Tantra has received increasing interest among scholars and the public in recent years, but is there a possibility that Tantra is much older than we previously thought?
The holistic, inclusive orientation of Tantra presents its perspective on embodiment as both a challenge and an invitation to rethink how spirituality is practiced and understood, highlighting that transcendence comes not from rejection but through embracing and transcending all experiences fully, and thus living and "digesting" every aspect of human existence. Nothing is an obstacle to liberation in Tantra--bliss or pain, both are gateways to transcendence. However, traditional Tantra is not hedonism; it is ultimately about transforming kama into prema--desire into love.
I must say- I usually really love Tarka articles, but this one troubles me.
It reads more like deep projection into history and someone who just simply loves śiva (as do I, by the way) and wants some things to be true, but are fundamentally problematic. There's so much cherry-picked information here taken out of context that the article can only be called personally motivated. I was having a hard time following by the end.
Some basic questions:
1. While it's nice to think that to tantra there is no caste differentiation- is this true? When you read the texts, it does not say this. Once on the inside of initiation, and within the group itself, caste is absolutely taken off the table. But even the texts themselves say that when in society caste should be observed for the outer appearances and interactions. This is not quite the ideology we want to see, but it's simply what's stated.
2. The Indic valley civilization seals- those are clearly not, according to any scholar I have read, śiva, but rather the projection of a white western archeologist that took fire. Not to mention that the civilization was abandoned far before the movement of Vedic pastoral nomadics entered the region. Much more research needs to be done on these points before drawing any conclusions. Perhaps most importantly here, there is simply no language that can be deciphered yet- though the language exists- and so until somehow archeologists can decipher those writings, drawing some speculation about any kind of religion in that long ago civilization is just whimsy.
3. What about the goddess? The seven mothers? That actually does have a history that goes far before the earliest tantras.
4. As to this claim: "the Tantric meditation and posture yoga techniques practiced 2000 years ago are essentially the same today"- what? explain? What Tantric meditation and posture from 2000 years ago? Even in the Niśvasa corpus there are some postures that are likely based on Gupta letters, but the same as today? how? this needs to be explained.
5. Always Patañjali- ok. So the 8 limbs of yoga in his writing is not universal. Not even close. Even other systems of 8 limbs (like in the Netra tantra) are appropriations and totally redefined from the original. The history, in fact, is far more interesting than what we think- or what's wildly being (loosely) described (misdescribed) in this article. Nowadays, in our prolonged obsession with Patañjali we just have to make everything about his work. It's so sad that everything always have to go back to him when so many traditions do not and when other systems are just as important to lineage and history. This is due entirely to a post colonial worldview and to politics. Please look up the limbs of yoga that actually do exist in tantra. It's way more beautiful than described here.
I love tantra. I truly do. I consider Utpaladeva to be one of the most beautiful, important, and profound teachers that ever lived, and some of his direct-line disciples also. I also want tantra to be universal, and it would be so sweet if it held those roles historically.
But isn't it beautiful as it is, without "needing" tantra to be "the oldest, best ever, most hidden, totally ancient, more ancient than we could possibly know!"- can't what it IS be beautiful? Why do humans love something and then need it to be "original" and "most original." Can't it be original in our hearts, and then allow history to be clear, fascinating, beautiful, and presented clearly?
So to read something like this- just a blanket hodgepodge of projections and basically zero reference to actual tantra scholars (ok, Chris Wallis, but taken out of context)- it's a rough one for me.
