditional classification scheme, and as such, needs to include some information about where this system is derived from or described. What is the source of these assertions? — Adityanath 15:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems a bit bogus to me. In my experience, "White/Black/Grey" are Western magical catagories. If you google "Tantra white black grey" stuff comes up, but it mostly seems to be Western appropriations of tantra...they equate tantra with alchemy. It doesn't match anything I've read about Hindu or Buddhist tantras. Perhaps there is a correlation with the triad relating to the three gunas, but then it should be White/Red/Black. I suspect that that paragraph would be better put under the New Age section unless you want to do a scholarly reconstruction of whatever truth might be hidden in the paragraph. Good luck; I'll be curious what you turn up. Emyth 21:05, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Grey is not a seminally important colour in any traditional tantric tradition. It exists, (often representing ash), but (as Emyth states) on the occasions where one would use a triple classification, red is used alongside white and (black or dark blue). Moreover the classification of tantra according to ejaculation seems very dubious.
White/Black ARE used to distinguish magical activities - but they do not form a primary dichotomy as found in spheres of culture (eg Ibrahimic faith cultures, and therefore hollywood, harry potter, etc.) deeply influenced by the eternal battle between Spenta Mainyu / Angra Mainyu of Zoroastrianism (aka God and the Devil). Modes of activity are more often divided into the four: peace, increase, power, and wrath, which if coloured would be something like white, yellow, red and black. Most 'white' magic from the western traditions (e.g. love potions) are not considered white at all in the asian systems - more generally they would be considered red (and rather dark). (20040302)

Sex is just sex and I do not think there are any white grey black or any color tantra sex. Tantra in my understanding is a philosophy, that uses energries to reach a state of mind which in pure and non dual. Correct me it I am wrong.(jagan@wlink.com.np)


I suspect the Mike Magee linked to in the article is a different Mike Magee to the one that translated this passage (if it isn't Sri Lokanath Maharaj as one website claims). But if anyone knows better please delete this comment. Shantavira 18:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that is the right Mike Magee, for some period of time known as Lokanath. For more info on Mike and his relationship with Shri Gurudev Mahendranath, see Occult History of the Nath Order 1984-2003. Adityanath 04:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Plagarism added a large section that was copied from http://sivasakti.com/articles/tantra/art25.html. I have removed this section, if anyone feels that this added useful content, pls let me know, we can work out some new text. S.N. Hillbrand 18:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Added a bunch of stuff that seems off, not my article, thought I'd edit to let ya know something funny happened. kodemage-- 06:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was inside of's plagarism and was already removed. What is your NPOV complaint?

Intro Translation

By my Monier-Williams sanskrit dictionary, tantra does not mean 'to weave.' I checked Apte as well, just to make certain but it definitely has a primary translation of 'loom'. However, there is a good argument to be made that the primary tranlation is not the acurrate on in this regard, but rather than tantra actually refers to the uninterrupted vertical thread of a loom; symbolizing a continuous teaching.


Have never, ever posted to Wikipedia, so be gentle.  :-) Not even sure how I got here, or whether I can get back again.

Am trying to research alternatives to traditional western relationships and sexuality and finding some information Extremely difficult to come by. Of the literally Thousands of "Tantra" websites that I've found, None have been able to answer my questions; How popular is Tantra in the US? How many people (approximately) practice Tantra? How many people in the US purchase Tantric centered books or magazines, or attend workshops? Can anyone point me in the right direction? I'm trying to get a feel for the demographics and popularity of Tantrik practice in general (regardless of the specific school) in the US.

No, this isn't for any sort of news thing. It's a personal project and something that I've been working on for about 3yrs.

Link Apology

To people watching this page, I apologize for removing so many links. For some reason, this page seems to attract anonymous posters posting pseudo-spiritual or commercial links. Maybe this is just the nature of the topic. If anyone believes that a link I have removed has informative value to readers of this page, please leave a note in the talk when you post it (or in the post comment) and I'll discuss its contents with you before doing anything. I definitely do not want to discourage additional information (anonymous or otherwise) but I'd like to keep the page informative vice apologetic. S.N. Hillbrand 01:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Neo Tantra and Tantramassage

Dear Hillbrand, sorry that I did my changes as an anonymous - my German login didn't work on the English wikipedia for some reason, so I created a new login to react to your text above. I did the text about Tantramassage as a part of Neo Tantra. Tantramassage is a quite big movement in Europe, specially in Germany where it started. My English is not perfect, so there might be some mistakes in the way I put it into words - but i really think there is additional information in my text. www.tantramassage is the site with most information in English about the topic, it is a company's website - don't know how strict you want to deal with links to companys. EarthWater 18:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi EarthWater- Thank you for contributing to this article. You bring up an important point, namely how should we deal with topics tangentially related to the article? I think that the time may have come to move the neotantra section to its own article (similar to how de.wikipedia.org is divided). This would allow for more of these sorts of postings without diluting the main article. What do you think? S.N. Hillbrand 04:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for separating these two artciles. Csbodine 20:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Hillbrand, dear Csbondine, I appreciate your attention on the topic - still I really would prefer the topic to stay in the main tantra article, as it gives an answer to how to practice tantric ideas (or at least they are inspired by tantra). The Neo tantra article in German is quite new and focusses mainly on the Scene of tantra workshops / seminars. Anyway I know that dealing with tantra in practice (not only theory) brings up discussion because of its sexual nature, it would not be honest to keep this part out of the articel. EarthWater 22:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

EarthWater, I appreciate your input, however please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. We do not provide how-tos. I've created the Neotantra article and provided users with a link if they wish to learn more. Please place all further new age material in this article. S.N. Hillbrand 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC).

