Talk:Tantra

Meaningless

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

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.

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: [1]. 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.

• Buddhipriya - I'm willing to help improve referencing on the article, but cannot work intensively on it at this time.

• 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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.

Milestones

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

Achieved

Not achieved

Bring article to FA status

Achieved

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.

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".

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)

• I consider Crowley (1996) an excellent source: http://v72.org/PDF/psychoactive_gods_urine.pdf (accessed 21 June 2007) as it charts that soma and amrita are cognate within the vedic, hindu, tantric and vajrayana traditions, includes references to the mahasiddha, Hevajra Tantra, and ganachakra, as well states the following:

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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.

• I consider Crowley (1996) an excellent source: http://v72.org/PDF/psychoactive_gods_urine.pdf (accessed 21 June 2007) as it charts that soma and amrita are cognate within the vedic, hindu, tantric and vajrayana traditions, includes references to the mahasiddha, Hevajra Tantra, and ganachakra, as well states the following:

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Explaining Mantras: Ritual, Rhetoric, and the Dream of a Natural Language in Hindu Tantra may be worthwhile, the chapter headings, some of the text and index are available at the following: [2] B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 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: [3] 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."

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 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: [4]. 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: [5] (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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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: [6]; [7]; 'tantra' @ [8]; and[9]; 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.
Respectfully
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 [10] (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.

Sincerely
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaishnavism and Tantra

Chapter 18 of White's Tantra in Practice (refer [11]) 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Here is an article on Vaishnava Tantra: [12] refer Saint Chaitanya and the doctrine of Acintabedabedatattva. B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:55, 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, Orissa, 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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 [13])

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 [14]....*hehehehehehe* B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 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. --69.203.80.158 23:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So what is the justification of this scholarly debate not being represented in the article? B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 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?75.22.177.142 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: [15] I would like other editors to give an opinion on this material, which follows: Buddhipriya 09:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Avalon (1918) does provide a useful dichotomy of the "Ordinary Ritual" and the "Secret Ritual" , 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 to refer to a five-fold mystery comparable to the Christian Trinity or triune which betrays a tantric influence to Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

Practices

Because of the wide range of communities covered by the term tantra, it is challenging and problematic to describe tantric practices definitively. Avalon (1918) does provide a useful dichotomy of the "Ordinary Ritual" and the "Secret Ritual" , 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 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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 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) [16].

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)}

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Panchatattva as cognate with Ganachakra and Panchamakara

Arthur Avalon (1918) affirms that the Five Nectars of Tantra, Hindu and Buddhist traditions are directly related to the Mahābhūta or Five Elements and that the Panchamakara is actually a vulgar term for the Panchatattva and affirms that this is cognate with Ganapuja:

Worship with the Pañcatattva generally takes place in a Cakra or circle composed of men and women, Sadhakas and Sadhikas, Bhairavas and Bhairavis sitting in a circle, the Shakti being on the Sadhaka's left. Hence it is called Cakrapuja. A Lord of the Cakra (Cakreshvara) presides sitting with his Shakti in the center. During the Cakra, there is no distinction of caste, but Pashus of any caste are excluded. There are various kinds of Cakra -- productive, it is said, of differing fruits for the participator therein. As amongst Tantrik Sadhakas we come across the high, the low, and mere pretenders, so the Cakras vary in their characteristics from say the Tattva-cakra for the Brahma-kaulas, and the Bhairavi-cakra (as described in Mahanirvana, VII. 153) in which, in lieu of wine, the householder fakes milk, sugar and honey (Madhura-traya), and in lieu of sexual union does meditation upon the Lotus Feet of the Divine Mother with Mantra, to Cakras the ritual of which will not be approved such as Cudacakra, Anandabhuvana-yoga and others referred to later.

"Cakrapuja" is cognate with Ganachakra or Ganachakrapuja.

