Talk:Neotantra

Tantric sexuality section hopefully confused

Someone who has time and energy please look into this. Trying to find out what "tantric sexuality" is from that section is futile. The section is abysmal.

Neotantra, aka "Western Neo Tantra"

Neo tantra as described in this article does not really fall under the Buddhist or Hindu designation, in my opinion. If we are to confront the fact that one term can have 2 or even 10 different meanings, which one should we pick? The way the term "Tantra" is used, and used widely, in the American vernacular is to describe the subset of Hindu and Buddhist tantric practices that have been exported, taken root, and evolved in the west, especially in the united states; This include in particular meditation, yoga, and sexual practices; and how they have been adopted and morphed for application to modern times and needs; and the innovations to these practices that have occurred in the west in the last century or so. For there to be no forum on wikipedia for these views would be a loss.

I agree that more material needs to be added and more expert opinions, but I disagree that this article should be removed.

Also, I assert that this article should NOT fly under the Hindu or Buddhist flag. In doing so I join with Mayagaia in this opinion. It should be allowed to evolve more freely and openly. --Delicasso (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bias

This whole article is quite critical of removing Tantric Sexual practices from their original spiritual context. This is a VERY biased view. The article needs to be edited to provide facts about what neotantra is, not whether this can be considered bad or good. Somebody with good knowledge of the subject needs to edit the page to make it less biased towards a positive or negative view of neotantra. 110.33.202.53 (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the assessment that there are problems with bias. However my observation is that the overarching bias tends toward an overtly positive interpretation of the facts. 76.236.179.101 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is too far from a neutral point of view to be encyclopaedic. As well as the passage cited above, it displays other biases. The section 'Tantric sexuality' includes the following two paragraphs, which read like an extract from a pamphlet expounding religious doctrine:

Tantric sexual methods may be practiced solo, in partnership, or in the sacred rituals of groups. The specifics of these methods are often kept secret, and passed from practitioners to students in an oral tradition. It must be remembered that genuine tantric spiritual practice is merely one aspect of a comprehensive spiritual path of meditation—and that the sexual and erotic aspects of tantra cannot be authentically engaged in without adequate preparation and discipline.

In sum, neotantric sexuality is just one dimension of a spiritual path that is devoted and dedicated to the challenge of becoming aware, in every moment of our embodied lives, of the supreme flow of the sacred lifeforce itself—the sacred unity of love.

Nor are any references cited to support these assertions.

yoyo (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yabyum

(tib. for "father-mother") is afaik not the tibetan translation of maituna, but refers to the lap-sitting position. harald s. frassine, july 22nd, 2011, (80.108.234.175 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC))

Can someone help with the Joseph Krame link? http://sexologicalbodyworkers.org/practitioners/catherine-deneuve/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.47.131 (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No such Indian tantra

There is no such thing as an 'Indian tantra'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.241.45 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"misinterpretation"

The term "variation" was replaced by "misinterpretation" last May with with no discussion or explanation by an IP with no other edits. I've reverted, and now a different IP with no other edits is disagreeing with my action. "Misinterpretation" is a pretty clear NPOV violation, at the very least. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)