User talk:Delicasso

Welcome!

Hello, Delicasso, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! NickelShoe (Talk) 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Orgasm[edit]

Expanded Orgasm has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this information might be based on your own conclusions or research, rather than published ideas. Please review Wikipedia:No original research for the relevant policy. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so, citing sources.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 01:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete Expanded Orgasm[edit]

I have drastically changed this article. I saw how it could be written from a more neutral point of view. I have dramatically changed this and created something that is fact base, and not covered by other topics in wikipedia. I've also expanded the reference section and further reading. If you have a specific concern please let me know.

neotantra rewrite[edit]

move do neotantra discussion.

Returning herewith all our conversation which you transfered to the Neotantra Discussion page[edit]

It never was relevant to the editing community and the issues are moot since I reverted the edition back to your original rewrite as I am not continuing my involvement.

(Start returned copy)

Neotantra rewrite[edit]

Hello Delicasso:
I hope you will not take any of my comments personally as they are intended to simply address the content of your edition of the Neotantra article and my concern that it present as fair and non-judgmental appraisal (outside of the Criticism section) as is warranted in an encyclopedic article. I have extensively reedited your last virtual re-write of the entire article retaining some of your original comments and formatting. While I admit Neotantra is open to the broadest possible scale and scope of philosophical interpretation, the following discussion explains why I made specific changes to your last edit.
Regarding your edit- 22:38, 31 March 2007 Delicasso "Removed many irrelevant topics, having nothing to do with neotantra, including "attains awakening by arriving at a state of absolute desirelessness", sounds more like buddism". Your statement that this fundamental concept has "nothing to do with neotantra" with the added aside- "sounds more like [sic] buddism" suggests that you have little or no knowledge of Tantra which IS both Hindu and Buddhist. Your almost complete rewrite of the neotantra article deletes the aspects that are most positive and adds redundant criticism. You may not have intended to present such a biased rewrite but the effect is to characterize Neotantra as an aberrant- even corrupt perversion of the Tantra tradition which is the view of fundamentalist Tantrics but should not be that of an unbiased encyclopedic reference. You also deleted entire sentences that factually related to the subject of Analogous Concepts- again without any more justification than your unqualified opinion. I also question the relevancy of listing references to certain resources that only refer to Neotantra critically as well as listing one to The Kama Sutra which is another way of disparaging Neotantra as is the link to your article on "expanded orgasm" which- since you are the author- are understandably anxious to have linked from the Neotantra article. The headlining of the Neotantra article by redefining it as "Modern Western Tantra" along with your contradictory justification and unqualified claims about how "most people" and "popular society" employ the term Neotantra along with "opportunistic interpretations" only serves to advance fundamentalist prejudice against Neotantra.
It would seem that in order to do a complete rewrite of an article there should be some evidence that the author has a substantial grasp of the subject and at the very least create a user page making a background available that confirms some expertise beyond that demonstrated in your article on "expanded organism".
For your information, a simple Googling on the subject of "desirelessness+tantra" will produced a plethora of resources similar to the following:
http://www.gita-society.com/?html=aurobindo&vs=05 "Essays on the Gita" by Sri Aurobindo Thus desirelesness and equality are essential aspects of Yoga and they have their foundation in knowledge, which is not mental or intellectual, but "a luminous growth into the highest state of being".- (P.192).
http://www.eng.vedanta.ru/library/prabuddha_bharata/towards_desirelessness_june04_editorial.php But if our goal is God-realization, only desirelessness can lead to it. Nay, desirelessness is synonymous with the state of God-realization; for according to Vedanta a knower of Brahman becomes Brahman and there in no second entity for him to desire. Disciplining the sensory system, training the mind, faith in God’s name, prayer and meditation, and selfless work are some potent means to help us in our journey towards desirelessness.
Suggest if you want to discuss this issue we keep all our comments in your Delicasso talk page so that in case other editors might want to access the conversation it will all be in one place. Just send me a note if you write a response and I'll check back to your page to comment.
Cheers Mayagaia 23:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mayagaia:
Regarding Neotantra For the moment, I took down the link to Expanded orgasm, as I don't think it relates to your edit of neotantra. I think if neotantra is defined as modern western tantra that much of what you wrote is confusing. I believe my separting it out the way I did was justified, and I do believe that defining 'neotantra' as an uncommonly used word is valid. I know of no practitioners in the west that talk about neotantra. Only critics use that term to refer to the modern practioners in a negative way. I believe your use of the word "appropriations", your reference to the left handed path, your quoting of Georg Fuerstein - especially his reference to "common harlots" and other comments is highly biased. - delicasso.

