Talk:Tantra/Archive 3

Link
According to my judgement this is a Precious text. It is from Bulletin of Tibetology 1985 No. 2.
 * Austerlitz -- 88.72.24.111 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Tamil Berkeley Faculty Research Article added to "External websites"
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Writing at Twilight: "O' Shariputra, the sandhaa-bhashya of the Tathaagatas is very difficult." by Layne Little


 * Please don't add any more external links to this article. If the link is a reliable source and has material not found in this article, then the material should be summarized and included, with the website used as a source.  Thanks.TheRingess (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And your rationale is what? Ensure you graze deeply before making determinations and value judgements. In my experience of your edits, your engagement is becoming increasingly cosmetic. Why did I break the Wikipedia guideline in qualifying and redressing the sentiment in that quotation? When did you last add content that improved the quality of an article?


 * Petrosomatoglyph


 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Meaning of the Word
It may be pertinent to note, that in Hindi, the word "Tantra" is used widely for any supernatural practice, such as magic, sorcery, or invocation/conjuration. Compare with the word "Jadu" which refers to illusionism and sleight of hand. This fact may be relevant to the issue of how Tantra has come to be misunderstood in the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCarson (talk • contribs) 20:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible Source?
See. -- Shruti14 t c s 02:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Scroll down to the bottom of that page to see where that article got its content. :-) Abecedare (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Prune further reading?
Further reading section seems overly long... anyone mind if I move the sources listed that seem to refer only to single tantras (and not to tanta/tantricism as a whole) to the Tantras page? Dakinijones (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem too long to me. I say let's leave it as is and just monitor what gets added.TheRingess (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So what criteria would you suggest for what gets added? Dakinijones (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That they be reliable sources as outlined here. What else would be needed? TheRingess (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with you on the reliable source part. Other points I thought might be worth considering are them being in English (as we're En Wiki), being relevant, and being currently available and in print. I was relieved to find a more recent edition of the Rene Guenon - and a look at the contents listing showed me its highly relevant. Dakinijones (talk) 22:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Brown - Legit?
The source by Robert Brown, who claims "Tantra" is a Western invention, isn't properly cited. There is a chapter title included ("Introduction") with a publisher (Harpers) and a date, but that's all. What book did this come out of?

If a book can't be identified, we should discard the Robert Brown information and source as non-credible. Randy R 10:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.161.254 (talk)

Introduction
The introduction, "tantricism or tantrism is any of several esoteric traditions rooted in the religions of India." is very vague, and whats "esoteric" for one might not be so for other scholars. I think the introduction should be improved. CormenL (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Difference
What is the difference between a Tantra and a Yantra?Pwordisony (talk) 19:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

From the article itself: ''Linguistically the three words mantram, tantram and yantram are related in the ancient traditions of India (as well as phonologically). Mantram denotes the chant, or "knowledge." Tantram denotes philosophy, or ritual actions. Yantram denotes the means (or the machine) by which a human is expected to lead his life.''

As one involved to a degree with Yoga, one was taught that "mantra" means (meditative) "mind-release" as in "Om Shantih," etc.; following the text above, "tantra" could apply to the philosophy of mind-releasing and its ritualized, physical expressions and practices generally while "yantra," similarly could apply to the general path chosen, particular sect including type of guru or teachers -- or even the particular texts favored in such a pursuit, as issued by a guru or teacher to a student. The three-in-oneness of it all is easily confounded/compounded as one imagines a set of persons covered with oils and rose petals, looking at Kama Sutra, indulging in sex acts while chanting Om Shantih -- such is, after all the impression in the West of Mantram-Tantram-Yantram, which usually and predictably induces tantrums in any orthodoxies. And in one's special smartness, be sure to review the nice article at Yantra. 71.51.76.126 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split this article to make it about Tantra in general (not just Hindu Tantra)
This is a conversation I had earlier with another editor:

