Talk:Barbelo

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tantra#Sexual rites|rituals]] The anchor (Sexual rites) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Comparing Tantra to Gnosticism – a minority position

wtf does barbelo have to do with shiva or tantras?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.34.61 (talk) 19:41, May 5, 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I asked for a citation. My intention though, was to ask, for a citation quote about what is the relevance, i.e., show a scholar of Gnosticism who says so, a significant scholar. If that isn't in there in a day or so I'll remove it again. I'm not trying to be a jerk I just want a Gnostic scholar of importance saying it, and I'm not aware of one. That would be original research if you can't find it, right?. SquirleyWurley 05:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be so demanding. Rome wasn't built in a day. And take the time to look into a scholars credentials yourself, Google is easily available. I happen to have an use a first Indian edition of Singh. His book on the Shiva Sutras has since been republished by SUNY Press, along with other of his books. [1]. You've heard of SUNY, right? —Hanuman Das 05:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be demanding. My concern is simply this: Jaideva Singh is an expert in what, exactly? Gnosticism? No, he's not an expert in Gnosticism, not an expert in Barbelo. So ok, he's an expert in something, great. But not in what is required for him to be an appropriate source for this article, that's all. I have a copy of Shiva Sutras myself. It's a different tradition; we can make comparisons, but it would either be original research, or it would be very debatable among scholars, or it would be really off topic for this kind of encyclopedia article. So again, I ask for a Gnostic scholar if you want to put that in. Not an Eastern Hindu Scholar who claims that there is a link between Tantra and Gnosticism, not a PhD in English, eihter :) SquirleyWurley 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are being demanding. Scholars of Gnosticism are not the only scholars whose work involves Gnosticism. Scholars of history, comparative religion, mythology, and psychology also have an interest in and are qualified to say something about Gnosticism. The discussion of the similarities between certain aspects of Gnosticism and certain aspects of the Tantras goes back to at least 1929, when Sir John Woodroffe mentioned the similarity. It has been also mentioned by Alain Daniélou, who is certainly a qualified historian. And it is certain to be covered in more depth and detail in John Lash's forthcoming book, Not in His Image: Gnostic Vision, Sacred Ecology, and the Future of Belief . I hope that you won't think that someone who has been called the heir to both Joseph Campbell and Mircea Eliade is not a suitable source for the article. In other words, it is not original research, I didn't just pull it out of my ***, which is what you seem to be implying. I hope you won't try to own the article. Adding information is one thing, and certainly I would encourage it, but removing information is quite another and is discouraged. Restricting the sources in the articles to people you feel are qualified "scholars of Gnosticism" would violate the NPOV policy. —Hanuman Das 12:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't want to go against the norms of Wikipedia. It seems to me that one way to handle neutrality, according to Wikipedia's guides, is to keep viewpoint presentation proportionate to the scholars in the subject matter, Lash doesn't have the same weight as Meyer or Robinson or Layton. Speculating about comparisons between Tantra and Gnosticism is fine if the information is informative and descriptive and a little more substantive, I would think, especially if you have a quote and it is a scholar of Gnosticism or of ancient history. The looser sort of comparative religion does have a place, but where is it, in a separate section? Part of the problem is what does it mean that tantra speaks of Siva and Shakti. I mean, Wicca speaks of a God and a Goddess. So what is the real comparison, is that it? Fleshing that out would help, I think. The comparative religious writers pre-Nag Hammadi, and the popular writers who are not Gnostic Scholars, are often speaking very speculatively about their original research, and for whatever they say there are very many who would say otherwise, and Gnostic scholars themselves would be much more careful in explaining such parallels. Blavatsky had lots of views on Gnostics, too, but they would belong in a separate section or perhaps in a separate article, wouldn't they? I also think such a comparison belongs on another page, not the Barbelo page. SquirleyWurley 04:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it's against policy to split other views off from the article. Or to attempt to buffalo other editors into doing so. And that, I think, is going to be my final word on the matter, unless you care to discuss the details of how best to integrate these legitimate viewpoints on the subject into the article. —Hanuman Das 05:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about just mentioning all minor views AS IF they were equivalent to views that are held by more prominent minority positions, proportionality is a worthwhile consideration. Also, putting in other views will be important, to avoid lack of neutrality issues. Also, I'd want to put an actual quote from Lash, because the sumary itself is so sparce it doesn't say much, the reader is likely to say, well how impotant is it that two systems have a male first principle and a second principle that is depicted as female? So it isn't too informative as it now is. I think these things would help present the information and develop the article. Comparing Tantra to Gnosticism is worthwhile, but it isn't quite so simple as saying, well there's the Hidden Father and Barbelo here, and Shiva and Shakti there. SquirleyWurley 05:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SquirleyWurley, I notice that you just started editing WP this month. I also notice that Hanuman Das has been here for two years longer than that. I also note that you are no more qualified than H.D. to be an expert on Gnosticism as it appears that you both have undergraduate degrees in unrelated fields. Therefore I'd suggest not speaking in such a condescending tone to another editor. Please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. -999 (Talk) 14:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of all that, I think I said some things that might help make it a better article, which has been my only intention, so I'll point out that one wiki principle seems to be to try to assume good faith of other editors, so maybe we can all work on that. It might be a better article with a reference to tantra. But if so, I think it would be good to have a quote by some recent mainstream expert in Gnosticism, something that says something about Shakti and Barbelo beyond just a comparison of male-female pairs. But if that is all you mean, well you could specify that this is the only comparison you are making, too, I suppose. In any case, the Apocryphon of John and other Nag Hammadi texts are very different from the Tantras, so I don't think it is sensible to make it sound like there is this clear undisputed comparison. SquirleyWurley 07:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the comparison because in comparative mythology/religion you can go on and on. In one of Campbell's volumes I find him referring to "Poseidon-Neptune-Shiva"...Lisa the Sociopath 06:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the discussion the relative competitive humorlessness of religious scholars seems quite evident; there are no particularly amusing links either, Barbelo Herself could possibly want us to remember Jane Fonda in Barbarella (film) which may be about as close to Tantra as Barbelo gets. 71.51.79.56 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New question

