CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 12Indian and Buddhist StudiesStudy and Philosophy of ReligionSemiotics and Representation Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beef, Dog, and Other Mythologies: Connotative Semiotics in Mahāyoga Tantra Ritual and Scripture1

Wedemeyer, Christian K.·2007·Journal of the American Academy of Religion
DOI 10.1093/jaarel/lfm006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Scholars have long debated how the antinomian elements in the Buddhist Tantras are to be interpreted. Some maintain that they are to be taken literally; others that they are figurative or "symbolic." Both, however—in approaching these statements as examples of directly denotative natural language—miss the most essential aspect of the semiology of these traditions. This paper demonstrates that the Buddhist Mahāyoga Tantras employ a form of signification (theorized by Roland Barthes) called "connotative semiotics," in which signs (a signifier–signified union) from natural language function as signifiers in a higher-order discourse. Employing these semiological tools enables criticism to recognize that what is fundamentally operative—in both ritual performance and scriptural narrative—is a grammar of purity and pollution in significant dialog with both earlier Buddhist Tantras and broader Indian religious norms. This suggests that such antinomianism—far from representing either "tribal" practices or rarified yogic codes—reflects concerns native to mainstream Indian religion.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jaarel/lfm006

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • South Asians then and now find the substances and behaviors of hard-core Tantra disgusting.

    “Truly, South Asians”

    From Disgusting Bodies, Disgusting Religion: The Biology of Tantra (2011) · cites this paper as Wedemeyer 2007

  • To attempt to reconcile the Buddhist precepts with their tantric opposites is to enter a hermeneutical minefield, one 'in which problems of interpretation stand to the fore in a way almost unheard of' in other religious milieux.

    “To attempt to reconcile the Buddhist precepts with their tantric opposites is to enter a hermeneutical minefield, one 'in which problems of interpretation stand to the fore in a way almost unheard of' in other religious milieux (Wedemeyer 2007).”

    From War Magic And Just War in Indian Tantric Buddhism (2016) · cites this paper as Wedemeyer 2007

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Barthes, 1972, Mythologies
  2. Barthes, 1979, The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies
  3. Basham, 1954, The Wonder that Was India
  4. Beal, 1884, Buddhist Records of the Western World
  5. Bell, 1997, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions, 10.1093/oso/9780195110517.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bentor, 1996, Consecration of Images and Stūpas in Indo-Tibetan Tantric Buddhism, 10.1163/9789004644755 · DOI
  7. Bhattacharyya, 1929, Two Vajrayāna Works
  8. Bhattacharyya, 1931, Guhyasamāja Tantra or Tathāgataguhyaka
  9. Bourdieu, 1990, The Logic of Practice, 10.1515/9781503621749 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Broido, 1988, Killing, Lying, Stealing, and Adultery: A Problem of Interpretation in the Tantras, 71, 10.1515/9780824840310-006 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Brunner, 2000, Tāntrikābhidhānakośa I
  12. Burnouf, 1844, Introduction à l'Histoire du Buddhisme Indien
  13. Chakravarti, 1984, Guhyasamājatantra-pradīpodyotanaṭīkā-ṣaṭkoṭīvyākhyā
  14. Davidson, 2002, Indian Esoteric Buddhism: A Social History of the Tantric Movement
  15. English, 2002, Vajrayoginī: Her Visualizations, Rituals, and Forms
  16. Hjelmslev, 1941, Udgiverens Forord
  17. Hodge, 2003, The Mahā-vairocana-abhisaṃbodhi Tantra with Buddhaguhya's Commentary
  18. Kane, 1941, History of Dharmaśāstra
  19. Kapstein, 2001, Reason's Traces: Identity and Interpretation in Indian and Tibetan Buddhist Thought
  20. Matsunaga, 1978, The Guhyasamāja Tantra
  21. Mimaki, 1994, Pañcakrama
  22. Mitra, 1882, Sanskrit Buddhist Literature of Nepal
  23. Monier-Williams, 1889, Buddhism, in its connexion with Brāhmanism and Hindūism, and in Contrast with Christianity
  24. Patel, 1949, Cittaviśuddhiprakaraṇa of Āryadeva: Sanskrit and Tibetan Texts
  25. Prebish, 1975, Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Prātimokṣa Sūtras of the Mahāsaṃghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins
  26. Sachau., 1910, Alberuni's India
  27. Sâstrî, 1920, Āryamañjuśrīmūlakalpa
  28. Sastry, 1970, Kāvyālaṃkāra of Bhāmaha
  29. de Saussure, 1949, Cours de Linguistique Générale
  30. Seyfort Ruegg, 1989, Allusiveness and Obliqueness in Buddhist Texts: Saṃdhā, Saṃdhi, Saṃdhyā and Abhisaṃdhi, 295
  31. Shendge, 1964, Advayasiddhi
  32. Smith, 1990, Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity
  33. Snellgrove, 1987, Indo-Tibetan Buddhism
  34. Steinkellner, 1978, Remarks on Tantristic Hermeneutics, 445
  35. Thurman, 1988, Vajra Hermeneutics, 119, 10.1515/9780824840310-007 · DOI
  36. Vaidya, 1961, Śikṣāsamuccaya of Śāntideva
  37. Wallis, 2002, Mediating the Power of Buddhas: Ritual in the Mañjuśrīmūlakalpa, 10.1353/book4547 · DOI
  38. Warder, 1970, Indian Buddhism
  39. Wedemeyer, 1999, Vajrayāna and its Doubles: A Critical Historiography, Exposition and Translation of the Tantric Works of Āryadeva
  40. Wedemeyer, 2002, Antinomianism and Gradualism: The Contextualization of the Practices of Sensual Enjoyment (caryā) in the Guhyasamāja Ārya Tradition, 181
  41. Williams, 2000, Buddhist Thought: A Complete Introduction to the Indian Tradition
  42. Zhang, 1984, Bod rGya Tshig mDzod Chen Mo [The Great Tibetan-Chinese Dictionary]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wedemeyer, C. K.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Wedemeyer, Christian K.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Religion
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2007-06-01
Volume
75
Issue
2
Pages
383-417
ISSN
  • 0002-7189 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-4585
DOI
10.1093/jaarel/lfm006
OpenAlex
W2091027197
Cited by
12
References
1
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
21.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Religion (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Semiotics and Representation Studies
Keywords
Roland Barthes, antinomianism, purity and pollution, ritual performance, signifier and signified, Buddhist Tantra

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review