I agree with you that it is not ideal to have Tantra focused mainly on the Hindu tradition. It would perhaps be better to have a single short overview article on all strands of Tantrism and daughter articles on Tantra in Hinduism, Vajrayana etc. Do you think this is a good idea or worth doing ? Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do, very much so. It is misleading at the moment to have the generic term Tantra describing Hindu Tantra only. (I could help with the Buddhist Tantra part of the overview, improving what is already there, in a few short paragraphs. But I am no expert on a general overview of Tantra, so someone else would have to extract the Hindu elements and move to a new daughter article, while summarizing the main points on Hindu Tantra for the general Tantra article). (Truthbody (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The main problem with dealing with Tantra is that it is an umbrella term for traditions with many strands, interpretations and varying emphasis. That, along with the esoteric terminology, makes it difficult to write an understandable encyclopedic summary of the topic. But it should be worth a try. Would you mind proposing this on the article talk page ? That way we can invite other views and perhaps a cadre of knowledgeable editors who will be ready to help. Since there is no urgency here, I think we should wait for a week or so before actually splitting the Tantra article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for coming in late, but I am a professional in Tantric concepts and philosophy. And though Tantra is an umbrella, there are separate umbrellas for Hindu Tantra and all other Tantras. I rightly believe that the article needs to split for a separate article on Hindu Tantra. Unfortunately, I am unable to be proactive in creating and editing articles, but know all the paths and ways of the Tantric methods. I will be able to help you people, with all kinds of questions & clarifications. All you need to do is ask me on my talk page. Sorry for not being able to take any initiative, but I am bad at taking the first steps. I may also edit as and when required. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 11:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I am proposing just this. I hope there is a cadre of knowledgeable editors who will be ready to help?! Thanks a lot. (Truthbody (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Any takers?! (Truthbody (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC))
 * Yup, its me. Bhuto (Talk | Contribs) 11:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to help with this as far as I can... know more about Buddhist tantra than Hindu but have access to some works on the Early Indian Tantic movement. We definitely need the split as there are many wikilinks to tantra and then they lead to a page that's mostly Hindu and not clear at all as an overview of the Tantric Movement as a whole... --Dakinijones (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with what has been said above, and am prepared to help. Someone is going to have to do a "bold" first attempt, however. (Possibly me if I get time.) I too have more knowledge of Buddhist than Hindu tantra, but some background in both. Probably we can accomplish the task simply by moving almost all the text here into a new Tantra (Hinduism) article and writing from scratch a brief overview with pointers to that and Vajrayana. Arthur chos (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything written here, but in the spirit of tantra itself, I'd hate to see the article splintered off into several articles; why not one longer article with the various strands of tantra clearly labeled underneath a broad general overview of tantra as an umbrella term. Unfortunately I'm not an expert on it or I would contribute more.


 * There is already a very long separate Vajrayana article. Moving it into this one would make for an article that is much too long. This article is almost entirely about Hindu tantra, and the content should be clearly labeled as such. As it stands, it is misleading for anyone wanting to learn about Buddhist tantra, or tantra in general. Arthur chos (talk)


