Talk:Sex magic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Untitled[edit]

This article has been kept following this VFD debate. Sonic Mew | talk to me 14:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

don't delete[edit]

This article says it like it is. Don't delete it!(Unsigned comment by 192.67.48.23 (talkcontribs))

Possible vandalism[edit]

I wasn't sure if this was vandalism or not, but I reverted it anyway, in case anyone wanted to know. - Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seemed like vandalism due to the big removal of information at the end of the article. - Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 03:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasnt Vandalism, friend. White adept 11:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expand[edit]

I added an expansion request because this article is really too short and doesn't explain anything;

  • The section about the "Teachings of the Gnostic White Lodge" is more confusing than anything else,
  • It looks to me like an advertisement, particularly since all of the links given are external links,
  • The introduction is nothing short from POV,
  • The bulk of the article is a list of books, all of which are by a single author (even if it's Crowley).

If someone has the time to write a bit about what sex magic is, that would be great. IronChris | (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Err, White adept, could you explain why you removed so much material from this article, please? IronChris | (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I reverted because of the huge loss of material, and the section on the white lodge was not only biased but also advertisement. It was not suitable for an encyclopedia. I removed the expand tag accordingly. IronChris | (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex magic and Crowley[edit]

Can anyone explain why there is just a list of books for this section? This is in no way encyclopedic. His books are already listed in two places (Works of Aleister Crowley and Libri of Aleister Crowley. Zos 05:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. IronChris | (talk) 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this section seems to read more like an ad than anything else. If there is no objection, I move that it should simply be deleted. Should there even be a section that lists books at all? I feel that that's still going to be bordering on advertizing, no matter how it's written. Instead, the main mention of books should probably be in the context of sources for the content of the article. Other thoughts? romarin [talk ] 05:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its my opinion that if books are given, why not use the books to make cited statements? This would first, save the section, second add more to the article itself (and credibility), and third, the books would remain, but only in the sources or reference header. Zos 15:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have the books in question? I don't, and it's kind of hard to cite from a source that you don't have. If you do have them, and want to go ahead with this, please do. I still think that for the moment, these books should be removed as they are not helping things and, as you already pointed out, they are listed elsewhere. romarin [talk ] 16:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Magic or magick[edit]

Come on guys, get it together. Which is it? Internal consistency and all:

"for the purpose of magick" .. "the most powerful of all magic"

Apart from the title and a single line in the intro, this article uses the word 'magick' (as well it should, probably). Could someone move this article, and change the single odd instance of 'magic'? -- Ec5618 20:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point, I hadn't even noticed. I would support moving this article to "Sex magick", as that seems to be the more common term in general. Any other suggestions? romarin [talk ] 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not in any way versed in the subject matter, but I will suggest you try to expand your pool of editors, and keep in mind that you are effectively writing for laypeople here. Each article should in effect stand alone, which means in this case that the article should explain the concepts of magus, magick. Check your wikilinks; while you link to "High priest", and "High priestess",we have no article on the latter (it is a redirect to the former), and the linked article doesn't deal specifically with the concept of high priests in wicca.
Finally, try to avoid giving the the subject matter undue credence. Mind the neutral point of view Wikipedia boasts about, and check capitalisation of words such as high priest, for example. -- Ec5618 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the input. As you can tell, there aren't many people working on this article (I haven't actually done much work on it myself to be honest, besides reverting vandalism) and it doesn't seem to be anyone's priority. I plan on helping to fix it up eventually, but I am not very versed in the subject matter either. Any more help you can provide would be appreciated, I'm sure. Thanks, romarin [talk ] 21:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On another note, it appears as though you have opened up a whole can of worms... upon looking at other related articles and categories, there seems to be no systematized method for using magick vs. magic... this is probably something that should be taken up by the WikiProject Neopaganism. romarin [talk ] 21:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Rites[edit]

Friends,

What is described in the page are the rites of the teneberous ones- black magic in its most grotesque form. Sex, the ninth sphere is ineffably divine and if abused results in terrible karmic consequences.

I urge you to go through the book "The Perfect Matrimony" and the teachings on the page http://www.gnosis-usa.com

http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Perfect_Matrimony.pdf

also the books available here:

http://www.americangnosticassociation.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=67&Itemid=4

That is why I blanked some of the content. If we take such black teachings to the people, we ourselves will have to bear the karmic burden - how many souls will we have lead down the wrong path?

