Tantras
Because of its historical fluidity, traditional
secrecy, and frequently insalubrious associations,
the term tantra is one of the most difficult to
define in all of Hinduism – more difficult still in
that its boundaries are by no means limited to
Hindu practice. Given the complications in defi-
nition, which will be addressed in some detail
below, it will be useful to first understand the
term as used in popular discourse. “Tantra”
has distinct, but related, connotations as it is
employed in modern Indian languages compared
with its usage in contemporary Western popular
culture. While these popular usages of the term
differ somewhat from the more technical under-
standing of the term according to its historical
emergence and developments, they nevertheless
provide a useful entry into a fuller evaluation of
Tantra (see also → Tantrism).
Modern Indian languages frequently use tantra
in a sense more or less equivalent to the concept
of black magic. Tantrics are marginal and myste-
rious supposed practitioners of the dark arts, and
as such they are regarded with suspicion by the
mainstream culture, be it in a traditional village
or modern urban context. Tantrics are often
blamed for causing misfortune for their neigh-
bors and enemies with their sorcery, and occa-
sionally they are even accused of more serious
and scandalous acts, such as the kidnapping of
children or even cannibalism. Still, some Tantrics
play vital roles in the community as → healers,
mediums, and prognosticators who are called
upon for assistance in all areas of life: to heal a
disease, exorcise a troublesome spirit, woo a
potential lover or mate, settle a score with
a neighbor, or pass an exam. Tantrics by no means
constitute a singular, discretely defined commu-
nity, and many who are said to be (or are accused
of being) Tantrics may not in fact identify them-
selves as such. There are, however, a wide range of
individuals and institutions today that do claim
to be Tantric; among these, too, the adoption or
nonadoption of the term is often political rather
than descriptive. Some self-identified Tantrics
retain the term in connection with a particular
lineage and will often attempt to distance them-
selves from the more unsavory implications of the
term. Others court and cultivate the mystery and
power surrounding the designation: the “Tantric”
label serves as an effective means of attracting cus-
tomers, while ensuring that outsiders keep their
distance (Khanna, 2010).
In the global West, contemporary popular cul-
ture has repackaged tantra in a very particular
way, as an Asian religious-inspired “spiritual sex”
technique – a consciousness-expanding spiritual
practice that allows one to access deep levels of
insight and bliss, by means of certain allegedly
ancient techniques of mental and physical self-
control and awareness practice. Here too there is
a great variety in defining the specifics of tantric
practice. In many articulations of Western Tantra,
the distinctively Hindu/Buddhist focus on gnos-
tic illumination and insight is frequently con-
flated, or in some way blended, not only with
the literature pertaining to Indic Kāmaśāstra
(treatises on erotics, especially the well-known
Kāmasūtra; see → kāma), but also with traditional
Chinese sexual techniques for enhancing energy
and longevity. Tantra, which in this context usu-
ally means tantric sex, is held to be a means of
accessing the highest levels of insight usually
associated with the more austere and world-
renouncing paths of asceticism. Unlike these tra-
ditions, however, the tantric path achieves its goal
of insight, not through an ascetic reigning in of
sensual experience, but through its very opposite:
a full and conscious embrace of sensuality.
Another distinctive feature of Western articula-
tions of Tantra is its commercial commodifica-
tion: the primary means by which contemporary
Western Tantra is propagated is through the mar-
keting of seminars, retreats, and popular books
and magazines, competing with a wide range of
other spiritual self-help techniques in the crowded
marketplace of New Age spirituality (Samuel,
2005; Urban, 2003, 203–263; see also → Hinduism
and commodification).
The present essay will not debate the authen-
ticity of either of these two popular perspectives,
but will attempt a broader historical survey of its
emergence, development, and characteristics.
Scholarly attempts to purify the term tantra of its
overly exoticized modern associations are legion,
but these popular understandings of the term,
besides being a legitimate subject of scholarly
study in their own right, can serve to highlight
some of the most distinctive features that have
 Tantras
characterized Tantra from its origins. In particu-
lar, these are esotericism and erotic mysticism.
Esotericism
Not only are tantric practices mysteries, secret
and accessible only through initiation and affilia-
tion with a lineage (paramparā), but they are also
potentially dangerous, involving the manipula-
tion, control, and propitiation of powers that can
yield tremendous results, but can also cause great
harm. It is often said that Tantra is a path of
power. Distinguished from the rules and practices
deemed suitable for mainstream practice, Tantra
is deemed fit only for the most qualified prac-
titioners. This particular transgressive character
evolved in response to the ideas of → purity and
impurity peculiar to the Indic cultural context,
including prominent taboos related to → caste,
and to the normative practices of monastic orders
(both Hindu and non-Hindu), or those repre-
sented in texts such as the → Dharmaśāstras and
→ Purāṇas.
It is clear in many tantric texts that the most
secret tantric practices involved the ritual con-
sumption of prohibited substances such as alco-
hol and meat, and the practice of ritualized sex.
The more mainstream and elite tantric traditions,
however, tended to symbolize these aspects of the
tradition, at least in public. The historical devel-
opment of Tantra thus features a dynamic of
alternately affirming and sanitizing a core of
transgressive practices. In many tantric texts and
even within traditions of practice themselves, the
line between the literal and the symbolic trans-
gressive practices is frequently – and often quite
deliberately – blurry.
Erotic Mysticism
Many Indic Yoga traditions focus on the control
and sublimation of the energies of the subtle
body. A central current of tantric discourse bor-
rows from, and overlaps with, these meditative
and bodily practices of yoga. Within Tantra, how-
ever, the internal powers that the tantric practi-
tioner works with within the microcosm of the
body are at the same time thought to be intelli-
gent (and often feminine) macrocosmic forces.
With its extensive discourse on these feminine
energies, Tantra shares important historical and
genealogical overlaps with traditions of goddess
worship, often succinctly summarized in its focus
on the term → śakti ([feminine] “power”; see below).
169
Thus, while popular understandings of Tantra
frequently decouple tantric traditions from their
historical context, they also preserve elements
that have characterized Tantra from its origins.
The present essay will focus on the historical
origins and development of the concept in South
Asia.
Given this focus, it is important to highlight a
crucial element of Tantra often lost in popular
assessments: namely, the ritual worship of a wide
range of deities. Though the specifics of the prac-
tices and the deities worshipped vary consider-
ably from tradition to tradition, tantric worship
tends to focus on divinities with fierce and erotic
characteristics, and it almost always involves the
use of specialized → mantras. This ritual context is
the most crucial of the elements of Tantra in
terms of its historical development, as it appears
to have been the primary means by which tantric
traditions distinguished themselves. At the same
time, they integrated into mainstream practice,
interpenetrating other religious forms. A closer
investigation into the historical emergence of the
texts, known as Tantras, is necessary to elucidate
this dynamic.
The Tantras: Texts and Contexts
In history-of-religions parlance, the term tantra
refers to a range of esoteric ritual practices that
emerged in the Indic world around the 5th–
6th centuries CE and became an identifiable cate-
gory of discourse some centuries later. As esoteric
traditions, these practices were open only to initi-
ates, and they frequently involved the real or
symbolic transgression of conventional religious
and social practice. The usage of the term tantra
as a mode of esoteric practice derives from its
application to the texts known as Tantras.
