From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode)
To: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.sex,alt.magick.sex,alt.sex.wizards,
    talk.religion.newage,alt.religion.sexuality,alt.polyamory,
    alt.magick.tantra
Subject: Sex and Neo-Tantric Gurus (was Swinging and Neo-Tantra...)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 21:02:54 GMT

50000321 IVom Happy Spring Equinox!

<much snipped>

Re O'Stat <user@mediaone.net> Mon, 20 Mar 2000 06:18:14 GMT:
> 4) However, when Neo-Tantric teachers support working with multiple 
>    partners, many use the same arguments that in the past have been 
>    used to support swinging. That does NOT mean they are supporting 
>    swinging in these arguments, only that they are using the same 
>    arguments and replacing swinging with some types of Neo-Tantric 
>    work.

I think that a distinction should be made between "working with
multiple partners to do tantra" (by whatever meaning other than a
strict 'sex=tantra' equivalence) and "swinging" as you have
defined it. my reasoning is that swinging necessarily involves
a focus on sex per se, while working with multiple partners to do
tantra may include sex as a route to doing something else (such 
as learning to let go of relationships or move more deeply into 
intimacy within them, or to strengthen one's volitional skills).

here is what I can see of the neo-tantric community in its sex-focus:

	* Sex
	  we have those who equate tantra and sex, in which case
	  it makes sense that swinging would be part of it; the URL 
	  you provided for Tantric Club in another post to this 
	  thread is a good example here

	* Renunciation
	  we have those who are looking to enhance their emotional
	  disconnection from the world (as occurs in any ascetic
	  practice: renunciation) through engaging by separating 
	  physical and personal intimacy by multiplying or making
	  more repulsive their sexual encounters; perhaps the best
	  example of an extreme here is those who somehow mix
	  the taboo or repulsive -- homosexuality, promiscuity, 
	  sex with the aged, with the diseased, with the dead, 
	  with other species, with spiritual entities like gods
	  and demons, sex involving pain and/or humiliation, 
	  consumption of human flesh, wearing of human skin as
	  garments, living in refuse heaps, living in cremation
	  grounds, etc.

	* Love
	  we have those of us who are looking to enhance our 
	  emotional depth and intimacy with the world 
	  (particularly other human beings) through engaging in 
	  conventionally intimate encounters in attentive and 
	  meditative ways; this group often mentions that there is
	  simply not enough personal TIME to multiply partnerships
	  in part because sexuality is only one part of this type
	  of relationship (or becomes redefined in a much more
	  broad way than physical sensation-seeking will allow);
	  many of the neo-tantric groups that I recently quoted
	  to the alt.magick.tantra newsgroup seemed to be examples
	  of this type of tantra

	* Religion
	  besides at time incorporating a good deal of the previous
	  groups (in part because the neo-tantric community is to
	  a great extent inspired by the traditional religious
	  tantra of India), the neo-tantric religious seem to be
	  looking for particular mystico-religious experiences or
	  states of consciousness which may be achieved through
	  the combination of ritual sex and specific mystical
	  disciplines and practices; 'Western Tantra' groups as
	  are associated with Francis King and the Hermetics, or
	  nontraditional gurus like Osho, Muktananda, and others,
	  may be good examples of these.

I would call these "types" or categories of tantra, within which
we see the broad sociological spectrum of neo-tantra. most groups
will probably qualify in some respect for more than one of these
characteristic types, though some certainly do specialize....

> ...I know of one teacher of Neo-Tantra who has switched to teaching 
> a form of Taoism and another who has switched from the system of 
> the Bihar School of Yoga to that of Osho, all within the past few 
> years. Neo-Tantra teachers may not change at the rate computers 
> change, but they do evolve.

part of the problem with the New Age community, and with the neo-
communities generally, is that they are prone to charlatanry. 
however, part of what *I* think should qualify someone for the
"hard core" characterization is duration of association with the
subject matter of their instruction, whatever it is they teach.

namaste

nagasiva