Thanks for taking the time to comment in so much detail. But projection into history? Lack of scholarly references? Cherry picking? For one, eminent scholar Edwin Bryant, who also teaches here at Embodied Philosophy, agrees with me that the seals found in the Indus Valley "represent figures seated in a clear yogic posture." (from his introduction to his book The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali) It is not very scholarly to say someone is cherry picking because I represent a view that does not agree with you or your group of scholars. History is a contentious subject, and therefore it is vital to be open to the idea that "there might be more..." 1. Tantric texts and teachers often emphasize that the tradition does not adhere to caste, but texts were frequently influenced by Vedic or Brahmanic teachings, which usually blurred this view. However, my own guru did not accept this, and thus I present that view. And by the way, in a tradition where the guru is paramount as authority and source of teachings, including history, especially in one where the oral history has been more extended than the written, who is the best authority, you or that guru? 2. See the quote above about Bryant regarding the Indic Valley seal. Feuerstein had a similar view, but you are right in saying that many younger scholars today do not support this view. So, again, I reserve the right to have a different informed opinion, supported by even more scholars in India, such as N. N. Bhattacarya, Sakhare et al. 3. This article was not about Goddess worship. By the way, I am not saying that the seal depicts Shiva, only a person in a clearly yogic/tantric bandha. Please take a look at Thomas McEvilley's article on that. (That was half a dozen scholarly references already, not just one as you claim. See also references at the end of the article. 4. Most young scholars in the West, due to their blind adherence to texts, believe that Patanjali either developed or borrowed yogic teachings that can not be considered Tantric, and that Tantra (Kashmir) included them as part of Tantra 1000 years later. My teacher and my sources see this differently: Patanjali was likely a Shaiva (again, Bryant also thinks so) who adopted older Shaiva Tantra practices, and these, in the form of pratyahara, pranayama, dharana, dhyana, etc, have in essence not changed. Similarly, some basic asanas have not changed. That is what I meant by that statement. 5. I agree with you about the one-sided gaze towards Patanjali, but that is because he has become identical to everything yoga. This is mainly due to a lack of competent yogic and tantric teachers of meditation practices, and Western yoga is primarily focused on asana, so Patanjali thus represents something authentic and spiritual to them. And here lies also part of the reason why you might think I am cherry-picking--because tantra has primarily been an oral tradition and not written in texts until the last 1000 years or so. I have practiced for over 50 years, and it took me 20 years of practice before I even read the Yoga Sutras. Tantra is mainly a practice, and part of its hidden history must also be uncovered from sources outside the primary texts because it is primarily an oral tradition. If that is to cherry-pick, I beg to disagree,
Bryant: I think it would be nice to ask him what he thinks today? He wrote his history of the early Vedic migrations over 20 years ago. In his commentary on the YSP, he goes out of his way to say how non-sectarian Patañjali is. I find his commentaries to be wonderful and extremely thoughtful. I'd love to hear his thoughts on these topics.
To be clear: I don't have a "view." I do read the texts, though, directly- and try to understand them from within their own context and not through the modern filters of politics or our modern tendencies of scientification. I find that valuable. I am not a guru, nor do I consider myself an authority, but rather- a lover. I love this material. I absolutely love Shaivism and, even more, I am in love with the Goddess.
But I think if you're going to write about tantra, and you're going to make broad claims, you might want to cite the texts directly, no?
Why make this an article about tantra at all, claiming some "originality"? Why not make it an honest article about your guru and how beautiful your experiences are with what that has offered you? I for one would love to read what your guru has to say, without claiming some historical "truth" that is simply not there in any record ever found by a scholar, an archeologist, or any historian- ever.
That doesn't make those teachings invalid. It makes them mystical. What's wrong with that? Why does something have to be "older than we think" for it to be special or more valid? Honest question.
This is a human problem. Can't the traditions themselves, what the texts actually say, be beautiful in their own right without us having to make them "more ancient" due to "oral tradition"??
It's wonderful that your guru did not adhere to caste systems. By why claim that tantra as a whole disagrees with caste designations? It would be great if it did, but it did not.
Genuine questions. You are misleading your readers here by taking an academic approach and using academic language which is only signaling, when what you are saying in this comment is that you are adhering to the teachings of your guru, whose words hold agency precisely because they are oral and untraceable. Why try to claim academics when this article is not only not academic, but might actually be quite powerful if it's about the mystical?