Dear Hillbrand,

I do not agree to the move. Tantra is in general a sex related topic, it was sex relatet for several thousands of years - not only in theory. I read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and do not see that it explains your changes. This Article is about tantra with all its aspects, just because YOU don't like a certain aspect it doesn't mean that you give it an other name and put it away. Neotantra is a word that came up very recently - who made it up? is it relevant enough to be an articel on its own ?? Is it the right word to describe the active Tantra szene in the English speaking parts of the world ? EarthWater 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Earthwater, no one disputes the integral role that sex plays in tantra. That is explicit in the article. I believe that the various "new-age" incarnations of revered sexuality are sufficiently significant and distinct in their own right to deserve a separate article. The reference to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not does not speak to spliting the articles, rather I referenced it to point out that "how to practice tantric ideas" is not a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, descriptions of how various sects do practice tantra (comparative sociology, if you will) are perfectly appropriate.
Just as the articles on Buddhism or Christianity can not possibly hope to cover all forms of either of those practices, this article cannot adequately cover all topics to which people assign the name tantra. Providing proper places and links to information is how Wikipedia expands. If you do not like the name Neotantra, you should feel free to rename the article. Perhaps New Age Tantra or Non-dogmatic tantra would be appropriate. We can update the links on this site at that time as well. S.N. Hillbrand 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I am just discovering this Wikipedia article on Tantrism. I am also very reluctant to the "new age" quotation about Tantrism in the beginning. And I agree that a term such as "Neo Tantrism" would be much more accurate when referring to the appropriation of Tantric doctrines by new age. Just look at what J. Woodroffe (alias A. Avalon) has written on a similar subject in the introduction of his book: The Serpent Power; there J. Woodroffe dismisses all the misunderstandings and false interpretations of Tantric doctrines by thesophists. I guess it applies to new age as well. TwoHorned

Add Wiki-link to White Tantrism stub?

Just wanting to suggest the idea of adding a link somewhere in the article to the wikipedia stub on "White Tantrism". Perhaps under the "See Also" section as being a link under a heading of Gnostic Tantra or Gnosis Tantra or Tantra in Gnosticism? In gnosis it is also refered to as Alchemy so perhaps link somewhere to the Alchemy article would be appropriate and vice versa?

David 19/01/06

Hi David, thanks for the suggestion, however the issue of White Tantrism was discussed earlier (see above) and decided that it was a western formalism. A good place to put it would be in the Neotantra article. Thanks! S.N. Hillbrand 02:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

unusual sex acts

What I know about tantra is entirely in regards to extremely unusual sex practices, from sex for hours without climax, to sex among corpses guided by an assumably crazed guru. Orthadox hindu's (in my experience) regard it as witchery designed to provide unnatural powers to the practicioner based upon his desires, rather than thru enlightenment and renunciation to God's will. The fact that it has caught on in western pop-culture in no way reduces the signifigance of the obvious criticisms. I am no expert regarding tantra, and have no ready citations available, but instead I speak only from what I know on the subject. It is my opinion that the article could do with a greater degree of scrutiny and explanation of critical views regarding this highly unusual method. Sam Spade 11:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I am curious if, as a new reader, you found particular sections difficult to digest? Is the verbiage too dense or perhaps the organization lacking? It would be difficult to refute each scurrilous attack leveled by non-practicians who compete for the same body of laiety, for the simple reason that they are too numerous. Second, given that Tantra originated around the 5th or 6th century (see 'Religious Traditions of Asia' by Joseph Kitagawa to source this), any critique or scrutiny could only address a hopelessly small segment of its total practicing body. Thus, you can always find outliers but no one insists that a critique of David Koresh be inserted into the Christianity article. S.N. Hillbrand 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sam, it sounds like what you know is based on hearsay and misinterpretation, rather than any specific training or reading. (I mean no disrespect, just an observation). As a practioner of Tibetan Buddhism, I have never had unusal sex with anyone under the banner of Tantric practice. (What I do in my own personal life will remain personal. lol) That said, there are visualizations of dieties in charnel grounds performed in wrathful practices and visualizations of deities in Yab Yum. It wouldn't be surprising Orthadox Hindus would deride Tantric practices if it isn't a part of their everyday practices, much like there are topics that Conservative Christians and Jews would disagree on. My understanding and experience with Tantra is that it is a very direct manipulation of energies (prana? qi?) through enlightened visualizations. Of course, I'm not an expert on the subject, but I do practice it. Csbodine 07:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you both make good points, I admit my ignorance and tertiary sources, and mean no offense. That said, I do think a more detailed discussion of criticism and the responses to it is necessary. Sam Spade 12:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is the rise of Neotantra and other Western forms of tantra which almost exclusively equate tantra and sex. I, like you, used to equate tantra almost exclusively with Sex magic. While physical sex can be used in tantric practices, anyone who says that it must include sex is either clueless or being manipulative as such a statement goes against some of the foundations of Tantric practice (at least in Tibetan Buddhism). Csbodine 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This passage seems judgemental and POV. Could someone who knows about tantra neutralise it?

Traditional Tantrists say their practice involves much more than mere wizardry or sexual titillation: like the rest of Yoga (Hindu), it requires self-analysis and the conquest of material ignorance, often through the body, but always through a pure outlook of the mind. 'Real Tantra' is about transforming one's sexual energy into spiritual progress, and has nothing to do with 'sex just for fun'. Those without a guru or lacking in discipline of the mind and body are unfit. It is telling that a Tantrica in West Bengal, a devotee of the Hindu goddess Kali, once said that "those most fit for Tantra almost never take it up, and those least fit pursue it with zeal."

--Hugh7 05:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Black magic"

There's a minor comment in the article about how "Indian journalism" portrays Tantrism as "black magic" but with cases like these: [2] maybe there's a reason for that and it should be expanded. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Islam and tantra

In the first paragraph of the article the author referred to some form of tantra being practiced by South-Asian muslims, but no citation is provided, can we get more details on this? Sufitul 3:12, 14 April (UTC)

This may not answer your question exactly, but in the classical book of J. Woodroffe, " The Serpent Power", there is a mention of the use of Tantric doctrines by certain branches of Sufism in India. A very interesting subject in itself, by the way. TwoHorned

The 5 Ms

I would like to suggest a link to the separate 5 Ms page for a further in detail analysis of the meaning of 5 Ms. The theory of Shrii Shrii Anandamurti on the subject is covered there, but more interpretations should be added. cJ --Cracker jack 14:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me that this article is no longer neutral. Several sections list no references and seem to me to be written in the style of essays. The factual accuracy of some of the statements made seem hard to verify. TheRingess 00:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

==> Which sections? Who gave you policing power?