Magagaia reply
In regards to commonality and status of the term neotantra- just Google. The highly "biased" comments which I appropriatly included were all under the chapter "Criticism" and quotes from the book.
Actually I found your formatting and addition of Kundalini and chakra and some of your references were important contributions. Further I am perplexed that simply because the term Modern Western Tantra does not redefine neotantra in the article- why you feel your article on expanded orgasm has lost it's relationship to neotantra which I gave the benefit of the doubt and retained that link as well as some book references which related to neotantra essentially non-critically.
Just a reminder to sign your messages in the Talk pages Cheers Mayagaia 15:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Delicasso reply TO Magagaia:[edit]

I googled neotantra and got 10,000 replies. I googled tantra and got 7,000,000 replies.
The first three (non-wikepedia entries) on neotantra where not in english.
There are a few major issues with your version of Neotantra. Firstly, is the fact that you say that "neotantra is open the the broadest possible scale and scope (above)" in the note you wrote me, but that is NOT reflected in the introduction to this article. Proper introduction to a topic would be an easy to understand generalization and overview, followed by technical details.
You mention "desirelessness" as the goal, but that might not be the goal of all tantrikas. It is my opinion that the goal is freedom from being controlled by one's desires, NOT desirelessness. And at a deeper level, it is just freedom.
To be desireless, in my opinion, is to be dead. A buddhist teacher once told me that we all have thought, feelings, emotions, and desires. As they run through our mind we have a choice to act on them or not. And if we choose to act on one of them, we have the choice not to be stuck with that decision, but to be free to choose again in the next moment, and the next.
You refer to "left handed path", and the first entry on that in google (again non wikepidia) mentioned satan worship. Is that what you mean?
I will remove the following parenthetical phrase "discarding transgressive elements of some left-hand practice," as it is basically a double negative, but gets the readers thinking in terms of transgressive acts (i.e. sinful) and left handed practices.
Your description in the introduction will not be understood by most westerners. That is not good form for an encyclopedia. A brief common english introduction would be useful.
You allow the comment, "...neotantra is often a synonym for sacred sexuality, i.e. a belief that sex ought to be recognized as a sacred act which is capable of elevating its participants to a higher spiritual plane", but this contradicts the following in many ways, "Neotantra's metaphysical core is derived from a fundamental dictum in traditional yoga practice that all desire must be extinguished through meditation to experience liberation" (from your introduction).
The reference to Georg Furstein is in a book that is very pro tantra. The sentence,
"Today translations of several major Tantras are readily available in book form, and many formerly secret practices are now, in the language of the texts, 'like common harlots'. This gives would-be Tantrics the opportunity to concoct their own idiosyncratic ceremonies and philosophies, which they can then promote as Tantra.",
is speculative ( not based on any evidence ), is in the epilogue (not the main body of the book), and the first sentence of this quote does not make sense. The first sentence would suggest that 'secret practices' are 'common harlots'. FYI: harlot means "rogue, buffoon, female prostitute"
I don't think this was the author's intent, but it is certainly not a good sentence. In addition it is speculative at best in his suggestion that it "gives would-be tantrics the opportunity to concoct ... idioyncratic ceromonies...".
I think leaving that sentence off would make a lot more sense, and/or find another slightly less controverial one with a similar meaning in his book.
I will change 'appropriations' to 'interpretations' as I believe that is more accurate.
Your technical knowledge is good, but if not comprehensible to the average reader it serves no purpose. Hopefully we can find some common ground.