You appear to be engaged in WP:OR. You also seem to place undue weight on the sexual content of this material. I have previously reverted this addition, and asked for discussion on the talk page. However you reverted me immediately, and since I generally practice a one-revert rule whenever possible I will not revert this synthesis of material, which is what original research means, a second time. I ask other editors to review the material and determine if this is original research, if Avalon is considered a reliable source (I do not consider him as such), and if the preoccupation with sexual activity shown by this editor gives undue weight to that aspect, which is generally a sign of Western influence. Buddhipriya 00:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Avalon most likely reports accurately on what he was shown at the time. I also agree that the "Five Ms" are somewhat related to the Buddhist tantras, though I don't know if Avalon is the best source for this. I don't agree that panchamakara is a "vulgar term" or that it is necessary to say that it is. The quote does accurately report on the use of substitutes by the Dakshinamarg, which quite probably has more adherents. Do you know of any source which goes into the relative proportion of Dakshinamarg vs. Vamamarg practitioners? That might be what is needed to balance this. IPSOS (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but the title of the section has to go. The Avalon quote should simply be integrated into an appropriate place in the article, sans excess speculation. IPSOS (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish to edit this section directly, so I will rely on you to make the changes which you suggest. I generally agree with your comments above. For a good debunking review of Avalon, I recommend the book by Hugh Urban, Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion. I have the Indian edition, which is by Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2007. There is a prior US edition. The Indian edition is ISBN 81-208-2932-8. It is a very insightful review of how the original Indian materials came to be "discovered" by the West and interpreted with extreme fascination regarding the sexual component, which is not the main theme in Indian philosophical writings. Urban debunks many of the Western writers, including Avalon, who have been responsible for creating a false notion of what Tantra traditions involve. I think this conflict between visions of what tantra is are at the root of the edits which the editor in question currently has been making. If you examine recent edit activity for that editor you will see placement of similar original research with a focus on sexual matters on multiple articles. Regarding your question about "right versus left" practitioners, no specific quantification leaps to mind. The real problem is that the concept of what tantra is differs in the West, with extreme fascination on sexual ideas. For an authentic review of Indian traditions I recommend Bhattacharyya, previously cited on this page. Buddhipriya 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree with most of what you say. However, my understanding is that Avalon did not just translate and interpret texts, but was actaully initiated into some branch of the tantric tradition and derived his ideas/interpretations from his Indian Guru. There is a sexual component to many tantric traditions, despite the fact that the weaving of mantra, yantra and other technologies is much more important and absolutely essential, also with guru devotion, before any sexual element can have any meaning or use whatsoever. The solution I think is to go into more technical detail about these non-sexual components. There is, after all, only so much one can say about sex, while the rest of tantra can be elaborated practically infinitely. :-) IPSOS (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree in general with your line of thought. I also feel strongly that the differences between the Western interpretation and the Indian philosophical literature need to be kept very clear. The popular perceptions of tantra in the West are so completely bound up with sexual elements that are considered unorthodox within Hindu society is something that should be documented in the article. The book by Urban may be useful for that debunking. The immediate problem with the edits that I have challenged is that they include WP:OR. To prevent charges of edit warring, it would be best if some other editor would intervene in the text if wish to adjust it. Regarding John Woodroffe (Arthur Avalon), Urban says this on p. 136: "Although his scholarship is now considered rather biased and flawed, Sir John Woodruffe must be acknowledged as a remarkable pioneer and even as the father of the modern study of the Tantras. Ironically, Woodroffe himself did not care to use the term 'Tantrism,' arguing that it was a mistaken Western imposition; yet today, Woodroffe more than any other scholar has become identified with the term." Note that Urban is referring to Western scholarship on tantra. For a revealing behind-the-scenes look at how Avalon developed his books see Urban, pp. 137-140. Regarding his lack of knowledge of Sanskrit, which is essential for reading the source texts, Urban (p. 138) says: "... it seems fairly clear that Woodroffe was not particularly competent in Sanskrit. In fact, some Indian linguists have asserted that Woodroffe could not even read the script accurately."

Here is a quotation from the Preface to N. N. Bhattacharyya's History of the Tantric Religion (p. 7), a very comprehensive historical work, making the point that I am trying to make: "Most of the modern writers on this subject insist solely on its sexual elements, minimal though they are, compared to the vastness of the subject, and purport to popularize certain modern ideas pertaining to sex problems in the name of Tantra. Thus the historical study of Tantrism has been handicapped, complicated and conditioned by the preoccupation of the writers in the field." Buddhipriya 02:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are excellent quotes. IPSOS (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sex is natural and sacred, I do not dwell on it within the articles I edit. I state it simply and directly. Buddhipriya is speaking untruthfully in relation to the nature of my edits. I invite any editor to review my editing history to ascertain my sincerity and earthy-purity of intent. I do not emphasize sexuality in my articles. Sex is endemic to a sophisticated understanding of tantra and trantric ritual tool usage throughout all traditions, whether those tools are Outer/External/Physically enacted, Inner/Internal/Mind, Secret/Esoteric/sophisticated. There is no value judgement on which form of practice is involved in the rite though the literature does state that external, internal and secret are for practitioners with specific guna and tattva constituency. I agree with reservations that Buddhipriya reveals about Avalon as a source as he is a product of his time. I simply wanted to introduce the linkage of cognate terms. Terminology is used to conceal and reveal. This is a pervasive theme in the tantras and tantric scholarly discourse. But a historical exegesis of changing perceptions is much more interesting and insightful in this article than using all recent resources. New sources are not necessarily the best. Using only new sources is one dimentional and a source of bias in itself. By the way, the bhutagana's of shiva and the gana of ganachakra are cognate. Gana+isha as Lord of Gana is the pricipal tool/deity of chimeric reconstitution and transformation. Ganesha and Kirtimukha are both gana. The worship of both and the processes they represent are key to the path and fruit. The bhutagana and Shiva when in mysteric reverie haunt Mt Kailash and charnal grounds... ganachakra was performed in charnal grounds and places directly related to death as a celebration of birth, rebirth and CONTINUITY (sexuality was performed in the charnal grounds). Coition happened as an aspect of the Mystery in these rites. Ganachakra sadhakas "become" the bhutagana. I would appreciate editors introducing this content in the future. Blessings

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear B9 hummingbird hovering - I don't doubt your sincerity for a moment. However, I think it would be a fine thing if you took a deep breath, centered yourself and proceeded with some playful self-inquiry. I don't want you to think me snide or over critical, but a number of fine editors have dropped you some heavy hints brother, as to what's the bother with your edits. Do consider the concept... cognising cognate terms here is bad English, but without solid academic reference, is a pithy definition of WP:OR. This will get you resistance from many an editor. I do hope you consider the concept so you may have a sense of what some are complaining about. You needn't read between the lines as WP:OR is a straightforward concept and pillar of Wikipedia. Many editors go to great lengths to uphold this guideline. Please do not disregard their sensibilities. We don't edit in a vacuum here. Thanks for considering. -Vritti 07:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bhattacharyya is a sexual apologist and tantric revisionist. I forget that others such as Buddhipriya have issues with sexuality (union, creation, continuity, bliss) and that they perceive it as a purely external (often immoral) act. Sex is truly amoral (beyond morality). I state again, Outer, Inner, Secret. This indivisible tantric trichotomy(?) is apt.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)