Talk:Tantra/Archive 2

message: Some references in this article draw controversy. There are misleading data in publications concerning the word Tantra. The Buddhsit and religious aspects of Tantra is clearly different from references from David Gordon White or H Urban for instance which are scattered in different part of this article. There are number of web sites that outline the controversial aspects. There seems to be some distinction to be made here in between the original Tantra and the so called 'Neo-Tantra' or 'California-Tantra'. It would be desirable to separate the traditional religious aspect and the neo calfifornia sex derivative.  --Rédacteur Tibet 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I removed this section.  The section read like an essay.  With no sources given it seems to much like original research.  If anyone can show how it is not original research, for example, showing sources for a phrase like "Too many westerners...."  then I think they should rewrite it.TheRingess 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neotantra section 

message: Considerations on tantric spirituality by Thubten Tendzin
*Source: http://www.tibetology.net/ Bulletin 1985, No. 2
:Austerlitz 88.72.1.186 08:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Austerlitz 88.72.15.71 21:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precious Article from Bulletin of Tibetology 

message: I have just read this article and am thoroughly insulted. I hope you dont mind if I make some sweeping edits.
Saiva suj 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appalled... 

message: I'm not trying to suppress your edits. I just think they should be somewhere other than in the intro. It's too much detail for the intro. HeBhagawan
:Not mine, I think, but it's a good summary. The intro is allowed to be 3 - 4 paragraphs, so I don't see what the problem is. That long fourth paragraph was certainly too much, though.... —Hanuman Das 02:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanumanji 

message: Saiva,
The problem is not so much that they cite Western sources. The problem is that the article is a mess. It is jumbled and incoherent--in addition to over-emphasizing a particular kind of Tantra. We need to do with Tantra what we have done with Hinduism: Have the early parts of the article describe the things that all followers of Tantra have in common: Worship of God as Mother, reverence for the Tantrik scriptues, the goal of spiritual experience, the history of Tantra, major places of pilgrimage, etc. Then after the article has described all the things that all agree on, it should have separate sections for the divergent sects and practices. In its current state, this article just focuses mostly on one concept of Tantra, and it's definately not one that most or all Tantriks would agree on.HeBhagawan 02:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tantra 

message: I reverted the addition of this material.
It is material copied directly from this link: http://shaktisadhana.50megs.com/Newhomepage/Resource/essays/4traditionsofsrividya.html
so it is a possible copyright violation.
Also, it listed no sources and seemed to be a personal essay.
TheRingess 21:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Traditions of Sri Vidya 

message: The following sections are erroneous, and uncited. I will either remove them or completely change them (with [new] citations) "Tantric Chakras" "Hindu Tantra" "Tantra and the Vedas" "Kundalini in Hindu Tantra". And, as far as about every other piece of garbage in this article... the only presence it deserves is perhaps a very lucky mention in "See Also".
Please have (or at least show) some respect.
ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 19:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous Sections 

message: Having read this article, seen the dispute tag and had a quick look at this discussion page, I thought I'd raise an issue. Slightly embarrassed, I was thinking about Sting and his famous 8-hour orgasms urban myth so I thought I'd check out what wikipedia had to say. The last paragraph of 'sexual rites' is, to me, total gibberish. What is 'infinite awareness'? Why mention this concept when it's so transparently impossible? "The sushumna nadi is awakened and kundalini rises up, resulting in an awesome cosmic awareness in which all residual individuality is completely disintegrated in the stream of samadhi consciousness." What's an 'awesome cosmic awareness'? What's a cosmic awareness, full stop? I'm aware of the cosmos, and that it's awesome, I don't need tantra for that. And how can individuality 'disintegrate'? And apparently 'each participant expriences a fusion of their own Shiva and Shakti energies'. That means the sum total of absolutely nothing to me at all.
To be brutal, if someone was standing in front of me reading this paragraph, I'd think they were parodying tantra, not explaining it. All I'm saying is that writers have got to bear in mind the casual, the uninformed, and the sceptical when writing these articles. Sorry to be harsh. Trent 900 00:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the section below, about renaming Tantra. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 14:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course my criticism is uninformed. Why do you think I'm reading a wikipedia article? I am not saying the concepts are wrong, just that it's extremely difficult to understand, for an encyclopaedia article. If I have to read up thoroughly on 'spiritual, psychological and philosophical literature - both east and west, directly and in allegory' before tackling this article then, quite frankly, it shouldn't be here as it is overcomplex. An encyclopaedia is meant to be a reference not to require them. That said, the links to wiki descriptions of the terms involved do help, and I accept that it is extremely hard (probably impossible) to make such an article easily understood to a western audience. Trent 900 17:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside Impressions 