TheRingess- Please be a little more community-oriented with your edits. Many people have put work into this page and would like to see it improved. However, Slash and Burn approaches are typically not useful. Let's start with the section you find the most NPOV and work on it. Which one would you like to start with? S.N. Hillbrand 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed section on free sex

Even though this section cited some of its sources, this section read too much like a personal essay. Even the title is suggestive of an essay. If reinstated, I suggest shortening, a different title, footnotes and a neutral tone. TheRingess 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Right Hand and Left Hand paths section

Ditto for this section. Upon reading it there were too few sources and it read too much like an essay. TheRingess 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

==>You have removed a lot of other sections, like link between Vedas and Tantra, link b/w Hindu and Buddhist Tantra, even these 2 topics had enough sources. It seems just are biased against Hindus in general, since you have only edited those parts that relate to Hindus. May I ask the reason why? Or forget it- I dont have time for a battle.

Neutrality? Or White Mans Burden?

TheRingess has deleted more than 50% of the article, including portions that have existed for a long time. She has even deleted portions that had references(as mentioned above). Why? Does this qualify as vandalism? I might question why a Westerner would edit and delete portions of a chapter on Hinduisim. Well, thats ok. This is a White mans club, and anything that doesnt agree with White Mans version has to go.

No probs. I am leaving this place- I have been told several times that this is a Western club, and if we like our own view, we should create our own club(these were the exact words, I am not exaggerating). I think I will finally do this.

TheRingess, you can revert the article back to the way it was originally, written by your White friends. Good bye, you wont be hearing from me again. Shiva bakta 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Shiva_bakta

Yes, but since it has been reverted by someone else, this is moot. However, the whole article is completely uncited. This leaves it open to any editor to simply remove content. Proper citation of academic references will prevent this. This is not a place to expound one's personal thoughts and feelings on Tantra, but rather a place to objectively report on what other reputable sources have said. —Hanuman Das 23:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tantric Sex

Agree with Ringness, but also though that Shiva_bhakta made a crucial point. I have completely rewritten the section for a more NPOV. Will append my references shortly. This is probably white mans burden, but then we do have a specific mandate and there are always the links for more subjective POV's. The actual practise of tantra should not be carried out by reading an encyclopedia anyways! --Supernaut76 23:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


The tags in the article are there because the sections are not properly cited. WP policies change. It is now no longer sufficient to simply list your reference at the end and be done with it. You have to cite your sources inline in the article, see WP:CITE. —Hanuman Das 00:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


The following three sentences were copied word for word from David Gordon White's Introduction to Tantra in Practice. This is not acceptable. —Hanuman Das 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

An apology

I was too hasty and too bold with my previous edits. I will endeavour to be contribute positively to this article.TheRingess 02:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Tantra and the Vedas

This section, to me, reads like an essay. It seems to me to be original research. This sentence in particular:

"Thus tantric concepts are exquisitely mirrored in the more exoteric terms and stories, hidden to the uninitiated or unwary..."

seems to be very pov. I think someone could rewrite the section to be more encyclopedic in tone (less conclusions, more point by point examples and comparison). I don't think that's me, though. If no one is interested in rewriting it, then I think it should be deleted.TheRingess 02:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that I need to work on the wording to make it more neutral. However I think deleting it would be overly harsh. This POV is a essentially Tantric and I believe that it is important that it be communicated in some form ( but perhaps not as I have worded it). --Supernaut76 08:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh. I agree that a section that relates tantra to the vedas is very important.TheRingess 09:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


I've been looking through the recent changes and there is a lot of editing going on related to Neotantra and Neotantrics. Since there is an article on Neotantra, shouldn't most of this be moved there with only a one or two paragraph mention here? -999 (Talk) 16:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Large chunks of this article are utterly meaningless to a novice. It needs to be rewritten objectively and from an external perspective.

I agree. I've made a proposed edit, to simplify for the novice. No need to shock the viewer with a phd-level formal introduction, especially as the term is becoming mainstream. Please look it over and see what you think, ye more experienced wikipedians..

BTW, does anybody find it interesting that Wikipedia basically embodies the concept of Tantra? Any chance we could get a reference to that in the article somewhere? I think that'd be great, but it might not be the right place for such a claim/suggestion...

- Austin, 29 Mar 2008 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yoga Template

Is the Yoga template really appropriate for this article? It seems to me from just a brief reading of the article, that Yoga and Tantra are only related in that both originated in India. TheRingess (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they have little to do with one another from the point of view of how Wikipedia content is organized. Buddhipriya 01:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The answer is yes; "Tantra" is synonymous with and an abbreviated form of "Tantra Yoga." Cyclopiano 08:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)cyclopiano

Does this sentence belong in the intro?

I removed the following sentence from the intro.

In the west, early European Orientalists originally reviled Tantra as a subversive, antisocial, licentious and immoral force that had corrupted classical Hinduism. On the other hand many today see it as a celebration of social equity, sexuality and the body.[1]

It seems to me that this sentence belongs more in a history section. It also seems to me to be a summary of a very interesting idea though the article does not seem to expand upon it later. As a casual reader, I want to know the context behind the statement. In other words, what was it about the Europeans or Tantra that caused them to form such a negative view?