By the 7th century CE, a distinctive range of
divinely revealed texts that came to be classified
collectively as Tantras had begun to proliferate
and came to be collated into canons. These texts
present a wide array of practices that differ in
their sectarian focus and ritual specifics, yet have
demonstrable commonalities in both form and
content. Though texts of similar content also bear
alternate titles (such as Āgama, Saṃ hitā, Yāmala,
and Mata), Tantra became the most common
designation for this particular type of treatise,
and it eventually, as mentioned, came to signify
170 Tantras
the mode of esoteric ritual practice that these texts
propagate.
The original meaning of the Sanskrit term tan-
tra was “loom” or the “warp of a loom,” deriving
from the verbal root tan-, “to stretch,” “to extend.”
From this primary meaning, Tantra came to des-
ignate a system of thought or a treatise – origi-
nally, likely in the sense of an “interwoven”
network of ideas. More fanciful, or rather more
interpretive, etymologies are frequently found in
tantric texts. For example, the Kāmikāgama
explains the term according to its component syl-
lables tan and tra:
It is called tantra because it promulgates (tanoti)
profound principles concerning tattva (ritual
substance) and mantra, and because it liberates
(trāṇaṃ kurute). (KāmĀg. 3.29)
Eventually, the contents of the Tantras are tradi-
tionally said to cover a specified range of topics,
although the list of topics does vary somewhat
across traditions and over time. One of the earli-
est and most extensive canons of Tantra is that of
the Āgamas (→ Śaiva Āgamas) of the → Śaiva
Siddhānta school. For the Siddhānta, each Āgama
is said to consist of four topics: jñāna (theology
and cosmology), yoga (methods of practice includ-
ing mantras and their use), kriyā (ritual worship),
and caryā (rules of conduct and initiation guide-
lines). Buddhist Tantras, primarily known to us
as they are preserved in the Tibetan canon, main-
tain a strikingly similar scheme, but understand
the terms somewhat differently. In the Buddhist
tantric canon, each Tantra falls within one of the
five categories: kriyā, caryā, yoga, mahāyoga, and
anuttara ( yoga). For the Buddhist texts, the
scheme moreover seems to represent a historical
development in the focus of the texts, from exter-
nal ritual and conduct (kriyā, caryā), to internal
ritual (yoga), and finally culminating in practices
that involve ritual sexual practices (mahāyoga)
and visualizations of the practitioner as deity. It is
worth noting that in both the Śaiva and Buddhist
cases, it seems clear that the categories were
reified only in the later stages of the literature,
being rather loosely employed early on.
The Tantras chiefly describe various practices
(sādhanās) for the worship of a range of deities.
These worship rituals are both external and inter-
nal: that is, there are methods prescribed for the
ceremonial worship of an image (mūrti), often
assuming a temple or home shrine, and also for
the worship of a divinity, or series of divinities,
imagined to be invoked within the body of the
practitioner. Distinctively, the tantric techniques
for worship, at least symbolically, prioritize the
internal worship (see below).
In the Tantras, both the internal and external
worship processes are accompanied by mantra
recitation: indeed, the use of mantras becomes a
distinguishing characteristic of tantric practice, as
noted by the alternate designations of the Śaiva
Mantramārga (the way of mantras) and Buddhist
Mantrayāna (the mantra vehicle); both terms
refer to the tantric mode of practice. As these
terms would suggest, the employment of mantra
is often seen as the fundamental component of
tantric practice (see below).
Individual tantric practices are known as
sādhanās. In theory, each sādhanā results in one
or more siddhis (accomplishment, ability) in the
sense of a perfected action. While siddhi is often
used in a general sense to signify a successfully
completed action, the term commonly connotes a
particular kind of mastery of certain supernatural
abilities. Several tantric and yogic texts specify a
range of powerful siddhis: powers such as clair-
voyance, invisibility, and flight. When success-
fully practiced, then, each tantric sādhanā is said
to yield a particular siddhi, ranging from mun-
dane rewards, such as the acquisition of wealth or
influence, to these magical powers, and culminat-
ing in the highest reward of liberating insight
(mukti; see → liberation), or identity with the deity.
While the attainment of siddhi is not exclusive
to tantric worship, it is a distinctive feature. Tan-
tra is more or less unique in its frequently explicit
claim to combine the goals of worldly enjoyment
(bhukti), including even the siddhis, along with
the higher-order goal of final release (mukti); the
more conventional systems of practice, especially
those associated with the → Vedānta schools of
orthodox philosophy, typically consider these two
categories to be mutually exclusive. In general, it
can be said that the attainment and use of siddhis
is the sought-for outcome of the more distinctively
tantric traditions, whereas in more conventional
traditions, the siddhis are often thought to be a
dangerous distraction to the attainment of mukti.
Like the Purāṇas (a genre with which Tantra bears
strong, but to this point largely understudied,
similarities, and perhaps genealogical connec-
tions as well), the Tantras are framed as conversa-
tions between divine and semidivine beings,
recorded by legendary sages and passed down
through generations, primarily through guru–
 Tantras
disciple lineages. As a textual genre, then, Tantras
is literature considered to be divinely revealed,
and not composed by human hands.
The tantric revelation, however, was not singu-
lar. With their rapid spread through various
teaching lineages and sects, there came to be
countless, overlapping layers of Tantra texts and
traditions. Tantric textual canons, therefore, are
exceedingly fluid and complex – another charac-
teristic that is shared with the Purāṇa corpus.
Often a particular tantric practice tradition
(mata) consisting of a “family” of initiates (kula)
shared a series of esoteric practices that are repre-
sented, at least in part, in a series of texts. Usually
the texts of a particular tradition consist of a “root
text,” which is transmitted, clustered with other
ancillary texts and commentaries. Another type
of tantric text is the so-called tantric compen-
dium (Nibandha), which collects tantric sādhanās
and mantras from a variety of sources. Examples
of this type of text are the Śāradātilakatantra
of Lakṣmaṇadeśika (11th cent., Kashmir), the
Mantramahodadhi of Mahīdhara (16th cent.,
Varanasi), and the Tantrasāra of Kṛsṇ ạ̄ nanda
Āgamavāgīśa (17th cent., Bengal).
Most of tantric literature consists of texts that
are devoted to the propitiation of forms of either
→ Śiva, Devī (→ Mahādevī), or the Buddha. There
are in addition a number of Tantras that focus on
other deities, such as → Viṣnu ̣ and Gaṇeśa
(→ Gaṇapati/Gaṇeśa). There is also some evidence
of the existence of tantric traditions dedicated to
Sūrya (→ navagrahas), whose worship in India in
either esoteric or exoteric form is only slimly
attested in historical records. This may be a result
of cults of the sun god being subsumed under
Śaivism (Sanderson, 2009, 53–58).
Each Tantra text is said to have originally
sprung from a divine source. Śaiva and Śākta Tan-
tras, then, are said to be revealed by Śiva or the
Goddess in their various forms, while Vaiṣnạ va
Tantras (chiefly the important canon of texts
known as the → Pāñcarātra Āgamas) are said to
come directly from Viṣnu ̣ , and so on. Beyond
Hinduism, there are also Buddhist Tantras that
purport to be the esoteric teachings of one or
another of the cosmic Buddhas. There are also
Jaina Tantras, a series of ritual manuals dedicated
to the worship of fierce female “protector” deities
that attended upon the tīrthaṅkaras (Cort, 1987).
There is little evidence, however, that the Jainas
adopted any of the more antinomian and trans-
gressive tantric practices (Samuel, 2008, 232;
171
see also → Hinduism and Buddhism; → Hinduism
and Jainism).