message: The subject is Tantra and not Vedanta. The author is stretching and, in fact, misrepresenting Shiva in Tantra with charecterestics of Brahman in Vedanta. The author connects Shiva with Chit and then, connects Chit to Sat-chit-annanda, the charecterestics of Brahman ( according to Adi Shankara and the Vedantins), a purely  Vedantic concept. On the other hand, Tantra is a branch of Yoga, which has philosophical foundations in Sankhya, a totally different and competing philosophy to Vedanta. These are two seperateand distinct  Darshanas in Indian philosophical tradition. Any text on Indian philosophy, such as the great treatises, such as  Sourcebook  in  Indian Philosophy by Radhakrishnan and Moore, (pages 349-574) or Essentials of Indian Philosophy by Hiriyanna (pages 106-180)  can vouch for this argument.
Shiva and Shakti are Tantric concepts. It is indeed remarkable how the Vedic proponents are stretching to bring in Tantra under the umbrella of Vedanta! India can be proud of its heritage, an inheritance of all the six Darshanas, and it is not necessary to pull in all systems under one, distorting the meaning and symbolism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumkurjayadev (talk • contribs) 
:You are right that Tantra is certainly not Vedanta. However, I do not think you are right in calling Tantra a branch of yoga; it is as much yoga as Vaidika Parampara is yoga. In fact, Tantrika Parampara eclipses those shat darshanas, and is not rooted in Samkhya. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 20:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality as Shiva-Shakti 

message: The sexual rites section begins with the phrase "It has been postulated...."
Can someone rewrite this sentence to specify who did the postulating, where they postulated it, and when?
TheRingess 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a clear citation on that paragraph. Are you saying that the material is not in the cited reference? I think we can assume that it was postulated by White who is cited unless you've reviewed that source and found these speculations are not included. -999 (Talk) 22:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point.  However, the weasel tag has little to do with whether or not a section has references.  As a casual reader, it is not clear to me whether or not it was White who did the actual postulating or he was simply passing along observations and postulations from other people.  The tag is not there to point out that the section does not specify sources, but that someone should rewrite the section to make it clearer.  I have not read the source specified, since it is not online.  So I still think someone who has read the source can rewrite it to say either, "In 2000, David White postulated that...." or "In such and such a year, so and so postulated that...".  Editors such as myself, often place tags like the weasel tag to bring the matter to the attention of interested editors in a forceful manner. Sometimes, contributing editors are too close to the material to see that it might not be completely clear to the average reader. Ditto for the sexual rites sections. TheRingess 22:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I can say that I didn't write either of those sections and am not really attached to the wording or anything. :-) Still, I read it as giving a view from the cited source. If the passive voice is the problem, you could just rephase it or maybe better, put a  tag right after the phrase in question. It's more specific than that ugly weasel tag and probably less offensive to the editor that did write the section, since it's not the whole section you object to but rather a specific turn of phrase... -999 (Talk) 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never knew about the who tag before.  LOL.  There is so much to learn about Wikipedia.  I agree that the who tag is much better than the weasel tag.  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. TheRingess 22:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only learned about it recently myself, and was very glad to have a less blunt weapon. ;-) You might also want to know about the  tag (plural), which can be used at the end of a paragraph with no citations but makes it clear that all the facts in the paragraph are being called into question without having to use multiple fact tags... -999 (Talk) 22:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Rites - Passive voice 