TheRingess (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The statement is sourced by: Norbu, Chögyal Namkhai (1999). The Crystal and The Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. Snow Lion Publications. ISBN, p. 49. I have not seen that item and therefore cannot evaluate it's quality. One by one all of the sources used need to be looked at closely. The statement has two parts, one describing the negative reaction that some Western writers had (which is true) and the the second with a lyrical description of "how many today see it" which I consider to be vague opinion. We need to have some way of assessing all of the sources somehow by reference to the social context and assumptions that make, and putting more "caveat emptor" warnings on some of this material. Buddhipriya 02:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we both agree that at least the first sentence belongs somewhere in the article. To me the idea expressed needs further development. I think the second sentence can go. To me, neither belongs in the intro.TheRingess (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I would certainly agree with moving it out of the lead. Buddhipriya 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the history of Western reactions to tantra, the well-sourced essay by Hugh Urban (a recognized academic who has multiple publications on tantra) makes an interesting read, and debunks quite a bit of the assimilation: [3]. Buddhipriya 05:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference format

I would like to see the article use more strict inline reference format, including page numbers for each citation in order to improve verifiability. Would there be any objection to upgrading the references in this way? Buddhipriya 02:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I got a start on it.TheRingess (talk) 04:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In that format, as you know, only works that are actually cited in footnotes would appear in References, which is a list of works cited. Since footnotes are few and far between, this means that most of the "References" will either disappear or be moved temporarily to "Further reading" if you don't have the heart to cut them immediately. Buddhipriya 04:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Team Tantra

There is no real reason why this article could not be developed into a Featured Article (see WP:FACR). Per a suggestion from a fellow editor, the best way to make this happen is to form a team with the specific goal of bringing this article up to FA status.

I propose that we form a team for that express purpose.

If you are interested then please consider the following

  • Add your name to the team members section below with or without a brief description of your interests and how you'd like to help and/or
  • Review the article and then add a subsection of your comments on the peer review link above and/or
  • Add items to the "To Do" list above and/or
  • Begin work on some of the items (perhaps you can add your name underneath the item to indicate that you are working on it)

If enough editors are interested, we could make this a subpage.

Mission Statement

Our mission is to bring the Tantra article to "Featured Article" status, nothing less.

Team Members

  • TheRingess - I'm willing to help coordinate efforts and to initiate necessary steps. I'm also willing to act in the capacity of the "casual reader" unfamiliar with Tantra. I can also help mediate any differences of opinion that might arise.
  • Kkrystian - I have access to some sources about Tantra & I'll hope I'll be able to add as much as I can.
  • Vritti - I look forward to the improvement of this article. I will contribute what I can inside the constraints of my available time.
  • Snowgrouse - I'm willing to help with grammar, spelling, generally making the language flow smoothly, creating and fixing internal links, and general nitpicking. I'm not an expert but have studied quite a while, so I can help with the fundamental stuff, the basics when it comes to tantra.
  • B9 hummingbird hovering - Through practice I perceive only cultural differences between Hindu Tantra and Vajrayana...though this may be contentious the two systems have unquestionably informed and iterated each other through paths known and unknown. Did I sight (now cite) somewhere in this Discussion Page that tantra has been construed as "heterodox" that is: "dissident: characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards" and "[N]ot in accordance with established doctrines or opinions, or those generally recognized as right or 'orthodox'"...though this may indeed be true, tantra is also an orthodoxy...The word orthodoxy, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching')...in Tantra what is left and sinister is right by grace. What is left is right in Mystery. I wax & wane with Wikipedia, though I edit consistently and I have embraced Wiki-editing as samaya... I am dedicating considerable time to toning, entoning and singing atm which is presently my key sadhana along with Trul khor and Ashtanga...when my next months Internet bandwith is allocated I will contribute. I am more than happy to undertake research particulars to progress this article if any of the team requires them performed. I very much value community and look forward to working with the Team.

Namaste in agape
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 03:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • user:Sasisekhara.sarasvati - I would like to help providing a complete view of tantra from the perspective of indian and tibetan traditions, especially Kashmir Shaivism and Bon.
  • DGG 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Just here to express my general support, and perhaps some help in documenting this subject from the formal Western academic side -- and contributing what experience I have in defending sexually-related articles at AfD, occasionally even with success.


I suggest we use this section to set goals for our team. When enough of us believe that the goal is achieved we can mark the milestone as accomplished

Bring article to B status

Here are Wikipedia's guidelines for "B" class articles.

Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View WP:NPOV or No Original Research WP:NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.

Please review the article keeping those guidelines in mind and add your thoughts about what we need to do to bring the article to "B" status below, or add an action item to the To Do list. Thanks. TheRingess (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Bring article to GA status

Not achieved

Bring article to FA status

Not achieved

TheRingess (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Tantras

I support the merger request, as the two articles seem to be covering the same ground. Buddhipriya 02:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against the merger, as tantra, the philosophy and tantras, the writings, are two different things. There really should be more information on the writings themselves on Wikipedia in general, and a merger would make the Tantra article too bloated. --Snowgrouse 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose - tantras are a class of text, tantra is a type of practice. They are not synonymous, and should not be merged. Much detail can be written about each. Cundi 03:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

True Tantras and Tantra are not the same. Tantras are the set of books that define a way of Tantra. Whereas Tantra in itself in the practice of the system. So the request for merging both the entry should be withdrawn. A lot of subsection can go into both these titles. Saravana Kumar K 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article covers the Indian point of view more and the other covers the Western point of view more. That in itself seems to indicate that two separate articles are warranted, because these two viewpoints will have wildly different audiences

They shouldn't be merged, however some of the Tantras post material should be referenced in Tantra article Sasisekhara.sarasvati 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC) -- Anonymous because Wikipedia does not allow user names with underscores.

  • Definitely against. Or else, merge also Hinduism and Upanishads, Christian religion and Bible, Judaism and Tanakh, etc. So please, generally, don't confuse documents with movements or sects and DON'T be afraid of allowing a field of knowledge the space it deserves - especially where experts would do it. This is not to be a pocket encyclopedia!! Study how cross-references and hierarchy between MANY articles are done in other fields. Keinstein 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Source quality

In order to get some improvement in the quality of the article I feel that only strong sources should be used, and that all additions to content should use inline citations to establish verifiability. There is a great deal of WP:FRINGE material on this subject, all of which should be excluded. I would like to see the article sourced mainly from books published by recognized academic sources. Buddhipriya 19:07, 19 May 2007

Just going by the references cited in the article so far, which ones are you looking at excluding? Supernaut76 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note the prior comments regarding use of standard Talk:Tantra#Reference_format for the article. This has now been implemented, and it has uncovered the fact that there are very few actual citations used in the article. That is, most of the works previously listed as sources have no clear connection to any statement actually in the article. A first step in improving the quality is to look closely at every sentence in the article and gradually either source it well, or cut it. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability "Editors adding or restoring material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor." On that basis the bulk of the article is subject to being cut at any time by any editor. In other words, the article is now unsourced for the majority of its statements. Buddhipriya 03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely that the standards need to me rigorous. Are you suggesting getting rid of all the material that does not have the appropriate in-line referencing? If so is this a team effort that would involve replacing them with more suitable material?