 * Agree -- one happened into this article from the Gnostic references regarding Barbelo; one notes the absence here of some exhilirating Western poetical references, e.g., The Thunder, Perfect Mind and the more Eastern, Huahujing Chapter 69 of Laozi. Perhaps as well there may be some parallel/relating references within American Native lore, including the Lakota's Barbelo/Mary-like White Buffalo Calf Woman 71.51.76.126 (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't agree with this. Tantra is similar to various other religious trends, and in some cases there was probably some mutual influence (e.g. with Taoist alchemy). But I think that to make it feasible to write a well-researched article, we need to keep the scope within the area that Indological historians would call "tantra" proper. Otherwise it would become diffuse, over-long, and likely to attract improper syntheses and original research. Arthur chos (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What has happened to this proposal? At first glance I didn't see it and removed the tag. I've restored it, but if this has stagnated and is not going to happen, the tag should be removed. Yworo (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is a tantra text?
If you are interested in Yantra/Tantra/Mantra so contact Shri Pawan Kumar Jain Ji http://www.naugraha.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.142.183 (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how a tantric text is distinguished from another text, first does it contain incantations, philosophy, sagas, songs, secondly what is the contents and characteristics of tantra texts compared to other religious hinduism texts? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your answer is possibly contained within the first two words of it, namely, I wonder... In some sense subjective Tantra is a subjective philosophical filter, attributable to a Freud or Jung and in another sense it is a philosophical objective quantifiable in such popular texts as Kama Sutra and Koka Shastra, or even Lady Chatterly's Lover. In the ordinary, unwashed communities of America, Tantra probably represents to some a conflicted, ritualized apotheosis of pornography, viz., the attitudes of those confronted with the idea that perhaps Jesus had humanly-formal sex with Mary Magdalen, and the denialist position that Yahweh could not be instantly Jesus's Father, but rather some more cumbersome earth person like the soldierly Pantera. Don't we all wonder? 71.51.76.126 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. Tantra comprises some very specific traditions and is not a catch-all phrase for neotantra or sex magic. One thing that all tantric traditions include is the requirement for a guru or lama. Kama Sutra is not a tantric text, it is a sex manual. Yworo (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no scholarship that would describe the Kama Sutra as a tantric text - it is a sex manual for rich men! Its good; but not tantra. There is nothing about spiritual growth which is essential to tantra. 82.69.93.81 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Literature
I would like to add this literature Teachings and Practice of Tibetan Tantra (Eastern Philosophy and Religion) (Paperback) Edited by Garma C C Chang, Translated by John C Wilson


 * Search results for Garma C Chang
 * Austerlitz -- 188.102.27.212 (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That would probably be more appropriate on the Vajrayana article or even on the Tantra techniques (Vajrayana), since the focus of this article is Hindu tantra. Yworo (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The contents of this article are questionable and lacks the depth of the topic
Most of the contents are influence and inspired by westners' books and doesn't say anything from Indian perspective. For instance, "an inter-religious spiritual movement that arose in medieval India"..."in some schools of "left-handed" Tantra (Vamachara), ritual sexual intercourse is employed as a way of entering into the underlying processes and structure of the universe". First of all it is not a "Movement" and did not "arise" in medieval times. It is rather a system of invoking divine powers of the nature through a particular set of rituals, continuously practiced for a specified time until it gets ripened and ready to be used either for spiritual enlightenment with higher purpose or for advancement in mundane affairs (shat karma).

Tantra is an integral part of Vedic system and well compiled/documented in "Atharva Veda". Other religious sects adopted these practices in later times. Hence got disenfranchised by the population as they were based on the false premise of being "Non-Vedic".

With the above definition, the next objectionable term becomes "sexual Intercourse" - yes intercourse is applied in many rituals but that is completely beyond the scope of being "sexual" per se. The underlying sense of intercourse during these rituals is completely Asexual; if someone does that with sexual sense, gets punished by the same power of nature, many times immediately. Readers may want to research on that and they are free to do so; I am confindent they will find ample amount of live examples in many parts of India.