White adept 03:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow.....Zos 03:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please stop blanking this article to insert your propaganda. See what wikipedia is not to learn more about ways in which you can contribute to this encyclopedia. Further blanking will be considered vandalism and you may be blocked from editing. romarin [talk ] 04:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apart from anything else, White adept, your point of view is clear. I don't think you are wrong about the article being biased, but I don't think you are exactly neutral either. Please, when or if you edit the article, supply your knowlegde, not your beliefs. Thank you. -- Ec5618 11:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current Dalai Lama spoke clearly about this in a recent work on the Kalachakra Tantra.

"Although I am using this ordinary term, sexual climax, it does not imply the ordinary sexual act. The reference here is to the experience of entering into union with a consort of the opposite sex, by means of which the elements at the crown are melted, and through the power of Meditation the process is also reversed. A prerequisite of such a practice is that you should be able to protect yourself from the fault of seminal emission. According to the explanation of the Kalachakra Tantra in particular, such emission is said to be very damaging to your practice. Therefore, because you should not experience emission even in dreams, the tantras describe different techniques for overcoming this fault." - The 14th Dalai Lama

The practices promulgated on this page are mostly black, like it or not. This is something beyond plain wiki rules, in that way i can understand White adpets motives. 85.179.28.161 13:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While this is all nice and dandy, wikipedia does not exist to propagate RELIGIOUS views. What part of that do you not understand? I suppose it's impossible to keep religious zealots off these pages, but for god's sake leave the editing to people that have actually studied these phenomena in a scholarly fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.59.107 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

removed POV template[edit]

A POV template was recently added to this article by the IP 202.83.33.107, but no explanation was shared on the talk page, even though the edit summary said "see talk page". However, what this user did do was to slightly modify the statement by White adept regarding the White Lodge, which s/he had written following the page blankings of a few days ago. This is not an explanation for why an article needs a POV tag; this is an advertisement. Furthermore, if this IP is in fact the very same user as White adept, it should be known that using an IP address to try to avoid detection is not a good idea; please see WP:SOCK for details. In the future, if someone thinks that putting a POV template on this page is a good idea, it would be helpful to back up your reasoning on the talk page. Thank you, romarin [talk ] 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont intent to advertise or anything. I'll try to work on the artile when I get more time. Thanks for pointing out. But the rest of the article seems to be an advertisement for a few authors. And it projects some "practice" as "sex magic".
Secondly, by not spilling seminal liquid.. it is meant that one avoids the Orgasm .. Kindly go through these two books before you label what I was trying to share with you as "advertisement":
1. Revolutionary Psychology ( http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Treatise_of_Revolutionary_Psychology.pdf ) 2. The Perfect Matrimony ( http://www.gnosiscentral.com/englishbooks/Perfect_Matrimony.pdf )
I have no intention to "advertise". I just wanted to let you know a few things so that you may decide for yourself. I sincerely apologize if I violated wikipedia rules.
White adept 05:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, but when you blank a page and insert one-sided information, it does not really look like you want to "let [us] know a few things so that [we] may decide for [ourselves]". Nor when you write that we are leading readers down the wrong path. Do you see the problem here? Letting readers decide for themselves means providing multiple sides, if they exist. Not advertising for your own. And it is the manner in which you write about the While Lodge that sounds like advertisement, not the bare content in itself.
I, along with others, realize that this article is not up to par at the moment. No one is trying to say that it's great the way it is. But just becuase it is already not comprehensive enough doesn't mean that it should become even less so. romarin [talk ] 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Samael Aun Weor[edit]

I just wanted to give a heads up that I am going expand this article according to the techniques taught by Samael Aun Weor. Being that his use of the phrase refers to an act that is more or less diametrically opposite to the content of this article, the introduction may have to become more generalized and other sections (namely Practice) will have to be partitioned in order to accurately describe different types of sexual magic. I understand that non-occult and even occult anglophones almost exclusively associate sexual magic with the type described in this article (and, in fact, never even have heard of Samael Aun Weor), being that nearly every one of his 70 books describe sexual magic explicitly (dating back to 1950 with The Perfect Matrimony), and schools that teach his doctrine exist in the thousands around the entire world, I feel the article is incomplete without a proper inclusion of his teachings. Thanks. --Paul Stone 14:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IAO[edit]

