Talk:Tantra

Recommandation

For a good reference I would recommend "Tantra in Tibet" by Tsongkapa with forward by His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. Too often in popular Western culture, the practice of Tantra is confused with or too overtly linked with sexual practices. Sexual practices are used in some reputable traditions, but only come late in advance training via a compassionately established relationship. Such sexual practices are first preceded with rigorous step by step practices of energy exchange methods that are developed and mastered over time with one's tantric partner. Tantra is not sex, good tantric practice with a partner does not require sex, and the incorrect or inappropriate use of attempting to couple sexual practice with a partner can cause more harm that good. One's right intentions must always be to bring good to those we encounter and to the world as a whole. Remember always that this is the 'secret mantra', or maybe more accurately the 'private manta' of compassion with our tantric partner. Most Compassionately, Sigung Dan.

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[1] when they fully conform to our RS requirements? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tripura sundari 4.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Confusing disagreements

Early on there is criticism about the Western perception of tantra and even the claim that it is an invention of orientalist views. It then becomes unclear whether the following sections are building off the Western definition or the critical definition- assuming there is one. What I'm getting at is that the defining of terms is unclear and confuses just what the individual sections, especially the history, are supporting. If that makes sense. I had a vague idea of what tantra means, and I clicked on the link from the article on Yamantaka, described as a "tantric" deity. I can't say I understand exactly what defines a "tantric deity" after reading this article that to say "'tantra' isn't a valid category at all, but here are a chronology of things wrongly associated with this erroneous category." Tonsil Crypt Ossuary (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)