Tantra, then, is by no means specific to Hindu-
ism (“Hinduism” being a term that is anachronis-
tic for the time period in which the Tantras
emerge). That said, while it is not exclusively
so, Tantra is most distinctively Śaiva (or Śākta-
Śaiva) and Buddhist, as the Tantras of other tradi-
tions appear to have been historically derivative
from these traditions. The relative priority
between Śaiva and Buddhist Tantra has been an
issue of considerable scholarly debate. There
seems to be strong evidence of at least some rela-
tively early instances of Buddhist borrowings
from Śaiva texts (Sanderson, 2009, 124–243).
There is no doubt, however, that certain proto-
tantric Buddhist texts, most notably some of the
Dhāraṇī collections (Mahāyāna compilations of
Buddhist spells and mantras), date as early as the
4th century CE (Bhattacharyya, 2005, 211–212).
Our records of the earliest strata of tantric
texts remain far from complete and at the present
stage of research offer no firm conclusions on
the matter.
Upon the historical emergence of Tantra texts,
there rapidly developed a diverse range of Tantras
representing different lineages of practice and
transmission, distinct in sectarian focus but
related in their practices. This proliferation of
Tantra texts led to efforts at canon formation,
wherein competing catalogues of tantric revela-
tions were enumerated. Even the earliest extant
Tantras feature lists of tantric revelations, orga-
nized into various hierarchical schema; these
clearly represent attempts to systematize a baf-
fling array of texts and practices. Many of these
enumerations of tantric traditions also included
mainstream traditions, such as Vedic or → Smārta
orthopraxy, at the lowest levels of revelations. The
mainstream traditions were thus accepted as
legitimate, but they were subordinated to the
tantric practices in terms of authority and effec-
tiveness (see below). Needless to say, each tradi-
tion arranged its hierarchical canon in a way that
privileged its own revealed doctrines and prac-
tices, and even within certain practice traditions
the lists of included texts or revelations varied in
their details.
The result of this canonizing is a dizzying
assortment of frameworks of tantric revelation.
Among the most enduring of these is the trope of
the five “streams” (srotas) of Śaiva revelation.
According to the Śaiva Siddhānta and the later
172 Tantras
exegetical traditions that sprung from it (notably
those that flourished in Kashmir between the
10th and 12th cents., or so-called → Kashmir
Śaivism), five distinct revelation traditions
(āmnāyas) are said to proceed from each of the
five faces of Sadāśiva, a reference to the important
iconographical representation of the five-headed
Sadāśiva, which formed the basis of Śaiva
Siddhānta worship (Dyczkowski, 1988, 66–86).
This, however, was only one of several canonizing
schemes.
The Origins and Definition of
Tantra: Difficulties and Solutions
Before discussing the various individual elements
of Tantra in more detail, it will be helpful to
develop an understanding of just why this term is
so difficult to characterize in a succinct manner.
While Tantra is a vitally important and distinctive
stream of ritual praxis that has left a deep imprint
on the history of Indic religions, its precise
boundaries and characteristics are notoriously dif-
ficult to specify. Scholarly attempts at defining the
scope of Tantra (or even more problematically,
the English term “Tantrism”) have been fraught
and highly contested (Padoux, 2002, 17–24).
One commonly cited obstacle in the interpre-
tation of Tantra is that many tantric texts and tra-
ditions are deliberately opaque and ambiguously
metaphorical; these techniques of obfuscation –
such as the use of esoteric, coded language
(sandhyābhāṣā; Bharati, 1966, 164–182) – have
been used to baffle and repulse the uninitiated,
preserving the secrecy and integrity of the eso-
teric traditions. This all leads to confusion over
what is literal and what is symbolic in tantric
texts.
More crucially, while tantric texts begin to
emerge before the 6th or 7th century CE, the var-
ious elements, which comprise the practices and
forms detailed in these texts, each have their own
prehistory, as practically any single element of
Tantra seems to have origins far earlier than this
period. Dating of the emergence of Tantra thus
depends entirely on how widely or narrowly the
term is defined (Lorenzen, 2002, 25). The aca-
demic task of determining just which aspects of
Tantra to emphasize in conceptualizing it has
often led to inconsistent results.
Ascertaining a precise definition of Tantra is
thus complicated mainly because of the extreme
interpenetration of tantric elements with other
forms of practices in Indic religions. These
include the internal “subtle-body” practices of
yoga, as well as magical practices for protection,
health, seduction, control of others, and the
destruction of enemies. Tantric forms are so var-
ied and pervasive in Indic (and pan-Asian) reli-
gious practice that it becomes quite an impossible
task to isolate Tantra from a wide range of other
practices and discourses.
It has been argued, for example, that the eso-
teric focus on the subtle energies of the body and
bodily praxis is the single most distinctive char-
acteristic of Tantra (Flood, 2006). But even if cer-
tain elaborations of Tantra uniquely focus on the
internal transformation and divinization of the
body, tantric discourses on the nodes, channels,
and currents of the subtle body overlap profusely
with similar treatments in Yoga literature. Such
discourses are traceable even to the earliest
→ Upaniṣads in their discussions on the vital
energy (prāṇa) of the subtle body and permeating
the cosmos at large (McEvilley, 2002, 543–547).
Tantric and yogic discourse on the subtle energies
of the microcosm and macrocosm are so related
that it is barely possible to distinguish between
the two.
Similarly, highlighting Tantra’s magical ritual
aspect (spells and charms for protection and con-
trol) as its defining characteristic leads to prob-
lems distinguishing it from magical practices,
such as those prevalent in the Atharvaveda, that
also occur in the Brāhmaṇas (→ Vedas and
→ Brāhmaṇas) and Upaniṣads (Banerji, 1989, 12;
Samuel, 2008, 232). Especially given the fact that
it is in these spells where the crucial practice of
mantras finds an early expression, this aspect
of Tantra is no less essential to the constitution of
the category.
Perhaps most confusingly, the link between
Tantra and feminine divinities has prompted
some scholars to seek the origins of Tantra in the
pre- and non-Vedic worship of various types of
spirits of nature and fecundity (White, 2003,
27–66), with some going so far as to trace tantric
origins to prehistoric fertility cults and goddess
worship, leading even to an assertion of the pres-
ence of Tantra in ancient Greece (Bhattacharyya,
1999, 9–14). This certainly casts the net too widely
and loses the distinctiveness and historical speci-
ficity of the term tantra. Indeed, while each of
these accounts highlights a single aspect of Tantra,
none captures the full scope of the term.
 Tantras
Given the above mentioned difficulties, many
scholars have favored a fluid and open-ended
account of tantric elements rather than attempt-
ing to give it a strict definition. This polythetic
approach to defining Tantra has been endorsed as
the most sensible approach to an otherwise
unwieldy subject (Gupta, 1979, 7–9; Brooks,
1990, 55–72; Davidson, 2002, 118–120). For all its
advantages, however, this fluid method of defini-
tion does little to succinctly characterize Tantra,
and it may also obscure the dynamics of its his-
torical development. A more salient definition is
possible through evaluating the complex relation-
ship between Tantra and the dominant orthoprax
traditions against which it has been historically
defined.
Tantra and the Exotic
One of the more fundamental debates in the
assessment of Tantra is the problem of whether to
locate the origins of Tantra in mainstream elite or
marginalized non-elite discourses. Some schol-
ars, observing the worship of non-Vedic deities
with mantras, substances, and practices that are
not found in orthoprax traditions but were likely
prevalent in “tribal” contexts, have argued for
Tantra being a popular resistance to elite Vedic
models, a “religion of the people” that emerged as
a challenge to the dominant religious ideologies
(Bhattacharyya, 1999, 19–50). Other scholars take
an opposite approach, suggesting that the origins
of Tantra lay in the psychospiritual experiments
of religious specialists (prototypically, Buddhist
and Śaiva monastics in large institutional settings)
who developed tantric techniques as a life-affirm-
ing path to liberation that circumvents the more
abstinent ascetic disciplines (Banerji, 1989, 12).