message: This section contains the following phrase: The guidance of a Guru in this process is considered imperative.
Can an interested editor rewrite this sentence to show who considers this guidance to be imperative?
TheRingess 22:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, not only is there a citation at the end of the paragraph, the assertion is restated later in the article with the citation of another source. I've copied that citation to the overview. -999 (Talk) 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea.  But once again, simply providing a citation does not make it clear who actually considers it imperative. Was it the author or was it someone the author was quoting?  Well my world is as I see it, and I simply detest passive voice statements.  LOL. TheRingess 22:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview - Passive voice 

message: I removed this section.  Without a reference, there is no way for a casual reader to know whether or not this "metaphor" is at all relevant to the tantra.
Can anyone provide a source for this section?
TheRingess 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the heading was changed recently. However, the material in that section has been unsourced for some time and removing it is the correct thing to do, IMO. -999 (Talk) 22:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The metaphor of Kundalini 

message: I removed the section about Sting since no one provided a source where Sting actually states that he practices tantra.  
Technically I'm not sure about the Dalai Lama or the others but I'll leave the decision as to whether or not they should be included in the list up to others.  BTW, Sting's article in Wikipedia makes no mention of tantra.
TheRingess 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, technically the Dalai Lama is a Vajrayana tantric. The other two are authentic tantrikas as well. I think I've removed Sting in the past. Didn't notice he was back... -999 (Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, you went too far here. There was a citation at the end of the paragraph. I checked the source and Urban says just that, that Neotantra has been severely criticised by most Western scholars. When there is a source, you should check it before butchering a paragraph with a citation. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also like to point out here that unless a fellow editor supplies some of the referenced research of those scholars who are not critical towards Neotantra, then in my opinion this article can never lose the non neutral tag at the top. TheRingess 15:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to belabor a point, but the original sentence read like a statement of fact.  In that case, the reference should support the sentence (as if it were a statement of fact).  Apparently, this sentence was not a statement of fact, but a statement of 1 scholar's conclusion based on their research.  It's just my opinion, that a reader like myself, cannot easily distinguish which case it might be, nor should the reader be expected to.  999's rewrite of the sentence now makes it clear that it is 1 scholar's research, and if an average reader wishes to verify that it actually is that scholar's research, they can by reading the reference.  These are distinctions that I feel are important to this article and to any other.  My edits are not based on any assumption of bad faith on the part of any contributor, but are meant to point out where I, an average editor, feel that contributors need to make further clarifications.  Based on my reading of Wikipedia's guidelines I am not out of line deleting or modifying potentially confusing material, even if that material has a reference. TheRingess 23:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. You are making a big assumption here: that there are actually scholars of tantra (as opposed to people making money from neotantra) who have a positive opinion of neotantra. As far as I know, there are no actual qualified scholars of tantra who do. -999 (Talk) 15:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The sentence as it reads says that "most Western scholars", since it does not say that "all Western scholars..." the implication is that there has to be some Western scholars with a different viewpoint.  All I'm saying is that to maintain neutrality, we need to include some of those scholars.  Or cite a reference to show why their viewpoints are irrelevant.  We can't just assume that the majority opinion is the right one.TheRingess 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tantra in the modern world 

message: I think this article needs to be inclusive. I think that a section on Vajrayana should be included, there may be Bon Tantras as well. So Neo-tantra may need coverage here too. There may be another category too, depending on whether there are any other strains of tantra, Japanese Eosteric Buddhism, others?
===Overview===
===Tantrika Parampara===
whatever....
===Bon Tantra===
if there are Bon Tantras
===Buddhist Tantra===
and so forth
===Neo-Tantra===
blah, blah
—24.27.14.2 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal looks reasonable to me. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with this proposal, but though I am not a fan of neo-tantra, it should not be dismissed with only a see also mention. It should have its own section with at least a paragraph or two summarizing its derivation (or lack thereof) from tantric tradition and differences from tradtional tantra. Basically, this page should give an overview of the range of use of the word tantra (correct or incorrect), and call out both the commonalities and the major points of difference, but let the subarticles go into depth about each different form... -999 (Talk) 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: blah, blah
—24.27.14.2 03:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal looks reasonable to me. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree with this proposal, but though I am not a fan of neo-tantra, it should not be dismissed with only a see also mention. It should have its own section with at least a paragraph or two summarizing its derivation (or lack thereof) from tantric tradition and differences from tradtional tantra. Basically, this page should give an overview of the range of use of the word tantra (correct or incorrect), and call out both the commonalities and the major points of difference, but let the subarticles go into depth about each different form... -999 (Talk) 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neo-Tantra