I would suggest that the conversion to the more strict source format be done first just as a formatting change, leaving unsourced statement in place, but more clearly tagged as needing improvements in sourcing. That would be a less drastic step than just tossing anything that is unsourced. However editors have the right to cut unsourced material at any time, per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Another alternative method is to move unsourced statements to the talk page pending rework or sourcing. My sense is that this article needs to be completely rewritten, which will take several months, and that the safest approach for a team effort would be to make just small incremental edits that can be carefully considered and judged by the team. A massive rewrite would not be consistent with a team effort. If we get no objections to the proposal to improve note format, I am willing to help work on the format pass. Any editor may also place a fact or cn tag on any sentence that seem particularly dubious in order to help focus attention on the statement by other editors. Placing fact tags is one of the behaviors that is specifically encouraged as an editing action that is less drastic than a cut, but more honest than leaving some nonsense unchallenged. Buddhipriya 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That sounds quite sensible to me. Supernaut76 22:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have finished the reformatting, so now we can see what is really going on with the references. In the course of it I moved all of the books that are actually cited into the References section. Here is one item that I removed because it appears to be sourced only by a blog or self-published web site, which does not meet the tests of WP:EL and WP:RS. Here is the item in case anyone wants to discuss it further:

Shambhavi Saraswati gives a description of the difference between real Tantra and Neotantra:

"Neo-Tantra ritualizes sex. Authentic Tantra sexualizes ritual".[2]

Buddhipriya 01:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the desire for sex is satisfied, a mind can enter Tantra...

This is a great discussion. If we can resolve all of the questions about sources, we can probably get the article to "B" status. Once there, we can ask ourselves how to get it to "Good Article" status. My thought is that will involve reviewing the article with an eye towards what's missing from it. Those most familiar with the topic will need to help out the most with that. I erased the expand section in the To Do list, since I think that once we've determined what's missing, we can create a new "expand" section in the to do list based on the teams' inputs. Of course getting the article to good status, includes but is not limited to expanding it. TheRingess (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have a deeper concern that much of what is in the article now is nonsense and needs to be removed. There is a fundamental lack of clarity on the difficulty of even difining the subject. The references I have give are of particular value as starting points to try to rework the definition of terms and change the range of focus on what topics need to be included. Buddhipriya 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a very valid concern. We can't even get to B status if any of the material is questionable. Once we've removed all questionable material and provided reliable sources for what's left, then the article will be at least a B status. My point is, that to me, one of the main differences between B and Good is that a good article provides comprehensive coverage of the subject. In other words, once we are at B status, we have to ask ourselves "What's missing that needs to be there?" (of course keeping in mind all of Wikipedia's core content policies). Hopefully, we can put the answer to that very broad question into the form of a list of action items. TheRingess (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me for talking out of turn here. I cannot find a specific discussion of the links category, and I don't know enough about Wikipedia to start one. However, my blog has periodically been the subject of discussion here. I have no comment to make about the quote that was deleted. However, I want to comment on the "no links" policy and the inclusion of the Open Directory listing under Tantra as the only link. While you are trying to figure out what to do with the Tantra entry, please make some reasonable attempt to direct people to meaningful other sites. The Open Directory is nearly defunct. The sites one is led to by clicking on the sole remaining link here are a motley crew. There are even blogs on that list! (Oh, the horror!)Shiva Shakti Mandalam, the web's most authoritative source of information about I won't offer to suggest sites, as I presume, having been booted off the links list, my referrals would not pass muster. So, I appeal to you, please step up and help out the people who are sincerely looking for good resources. OM Shanti, Shambhavi Sarasvati (shambhavi 03:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

Please see WP:EL and WP:NOT. We are not a link farm and we are not a search engine. It might also help to read WP:NPOV. Your energies might be better expended helping out over at the Open Directory project rather than trying to change policy here at Wikipedia. OM Shanti.TheRingess (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your response. You have a link section. There is a link listed in the link section. I presume that you want high quality links in your link section. No policy change was suggested. Wikipedia is a resource site. That was the only thing that my request spoke to. Since there has been a notice posted in the section telling others not to add links, I assumed that this would be the place to request that more appropriate links be placed in the link section. OM Shanti, Shambhavi (shambhavi 12:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT. Once more, I respectfully suggest that your energies would be better expended over at the Open Directory project. I understand that anyone can sign up to help there. OM Shanti.TheRingess (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I will object strongly to any attempt to add a link farm to the article, or to source the article using web sites such as blogs which are specifically excluded as sources for this sort of article by WP:EL. Please refer to WP:SPAM for further information on the growing tendency to use Wikipedia in inappropriate ways related to linkspam. Buddhipriya 18:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not clear what you are referring to. As I understand it, Wikipedia attaches "no follow" to any outgoing link so that it cannot "count" in favor of the ranking of any particular site that is mentioned. So there is inherently no possibility of using Wikipedia as a link farm. And I have not made any request that my blog be reincluded. In any case, I did read the guidelines , and they seem to indicate links should be justifiable in light of the entry subject matter. I went back over the Open Directory links attached to this page. Some are poorly labeled, and indeed when one follows a few of those links they lead to something useful.... A considered, more comprehensive approach would be more helpful to readers. The sole reason why I have engaged here "using my energy" as has been noted, is because Wikipedia comes up #1 on search engines for the word Tantra. People come here for assistance. If you are going to have a link section, then it could be more useful, especially since the main part of the site itself is in such transition. OM Shanti, Shambhavi (shambhavi 19:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
For instance, there are some very good articles and interviews available online by respected teachers/scholars--such as Deba Brata Sensharma who wrote The Philosophy of Sadhana, and Shiva Shakti Mandalam really should be referenced. If there were links to reliable sources, it could anchor the site and render it more helpful while things are getting sorted out. (shambhavi 20:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
Again, please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL for guidelines on external links. We are trying to upgrade the quality of this article by citing academic books as much as possible, not web sites. Buddhipriya 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

During the subsequent decline of Buddhism in India, most of Sanskrit originals of the Buddhist literature were lost. But as countless texts were brought from India and translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan, Tibet has preserved much of the Indian Buddhist tradition, even those parts which no longer have any use or meaning. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should find evidence of lost Indian traditions in Tibetan sources.