"Like Aleister Crowley before him,[14][15][16] Weor stated that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is IAO"

What specific lines of Liber ABA, Liber Samekh, or Liber XV does it state that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is IAO? It must be a clear and specific reference (meaning not hidden as esoteric symbolism), otherwise it is WP:OR. I am not saying a it does not exist, only that I cannot find any such reference. Either way really, Crowely's use of IAO belongs in his own section. --T. Baphomet 13:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I agree with Hanuman Das. The formula IAO was central to Crowley's system and is the central formula in Crowley's Gnostic Mass. I'm quite sure that other references can be found. Sorry that you don't want to admit that Weor's use of IAO is not original, but them's the breaks. -999 (Talk) 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
999, this has nothing to do with not admitting "that Weor's use of IAO is not original." I am aware of the dates of the publications listed. The point I was making before has to do with a sentence that states IAO is the supreme mantra of sexual magic because that is the way the sentence is phrased in the article. SAW states this in his works numerous times in such a fashion so it is stated as such in the article. If A.C. said this, so be it, but a correct and valid reference must be listed. Either way, those references for that sentence are not valid because nowhere (that I can find) in those references is the notion expressed that IAO is the best/supreme/superior mantra for sexual magic. If such a reference is easy to find then there should be no problem listing it, but like I said before, it should be in his own section. If one wishes to elaborate that IAO is central to Crowley's system and therefore must be a central part of sexual magic, then again that belongs in his own section, and only if the proper references stating such can be located. --T. Baphomet 16:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed the offending sentence to reference Krumm-Heller, because it is more accurate to say that it is like Krumm-Heller's use. T. Baphomet 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Provide a source that states that the supreme mantra of sexual magic is I.A.O. or cease this revert nonsense. It is of no consequence that that "IAO was central to Crowley's system;" what matters is (1) the mantra IAO, (2) that specific usage of the IAO as it is stating the Samael Aun Weor section, and (3) that is it the greatest mantra to use with sexual magic. Otherwise, the use by Weor is NOT like the use by Crowley. --T. Baphomet 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Freemasonry[edit]

Of all the topics to come up now, I'm going to be adding this topic, partially to the OTO section. I know for a fact that a few other users will be coming over in the near future to deny and try to change it. Thus I am giving warning first :) SynergeticMaggot 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there is any need to mention Freemasonry in this article, as none of the sex magic of OTO was derived from Masonic sources. Let's leave the Masonic business to the main article... -999 (Talk) 17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh well. I added it before I noticed it was addressed on the talk page. I think it needs to remain anyway. It serves as a base for the OTO and they're sex magic, and its relevance. SynergeticMaggot 17:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh well. I guess we can expect the Masonic Inquisition any time now... -999 (Talk) 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm thinking they must check the "what links here" button alot, which is how they tend to show up in the first place on so many article we link Freemasonry to. I'm thinking about just getting it over and letting them know its here, so we can be done with it. SynergeticMaggot 18:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody expects the Masonic Inquisition! -999 (Talk) 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Watching too much Monty Python? I expect them! SynergeticMaggot 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come now! Surely it's not possible to watch too much Monty Python! -999 (Talk) 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure there is. And for disagreeing, The Knights who say...require a masonic shrubbary! SynergeticMaggot 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One that looks nice ... and not too expensive, but trimmed into the shape of a Templar castle? -999 (Talk) 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Long quotes in citations[edit]

It's not typical on Wikipedia to include long quotes in citations. Typically, the book and chapter or page number are given and that is thought to be sufficient. I propose taking the long quotations out, creating a list of references, and making the citations short notes as to which reference was used and where in the reference the related text can be found. This sort of thing can get out of hand quickly... -999 (Talk) 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll agree to this, the reference section is a bit out of hand. SynergeticMaggot 19:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's give T. Baphomet some time to decide which, if any, quotes he'd like to integrate into the article... -999 (Talk) 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was in fact going to say something similar to this before. Or we could remove it all to the talk page, and let the user's who added it, add it back in later, properly. SynergeticMaggot 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Maybe later I'll integrate a quote or two.. --T. Baphomet 23:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Krumm-Heller[edit]

Quotes should be limited to a paragraph or two. Certainly a whole section should not be a quote. Krumm-Heller's beliefs should be summarized in the editors own words. A brief quote could be used if needed. —Hanuman Das 13:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ejaculation vs. 'release of sexual energy'[edit]