In fact, both these explanations have some
basis. Moreover, they are not mutually exclusive.
Historically, there is little doubt that the tantric
aesthetic, and its early practices, were based on
traditions that were unambiguously heterodox,
and offensive to mainstream sensibilities. What-
ever the later permutations of the various tantric
schools of practice, there can be no doubt that the
tantric aesthetic derived from the real and (at
least as importantly) imagined practices of the
more extreme forest ascetic traditions that were
often associated with magical power, sex, and the
conquering of death. These, in turn, overlapped
considerably with non-Vedic shamanic traditions
173
of healing and communion with spirit beings,
including the phenomenon of ecstatic ritual
→ possession. Some of the deities that formed the
basis of these cults became the inspiration for the
bloodthirsty gods and (especially) goddesses that
would eventually be incorporated into tantric
pantheons. There are thus two related streams
that formed the inspiration for the tantric reli-
gious forms: the nonmonastic ascetic and yoga
practices on the one hand, and the worship of
indigenous deities on the other. These liminal
deities and practices represented a danger to the
social orders upheld by the orthodoxies.
But while many of the elements that make up
Tantra were associated with non-elite, marginal
peoples and sects, even the earliest representa-
tions of tantric practices to which we have access
cannot be said to have been accurate representa-
tions of folk or non-elite praxes, nor were they
intended as such. Instead, these exotic elements
were bounded and transformed through a
remarkably rigorous ritualization, leading to a
profuse elaboration of precise rules for ritual con-
duct. This makes it clear that tantric ritual was
hardly a cult of hedonistic freedom as it has often
been characterized, based on its proliferation of
practices that willfully subverted norms of main-
stream social and religious praxis. If anything,
Tantra was not a loosening of orthoprax rules, but
a hyperritualization of the exoticized practices of
nonmainstream groups. Tantric practices, it is
clear, were not the actual practices of these
groups, but deliberate transformations and elabo-
rations of them.
More pointedly, it is also certain that the elabo-
ration of tantric doctrine, and its codification and
propagation in textual form, was made possible
through transregional institutional networks –
notably, Śaiva and Buddhist monastic and aca-
demic centers. This would seem to suggest that
the earliest formulations of properly tantric doc-
trines and practices be attributed to educated
Buddhist and Śaiva monks, transmitting their
esoteric practices not only orally, but also via texts
composed in Sanskrit.
While the debate between positing either an
elite or a non-elite origin of Tantra seems at first
glance irresolvable, it may itself hold the key to
the problem of identifying the fundamental char-
acterization of Tantra. It is likely that early tantric
practices emerged precisely in the interaction
between orthoprax traditions and the varied cul-
tural and religious practices that were marginalized
174 Tantras
by these dominant discourses. While Tantra does
indeed possess demonstrable connections with
the diverse sets of folk, magical, and yogic prac-
tices that are included in the web of Indic cultural
life, it is not equivalent to these traditions, nor is it
an accidental amalgamation of them. It is instead
a mode of discourse developed through contact
with these traditions, while in dialogue with the
mainstream orthodoxies: caste-based rules of
conduct for householders, and the disciplinary
rules applying to Buddhist or Śaiva monastics.
Understood in this way, Tantra first emerged as a
purposeful foray into the realm of the exotic and
taboo, in a quest for power and siddhi.
Many (if not most) tantric deities indeed seem
to have been incorporated from local non-Brahman
worship traditions that existed beyond the pale of
orthoprax norms. A similar process of assimila-
tion is on full display in the early Purāṇas, where
local deities and practices are incorporated into a
mainstream praxis founded on the maintenance
of caste norms (varṇāśramadharma) and tem-
pered by an ethos of → bhakti. But where the
Purāṇa traditions were deliberately excluded cer-
tain practices and deemed impure and dangerous
(vedabāhya, outside the Veda), Tantra exploited
the very marginality and otherness that Purāṇa
eschewed. Tantra’s power was drawn from the
fact that the traditions that inspired it did not
conform to orthoprax rules of purity and con-
duct, creating an aesthetic of the exotic that
comes to characterize tantric practice throughout
its history – indeed, into the present day.
This is evident in a series of Tantras devoted to
the fearsome tantric sādhanās related to the god-
dess Tārā. In texts such as the Rudrayāmala,
Brahmayāmala, and Tārātantra, the sage (→ ṛsị )
Vasiṣtḥ a is said to travel from India to the land of
Mahācīna (China, though possibly indicating
Tibet), the “land of the Buddhists,” in order to
learn, from the Buddha himself, the secret rites
on the worship of the fierce goddess Tārā. The
sādhanā that Vasiṣtḥ a receives includes the con-
sumption of meat, alcohol, and blood, as well as
sexual intercourse with low-caste women. In this
series of texts, these antinomian practices are fre-
quently called cīnācāra: “the Chinese method”
(Bhattacharyya, 1999, 107–111; Bharati, 1993,
66–70). Given that it is unlikely that this particu-
lar sādhanā indeed had its origins outside of India
(the textual provenance seems to be eastern India),
the fact that this tradition projects the origins of a
set of particularly antinomian practices onto a for-
eign land (and non-Brahman religious culture)
illustrates the tantric aesthetic preference for the
exotic and socially taboo.
Tantra and Orthopraxis
Tantra is, at its core, a distinctive mode of ritual
praxis, framed as an alternative to some norma-
tive praxis, be it Brahman Smārta conduct, or the
monastic institutional disciplines of a Buddhist or
Jain monk. Tantric methodologies, then, evolve
in dialogue with the conventions of orthopraxis.
Tantric forms run counter to the mainstream and
frequently transgress the rules of orthodox con-
duct in seeking what is claimed to be a fuller
spectrum of power, enjoyment, and knowledge.
Tantra, then, does not constitute an independent
religion, because the various tantric traditions
(Buddhist, Jain, or Hindu) derive their specific
contours only in contradistinction to their respec-
tive orthopraxes.
While there is a difference between Tantra and
orthopraxis, the relationship between the two is
not simply one of direct opposition and mutual
exclusion. The extent to which Tantra is consid-
ered to be competing with or compatible to
orthopraxis varies according to different tantric
texts and traditions, though non-Tantrics gener-
ally consider Tantra to be unorthodox and
impure. Many Tantrics, however, practice their
rites in secret, while maintaining conventional,
orthoprax identities in public. So while there is
always a distinction made between Tantra and
orthopraxis, the relationship between the two is
complex and varied.
In the Brahman context, where orthopraxis is
defined by a range of caste-specific disciplines
enjoined by the prescriptive Smarta texts, and
resting on the ultimate authority of Vedic revela-
tion (śruti), both tantric and nontantric sources
typically distinguish between Vedic (vaidika) and
tantric (tāntrika) revelation. The history of this
distinction is somewhat difficult to trace. Perhaps
because of its brevity and clarity, the most cited
exposition of this idea is found in the Manusmṛti
commentary of K. Bhaṭṭa (c. 13th cent.).
In fact, the tāntrika/vaidika distinction is
attested in both tantric and nontantric Brahman
sources from quite an early period, as it occurs
with some regularity in the Sanskrit Purāṇas.