Why does the link next to the reference to "first man" (Anthropos) lead to a page about some dumb sounding Christian science-fiction novel? Is this supposed to suggest the whole article is based on science-fiction? (It seems that way to me). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.3.94.208 (talk • contribs).

Because no one bothered to fix it. I just did. Lisa the Sociopath 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, because most religions, not just "Christianity," are based on science fiction(s) -- that branch of science fiction(s) known as reverence inducing, inventive, innovative mysticism(s). 71.51.75.154 (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a reference to Genesis 2:20 that has nothing to do with the preceding sentence? Is this some Genesis 2:20 that doesn't appear in any of the referenced bibles it links to, or is it just my ignorance of the many languages, since I only can read the English? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.112.116 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! The verse should obviously be Gen. 3:20, "And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living." Kramden (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NJ Gen. 2:20 states, The man gave names to all the cattle, all the birds of heaven and all the wild animals. But no helper suitable for the man was found for him. Perhaps Barbelo is man's confused name for the First Bird of Heaven. This could be looked at as similar to the confusion of doves with the Holy Spirit, Eagles with Christ, etc. As Laozi noted, in Huahujing (chapter 63) within Yu Ching (Comfort Realm) Hsiang (appearance) melts away, leaving but Li (law-reason-measure) and Chi (life energy). Eve, Sarah and Mary (mother of Jesus) each may represent various successive incarnations of Barbelo as each further word or verse in any written work may represent a farther linear distance from Divine Subtle Origin (cf. Huahujing, 63).69.69.17.194 (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a blog for your personal exegesis. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it a post board for your conspicuously ignorant evaluations.69.69.17.194 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.20.198 (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, those Scientology Word Clearing courses you've asked me to take sure must be something if they allow you to not have the guidelines apply to you by not reading them the same way other speakers of the English language do. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Ian. 69.69.20.198 (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbelo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edem

Under the Babel section of Patristic texts, "Edem's desertion by Elohim" is referenced and I cannot find another relevant mention of Edem from a cursory Google search or from what I've read. Is this a simple typo for Eden or something else? Desdinova (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]