I am happy to collaborate with editing on Sex magic. However, 'ejaculation' really isn't an equivalent term for the phrases such as "release of sexual energy". "Sexual energy" is not simply semen, but all the hormonal-chemical energy that orgasm releases as well, and it relates to the whole vital energy (prana, ojas, etc.) of the body. Additionally, ejaculation is a term almost always used to describe a man's orgasm, while sexual magic that refrains from the release of sexual energy includes the forbearance of both sexes of the orgasm, ejaculation, and even the the thought of desire (lust). --T. Baphomet 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I realized that there are some tantric/taoist traditions that only prohibit ejaculation. However, those were not traditions I was referring to when I rewrote the intro because I don't know of any of those traditions referring to their acts as 'sex magic.' If there IS, then we need a reference and the wording needs to be expanded to show the differences. --T. Baphomet 12:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's my point. It may be true of Weor's system, but the Tantric and Taoist systems, which you are using as examples, only prohibit ejaculation. And in fact, some Tantric systems require ejaculation as it is considered an offering to the Goddess. If you remove references to those systems, I see no problem. If you wish to keep the examples, let's be accurate in the intro, and you can also be accurate in the Weor section. Sound reasonable? IPSOS (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, well, Samael Aun Weor correlates his usage with certain esoteric systems in Buddhism and Hinduism as being the same, and that is how I noted it. He also does recognize other tantric sects with opposing views and systems but he never taught them as 'sexual magic'. Now, one can disagree with SAW's usage but the article is stating how SAW used it, not whether it is valid.
You mentioned that the "tantric" systems referred to in the article only prohibit ejaculation, but I don't agree with this. Certainly, some or many or most systems are just like this. But that is not what is being referred to here. This is why I used the phrase 'tantric brahmacharya' as opposed to simply tantric because brahmacharya requires certain levels of asceticism -- and according to SAW the highest (and most esoteric) bramacharis make use of 'sexual magic' (his words) or tantrism without orgasm or ejaculation. In terms of the relationship in Vajrayana it is well documented: By relying upon an external consort... who has matured through Tantric Initiation, the yogi on the highest levels of the completion stage is led to Great Bliss... For this practice one must understand the oral instructions well and have complete control of the vital energies... - The Second Dalai Lama You see here the energy not simply 'seminal' energy (although sometimes it is described as such), it is the vital energies as a whole. I didn't actually mention Taoist practice in the article.
So, to say SAW's use was invalid, one would have to prove that NO systems exist that prohibit both orgasm and ejaculation, because if at least one does, then that's the one. --T. Baphomet 14:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But I'm not saying that SAW's usage is invalid. I'm saying that my knowledge of the subject is that most tantras are only concerned about ejaculation. Orgasm w/o ejaculation is generally considered a good thing. IPSOS (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not forget that this page is about sex magic though -- not simply 'tantra'. Nowhere in the rest of the article is anything about refraining from orgasm or ejaculation stated until you reach SAW. So, if we talk about just ejaculation in the main summary, where is it further explained in the article? It doesn't make sense to me. Basically, who teaches 'sex magic' with refraining from ejaculation but not orgasm? --T. Baphomet 15:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm removing the comparisons to tantra then, as original research. I also note that the phrase "release of sexual energy" is completely undefined and meaningless. IPSOS (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not original research. I am not the one making the comparison, SAW is -- that goes as well to "tantric powers" and "tantric spasm," I am almost certain I can find those exact phrases mentioned in his works. I have no problem citing them. --T. Baphomet 22:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Be sure you cite it as Weor's opinion only, as that is all it is. IPSOS (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. I'll probably leave the intro alone. It's fine the way it is now. --T. Baphomet 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to let you know, I have sources which support that the Buddhist tantric practice only prohibits ejaculation and not orgasm. Orgasm without ejaculation or inward or valley orgasm is actually an essential part of tantra and taoist retention type practices. IPSOS (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buddhism has many sects. What are your sources? --T. Baphomet 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IPOS, your sources probably stem from the Dug-Pa and are therefore black to the core. In no way is any kind or form of orgasm supported by sober sects of Buddhism. In fact the current Dalai Lama put it straight in one of his recent works, see my response under the heading "Black Rites." 