It also contains some intersting items in the bibliography. B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Organisational Constructs

A few thoughts on the article as a whole... Tantra is a heterodox subject. The two primary threads of this tradition can easily be divided between the monastic (non-sexual) and excuse the term, pagan or (sexually inclusive, ie. sexual and non-sexual observances). The delineation between different takes on the subject can be identified by citation related to specific guru lineages and specific traditions/writers. This gives the reader some delineation to follow in order to obtain more information on origins and development of any particular school of thought and practice. Not all schools overlap except in the name of Tantra. Without a clear assessment of origins, we have only a noisy chorus of competing views. Using the two main schools and delineating content on guru/cited traditions is an organising construct which could give focus to a cleaner rebuilding of this article. This is a particularly important consideration in the construction of the best sub-sections to be included in the article. It's a considered thought. -Vritti 03:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested souces

One step that team members could do is simply to share information on what sources they personally consider strong. Editors may disagree over sources in general, and these types of diaglogs can help establish what is "fair game" to cite. Here are some specific sources that I would like to make use of:

  • Bhattacharyya, N. N. History of the Tantric Religion. Second Revised Edition. (Manohar: New Delhi, 1999) p. 174. ISBN. This is a very detailed history with excellent coverage of the original sources. It is rather dense reading.
  • Harper, Katherine Anne (ed.) (2002). The Roots of Tantra. State University of New York Press. ISBN 0-7914-5306-5. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). This is a good collection of recent studies by Western academics covering a range of detailed issues. It contains the influential essay "What Do We Mean by Tantrism?" by André Padoux which takes eight pages to explain why the term is virtually meaningless as a general category.

During the subsequent decline of Buddhism in India, most of Sanskrit originals of the Buddhist literature were lost. But as countless texts were brought from India and translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan, Tibet has preserved much of the Indian Buddhist tradition, even those parts which no longer have any use or meaning. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should find evidence of lost Indian traditions in Tibetan sources.

It also contains some intersting items in the bibliography. B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of the detailed literature tackles specific regional issues or details individual traditions. A very good example with a focus on Śākta tantric tradition is:

  • Brooks, Douglas Renfrew (1990). The Secret of the Three Cities. The University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-07570-2. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help). This work is particularly interesting because it struggles to classify a particular tantric text (the Tripura Upanishad) which does not fit very conviently into any of the standard pigeonholes. This classification problem gives Brooks the opportunity to launch into a very good discussion of "what do we mean by tantrism" that takes 18 pages (pp. 55-72) to present ten "descriptive characteristics" that he uses to try to deal with the blind men and the elephant problem. The book is worth reading just for that analysis.

Buddhipriya 20:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to pick up a copy of Bhattacharyya's work, and hopefully read it on my lunch breaks.TheRingess (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Bhattacharyya's book is also very good as a cure for insomnia. If I have trouble getting to sleep, a cup of herbal tea and a few pages of Bhattacharyya are an infallible cure. Seriously, the book is a wonderful reference work. Buddhipriya 18:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make changes to sourced statements

Here is an example of an edit which added or changed semantic meaning of a statement which previously cited a specific source. Please do not make changes to sourced statements, as this type of edit results in the unsourced material appearing to be part of the original citation. Of course if the text of the original source was consulted in making the edit, that would be another matter. If this article is ever to improve we must make efforts to improve the attention given to sources. Here is the problem edit: [5] Buddhipriya 22:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The iterations by which BP has been smited and smarted and to which she refers were redressing inherent sexism of non-directly quotated material. The Tantra article reads like males can only be guru which is offensive, fallacious and [sic.]. Precious little new material was included and yet BP reverted the revisions. The new material that was included was as follows: "For many practicing lineages, these maithuna practices progressed into psychological and iconographic symbolism but for other lineages they constituted rites for transmuting and rarifing the embodied elemental constituents of the bodymind to realise satchitananda."[3]

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 07:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC) This is what has been stated differently in the newer edits following which include the dichotomy of left-handed and right-handed practice and practitioners within the subcategory of Kaula Tantra or external, outer practices.

More unsourced additions

There has been another unsourced addition by an editor who has previously been asked to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability: [6]. Since I have reverted this once, I will ask other editors to consider if this type of unsourced material is appropriate for the article, which will never improve unless we get more focus on WP:RS. I would like some feedback from other editors regarding the need to comply with sourcing. Buddhipriya 06:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the paragraph to which the draconian BP refers:

Swami Jnaneshvara Bharati and Swami Rama state that there are three principal entwined subcategories of the Tantric path: Kaula, Mishra and Samaya. These categories are cognate with Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche's: Outer, Inner and Secret practices. Different traditions emphasise these subcategories and establish various strata and state that they are definitive. In Tantric traditions there is no ultimate strata or hierarchy and a hierarchic overlay obscures understanding of sycretic teachings. Kaula Tantra includes the division of left-handed and right-handed practices. Left handed practices such as the Panchamakara and Ganachakra, instituted by the Mahasiddha are conducted only symbolically by the right-handed tantrikas who are often constrained by vows.