Though these texts are notoriously difficult to
date, one of the more securely dateable Purāṇas is
 Tantras
the 10th-century Bhāgavatapurāṇa. This most
celebrated of Vaiṣnạ va Purāṇas recommends the
worship of → Kṛsṇ ạ “according to the method pre-
scribed in the Tantras” (tantroktena vidhinā).
Here, the “tantric method” is an optional worship
method that is to be practiced alongside the uni-
versally prescribed Vedic injunctions (BhāgP. 11.30.
34–55). The tantric method, the text explains, is
characterized by the worship of an image (mūrti),
accompanied by mantras.
It is noteworthy that in this Purāṇa, the poten-
tially antinomian tantric revelation is legitimized
and placed alongside the mainstream Vedic path,
indicating complementarity between the two
modes. A great deal (indeed, the vast majority) of
Hindu tantric literature that has come down to us
makes a sort of rapprochement to the Vedas and
sees the tantric method as extracting the essence
of the Vedas, or the secret (rahasya) portions that
are hidden from conventional, exoteric practice.
In the view of most authors on Tantra, the tantric
methodologies complement Vedic revelation,
rather than subvert it (Chakravarti, 1963, 30–37;
Brooks, 1990, 17–32).
Tantrics tend to look upon Vedic orthopraxis
as a legitimate but less advanced path, fit for the
lowest level of practitioner, whereas the tantric
path is held to be a secret and elite dispensation
that only a very few are qualified to receive. In
keeping with this idea, the tantric practitioner is
often styled a “hero” (vīra). Tantric practices are
expected to be closely safeguarded in lineages of
tradition, or esoteric “families” of practitioners
(kula; kaula). These are open only to those who
are deemed worthy and ritually prepared and
accepted into the community through ritual ini-
tiation (dīkṣā).
Within Buddhism as well, the Buddhist Tan-
tras are held (by Tantrics, of course) to be a higher
order of teachings than those found in the con-
ventional canon. In the Buddhist case, this devel-
opment is a clear extension of the model already
set up with the early evolution of the Mahāyāna
(great vehicle) scriptural canon, in parts of which
one can glimpse the seeds of → maṇḍala and dei-
ty-visualization practices that would become
elaborated in the Tantras (Samuel, 2008, 218–220,
224–228). Just as the Mahāyāna is posited as a
higher revelation than the so-called Hīnayāna (lesser
vehicle), the tantric Vajrayāna (diamond vehicle) is
a secret and even higher order of revelation.
Several Tantras divide humankind into three
categories: the paśu (beast), vīra (hero), and
175
divya (divine). According to the Kulārṇavatantra
(2.122), for example, the paśu is qualified only for
the basic, exoteric rites of the Vedas and non-
tantric Vaiṣnạ vism. The “hero” personality is
qualified for initiation into tantric rites and may
practice the esoteric elements of the tradition.
The highest stage is that of the divya adept, where
the “divine” initiate is perfected in the tantric rites
and gains access to even higher levels of the tradi-
tion (Bhattacharyya, 1999, 293–294; Gupta, 1979,
72–74).
Sometimes overlapping with the above, another
common classification is the well-known distinc-
tion between “right” (dakṣiṇa) and “left” (vāma)
styles of conduct (ācāra) in Tantra, where the
right indicates “pure” traditions that do not vio-
late Vedic rules of conduct, and the left, traditions
that do. The history of this term is uncertain, but
it becomes a commonplace shorthand, even in
nontantric circles, for distinguishing between
those tantric practices which were in accordance
with the Vedas and those which were not (Gupta,
1979, 44–45).
Tantric identities frequently overlapped with
mainstream ones – that is, one could be a Tantric
and a Brahman of a particular Vedic śākhā, or a
Buddhist monk whose (secret) tantric practices
technically violated (or, rather, transcended) the
normative monastic regulations. This idea is
stated succinctly in the 16th-century Yonitantra:
Inwardly Śāktas, outwardly Śaivas, and in the
public assembly proclaiming Vaiṣnạ va views:
Kaulas (tantrics) move in the world bearing
various forms. (YonT. 4.20)
With regard to the mainstream traditions, tantric
practice is not necessarily exclusive, but can be
practiced alongside them. In a similar vein,
tantric concepts sometimes extend rather than
replace orthodox doctrines. An example of this is
seen in the tantric elaboration of the tattvas (cos-
mic principles) known in → Sāṃ khya discourse, a
concept that traces back to some of the oldest
yogic and philosophical speculations recorded in
India. In the Sāṃ khya there are 25 (or 24, depend-
ing whether the last is included) of these tattvas,
ranging from the gross elements (earth, water,
fire, air, and ākāśa; → mahābhūtas) to the subtler
aspects of mind and matter, culminating in the
principles of primordial matter (→ prakṛti) and
pure spirit (puruṣa). In the → Śaiva Āgamas, a
series of increasingly finer tattvas is appended
to this list, from the principles of space (niyati)
176 Tantras
and time (kāla), and culminating in Śakti
(→ Mahādevī), the consort and literal “power” of
Śiva, and finally Śiva himself, making a total of 36
(Woodroffe, 2001, 198–201). Here again, Tantra
does not contradict the orthodox as much as it
extends it.
Elements of Tantra
The above suffices as a general historical intro-
duction to Tantra and an overview of its defining
characteristics. What follows is a somewhat more
detailed description of some of the prominent
features of tantric thought and practice.
Mantra
In Tantra, the primary means of propitiating dei-
ties is through mantra, wherein each god or god-
dess (or aspect thereof) is worshipped by means
of a mantra considered appropriate to that deity.
A mantra is a phoneme or series of phonemes
believed to be of suprahuman origin that possess
power to effect change within the body/mind of
the practitioner, and also in the greater cosmos.
The mantra is, of course, familiar to normative
Vedic practice itself. The uniqueness of the tantric
mantras is the simple fact that they are distin-
guished from Vedic ones: the Tantras boast a
mantric vocabulary entirely distinct from the
word texts of the Vedas.
Additionally, the tantric perspective on man-
tras holds that they not only are a means of
approaching or propitiating the deity, but also in
fact are the deity in “sound form” (Gupta, 1979,
105). While the utilization of mantras is not the
sole aspect of tantric practice, it is one of the most
characteristic: so much so that the tantric path is
frequently referred to as the Mantramārga (way
of mantras).
Included among tantric mantras are the “seed”
syllables (bījamantras), or single-syllabled man-
tras ending in an anusvara (a nasalization; in
Roman script, ṃ ). Just as a tiny seed contains, in
potential form, a fully developed tree, the
bījamantra is thought to contain within itself the
full realization of the teachings of the tradition
(Bhattacharyya, 2005, 295). Bījamantras are often
appended to other mantras, or strung together to
constitute a mantra of a deity. They are also inde-
pendently linked to various deities, though these
links sometimes vary across different texts and
traditions. Hence, hrīṃ is the bījamantra of the
goddess Māyā, raṃ is that of Agni (fire; → Vedic
gods), and krīṃ that of → Kālī (Gupta, 1979, 105).
The origins of tantric bījamantra practice may
be linked to the Vedic oṃ (which itself is also
commonly employed in the Tantras), an ancient
syllable that was originally an exclamation of
affirmation or assent, but developed into an eso-
teric symbol that became the subject of certain
types of → meditation techniques, and thereafter
the subject of a great deal of philosophical specu-
lation. In certain tantric traditions, speculation
on the mantra develops into elaborate theological
systems that posit sound/language as the funda-
mental constituent of the cosmos. The universe
proceeds from a primordial, pre-articulate “word”
that evolves into increasingly grosser forms,
becoming human speech, and ultimately, material
reality (Padoux, 1990; Beck, 1993; Sferra, 2007).