message: I deleted this paragraph, to me, it read like an essay.  I think if it's going to stay in, someone needs to really rewrite it.  Unfortunately I'm not the one to do that.  Basically, there were a lot of claims that seemed to me impossible to verify by an average reader.  Just a thought.TheRingess 04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you should be removing cited material unless you have checked the source yourself and found that the citation doesn't cover the material. It's only polite and follows from the assume good faith guideline. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 15:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's agree to disagree.  I do assume good faith for all contributing editors.  However, that does not mean that some paragraphs might not be as clear as they can be.  This one was a good example.  Even though a fellow editor added it in good faith, and cited a reference, I still think it wasn't clear and expressed my opinion above.  Sometimes we need to remove material that we feel is unclear to forcefully bring it to interested editors attentions.  It was not personal. TheRingess 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay we seem to be getting off on the wrong foot here.  I totally agree that some of my edits were not helpful.  Though that does not mean I deliberately tried to interfere with this article or create biased material. So I suggest that we start over, and assume good faith on each other's part.  I have my way of expressing myself and you have yours.  From my perspective, I am simply trying to give an interested outsider's viewpoints on the material.  Yes, I deleted several lines, but then where is the lasting harm?  You have reinstated those sections, and I am not actively trying to start a revert war. I have stylistic issues with passive voice statements.  So I'm not sure why you rewrote the sentence about the Guru, but if you prefer it, I really don't have a big problem with it.  In the last couple of months I feel that you and other editors have improved this article greatly.  Satchidananda.TheRingess 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual Rites (paragraph describing kundalini and sushumna) 

message: I agree that this article no longer needs a POV tag. If you have serious concerns regarding pov issues please express them here. I also suggest that we can remove the cleanup tag.  I think we might wish to place a maintenance template at the top of this talk page and archive most of the material.TheRingess 16:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I'd like to see a history section in this article.  but am not the right person to edit it.
Though I think it could include publication dates for major texts, birth dates for major tantric philosophers, discussion and dates of major contributions and/or schisms.  Etc.
TheRingess 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A History Section 

message: The overview section mentions the following,
:Practicioners of tantra consider the guidance of a Guru to be imperative
The guru's role is mentioned only in the sexual rites section and briefly in the neotantra section.
I think that the overview could be expanded to include more information about the guru's role.
If there is enough material, then maybe an interested editor could create an entirely new section about the guru and their role.  If different tantric traditions view the guru differently then the editor should also include those different viewpoints.
I'm probably not the one to write it.
Just a suggestion.
TheRingess 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The role and importance of the guru 

message: Hello, Blessed Selves
I had to edit this section. The definition of "maya" given was not a Tantrik point of view. 
Thanks,
shambhavi 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem was that the view was cited. Rather than change it, add a discussion of maya from another citable source. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view), Wikipedia cannot and does not insist on Truth, only verifiablilty. It is verifiable that Nikhilananda wrote what was reported about Maya in the context of tantra. What is needed is the addition of other views which are required to make the article adhere to WP's required Neutral point of view. Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution and Involution section 

message: Does anyone know why this article is marked under Yoga? I think it should not be as Tantra has nearly nothing to do with Yoga darshana. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 09:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "part of a series on yoga" 

message: I came across the article Tantric Sexuality while on bad-article-cleanup. It appears to offer slightly different viewpoints to this article's "sexual practices" section - and a LONG references list.
I'm unsure on whether to recommend a merge to this article, a split of the "sexual practices" section into that article, or a "see also" link - but feel that it would be unencyclopedic not to harmonize the two articles somehow. Help from experts needed... --Alvestrand 06:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for drawing attention to that article.  It appears to contain materials related to Western metaphysical views.  While these Western books often use the word Tantra, the materials are quite different from what the Indian materials cover.  It does need to be sorted out as you mention.  I think it needs to be kept at arms length and put in perspective. Buddhipriya 06:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to [[Tantric Sexuality]]? 