Prior to this paragraph... Mahasiddha, Ganachakra and Panchamakara were not referred to in this Tantra article. This is a critical oversight. I recommend that all editors read this article: [7] (accessed: 20 June 2007) to inform this debate that BP has incensed. To affirm, Tantra is an oral tradition based upon direct mystic revelation as well as parampara or disciplic succession. Therefore, the languages of Tantra are diverse, idiosyncratic and cumbersome. Identifying cultural cognates comes from broad non-demominational study, practice and awareness and rarely from scholarship and published sources. Tantra is about the incommunicable. I advocate and am a champion of scholarship. But I am also an advocate and champion of communion, revelation and Truth. BP's draconian reversions are anathemic to the wholistic progress of this article in providing a workable citable synthesis of revelation and scholarship. I might not always have the sources readily at hand but this should not negate defensible knowledge and learning. Certain constraints within Wikipedia should be appealable when they obscure wholistic scholarship.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 06:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from using labels such as "draconian". This is not constructive. It's easier to reach consensus when we simply realize that we all have different viewpoints and different methods. TheRingess (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I use draconian in its literal meaning, it is not offensive but true and appropriate to describe BP in relation to her reversion campaign. In response to your request on my talk page: == Tantra ==

Hello, yes, the Tantric trinity was included in Dzogchen Gankyil teachings in Namkhai Norbu's Crystal and the Way of Light (both editions) as well as Tenzin Wangyal's Healing with Form, Energy and Light where they are referred to as Outer, Inner and Secret. I came across the Sanskrit and Hindu tradition names for these on the Internet at the following site for the first time today and recognised them as correlates: [8]; [9]; 'tantra' @ [10]; and[11]; et. al. Unfortunately, I do not have a print source for the teaching within the Hindu tradition but provided the names of two people in the tantric sampradaya or lineage as oral verification. I hope that somebody may ford this teaching in concrete scholarship by the 'fact' label or mechanism to which you make reference. Thank you very much for introducing me to that functionality and deixis. You assert that I included a direct quotation in my edits but by memory I only inaugurated an indirect quotation and therefore your stated reason for the deletion of my contribution is bunk. I appreciate BP and her adroit contributions, as well as her stringent adherence to rules and regulations...but BP is using her knowledge of Wikipedian rules to strong-arm a knowledgable practitioner and negate my work where her energy and resourcefullness would be better served with others less adept. My edits are to provide directives for people to flesh out articles... I am not interested in the rules of Wikipedia per se: I focus on the Law and Lore of Dharma.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Please consider use of those types of words carefully, as they can often be interpreted as referring to the editors personality. At best, they are a description, at worst they impede progress.TheRingess (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way my inclusion which you reverted directly responds (and provides direction) to Vritti's above request for Organisational Constructs.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the discussion focus on what types of sources would be considered WP:RS for purposes of this article. We previously gave a sample reading list of books published by recognized academic publlishing houses. The only way to improve the quality of this rather poor article is to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability and stop the addition of more unsourced material. Improving the article requires two forces: the removal of unsourced content and the addition of strongly-sourced content from WP:RS. Buddhipriya 19:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish to support the opinion that only WP:RS be used as source or reference for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability is an extremely important starting point. We should not be "cognating" various concepts as original research here. If solely verifiable concepts are included, the reader themselves can do their own cognating and decide what aspects of our subject deserves a deeper look. If something is left out of this article, it could serve as a beacon illuminating what needs to be written into a reliable book by advanced practitioners and scholars for possible future inclusion here. -Vritti 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Kaula, Mishra and Samaya: Outer, Inner and Secret

Vritti, Cognate is akin to correlate and corollary and cognate implies a common origin: in this situation the concept is cognate; by "cognating" I infer you mean a thinking or cognitive process or activity that involves bodymind 'manas' and ego 'ahamkara'. Given your handle Vritti, your use of the grammatical infinitive 'cognating' which is a derivative from the base term 'cognate' is pointed.

Outer, Inner and Secret are Vajrayana, Dzogchen and Bon pedagogic categories (all of which are tantric systems that have elements transposed from Indian Buddhism and Indian Tantra); and I referenced them above in response to TheRingness' request. They have a Sanskritic correlate in Kaula, Mishra, & Samaya, which I found included in a number of websites on Tantra but have been as yet unable to procure a scholarly point of origin in English. So this is a {fact} that should be explored. This source [12] (accessed: 21 June 2007) has an interesting footnote, cited verbatum:

"260 For a discussion of the religious situation of the period, with its various Hindu sects and new Tantric (Kaula) movements, see now A. Sanderson, Purity and power, p. 190-216."

This Sanderson article is in the following publication:

Alexis Sanderson, Purity and power among the Brahmans of Kashmir, in: The category of the person. Anthropology, philosophy, history, ed. M. Carrithers, S. Collins, S. Lukes, Cambridge, CUP 1985, p. 213 n. 91.

Now that is a lead on Kaula tantra.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism and Tantra


Chapter 18 of White's Tantra in Practice (refer [13]) is The Necklace of Immortality: A Seventeenth-Century Vaisnava Sahajiya Text by Glen A. Hayes. Hence, certain traditions and practices of Vaishavism have Tantric elements. B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Extracted from the abovementioned source is the following paragraph on Vaishnava Tantra which names particular tantric hindu sects (and was provided particularly for Vritti...cintamani):

"The practice of Tantric forms of Yoga is often linked to Shaktism and Shaivism, though Vaishnava (and Buddhist) forms of Tantrism also exist. Tantric teachings are complex and varied, but generally aim at providing the adept with the means to harness divine potency in order to gain salvation. Tantrism was most prominent in India between the 8th and 14th centuries CE, when its teachings were widely disseminated, most especially in Kashmir, Bengal, Odisha, Kerala and Madhya Pradesh. The Vaishnava Tantric sects have links to the followers of Chaitanya and are found mainly in Bengal where they are known as the Sahajiyas and Bauls. Elsewhere Tantrism is most commonly associated with the worship of Shiva, the Goddess or both." B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 18:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Tantra external to India

From Avalon's Shakti and Shâkta (1918): "Chapter One: Indian Religion As Bharata Dharma":