The Definition of Tantra is not even touching the sense of Tantra in this article and its real meaning. Problem with wikipedia articles are that they need to be cited from somewhere else, as most of the writers have limited scope of understanding; they end up relying on westners' texts which are though wrritten in English, lacks the sense of original Sanskrit construction.59.95.112.124 (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The issues you raised are now being addressed. This article is far from the standard of a published encyclopedia entry, but it will get there slowly. As you say, the article has relied far too much on western free interpretations of the subject that have little or no reference to the primary sources. Since this is a referenced encyclopedia, we must use information that is found in reliable published sources, rather than personal field research as you suggest. Jnananetra (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't find anything objectionable from a scholarly-practitioner POV with the text you singled out for quoting. Rather, I do find your account of desire within tantric maithuna suspect. 120.61.35.223 (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Hinduism is largely concept driven and the religion itself focuses on "understanding and realization" rather than being prescriptive and book-based like the Abrahamic religions. The vedas and all other texts form PART of Hinduism and do not define Hinduism per se in its entirety. If this is understood, then one can understand the futility and stupidity of seeking out "reliable published sources" for articles on Hinduism. Little wonder that articles in the wiki on Hinduism lack depth or meaning let alone respect from any knowledgeable Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOnlyEmperor (talk • contribs) 07:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with everything you said about Hinduism. However wikipedia's primary policy is that material is not recorded here unless it is verifiable by a third party. Ridiculous or not, it's the one rule they won't budge on. That said, I'm sure we can at least find some newspaper articles or journals to support what you said. AaronCarson (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yoga and tantra
Hi Roccos1. You added the following text:
 * "The terms yoga and tantra are commonly interchanged because in the first century of the Common Era, Patañjala Yoga was introduced. This term is a principle 'science' (or tantra) that means the study of self and mind. Because yoga is said to be a science, the study of this science includes that of "bodily postures, breathing mechanisms, sensing and motor functioning, the analysis of mental states, ego awareness, and general cognitive performance" Although the terms were both introduced early on somewhat interchangeably, they appear relatively late in Sanskrit literature where yoga was used regularly and tantra was only used once. In these appearances, yoga was used as the practice of studying the body and mind and tantra was used to mean loom, such as fabric on a loom. "

This text seems problematic to me; I'm going to analyze it, to figure out why.
 * "The terms yoga and tantra are commonly interchanged because in the first century of the Common Era, Patañjala Yoga was introduced." - Something's missing here: what does Patanjali Yoga have to do with it? And what is "Patanjali Yoga"? (Rāja yoga, of course; you'll have to add a synonym). And was "Patañjala Yoga" "introduced in the first century? The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali are dated at the 4th century CE.
 * "This term is a principle 'science' (or tantra) that means the study of self and mind" - which term are you referring to? Yoga? Tantra? Patanjali yoga? And what is the "study of self and mind"? Yoga? Tantra?


 * "Because yoga is said to be a science, the study of this science includes that of "bodily postures, breathing mechanisms, sensing and motor functioning, the analysis of mental states, ego awareness, and general cognitive performance"" - Because yoga is said to be a science, it includes etc?
 * Okay, time to check the source (if possible). Yes, I can access it. It would ne helpfull if you give the exact page-numbers.
 * Larson's article is a review of two books: Philipp André Maas on the first Pada of the Pätanjalayogasästra, and James Mallinson provides on the Khecarlvidyä, a Hatha Yoga text. Larson: "Both texts use the term yoga and both are important for understanding the meaning of the term tantra. What is striking, however, is that the two terms yoga and tantra have two distinctly different meanings in the respective traditions to which they belong." (p.487)
 * Larson: "Tradition likewise links the study of the self (ätman) or mind (citta) in Patañjala Yoga with the two other principal "sciences" (tantras or s'astras) of the classical period (ca. third through the fifth century c.E.) in north Indian intellectual history. The two other sciences (or tantras) are, of course, the science of medicine (Ayurveda) and the science of grammar (Vyakarana), both of which are also associated with the name Patañjali, and both of which were hecoming mature sastras in the early centuries c.E." (p.488) - So, tradition calls Patanjali yoga a "tantra" or "sastra", c.q. "science".
 * Larson: "all three tantras or 'sciences' likewise share three important features, namely, (1) an empirical evidentiary database, (2) systematic pragmatic experimentation, and (3) independence from religious authority." (p.488)
 * "In any case, as mentioned earlier, there is a natural affinity among the three tantras in terms of an empirical evidentiary base, systematic pragmatic experimentation, and independence from religious authority. In the case of Yoga, the database includes the study of bodily postures, breathing mechanisms, sensing and motor functioning, the analysis of mental states, ego awareness, and general cognitive performance." (p.488)