Which element of Tantra, when seen from an insider perspective, challenges the way we typically approach spirituality or embodiment?
The holistic, inclusive orientation of Tantra presents its perspective on embodiment as both a challenge and an invitation to rethink how spirituality is practiced and understood, highlighting that transcendence comes not from rejection but through embracing and transcending all experiences fully, and thus living and "digesting" every aspect of human existence. Nothing is an obstacle to liberation in Tantra--bliss or pain, both are gateways to transcendence. However, traditional Tantra is not hedonism; it is ultimately about transforming kama into prema--desire into love.
I must say- I usually really love Tarka articles, but this one troubles me.
It reads more like deep projection into history and someone who just simply loves śiva (as do I, by the way) and wants some things to be true, but are fundamentally problematic. There's so much cherry-picked information here taken out of context that the article can only be called personally motivated. I was having a hard time following by the end.
Some basic questions:
1. While it's nice to think that to tantra there is no caste differentiation- is this true? When you read the texts, it does not say this. Once on the inside of initiation, and within the group itself, caste is absolutely taken off the table. But even the texts themselves say that when in society caste should be observed for the outer appearances and interactions. This is not quite the ideology we want to see, but it's simply what's stated.
2. The Indic valley civilization seals- those are clearly not, according to any scholar I have read, śiva, but rather the projection of a white western archeologist that took fire. Not to mention that the civilization was abandoned far before the movement of Vedic pastoral nomadics entered the region. Much more research needs to be done on these points before drawing any conclusions. Perhaps most importantly here, there is simply no language that can be deciphered yet- though the language exists- and so until somehow archeologists can decipher those writings, drawing some speculation about any kind of religion in that long ago civilization is just whimsy.
3. What about the goddess? The seven mothers? That actually does have a history that goes far before the earliest tantras.
4. As to this claim: "the Tantric meditation and posture yoga techniques practiced 2000 years ago are essentially the same today"- what? explain? What Tantric meditation and posture from 2000 years ago? Even in the Niśvasa corpus there are some postures that are likely based on Gupta letters, but the same as today? how? this needs to be explained.
5. Always Patañjali- ok. So the 8 limbs of yoga in his writing is not universal. Not even close. Even other systems of 8 limbs (like in the Netra tantra) are appropriations and totally redefined from the original. The history, in fact, is far more interesting than what we think- or what's wildly being (loosely) described (misdescribed) in this article. Nowadays, in our prolonged obsession with Patañjali we just have to make everything about his work. It's so sad that everything always have to go back to him when so many traditions do not and when other systems are just as important to lineage and history. This is due entirely to a post colonial worldview and to politics. Please look up the limbs of yoga that actually do exist in tantra. It's way more beautiful than described here.
I love tantra. I truly do. I consider Utpaladeva to be one of the most beautiful, important, and profound teachers that ever lived, and some of his direct-line disciples also. I also want tantra to be universal, and it would be so sweet if it held those roles historically.
But isn't it beautiful as it is, without "needing" tantra to be "the oldest, best ever, most hidden, totally ancient, more ancient than we could possibly know!"- can't what it IS be beautiful? Why do humans love something and then need it to be "original" and "most original." Can't it be original in our hearts, and then allow history to be clear, fascinating, beautiful, and presented clearly?
So to read something like this- just a blanket hodgepodge of projections and basically zero reference to actual tantra scholars (ok, Chris Wallis, but taken out of context)- it's a rough one for me.