85.179.28.161 13:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's Drugpa, at least get the name of the sect right. I'm a Drikungpa and Dzogchenpa. Black and white are both illusory. Go beyond! IPSOS (talk) 13:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The terms: Dugpa, 'drug pa, dug-pa, are all valid. You are right when you say that both black and white are illusionary for the path is the DAO, the middle way, the crossing of two forces. Or in Jesus own words "to be ONE flesh, to be born again." By utilizing the orgasm you will not go beyond, you will form the infamous Kundabuffer, the negative aspect of Kundalini. Countless of leading occultists, among them the 14. DALAI LAMA, have clearly indicated that the great work is to rise above the lower animal passions. It's quite useless to get into a discussion here, every spiritual path is about open-mindedness, you know that. You have a birthright to question the path that has been laid out to you and therefore i recommend reading the works of Samael Aun Weor, Manly P. Hall, Dion Fortune, Krumm-Heller, Eliphas Levi and Sivananda and of course H.H. the Dalai Lama. OMNI ANIMAL POST COITUM TRISTE. (All Animals Are Sad After Ejaculation.)
In Tibetan Buddhism, especially if you look at the iconography of deities with consorts, you can see a lot of very explicit sexual symbolism which often gives the wrong impression. Actually, in this case the sex organ is utilized, but the energy movement which is taking place is, in the end, fully controlled. The energy should never be let out. This energy must be controlled and eventually returned to other parts of the body. What is required for a tantric practitioner is to develop the capacity to utilize one's faculties of bliss and the blissful experiences which are specifically generated due to the flow of regenerative fluids within one's energy channels. It is crucial to have the ability to protect oneself from the fault of emission. It is not just a purely ordinary sexual act. - The 14. Dalai Lama
If the sexual energy is transmuted into ojas or spiritual energy by pure thoughts, it is called sex sublimation in western psychology. Sublimation is not a matter of suppression or repression, but a positive, dynamic, conversion process. It is the process of controlling the sex energy, conserving it, then diverting it into higher channels, and finally, converting it into spiritual energy or ojas shakti. The material energy is changed into spiritual energy, just as heat is changed into light and electricity. Just as a chemical substance is sublimated or purified by raising the substance through heat into vapor which again is condensed into solid form, so also, the sexual energy is purified and changed into divine energy by spiritual sadhana. - Swami Sivananda 85.179.28.161 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orgasm without ejaculation doesn't let the energy "out". That's the point. Out of what? The body? the aura? the magnetic field? What precisely is the energy of orgasm and what could contain it? and why? We are infinite, there is no out. Duh! It's not (vague hand waving) "sexual energy" (more vague hand waving) that is converted into "ojas", it's semen. Physical -> spiritual alchemy. Since you aren't defining your terms or relations, your vague hand waving means nothing. But if you are all that attached to it, then carry on. You're deluding yourself, but that's your own business. Converting sexual energy into stupid ideas is even worse for you spiritually than ejaculation! Come on, man! IPSOS (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can twist and twine if that's what you desire. I quoted two Masters, one of them being the most exalted spiritual representative in Buddhism nowadays, and i can keep going if you like. Many white Masters and Adepts spoke quite clearly about sublimation and it sure does not belong to this or that specific religion, you'll find it in every true religion, veiled in symbolism or put straight forward. Also contemporary sources pop up like http://www.reuniting.info/ which attempt to discuss scientific aspects of alchemy. The EGO, the adversary, the two-willed beast, the false self, nourishes itself through the descension of what Sivananda called "ojas" (the orgasm) and likewise the EGO can be destroyed through the ascension of the same principle (chaste sexuality or white tantra). Have you ever heard of METABOLISM? If you eat a steak, it obviously is transmuted into energy, is it not? Now the same law applies to spirituality. In the semen is contained the principle of creation and life, you can use it to create bodies, to please yourself in an egoistical, unnecessary and filthy manner or to nourish the spirt which lays trapped within the EGO. Man and Woman left the (allegorical) paradise Eden hand in hand, symbolized by the fall (orgasm), and by reason hand in hand they must return.
Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Genesis 4:1 And Adam KNEW Eve his wife; and she conceived
Genesis 4:17 And Cain KNEW his wife; and she conceived
Genesis 4:25 And Adam KNEW his wife again; and she bare a son
Judges 19:25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they KNEW her, and abused her all the night
etc., etc., etc.
As you can clearly see, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Daath, Gnosis) symbolizes the wisdom of tantric chastity and perversity, the two polarities of "Ojas." 85.179.7.212 12:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This talk page is for discussion on improving the article only. Please stop proselytizing. -- Ec5618 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