Roccos1, tantra is an extremely complex topic. I've been studying buddhism now for more than 25 years, and I know something about the history of Buddhism and Hinduism, but Tantra is really so extremely difficult, that I hardly dare to touch the topic. Like most Wikipedians. If I were you, I'd skip this topic, and take another one. It's too complicated. You need a at least a basic understanding of the history of Hinduism and Buddhism, and of yoga and tantra themselves, to be able to understand the literature, c.q. this article by Larson. The fact that you missed "in the Rg Veda" is understandable, but not acceptable. If, however, you want to do something with tantra, here are a suggestions for literature: I'm sorry to be so critical; it's not meant to discourage you. If I can help you, please contact me at my talkpage. Succes! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So, Patanjali yoga was considered by tradition to be a "science", which means that (1)(2)(3). That's a beginning of a context for the term "science".
 * Larson: "they appear relatively late in Sanskrit literature where yoga was used regularly and tantra was only used once" - you have to explain what's being meant here with "Sanskrit literature"; otherwise, the statements being made here are meaningless. It suggests that the term "tantra" is quite obscure; which it isn't, of course.
 * "In these appearances, yoga was used as the practice of studying the body and mind and tantra was used to mean loom, such as fabric on a loom" - which appearamces? And plural appearances for "tantra", while the term appeared only once?
 * "tantra was used to mean loom, such as fabric on a loom" - what does this mean? You'll have to explain this.
 * Larson: "It is precisely in this creative and systematic era that the terms yoga and tantra (and the term sârnkhya as well) begin to be widely used. The terms were used earlier, of course, but for the most part they are late in appearing in classical Sanskrit literature. The term yoga first appears only in the Taittiriya Upanisad (II.4.1 ) and then in the Katha and Svetäsvatara Upanisads (II.3.11 and II. 11 respectively). Thereafter, of course, it appears widely in the epic and purânic literature. The term tantra appears only once in the Rg Veda in the sense of a 'loom' and the fabric on a loom (cf. Grassman's Wörterbuch zum Rig Veda) and nowhere, so far as I can find, in the early or "principal" Upanisadic literature (cf. Jacob's Concordance)." (p.489-490) - so, the term "tantra" appears only once in the Rg Veda... That's a crucial bit of info.

Tantra and human sacrifice
In the article on human sacrifice, if you search for "tantric" there are references to tantric human sacrifice. I have no idea whether this is accurate or not. If so, it should be mentioned in this article. If not, it needs to go out there. deisenbe (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tantra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110713134552/http://www.kapalika.com/qanda.html to http://www.kapalika.com/qanda.html#4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

White tantra, red trantra..
I know little about Tantra, but would like to bring to the attention of anyone actively following this entry, that there is an article "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Tantrism" that has no links to other articles and almost no categories.

In this entry I found no mention of white (or red) tantrism.

Best Regards Igor (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That page seems to be on a specific teaching of Samuel Aun Weor who seemingly uses the term antithetically to how it is used in authentic tantra. I plan on NFDing that page soon. It's 90% rubbish and should just be a heading on the Aun Weor page at best. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have the idea that what we know today as Yoga is a derivation of Tantra and previous to the Vedas.
I am researching the origins of literature and from there I found that Tantra might be the oldest way of thinking of mankind of course I lack evidence to support my claim. But by following along the postings here so it seems. If somebody with better access to information can add to this topic I will be in debt forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.221.158.23 (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Go through this link http://www.hinduwisdom.info/Yoga_and_Hindu_Philosophy.htm. Also got through http://www.hinduwisdom.info. This website contain tons of useful data Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 02:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tantra is younger, but yoga, c.q. trance practices,may be much older indeed.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Tantra is called the fifth Veda in many scriptures. Tantra is old as the Vedas. Tantra's can be classified as Siva Tantra's and Saktheya Tantra's. But in general, lets say ignorant people know Tantra as only Sakthi worshipers tradition. Siva Tantra's predates Saktheya Tantra's by many centuries. Most of the Siva Tantras are lost or kept secret. Tantra is regarded as a Sruti or Agama, ‘revelation’, as opposed to a Smrti or Nigama, ‘tradition’. It is thus classed with the Vedas. This claim is supported by many books. Please go through the links, also from these 2 book we can find many useful references to other major scriptures. This claim is also supported in  Parasurama Kalpa Sutra . This book is the basis of all Tantric rituals in almost all temples in South India and many temples in North India. Though many foreign scholars  doubt about the period of origin of this book, but one have to keep in mind that Parasurama Kalpa Sutra is the back bone of all Tantric rituals in Hindu Temples. Parasurama Kalpa Sutra is old as Hinduism.