Thanks for taking the time to comment in so much detail. But projection into history? Lack of scholarly references? Cherry picking? For one, eminent scholar Edwin Bryant, who also teaches here at Embodied Philosophy, agrees with me that the seals found in the Indus Valley "represent figures seated in a clear yogic posture." (from his introduction to his book The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali) It is not very scholarly to say someone is cherry picking because I represent a view that does not agree with you or your group of scholars. History is a contentious subject, and therefore it is vital to be open to the idea that "there might be more..." 1. Tantric texts and teachers often emphasize that the tradition does not adhere to caste, but texts were frequently influenced by Vedic or Brahmanic teachings, which usually blurred this view. However, my own guru did not accept this, and thus I present that view. And by the way, in a tradition where the guru is paramount as authority and source of teachings, including history, especially in one where the oral history has been more extended than the written, who is the best authority, you or that guru? 2. See the quote above about Bryant regarding the Indic Valley seal. Feuerstein had a similar view, but you are right in saying that many younger scholars today do not support this view. So, again, I reserve the right to have a different informed opinion, supported by even more scholars in India, such as N. N. Bhattacarya, Sakhare et al. 3. This article was not about Goddess worship. By the way, I am not saying that the seal depicts Shiva, only a person in a clearly yogic/tantric bandha. Please take a look at Thomas McEvilley's article on that. (That was half a dozen scholarly references already, not just one as you claim. See also references at the end of the article. 4. Most young scholars in the West, due to their blind adherence to texts, believe that Patanjali either developed or borrowed yogic teachings that can not be considered Tantric, and that Tantra (Kashmir) included them as part of Tantra 1000 years later. My teacher and my sources see this differently: Patanjali was likely a Shaiva (again, Bryant also thinks so) who adopted older Shaiva Tantra practices, and these, in the form of pratyahara, pranayama, dharana, dhyana, etc, have in essence not changed. Similarly, some basic asanas have not changed. That is what I meant by that statement. 5. I agree with you about the one-sided gaze towards Patanjali, but that is because he has become identical to everything yoga. This is mainly due to a lack of competent yogic and tantric teachers of meditation practices, and Western yoga is primarily focused on asana, so Patanjali thus represents something authentic and spiritual to them. And here lies also part of the reason why you might think I am cherry-picking--because tantra has primarily been an oral tradition and not written in texts until the last 1000 years or so. I have practiced for over 50 years, and it took me 20 years of practice before I even read the Yoga Sutras. Tantra is mainly a practice, and part of its hidden history must also be uncovered from sources outside the primary texts because it is primarily an oral tradition. If that is to cherry-pick, I beg to disagree,
Bryant: I think it would be nice to ask him what he thinks today? He wrote his history of the early Vedic migrations over 20 years ago. In his commentary on the YSP, he goes out of his way to say how non-sectarian Patañjali is. I find his commentaries to be wonderful and extremely thoughtful. I'd love to hear his thoughts on these topics.
To be clear: I don't have a "view." I do read the texts, though, directly- and try to understand them from within their own context and not through the modern filters of politics or our modern tendencies of scientification. I find that valuable. I am not a guru, nor do I consider myself an authority, but rather- a lover. I love this material. I absolutely love Shaivism and, even more, I am in love with the Goddess.
But I think if you're going to write about tantra, and you're going to make broad claims, you might want to cite the texts directly, no?
Why make this an article about tantra at all, claiming some "originality"? Why not make it an honest article about your guru and how beautiful your experiences are with what that has offered you? I for one would love to read what your guru has to say, without claiming some historical "truth" that is simply not there in any record ever found by a scholar, an archeologist, or any historian- ever.
That doesn't make those teachings invalid. It makes them mystical. What's wrong with that? Why does something have to be "older than we think" for it to be special or more valid? Honest question.
This is a human problem. Can't the traditions themselves, what the texts actually say, be beautiful in their own right without us having to make them "more ancient" due to "oral tradition"??
It's wonderful that your guru did not adhere to caste systems. By why claim that tantra as a whole disagrees with caste designations? It would be great if it did, but it did not.
Genuine questions. You are misleading your readers here by taking an academic approach and using academic language which is only signaling, when what you are saying in this comment is that you are adhering to the teachings of your guru, whose words hold agency precisely because they are oral and untraceable. Why try to claim academics when this article is not only not academic, but might actually be quite powerful if it's about the mystical?
Since you mainly want me to write another article to your own liking and in your image, I have no further comments to make.