This section seems to me, and I believe other editors, as being unsourced, and thus potentially removable, as well as being unbalanced. There is no point in saying "they don't know what they're talking about" in an encyclopedia article until after you have indicated what "they" say, and, at present, this article does not contain such information. Unless some indication as to what the nature of the criticism of this belief/practice is is inserted, I believe the existing content of this section could very easily be deleted, particularly as long as it remains unsourced. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Agree... no need to "rebut" criticisms that are not mentioned... on the other hand, if there are criticisms of Sex magic, the article should probably mention them (properly sourced of course.) Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An IP has deleted it, and I for one don't intend to put it back. Looie496 (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I "vote" to surely Keep the article. The article has many redeeming areas, especially of interest to Wicca and Crowley editors. Sex magic is an important part of some traditions, and the sources on the Crowley data seem fine. Keep it around, or rename it Sex Magick and let the Thelema people edit it. Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have put on the Thelema template and listed it as high importance, and since it's on the template as well I expect more editors will work on it too. I'll do an edit sweep of the page soon. Thanks again, Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just reread the article, and the only section not very well sourced is the lead, and the excellent sources an links later on the page include all or most of the data in the lead. It's just a matter of moving up some source. Please look further into the article for sources, you will find plenty, with more to come. If the article seems unbalanced, what is the balance point? Please advise. Aleister Wilson (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edited for bias, and removed some data while balancing other areas with links. The last section does look biased in terms of putting too much data, it reads like a lesson on the subject, and I'll get into it and see if I can work it into something keepable, and if not, will pare it down to a small paragraph or so.--Later, removed most of the last section, left enough so that a reader can track down more data, and left the last paragraph which balances some of the entire article. How does this work for the page? Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have edited the article, done pov edits, wiki links, added data, expanded the See also section, etc. Will remove the dispute notice for now. Hopefully the editor of the long biased section will realize that the data was long-winded and non-pov. Thanks, Aleister Wilson (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randolph & Culling[edit]