message: What is the historic orgins of Tantra. I dont know if this is a historic revisionist viewpoint but from one source I heard that Tantra was invented by the Tibetans and later the Indians adopted it. Go figure.
regards
Bob (Mar 7, 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.128.230 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic Orgins of Tantra? 

message: I notice that there the Tantra article is the current "Hinduism-related Collaboration of the week" and so I will chime in.  
I have not actively worked on this article but I would like to make some general comment about how I think it currently reads.  In a nutshell, I think the article could be improved by making a more clear differentiation between the concepts of Tantra, Vamachara, and Shaktism.  
The term "Tantras" covers a huge range of scriptures that includes things such as guidelines on consecration of publlic water tanks, laws of inheritance of property, and guidelines for punishment of treason.  N.N. Bhattacharya notes the broad sociological issue in this passage:
"{Tantrism] was more than a mere religious system or stream or undercurrent. Its intimate association with the practical aspects of life is proved by the emphasis it attached to the arts of agriculture, metallurgy, manual and technical labour, chemical sciences, physiology, embryology and medicine.  The sociological viewpoints expressed in the Tantras were in virtual opposition to those upheld by the Smārta-Puranic tradition." N.N. Bhattacharya, History of the Tantric Religion (Delhi: Manohar, 1999), p. 12.
There is a popular tendency to identify Tantra exclusively with Vamachara, "the left-handed path".  However in most of the philosophical and legal Tantras there is no place for  Vamachara at all.  The Western tendency to interpret Tantra in a highly sexualized way tends to overlook the existence of the practical Tantras as a category and to misrepresent the highly abstract philosophical nature of the philosophical Tantras.  I must admit that in saying this I show a personal bias, which is that I think that Western interpretations of tantra are sometimes culturally-insensitive to Hindu traditions, over-emphasizing sexual aspects.  The same hyper-sexualization of religious sources is seen in the Western reflex to translate the term "lingam" as meaning only "penis" without being aware of more general meanings such as "sign" or "mark" or "characteristic".
There is a similar confusion regarding the relation between the Shakta tradition and the Tantra tradition.  Douglas Renfrew Books summarizes this point by saying that: 
"Goudriaan makes clear that not all Śāktas are Tantrics and that Tantrism, unlike Śāktism, is not restricted to any one Hindu denomination, or even to any single Indian religious tradition."Douglas Renfrew Brooks, The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction to Hindu Shakta Tantrism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990), p. 48. ISBN 0-226-07570-2.
Thus a worshipper of the Goddess is a Shakta but that does not automatically make him or her a Tantric, and vice versa.  For example, within denominations such as the Ganapatya there are forms of worship that are classified as Tantric that are not primarily centered on the Goddess, and which have nothing to do with Vamachara.  See, for example, Gudrun Bühnemann's book The Worship of Mahāgaṇapati According To The Nityotsava (Institut für Indologie: 1988) .
I present these opinions here on the talk page to test if there is any agreement by other editors regarding these ideas.
Buddhipriya 21:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some general thoughts about the article 

message: how can the development of Tantra Massage be connected to this article ?
See the following sources:
* http://www.tantramassage-verband.de/en/index.html Tantric Massage Association
* http://www.tantramassage.de/engl1/con_tantra.html Tantra and Tantra Massage
--87.79.243.246 14:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't be, it's unrelated. Try the neotantra article. Also, I've commented out your links as we can't link to commercial sites. IPSOS (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Tantra Massage?