Delicasso.

Mayagaia to Delicasso: Don't think you should have transferred our entire discussion to the article discussion page since I think wiki protocol is to carry on in talk page as I had suggested. I reply to your last posting there. Cheers 198.136.32.56 23:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Mayagaia 23:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
(End Returned Copy)
Cheers Mayagaia 17:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Neotantra[edit]

Hi Delicasso

I have the impression wiki protocol is that our discussion should be contained first in a talk page...then if we get into some issue we can't resolve- then bring that specific item up in the article discussion page with a link back to the talk page with the entire conversation accessable to any editor.

I reinstated your contribution about Kundalini and chakras and some of your Reference listings which you had deleted for unknown reasons as I had retained them. I also reinstated that phrase you described as a double negative or something regarding transgressive elements in some left-handed pratices because for instance in Vamachara Tantra some sects practice Kali worship on corpses, in graveyards, etc. all of which is hardly part of contemporary neotantiks. Left-handedness has a very specific conotation in Tantra and refers to literally having intercourse as a meditation as opposed to right-hand practice where gestures or flowers are exchanged as symbolic of Shiva-Shakta union.

Now I have to address all those tags by IPSOS. (Reminder: sign your talk page posts)

Cheers Mayagaia 23:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayagaia

Tantra is a collection of practices for people who, in my opinion, wish to seek freedom and enlightenment in this lifetime. They are a collection because some students resonate with one practice or another. Since many tantric lineages were suppressed by society, they died out and all that was left was their writing. As neotantikas discovered them, they were brought to life again and became collectively known as tantra and neotantra.

1. Your statements are just one of many seemingly contradictory paths. e.g. some paths say you should ejaculate and some say you shouldn't. Some paths say you should shake and others say you should be still. etc. We should qualify what you are saying as one of many paths and give a brief introduction to others.

2. The brand of tantra that I practice believes in freedomom from judgement. Your statment "transgressive" - meaning sinful - is the antithesis of tantra or neotantra being judgement free. So going forward, please qualify your statements about neotantra as just one point of view, and give others the space to put up their ideas.

My statement about Kundalini and Chakra's belongs in an article that represents all neotantric paths without judgement of their nature, and gives a more general overview of their paths.

As a result, I will create a new introduction on the site and replace 'transgressive' and remove the 'common harlots' reference.

Cheers, delicasso (04/05/07: pm)

Hi delicasso,

Think your introduction is a good idea but needs some work which I'll get back to. I have strong reservations about getting too detailed about highlighting specific Tantras because there are simply too many to feature so why choose just certain ones? I think it is simply wrong to delete any of the quotes of Feuerstein no matter how disparaging- because it is a presentation under the heading "Criticism" where any opinion of authority is relative.

For that reason I am returning 'common harlots' and correcting some minor grammatical errors and will get back to you on those other issues. PS After logging in you can sign off postings in talk pages with a row of 4 tildes Cheers Mayagaia 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi delicasso,

I deleted the following passages on the basis that it is inappropriate to be proponent of a particular Tantra tradition, sutra or agami like Kundalini (other than a brief mention uner Practice) in this brief introductory overview of Neotantra- otherwise we wind up with every editor pitching his/her favorite derivative.

Some people wake up spontaneously to tantric enlightnement, while others like Nityananda (a great modern tantra master) are born enlightened and overflowing with Kundalini energy.

and

For this reason some neotantrikas have studied various physical practices, including certain sexual ones, to help them achieve their spiritual goals. Many of these are outlined in the Vijnaya Bhairava, and the Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta (both written between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D).

I've somewhat edited your introduction to acknowledge that Neotantra is an ongoing process rather than a fixed metaphysical discipline.

