Talk:Tantric sexuality

This article was nominated for deletion on May 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I plan to add a few lines highlighting the role of Tantric sexual practice in Tibetan Buddhism. It's a huge topic, but perhaps a brief illustation based on Milarepa's feats may be useful. Feedback is welcome. Stammer 09:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of lines about Tantric sexuality in Vajrayana. I may add more, as sketched above. Stammer 20:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Afd rejected the proposal to merge with Tantra, so I am removing the relevant tag. Stammer 09:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get some more pictures of TAntric sex

Sources

I find it hard to believe that material from all the references listed at the bottom are incorporated into such a short article. Can someone please provide in-line citations, and move texts that are not cited into a Further reading section? --EEMeltonIV 16:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy

The statement about celibacy at the bottom is inaccurate. All Buddhists are required to avoid "sexual misconduct". However, while Gelukpa monks are indeed entirely bound to celibacy by their vows, other Buddhist orders, such as the Nyingmapa, have different vows. The rules concerning Tantric practice within the Nyingmapa order, which has a formidable Tantric tradition, are actually quite complex. 82.54.86.67 (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that's very interesting, why don't you find a citation for that and add it to the article? IamNotU (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impenetrable

This is probably the poorest article I've seen on Wikipedia. It's impenetrable to the layman. What's it talking about? I can't even get through the first paragraph. All Wikipedia articles, whenever possible, should start with a sentence like this:

x is y.

Example:

The Mustang is a line of sports cars from Ford.

This is directly from the Manual of Style. Please attempt to make this article more approachable. 65.111.82.46 (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to revolve around a title that itself denotes a highly specialised POV, roughly the desire to redefine Tantric practice outside Hindu-Buddhist context. This it fails to do. Its arguments are woolly and its language recondite. It should be shown whether or not all these neotantric pages have enough currency to justify their existence. I support amalgamation of the present page into "Tantra" "neotantra" etc. Otherwise we invite the arrival of "tantric diet", "tantric positions" and so forth, until a large section of WIKI is nothing more than the how-to manual of an obscurely defined branch of newagery. Redheylin (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Definition and Summary

This article needs an x is y section and a much shorter general summary. After that the more specific details should be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.26.198 (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]