"Wherever there is Sadhana...there is the system of the Tantra...Arthur Avalon...expressed his surprise at the similarity which exists between the Roman Catholic and the Tantrik mode of Sadhana. The Tantra has made the Yoga-system of Patañjali easily practicable and has combined with it the Tantrik rituals and the ceremonial observances (Karma-kanda); that is the reason why the Tantrik system of Sadhana has been adopted by all the religious sects of India. If this theory of the antiquarians, that the Tantra was brought into India from Chaldea or Shakadvipa be correct, then it may also be inferred that the Tantra passed from Chaldea to Europe. The Tantra is to be found in all the strata of Buddhism; the Tantrik Sadhana is manifest in Confucianism; and Shintoism is but another name of the Tantrik cult. Many historians acknowledge that the worship of Shakti or Tantrik Sadhana which was prevalent in Egypt from ancient times spread into Phoenicia and Greece. Consequently we may suppose that the influence of the Tantra was felt in primitive Christianity." (NB: original source not meta-enhanced: refer [15])

This paragraph is about the corollary Mysteries of the ancient world, Greece, Egypt, Babylon, India, etc.: Ganachakra, is a manifestation of this secret Sadhana, as are the Eleusinian Mysteries, Agape feast, Catholic Mass, etc. Now Ganachakra nor Mystery wasn't mentioned, are any of you going to challenge my reading of this paragraph because I KNOW the subject? If so, why? Ganachakra is cognate with Avalon's usage of Panchatattva (which is cognate with Panchamakara, refer [16]....*hehehehehehe* B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 17:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of all this? "If this theory of the antiquarians, that the Tantra was brought into India from Chaldea or Shakadvipa be correct..." It's one big hypothetical. Also, you ever heard of parallel evolution? Lastly, just because Indian and Mesopotamian religious traditions have linkages (which is all but guaranteed to be true) doesn't mean 'tantra' per se originated outside. -- 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So what is the justification of this scholarly debate not being represented in the article? B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 10:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Would like to add additional material to the article

- Tantra etymology. Another source of word tantra is derived from roots of sanskrit words tannoti and trayati (expand and liberate). - Additional subsection: Dualistic Tantra vs. Non Dual Tantra (comparative with patanjali-based traditions e.g. shaiva siddhanta and Kashmir Shaivism) - Shakta Tantra vs Shaiva tantra differentiator and commonality - Add Ritual as one of the primary parts of tantra - Left hand path vs Right hand path

Last time I made changes in the page the were removed. So I wanted to run them by you all. It is important that items above a represented in the article to a provide a true understanding of tantra in the East. Sasisekhara.sarasvati 17:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What are your sources? Did you cite these sources the last time you added the material? Do these sources fit WP:RS? TheRingess (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

-- I did cite the sources indeed (not for every sentence, however). What is the way for me to proceed. Should I make the edits with references directly in the article? 17:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:ATT, these should answer all of your questions.TheRingess (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this WP:OR?

The following material appears to be WP:OR, and the person who posted it has been putting similar material on multiple articles where it has been reverted. Here is an example of a related edit that was reverted elsewhere: [17] I would like other editors to give an opinion on this material, which follows: Buddhipriya 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Avalon (1918) [4] does provide a useful dichotomy of the "Ordinary Ritual" [5] and the "Secret Ritual" [6], where the secret ritual is referred to as the Panchatattva which is directly equated by Avalon with the Panchamakara and the "Cakrapuja" or Ganachakra. Importantly for scholarly Tantric discourse, Avalon also equates the Panchatattva with the Mahabhuta and the Panchamrita. The term "panchatattva" is also employed by the Gaudiya Vaishanava Tradition [7] to refer to a five-fold mystery comparable to the Christian Trinity or triune which betrays a tantric influence to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.


Because of the wide range of communities covered by the term tantra, it is challenging and problematic to describe tantric practices definitively. Avalon (1918) [8] does provide a useful dichotomy of the "Ordinary Ritual" [9] and the "Secret Ritual" [10], where the secret ritual is referred to as the Panchatattva which is directly equated by Avalon with the Panchamakara and the "Cakrapuja" or Ganachakra. Importantly for scholarly Tantric discourse, Avalon also equates the Panchatattva with the Mahabhuta and the Panchamrita. The term "panchatattva" is also employed by the Gaudiya Vaishanava Tradition [11] to refer to a five-fold mystery comparable to the Christian Trinity or triune which betrays a tantric influence to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 09:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the text online or the print edition before making assertions. This is all within Avalon's "Shiva & Shakti" (1918) [18].

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs)

Please read the above section, which explains that I moved the material to the talk page because it appears to be a synthesis of sources. Also note that you do not provide page references to the texts, making verification of the material difficult. Please review WP:CITE, WP:Verifiability, and WP:OR. Buddhipriya 10:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Buddhapriya... your use of "appears" is decidedly unscholarly. The metatext online does not have pages but i have included the chapters and you can find a particular term and phrase by using the Control + F or Find function. Do some research. This fulfills the Wikipedia policies so i am returning the paragraph.

B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Urban (2002), Vol.6, No.1
  2. ^ Saraswati, Shambhavi (2005). "What is Tantra? Part I". Retrieved 2007-05-17.
  3. ^ White (2000) [page needed]
  4. ^ Source: [19] (accessed: Monday July 9, 2007)
  5. ^ Source: [20] (accessed: Monday July 9, 2007)
  6. ^ Source: [21] (accessed: Monday July 9, 2007)
  7. ^ Rosen, Steven J. Sri Pancha Tattva: The Five Features of God 1994 ISBN 0-9619763-7-3 Folk Books, New York
  8. ^ Source: [22] (accessed: Monday July 9, 2007)
  9. ^ Source: [23] (accessed: Monday July 9, 2007)
  10. ^ Source: [24] (accessed: Monday July 9, 2007)
  11. ^ Rosen, Steven J. Sri Pancha Tattva: The Five Features of God 1994 ISBN 0-9619763-7-3 Folk Books, New York