Tantric deities most fundamentally, the Tantras
feature details on the worship of pantheons of
deities; some of these tantric deities are rarely
worshipped in mainstream traditions, but most
come to be identified with aspects of the great
deities such as Śiva, Devī, or the Buddha. Distinc-
tively, many of these deities are feminine, fierce,
and/or erotic in their iconography. Goddesses
such as Kālī, Tārā, and Lalitā (Tripurasundarī),
for example, are primarily associated with tantric
worship and practice traditions. While tantric
worship is not limited to the propitiation of femi-
nine, fierce, or erotic divinities, there is a strong
correlation between deities with these character-
istics and the tantric cults.
Also distinctively tantric are a number of god-
dess “families,” such as the ten mahāvidyās (see
→ Kālī), the seven mātṛkās (see → Śiva), and the
sixty-four → yoginīs, which are venerated both indi-
vidually and as sets, and also have associated tantric
sādhanās that are said to result in power, knowl-
edge, and material benefits for the practitioner.
From a relatively early period in both Buddhist
and Śaiva Tantras, the figure of the yoginī (often
called ḍākinī in Buddhist texts) gained promi-
nence and may have served as a prototype for
later tantric goddesses. Yoginīs are flying, shape-
shifting female divinities associated with occult
powers. They are commonly depicted as drinking
wine and blood, wearing human skulls, and frol-
icking wildly in cremation grounds. These pow-
erful beings could grant favors when approached
properly and satisfied, or they could wreak great
havoc when angered, thus their attributes were
equally demonic and divine. According to various
 Tantras
narrative traditions and some tantric texts, yoginīs
were to be satisfied with vital bodily fluids, includ-
ing the blood of sacrificed animals, and often the
seminal fluids of the male practitioner. If invoked
and left unsatisfied, they could torment and
destroy the vitality of the aspirant.
The yoginīs could also enter human females,
through birth or possession, where they were
especially sought after by male tantric practitio-
ners seeking their occult powers and favors. As
humans, yoginīs almost always assumed the form
of women and girls from low-caste and untouch-
able groups (→ untouchability), or those from other-
wise marginalized social groups such as prostitutes.
Tantric yoginī-centered texts detail how the prac-
titioner is to recognize yoginīs through signs, and
they offer details on how to seduce them into
serving as helpers in practicing their rites and
attaining siddhis. The Buddhist Hevajratantra, for
example, provides elements of a coded language
(sandhyābhāṣā) that would allow an aspirant to
communicate with yoginīs in the context of secret
tantric ritual gatherings (gaṇacakra; see Davidson,
2002, 262–269).
They were also frequently considered to be
attendants of the central cult deity: usually a form
of either Śiva (for Śaivas, most commonly one of
the many forms of → Bhairava, considered the
fierce aspect of Śiva) or the Buddha (for Bud-
dhists) or the great Goddess. These attendant
yoginīs thus constituted the subsidiary powers of
the central deity (White, 2000, 9–13).
Maṇḍala and Yantra
These groupings of deities may be thought of as
mirroring the “clustered” configurations of tantric
textual traditions described above, where a series
of commentary and subsidiary texts become
attached to a root text. Tantric deities are simi-
larly arranged into pantheons, or “families” of
related deities, bearing varying iconographical
forms particular to each tradition. The worship of
each deity form requires its own specialized man-
tra or series of mantras, and set of ritual proce-
dures (sādhanā).
The hierarchical relationship within such deity
families comes to be encapsulated in the maṇḍala
(lit. circle), the diagrammatic representation of
the deities of the tradition. The maṇḍala consists
of a central figure of worship surrounded by
ancillary deities (āvaraṇadevatā) that are consid-
ered personified “powers” of the central god or
goddess. The prominence of clans, series, or
177
cycles of deities, genealogically related and
approached via a series of practices passed down
in esoteric traditions, is a distinctive characteris-
tic of tantric traditions. In addition to their use as
meditation aids, maṇḍalas are also utilized in rit-
uals of initiation: during this important ceremony
of accepting the aspirant into the family of initi-
ates, the tantric guru assigns the student a deity of
the maṇḍala deemed appropriate for the individ-
ual and provides the mantra, along with the secret
instructions for the particular sādhanā into which
he is being initiated.
Related to the tantric maṇḍala is the yantra (lit.
device, instrument). Yantras are magical diagrams
for invoking and controlling esoteric forces for
specific ends. Most frequently they are inscribed
in metal (gold, silver, or copper being preferred)
or a more perishable material and used as recep-
tacles for external worship. Yantras come in many
different varieties, and their forms are specific
to different purposes. Hence, some texts will
describe the construction of different yantras for
healing, harming enemies, or seduction, and also
yantras specific to different deities, such as Agni,
Lakṣmī (→ Śrī Lakṣmī), or → Gaṇapati. In short,
any deity can theoretically be depicted in yantra
form, just as every deity has its accompanying
mantra (Gupta, 1979, 113–114).
While the maṇḍala is circular in form and fre-
quently employed in religious art and as an aid to
meditation, yantras vary in their shape, constitu-
tion, and function as an instrument of external
worship. In practice, however, there is consider-
able overlap between the two categories, and the
maṇḍala is sometimes considered a subset of the
yantra (Gupta, 1979, 111–113).
Śakti and Royal Cults
In its Hindu varieties at least, Tantra is strongly
associated with the concept of → śakti, a Sanskrit
word meaning “power,” which is, significantly,
grammatically feminine. Śakti comes to be iden-
tified with the supreme Goddess, or with the
female counterpart to the supreme God (usually
in this context: Śiva). This theological concept is
usually traced to the Devīmāhātmya of the
Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa, a text that features the first-
known theological exposition of the cult of Devī,
the supreme Goddess of whom all goddesses,
females, and indeed all feminine-gendered con-
cepts or forces are aspects (→ Durgā). In one of
178 Tantras
the most popular episodes from this text, the
Devī is formed from the combined energies of the
gods for the purpose of defeating the buffalo-de-
mon Mahiṣāsura (→ asuras). The Devī, then, rep-
resents the individual powers of each of the gods,
and ultimately the combined powers of the uni-
verse. An individual or tradition that reveres the
Goddess in this way is called (a) Śākta, the adjec-
tive of śakti.
The image of the Devī representing the com-
bined powers of the gods has a precedent in the
ancient idea of the king, representing the com-
bined powers of his tributary lords (MaSm. 7.11).
Indeed, the tantric emphasis on śakti may be
related to its militaristic iconography and focus
on rituals tailored towards royalty and imperial
temple building. Kings, of course, would seek the
aid of supernatural powers to vanquish their ene-
mies and augment their ability to rule. An early
instance of the overlap of goddess worship and
the royal cult is seen in the worship of the afore-
mentioned mātṛkās (mothers) by several of the
kings of the vaunted Gupta lineage (4th–6th cents.
CE). The mātṛkās seem to have had associations
with local, non-Brahman peoples and likely were
the objects of their worship. The Gupta kings
seemed to have appropriated these powerful god-
desses as a way of effecting and symbolizing their
dominance over the peoples (Harper, 2001). The
mātṛkās were incorporated into the mainstream
Brahman tradition as consorts of the gods of the
Brahman pantheon. In the meantime, it would
seem that the religious specialists that served as
the royal advisors and priestly officiates were
developing secret techniques for propitiating and
taming these wild warrior goddesses, with the
result of these esoteric techniques being codified
in the Tantras later on.