First place for expansion of this article might be to add some references to the works of Paschal Beverly Randolph & Louis T. Culling. I might try to work on this over the next days if I get the chance. Oh, I just knocked it down to Class C on Thelema, it's certainly nowhere near B class IMHO. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Randolph should indeed be mentioned much more clearly as the main source for sexual magic teachings. In this connection I would also mention the hermetic brotherhood of luxor, which also drew heavily from randolph and was in fact slightly earlier then the OTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.59.107 (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Partiality[edit]

If we're going to include this person called Samael Aun Weor, who has an extremely detailed article to himself which was written principally by one person and contains very few third-party references, then there are a lot more people who are historically notable in the field of sex magic who could also be included. As it is it reads as if there were only two.

In fact the article could be expanded considerably. 87.113.254.85 (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Have at. 67.163.203.118 (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I moved Weor under Thelema because he is published by Thelema Press. This clarified the weight given to Thelma in the article, so I added the POV tag to the article itself. I think the Weor material should actually be reduced.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's rather illogical. If my book is published by Oxford Press it doesn't mean I live in Oxford. There's nothing in Weor's work that suggests he was in any way Thelemic - can we have sensible citations please? I don't think Weor's material should be reduced, however I do think that there's a huge amount of other stuff that needs to be added, for example Indian Tantric works. I don't understand why you've added a POV tag at all - what POV is non-neutral here? I think you've used it entirely inappropriately, and it should be removed.--Rodneyorpheus (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, if your book was published by "Roman Catholic Press", it would presumably have something to do with Roman Catholicism. But you do have a point about not calling him "Thelemic" and I removed OTO from that heading.
I agree it's more important to add additional material such Indian and Taoist views.
Would WP:UNDUE be more apropos? I couldn't find a template for that... Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doh! {{undue}}—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eureka! "Thelema Press", a non-profit organization translating and publishing the books of Samael Aun Weor, is now called "Glorian Publishing". It's not "Thelema Publications", (the imprint of Helen Parsons Smith ex-wife of Jack Parsons), nor is it the publishing arm of the OTO, "Thelema Media". I'll bump the Weor § back out of the Thelema § and update the name of the publisher. Thanks Rodneyorpheus. I do think undue weight is being given to Weor however.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aleister Wilson, I scanned through the history—I didn't mean to copyedit so many of your copyedits. Feel free to revert stuff... Also, unless I'm missing something, it looks like you addressed the Dec '09 {{POV-section}} for the #Aleister Crowley section, so I removed that tag.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I must disagree with this. Most of Aleister Crowley's work was also self-published during his lifetime. Many of the publishers by which he is currently published are either owned outright by his followers, or heavily staffed by them. Just as Crowley is, Weor is dead. The publishing company that he left behind is independent of him, because, as I just noted, he is dead. From my research, Weor is just as "big" in Latin American countries as Crowley is in Europe and English-speaking countries. That is, both are widely published and distributed even though their actual number of followers is relatively small. Crowley's work also contains "very few third-party references". In short, nearly all the criticism of Weor I see would also apply to Crowley. Neither is "mainstream". Both are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. "Undue" is typically used for fringe theories by non-notable people. But sex magic itself is a fringe theory. Favoring one fringe theorist (Crowley) over another would violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. I've been watching this article since an editor previously completely removed the Weor section, an act which I viewed as vandalism, as I found it likely that other Crowley fans might attempt to do the same thing. It's not cool. Yworo (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, WP:UNDUE is not appropriate here. Too few opinions is correct. The article needs much more meat added, rather than criticism of what is already there (which is decent enough, just doesn't go far enough). We need Tantra, Chinese techniques, Randoplh, Culling, and a ton of other stuff added. Someday I might actually get around to it... --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yworo, I think Weor's notable. It's a start at bringing a more globally diverse perspective to the article. I was originally concerned that Weor's unlinked publishing company was the OTO, (which would have been very curious), but that's been sorted. It's not about Crowley v. Weor—the weight given each needs balance with the weight to be given Randoplh, Culling, Tantra, and the rest. Secondary sources for Weor are important, (in addition to Weor's own work as a primary source) but a primary source is fine for his beliefs, practices, etc. I agree 100% that none of this is "mainstream". WP:UNDUE isn't "limited to fringe theories by non-notable people", that wouldn't pass WP:N. This article itself is WP:FRINGE, (that's not a problem). Easily, Weor's work is notable in terms of "Sex Magic". I agree, Crowley shouldn't be "favored" with undue weight, that would be biased and it's all about Wikipedia policy: WP:UNDUE is part of WP:NPOV. I agree that the Weor material shouldn't be deleted.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rodneyorpheus, Could you please clarify what nonconstructive "criticism" you were referring to? In over 6 years this article's been edited less than 500 times. It's not flourishing except as an article about Crowley's Sex Magick, (with a section on Weor at the end). Maybe the Weor should be spun–off into a more global article for Tantra, etc. Spirituality and sex? A summary of Crowley could be included with a "Main article" link back here... Food for thought.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommend expansion of Kellner, Reuss, and especially Crowley's actual sex magic techniques[edit]

Per above, I've removed the undue tag. Weor has Wikipedia articles on 9 other-language Wikipedias. Calling his works self-published because they are still being published by a company he founded - nearly 35 years after his death - is an abuse of the term "self-published", which is intended to refer to living people's personal websites, self-published pamphlets, and vanity press published material, not to the publishing arms of independent organizations which carry on after their founder's death. This sort of interpretation would prevent the use of the writings of many notable Indian gurus who left behind a school of thought and a publishing legacy. It would also exclude the use of any of Crowley's books which have only been published by the O.T.O. Not at all the intent of the self-published clause.

Looking at the article, what strikes me is that while the Weor section actually describes what Weor believed and wrote about the subject, the Crowley section is almost content-free on the details of the practical theory and techniques that Crowley taught. It focuses mainly on the existence of Crowley, the history of his promotion of sex magic, and a list of his works which contain writings on sex magic, but it barely even starts to summarize his beliefs and teachings, let alone give any details. (This complaint was first raised in 2006 in the section above titled "Sex magic and Crowley" which called the section "unencyclopedic" and, IMHO, this has never been adequately addressed).