 * https://books.google.co.in/books?id=s1PZAMD13SMC&pg=PA156&lpg=PA156&dq=Nisvasatattva+Samhita&source=bl&ots=msVrR9gYTm&sig=YKCMKWJyJrJ8vF8t-6UNjNHXTIw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiQmt-11ZfNAhUQUI8KHVfOD6YQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=Nisvasatattva%20Samhita&f=false


 * http://www.estudantedavedanta.net/Ramakrishna-Mission-Studies-on-the-Tantras.pdf

Arjunkrishna90 (talk) 06:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

How about some evidence
How about some references to some actual real science backing/refuting tantric practices? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Science can only refute claims. What specific claims would be refuted?TheRingess (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Definition
I've just made a few minor copy-edits, but in the course of reading the first few sections, I came across a sentence that I think could be improved. It is the last sentence in the section Tantra:


 * These coincide with two different approaches to ultimate reality, namely a Vedic-Brahmanical approach, and approaches based on other texts.

Even if "approaches based on other texts" is explained later (I didn't read the rest of the article yet), this is a weak sentence. It starts out by saying "two different approaches to ultimate reality", then gives an explanation with one clearly defined approach ("a Vedic-Brahmanical approach") and then a plural catch-all phrase ("approaches based on other texts"). A strong start that falls apart as one goes through the sentence. I think that this dichotomy could be introduced or explained better than this, even at this early point in the article. Just a thought. – Corinne (talk) 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * @Corinne: Indeed. I will bandage that sentence. We have many serious issues in this article, the bandage a temporary fix at best. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Bhattacharyya book
@VictoriaGrayson, There are two cites for N. N. Bhattacharyya, but they have the same isbn, as the 1982 version. Is there and has anyone seen the first and the "2nd edition"? This article needs some work, both in the main section and the lead. Have a look at what other tertiary sources have to say: 1 and 2. @VG/@R/others: if your schedule permits, could you please look at the summary and references cited in the David Gray's Oxford source and update this article? : your thoughts and suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Tantra is such an incredibly complex topic; I know hardly anything about it.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
The etymology of the word - which is very meaningful as well as Tan Tra - The body+instrument. The body as the instrument for God realisation, just like Mantra - The mind as an instrument. And Yantra - another related discipline. Can we have someone to look this up. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.62.156.116 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not relialble
Can we discuss here why the text is not reliable --Shrikanthv (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He isn't a scholar.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I have restored the article to the version by @VictoriaGrayson. The Aurobindo text is a hundred year old book, and there has been a lot of WP:RS on tantra in last 40 years. Pages 42-43 are not stating what you added (such as the stuff on Purusha). Rather, it is Yoga context discussion. The article already covers the various meanings of Tantra and the Vedic context. Also, rawattractionmagazine.com is non-RS (whoever added it). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why don't you delete the topic itself because it is so old!, I see that there is preconcieved notions and vigor to protect one's notion, as any pecular changes to known boundries would destabilize ones "I" eventually leading to a sensation of "no purpose" :) Shrikanthv (talk) 08:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * And you can download actuall book here and read page 42-43 about purusha, but I see no point in further discussion. the book Shrikanthv (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a "very old source" and "very old topic". We can't be unduly or exclusively highlighting archaic 100+ years old WP:SPS style interpretation, when later peer reviewed scholarship and reviews are available, and the mainstream scholarship has moved further in its understanding based on additionally discovered manuscripts, discounting of unauthentic texts, further studies and such. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What you are saying is particular true to scientific discoveries where we have with time have better understanding of things also may be more detailed information. but this is relatively not applicable to the topic what we are talking about as it is not a objective truth of things. but the topic in question as you see it, with time as always been tried to be applied to make sence for that period of time, and has been considerably diluted & reduced (my opinion),  but its essence does not lie in  time bound interpretation nor in evedential analysis (unlike Archeology or Anthropology) but in the hidden truths, sorry this is also as i have seen the downfall of western view on Indian topics , yes you can have a deep analysis of each things are and try to summarise and try to make sence, but sorry this will not bring about the answer here but will bring about  mere reduction of things to "no valuenes" . Shrikanthv (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be assuming that we have means to know history / religious concepts / past society / past culture, related to tantra or something else, beyond material evidence (archeology e.g.) or literary evidence (manuscripts e.g.). You may also be assuming that either of these evidence do not get corrupted or have not been corrupted or there is no need for any further scholarship for "better understanding" or critical cross examination since Aurobindo and others told everything already. We disagree. Let us avoid WP:FORUM-y debate here, nor ignore wikipedia's content guidelines. FWIW, a text by Aurobindo published by Aurobindo Ashram is a non-peer reviewed SPS style publication, that is also very old. All that makes it non-RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * you have every right to assume that i assumed thats why i stated in the beginning that no use in discussion and again thanks for keeping everything under control!!  barnstar for saving the day :) --Shrikanthv (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Daoism has nothing to do with Tantra
I am always frightened by the ignorance of western scholars when they write anything about Daoism (or Shinto).In fact daoist practices are attested for at least some thousand years before any contact could have happened between India and China: one has just to read carefully Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi. Moreover, even though they indeed show some similarities in principles and practice, they are also essentially different in approach, theory and concrete practices, as anyone acquainted with them both can tell: e.g. in daoist alchemy the opening of the central channel is just the first step of a very complex and long process.Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The article does not say that Tantra influenced the origin of Daoism. It may be that it influenced it at a later stage. — kashmīrī  TALK  10:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This assumption is totally unwarrented,I am sorry to say...No evidence at all, whether literary or concrete, is there to support it. Just read carefully the daoist (internal) alchemic literature...It may be, on the opposite, that daoist external alchemy influenced Indian alchemy...Aldrasto11 (talk) 02:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Useful Infographic
Hello, I found a useful Infographic about Tantra. Maybe it could fit to the article. (DELETED LINK TO BUSINESS PROMOTION)

I found it here: (DELETED LINK TO BUSINESS PROMOTION) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.193.62.40 (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Edited post as it seemed to just be spam trying to using Wikipedia for promotion. Left the basic text so we can spot this spam in the future. Eturk001 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong link redirection
The esoteric link in the first sentence redirects to Western Esotericism which is quite problematic, considering the core idea of Tantra is Eastern Esotericism. It made the link out-of-context since eastern and western esotericism has different purpose and practices that might confuse some readers. FeliciaKrismanta (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Guhyamantra
The claim that Buddhist tantric teachings were ever traditionally called Guhyamantra is unsubstantiated. The reference this article provides is to an English translation of a Tibetan source, which itself does not use the term "guhyamantra"; rather, it uses the English "secret mantra", which is a translation of the Tibetan "gsang sngags". It is true that the term gsang sngags is used in the Tibetan language to refer to tantric teachings. I am unaware of any Indic source that uses the word guhyamantra in such a sense, and I doubt one will ever be found. Snellgrove's edition of the Yogaratnamāla at one point prints "guhyamantrayāne", but this is an error; such a reading has no manuscript support. -- RC
 * Yes, but how should we approach sources like this one when they fully conform to our RS requirements? — kashmīrī  TALK  12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)