In a later period, the rise to prominence of the
ascetic and scholarly lineages of Śaiva Siddhānta,
in particular from the 9th to the 12th century,
helped spur the widespread popularization of
tantric cults. Serving as royal preceptors to prom-
inent royal lineages such as the Kalacuris of cen-
tral India and the Cholas in the south, Śaiva
Siddhānta teachers developed a vast array of
tantric Śaiva rituals for use in state ceremonies.
The texts of this tradition, the Śaiva Āgamas, bear
the imprint of this relationship between royalty
and Śaivism, with a great percentage of the Āgama
canon detailing rites for the protection and main-
tenance of their royal patrons. These include, for
example, extensive rituals of consecration, as well
as details for the construction of large, imperial
temples for conducting worship (Davis, 1991).
Some scholars have suggested that the tantric
“imperial metaphor” is one of the primary rea-
sons for the widespread success of tantric ritual
technologies, corresponding with the increasingly
regionalized, feudal political structure of Indian
society after the dissolution of the Gupta Empire.
This relationship is encapsulated in the parallels
between the tantric maṇḍala and the military
ideal of the transregional ruler (adhipati), receiv-
ing power and tribute from a series of subsidiary
rulers, imagined as the king’s “manifestations”
(Davidson, 2002, 113–168).
Tantric Worship: Outer and Inner
The tantric worship of external deities (→ pūjā)
features the offering of a standardized series of
items (upacāra) to an external image, usually via a
yantra or other ritually sanctified receptacle such
as a clay pot, copper vessel, or symbolic emblem
(e.g. śivaliṅga; → liṅga). The number of items offered
is often fixed at 10, 16, or as many as 64 in rare
cases, depending on the specific ritual. All wor-
ship involves the recitation of mantras, along with
the presentation of a range of hand gestures
(→ mudrā), both of which are understood to aid
in harnessing subtle energies for the purpose of
the ritual. Recipes for both regular (nitya) and
occasional (naimittika) rites (karman), along with
specialized sādhanās such as expiation (prāyaścitta),
are detailed in tantric texts and also codified in
tradition-specific manuals known as Paddhatis.
Despite certain sources making nominal distinc-
tions among tantric, Vedic, and “mixed” styles of
pūjā (Gupta, 1979, 124), it is evident that the
structure and content of mainstream pūjā tech-
niques clearly originate from tantric sādhanās.
While the external worship of deities is a main
focus of tantric practice, the inner dimensions of
tantric worship are its hallmark. The worship of
the external image usually requires the ritual
transfer of the internal powers to the external
image as a means of enlivening the image before
the proper ceremonial worship – the offering of
items such as incense (dhūpa), lamp (dīpa), flower
(puṣpa), and so forth – begins.
Internal tantric worship techniques are worship
and meditation. As in yogic traditions, in Tantra
there is a special emphasis on the creative trans-
formation of consciousness, especially through
 Tantras
the ritual transformation of the body–mind com-
plex of the practitioner, into its superpowered,
divine equivalent. In tantric practice, however,
there is an additional level of discourse that focuses
on correspondences between the worshipper and
the deity. An example of this is the process of
“purification of the elements” (bhūtaśuddhi), a
purification ritual of the physical and subtle body
of the worshipper, which is almost universally
included in sectarian ritual manuals as a prepara-
tion for external pūjā. During the bhūtaśuddhi,
the body is ritually incinerated (using the
bījamantra of Agni, raṃ ), and then re-created in a
purified, divine form (bhūtaśuddhi: see Flood,
2000; tantric pūjā: see Gupta, 1979, 121–162).
After the bhūtaśuddhi, the purified body is enliv-
ened with sacred mantra phonemes that corre-
spond with the divinity that is being worshipped.
This technique is called mantranyāsa, “placing”
(nyāsa) or ritual installation of mantras, a process
that divinizes the body and charges it with power
(Gupta, 1979, 109–110). Frequently there are
accompanying visualizations that underscore the
identification of worshipped and worshipper.
Similar practices occur in tantric Buddhist
(Vajrayāna) contexts. Whether this divinization of
the body is the “central metaphor” of Tantra, as
some have argued (Flood, 2006, 10–12), is debat-
able, but it is certainly one of the most distinctive
aspects of tantric practice.
Of the various forms of tantric inner worship
or bodily mysticism, perhaps the most recogniz-
able is kuṇḍalinī yoga, a distinctive form of subtle
body practice mentioned as early as the
Tantrasadbhāva (8th cent.), and fully elaborated
in texts such as the Kaulajñānanirṇaya (9th–
10th cents.), the Śāradātilaka (11th cent.), and the
Kulārṇavatantra (13th–14th cents.; White, 2003,
229–234). Largely borrowing from related yogic
traditions, kuṇḍalinī yoga focuses on the (usually
seven) energetic centers (Skt. → cakras: lit. wheel,
circle) located along the central spinal column of
the subtle body. Unlike in yoga traditions, how-
ever, the tantric iteration of the subtle body posits
a source of potential spiritual power as lying dor-
mant in the mūlādhāracakra (root cakra) located
at the base of the spine. This energy, called
kuṇḍalinī, is considered a goddess in the form of
a coiled serpent. The purpose of the practice is to
awaken this goddess and have her ascend up the
spine, passing through each of the cakras until
uniting with the supreme Śiva in the uppermost
cakra above the top of the skull. As the kuṇḍalinī
179
touches each cakra, the cakra is enlivened and ani-
mated, which is said to correspond with a spiritual
awakening and acquisition of particular siddhis.
When she finally ascends to the sahasrāracakra,
the aspirant attains liberation and identification
with Śiva (Silburn, 1988).
Tantra and the Taboo
There are numerous tantric practices that specifi-
cally violate orthoprax norms. In terms of the
orthoprax Hindu traditions, one of the most fun-
damental ways in which Tantra challenged nor-
mative practice is in the realm of caste (varṇa). In
theory at least, tantric initiation was and is open
to all, regardless of caste. A strong formulation
of this statement occurs, for example, in the
Mahānirvāṇatantra: “All humans on the face of
this earth – from the Brahman to the outcaste –
should be considered qualified for this kula
(tantric) practice” (MNirT. 14.184).
This, however, is not to say that caste is not rec-
ognized in Tantra. On the contrary, many texts
prescribe different practices for aspirants accord-
ing to their caste. It is clear, however, that the
fluidity with which many tantric traditions
approached the normative varṇa injunctions is
the primary way in which Tantra distinguished
itself from mainstream Hindu religiosity.
One of the most controversial elements of
tantric practice is the employment of the “five
substances” (pañcatattva), also known as the “five
m’s” (pañcamakāra), because the Sanskrit names
for these five terms all begin with “m”. The five are
madya (liquor), māṃ sa (meat), matsya (fish),
mudrā (probably an aphrodisiac grain), and mait-
huna (sexual intercourse). There are some ambi-
guities about the original meaning of the fourth
of these, but the implications of the set are clear:
these substances are all taboo in orthoprax circles
and are meant to be ritually taken in certain
tantric practices. Generally speaking, a tantric
tradition might be considered left-handed
(vāmācara) if all of these are employed literally;
right-handed tantric schools tend to use symbolic
equivalents (Bharati, 1993, 242–244).
Similar is the category of the “six rites”
(ṣaṭkarman), another pervasive grouping that is
strongly tied to the more dangerous and forbid-
den aspects of tantric practice. These are the six
major aims that can be accomplished by certain
tantric rites. The specifics of the offerings and
180 Tantras
rituals vary depending on which of the six is the
desired effect. The six are pacification (śānti),
control (vaśīkaraṇa), immobilizing (stambhana),
causing enmity (vidveṣaṇa), driving away
(uccāṭana), and killing (maraṇa). This group of
six can be said to succinctly characterize the
black-magic aspect of Tantra. Needless to say, the
use of these spells is eschewed by those tantric
traditions oriented more toward meditation and
gnosis (Bühnemann, 2000).