This is the only reason a short 5 paragraph section on Weor could appear to some to be undue: lack of a similar explication of Crowley's teachings in the Thelema section. Surely ten or more paragraphs could be added detailing Crowley's teachings on the subject. The problem here is not too much about Weor, it's too little about Crowley and other teachers on the subject! Yworo (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "Undue" tag applies to the balance of the article as a whole, (Crowley, Weor and all the conspicuously absent stuff to come). Weor is notable regardless of how many wikis he's on. Self-published can refer to companies as well but, again, I don't think it's apropos, and no one's "abusing" anything... See my reply above, regarding sourcing for this article.
I couldn't say it better myself, so I'll quote you: "...the Weor section actually describes what Weor believed and wrote about the subject, the Crowley section is almost content-free on the details of the practical theory and techniques that Crowley taught". That being said, I think people have been doing excellent work on the Crowley section and I wouldn't call it "unencyclopedic", IMHO. I think maybe some of the wikilinks like IAO could also be explicated briefly? (At the same time, there are several terms in the Weor section w/o wikilinks that should be explicated). The Crowley section could lean a little closer to primary sources and the Weor section could lean a little closer to secondary sources...
Some concepts in the Weor section do need more explication, (especially non-English words that don't have wikilinks), but you definitely have a good point. Also, the Weor would sit better along side text like Tantra#Sexual rites, for example. If the Crowley were expanded that much, wouldn't it "eclipse" the Weor? Being a global article, it might give Crowley too much weight. Alternatively, do you think the Spirituality and sex suggestion above might be feasible?—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, Weor doesn't fit into the tantra article, as tantra and sex magic are decidedly different topics. And no, I don't think expanding Crowley would give it too much weight. I think the section on Weor is more or less the right length given his global weight. Despite both having only small followings, Crowley does have more secondary sources which refer to him and I don't have any problem with his section being longer than the others. However, it might be better to link to the history of his order and writings elsewhere as what is here seems to duplicate the content of other articles. If his section mostly focused on the content of his teachings on sex magic, it'd be a great improvement. And given how you are suggesting using it, "undue" would be redundant to the tag already on the article, which I agree with, stating that it may not include all viewpoints. Yworo (talk) 21:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know that Tantra will, in theory, be added here too right? Sounds good re: using summaries and "see main article" links to redundant info.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps some general note about the relation of tantra and sex magic might be needed with a reference to the tantra article, but both the philosophy and goals of tantra are quite divergent from the philosophy and goals of sex magic. There are so many differences they would be impractical to enumerate, but sex magic is to tantra as a puddle is to an ocean. (Or should I say as a wet spot to a wave of bliss?) Yworo (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ya, I meant it more on a superficial level, in terms of writing style. Here's a draft for Neotantra below.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any particular objections to that at this time. Yworo (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Groovy, edit if you find anything.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neotantra[edit]

Neotantra is a North American and European term for the New Age and modern Western interpretations of traditional Indian and Buddhist tantra. Some of its proponents utilize ancient and traditional texts and principles[1][2], and many others use neotantra as a catch-all phrase for "sacred sexuality", and may incorporate unorthodox practices. In addition, not all of the elements of Indian tantra are used in neotantric practices, in particular the reliance on a guru, guruparampara.

As tantric practice was introduced in western culture at the end of the 18th century and its popularity has escalated since the 1960s. It is often identified with its sexual methods, overlooking its essential nature as a spiritual practice. The roles of sexuality in tantra and in neotantra, while related, reflect substantial differences in their cultural contexts.

Neotantric sexual practices involve the experience of subtle energies within the adherent's sensual body, energies which they believe can enhance pleasure and challenge the ego into dissolution. Practitioners may aspire to cultivate an ecstatic cosmic consciousness and increased spiritual awareness of the erotic body. These methods are sacred rituals that may be practiced solo, in partnership, or in groups. These methods are often passed down from more experienced practitioners to students as secret oral tradition. Traditionally, these methods are part of a more comprehensive spiritual discipline—the erotic aspects of tantra cannot be authentically practiced without adequate preparation through meditation.

  1. ^ Yoga Spandakarika: The Sacred Texts at the Origins of Tantra, Daniel Odier (2004)
  2. ^ The Yoga of Delight, Wonder, and Astonishment, A Translation of the Vijnaya-bhairava, Jaideva Singh, Motilal Banarsidass Publisher (1991)

Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Stem cells link, why?[edit]

Why is there a link to "Embryonic Stem Cells" in the see also section. I get there is a vague link because of the sex thing, but its about as flimsy a link as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.197.152 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]