I hope you can agree that Neotantra draws from the entire spectrum of Tantra scripture, doctrine, schools and sects so in such a brief overview it would be inappropriate to pitch a favorite teacher, discipline or traditional Tantra practice in the body of the article beyond the few examples of popular authors already mentioned- Osho and Anand. In regards to what to include in References- those books that present a significantly dirivative, neotantric (as opposed to traditional Tantric) approach would be suitable but should stay scrupulously balanced so that no particular Tantra tradition or agami like Kundalini is over-represented. Suggest you selected one reference work that is most representative of the adaptation of Kundalini to neotantra practice and delete the others.

Think our cooperative effort is looking good but now we have to work on all those IPSOS tags all of which he is laying on my lap and deal with the next editing attack.

Cheers Mayagaia 15:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neotantra[edit]

Hi delicasso,

I reverted the Neotantra article back to your orignal rewrite and see it already has been heavily edited by Hindu fundamentalist. I'm withdrawing from participation in editing the article so figure you will have to deal with whatever results...good luck Mayagaia 18:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for info and references[edit]

Mayagaia:

OK. Although I'm sorry you felt the need to withdraw you contributions. Do you have any references on your version of tantra? Or any sources you were quoting?

Feel free to make any suggestions to me on this page. I'd like to add a discussion of the various forms of tantra. (e.g. white and red) as well as a brief discussion on consiousness and manifestation, as discussed in the splendor of recognition and the siddha yoga tradition. Similar to your lila and the divine mother.

thoughts? - Delicasso

Hi delicasso- I think my basic problem with the Neotantra article is that it is presented as a division of Hinduism which means it will always be held hostage to Tantric fundamentalism while in fact it really encompasses an open source landscape of innovations which look to experiencing an awakening experience via ecstatic sex- much of which is totally outside the tantric tradition. Actually I think your expanded orgasm article more literally approaches the character of what the process is all about than keeping it bound to Hinduism. Maybe I'll start screwing up you expanded orgasm article instead or invent an original term for the process I've described. Mayagaia 23:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mayagaia, Actually, I thought your suggestions made more sense in the buddist tradition of tantra, as opposed to in neotantra. The terminology and ideas had a traditional buddhist ring to them. I have not heard many new age or modern tantrikas talk about lily or the mother divine or disirelessness or transgressions, although I have heard many buddhist speak of it, or traditional indian yoga teachers. Not sure where to go with that. I'm guessing you have no references to offer me for adding in your contributions, but if that is incorrect, I'm happy to do some research. cheers, Delicasso.

Invitation[edit]

Would you be interested in joining a team effort to bring the Tantra article to featured article status.

If so, please see Talk:Tantra#Team Tantra

TheRingess (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Taylor[edit]

This article cannot possibly be defended without good conventional sources--the website alone does not exactly help. Most admins would simply have deleted as G11 advertising, and I too might have except that you are an established editor. I put an underconstruction tag on to indicate references are being added, and I hope they will be. Unfortunately I'm not able to help personally just now, so it's up[ to you.

Let me advise you, as someone sympathetic to the general subject, that it's probably wiser in a practical sense not to insert such articles without the conventional sourcing. DGG 21:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So where exactly was the degree from? And do you have a source for that?
the importance of the books needs to be shown by reviews of the books from published sources. Not reader reviews, not blogs. Expanded Orgasm, is present in 37 US libraries, Enchantment of Opposites is 15. Many popular books with the subject heading "Sexual excitement" have several hundreds. (using WorldCat) Library holding are of limited information in this field, but they do indicate some degree of general knowledge because libraries nowadays do buy the best selling books of this sort.
A podcast video counts for very little in the way of notability; again, it needs a review of some sort to show that people outside her immediate circle know about it.
As a general rule, writers of self-help books regardless of whether they are about sex or finance always require third party sources to show they are notable. Sales figures help.
Therapists similarly, regardless of the type of therapy. Really widespread blog postings can help, but they've rarely been enough.

The article is almost certain to be challenged, so you need to be prepared to defend it. DGG 00:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Patricia Taylor for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patricia Taylor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Taylor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Blue Edits (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]