The term kaula is often used to describe the
most secret, transgressive, and dangerous aspects
of tantric practice. The term is employed exten-
sively in certain tantric traditions: indeed, in
some it is more pervasive and consistently used
than tantra. Kaula derives from the word kula
([esoteric] family or clan), a designation that
emphasizes the initiatory structure of tantric tra-
ditions (White, 2003, 17–22).
Tantric Theology and Philosophy
Along with these practices, there are also con-
comitant theological and philosophical elabora-
tions of tantric practices that, while diverse in
their sectarian and doctrinal particulars, might
be said to constitute a distinctively tantric world-
view. This tantric view takes as its basis the ulti-
mate nonduality of conventional existence and its
transcendence: the postulate that → saṃ sāra is no
different from nirvāṇa, or that Śiva (the absolute
static principle of consciousness) is inseparable
from Śakti (the dynamic principle of activity that
makes creation possible). In the meditative wis-
dom traditions where Tantra is elaborated, the
transgressive elements of tantric practice are held
to be a high-risk means of circumventing dual-
ism. That which is considered impure and an
obstacle to insight (in normative praxis) is seen
as the expression of perfect wisdom from the
perspective of nonduality. Instead of avoiding
desire in traditional ascetic fashion, the tantric
adept embraces it and presses it into the service
of liberation, while acquiring divine powers
and bliss.
These philosophical understandings of tantric
practice rely on the philosophical assumption of
nonduality. According to this view, dualistic dis-
tinctions between purity and impurity, → auspi-
ciousness and inauspiciousness, while necessary
at the lower, exoteric levels of practice, are held to
be ultimately unreal in Tantra and in fact are hin-
drances to the ultimate nondual insight. At the
highest levels of practice, tantric practices fre-
quently involve the visualization of the practitio-
ner as the divine: a perfectly enlightened Buddha,
for the Buddhists, or equivalent to Śiva, for the
Śaiva-Śākta traditions. In these gnostic traditions
of Tantra, the tantric deities and their corre-
sponding mantras are seen not as external forces,
but as aspects of the practitioner’s own conscious-
ness to be integrated and realized.
Not all tantric ritual practices adopt the partic-
ular nondualistic framing that the above focus on
liberating insight suggests. The influential Śaiva
Siddhānta lineages of teachers were philosophi-
cally dualistic, positing a theology of liberation
that depended on the saving → grace of Śiva
(Davis, 1991, 22–41). Thus, while there are trends
in philosophical discourse that are distinctively
tantric, there is no singular tantric philosophy
that encompasses the diversity of traditions that
fall within the category. This shows, once again,
that Tantra is best understood not as an abstract
category of thought, but rather a particular mode
of practice.
Bibliography
Banerji, S.C., A Companion to Sanskrit Literature, New
Delhi, 1989.
Beck, G., Sonic Theology: Hinduism and Sacred Sound,
Columbia, 1993.
Bharati, A., Tantric Traditions, New Delhi, 1996, rev. ed.
1993.
Bhattacharyya, N.N., History of the Tantric Religion, New
Delhi, rev. ed. 1982.
Brooks, D., The Secret of the Three Cities: An Introduction
to Hindu Śākta Tantrism, Chicago, 1990.
Bühnemann, G. “The Six Rites of Magic,” in: D. White,
ed., Tantra in Practice, Princeton, 2000.
Coburn, T., Encountering the Goddess: A Translation of the
Devī-Māhātmya and a Study of Its Interpretation,
Albany, 1991.
Cort, J., “Medieval Jaina Goddess Traditions,” Numen
34/2, 1987, 235–255.
Chakravarti, C., The Tantras: Studies on Their Religion and
Literature, Calcutta, 1963.
Davidson, R., Indian Esoteric Buddhism: a Social History
of the Tantric Movement, New York, 2002.
Davis, R., Ritual in an Oscillating Universe: Worshiping
Śiva in Medieval India, Albany, 1991.
Dyczkowski, M., The Canon of the Śaivāgama and the
Kubjikā Tantras of the Western Kaula Tradition, Albany,
1988.
Flood, G., The Tantric Body: The Secret Tradition of Hindu
Religion, London, 2006.
 Tantras
Goodall, D., The Parākhyatantra: A Scripture of the Śaiva
Siddhānta, Pondicherry, 2004.
Gupta, S., “Tantric Sādhanā: Pūjā” in: S. Gupta, D. Hoens
& T. Goudriaan, eds., Hindu Tantrism, Leiden, 1979.
Harper, K.A., “The Warring Śaktis: A Paradigm for Gupta
Conquests,” in: K.A. Harper & R.L. Brown, eds., The
Roots of Tantra, Albany, 2002, 115–132.
Khanna, M., “Whose Tantra? Reflections on Bazaari Tan-
tra: A Critical Category of Discourse in the Study of
Tantrism,” in: I. Keul, ed., Transformations and Transfer
of Tantra in Asia and Beyond, Berlin, 2010.
Lorenzen, D., “Early Evidence for Tantric Religion,” in:
K.A. Harper & R.L. Brown, eds., The Roots of Tantra,
Albany, 2002, 25–36.
McDermott, R.F. Mother of My Heart, Daughter of My
Dreams: Kālī and Umā in the Devotional Poetry of Ben-
gal, New York, 2001.
McEvilley, T., The Shape of Ancient Thought, New York, 2002.
Padoux, A., Vāc: The Concept of the Word in Selected
Hindu Tantras, Albany, 1990.
Padoux, A., “What Do We Mean by Tantrism?” in: K.A.
Harper & R.L. Brown, eds., The Roots of Tantra, Albany,
2002, 17–24.
Sanderson, A., “The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance
of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period,” in: S.
Einoo, ed., Genesis and Development of Tantrism,
Tokyo, 2009, 41–350.
181
Sanderson, A., “Religion and the State: Śaiva Officiants in
the Territory of the King’s Brahmanical Chaplain,” IIJ
47, 2004, 229–300.
Sanderson, A., “Śaivism and the Tantric Traditions,” in: S.
Sutherland, L. Houlden, P. Clarke & F. Hardy, eds., The
World’s Religions, London, 1988.
Samuel, G., The Origins of Yoga and Tantra: Indic Religions
to the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge UK, 2008.
Samuel, G., Tantric Revisionings: New Understandings of
Tibetan Buddhism and Indian Religion, New Delhi, 2005.
Schoterman, J.A., The Yoni Tantra: Critically Edited with
Introduction, New Delhi, 1980.
Sferra, F., “Materials for the Study of the Levels of Sound
in the Sanskrit Sources of the Śaivasiddhānta,” in:
D. Goodall & A. Padoux, eds., Mélanges tantriques à la
mémoire d’Hélène Brunner, Pondicherry, 2007, 443–474.
Silburn, L., Kuṇḍalinī: Energy of the Depths, Albany, 1988.
Urban, H., Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the
Study of Religions, Berkeley, 2003.
White, D.G., Kiss of the Yogini: “Tantric Sex” in Its South
Asian Contexts, Chicago, 2003.
Woodroffe, J., Śakti and Śākta: Essays and Addresses on the
Śākta Tantraśāstra, 1912, repr. 2001.
Τravis L. Smith