Talk:Astral projection/Archive 2

Argue the Adverse

What this article really needs is an opposing view, such as can be found in the Neon Genesis: Evangelion article, where multiple views as to the symbolism of the topic are mentioned, though not necessarily cited. All opinions are not verifiable, yet are agreeable. The topic of this article is both proven/disproven by opinion alone, as psychology was so many centuries ago.

Would it be appropriate to have a speculation section? I'm interested in the similarities between the OBE state and a psychedelic dose Dimethyltryptamine experience. I would be willing to write a section with references regarding this. Looking at the article on Dimethyltryptamine they have a similar section speculating DMT production by the pineal gland. This might offer an alternative viewpoint on the origin of these experiences. Misterjingo 02 Feb 2006 02:43 (GMT)

Wikipedia does not allow original work. So no, you cannot make a speculation section. If you find papers backing yor claims you could add the info in the critics section. Bragador 18:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are papers and books on Dimethyltryptamine being the possible cause of mystical experiences, and there are many reports from users of Dimethyltryptamine which match near exactly OBE experiences, I don't think anyone has made the link. Dr Rick Strassman made a link between Dimethyltryptamine and nead death experiences in his research though. misterjingo 10:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the following with some cited text:

Proponents of the writings of Robert Bruce sometimes refer to this practice as "Real Time Projection" (RTP) and the mundane world as the "Real Time Zone" (RTZ). From the Real Time Zone, travelers can access "the astral" or remain in the RTZ and witness real time happenings.
Godshatter 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Culling The Truth

Talking about astral projection is like talking about ghosts. No one can prove the existence of either, and they may be more artifacts of pop culture, based on ancient myths, and then they exist, nontheless. The Norse Thunder god, Thor doesn't really exist, and neither do Vampires, yet there is some agreement to facts surrounding these mythical, or literary characters. No one will ever prove astral projection because it is experiential, but it's still worth gathering what information we can. June 5, 2007

I am sure there are people who believe that Thor exists, as well as vampires, as do people believe in God. Thor is no more or less provable than God. Discounting them is no way to make a statement. 64.136.201.198 00:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church Part

I don't know how the third heaven is seen as populated by evil beings, see the wiki entry for third heaven here. It is described as the place where God and Eden reside. I believe that it is true that the Catholic Church does not agree with people using astral projection and other things like this, quite possibly for similar reasonings of a lack of protection against evil beings... However the whole thing about the third heaven struck me as odd. So I researched it and didn't really come upon anything that would show this part to be true. Nor was it cited.

Well, at the beginning i was surprised with "the whole thing about the third heaven" in the mentioned section of the article. On one hand, because it is mentioned elsewhere that the Third Heaven "is the highest point attainable by man at his present stage of development." (RCL, 1908); beyond that point only higher Spiritual beings can access, which is the world where the unifying Spirit Christ lives, from the perspective of Christian esoteric teachings. On the other hand, because Paul of Tarsus states: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. / And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;)" (2Cor 12:2-3, KJV).

However, once we get acquainted with the description of the nature of the Hierarchy of high Spiritual beings that inhabits that same plane it is not odd at all that theologians within the Catholic Church would have the view of the Third Heaven [1] as inhabited by evil beings ("is ruled by spiritual hosts of wickedness in the high places, which will send demons to deceive those who will not keep to the domain of the world.", as stated in that section of the article): they were called "Powers of Darkness" by Paul. Although they work with humanity, toward our evolution, in the World of Thought only (the world beyond the Astral-Desire-Emotional one [home of the Archangels], but before the World which is home of the Christ, The Son, pls. see also this brief description), they "are considered evil on account of the separative tendency appertaining to the plane of Reason as contrasted with the unifying forces of the World of Life Spirit; the realm of Love." (RCC, 1909). Yet, to the editor expressing that view in the mentioned section of the article (and to all those akin to it), please allow one final note: in these highly advanced Spiritual Beings inhabiting the Third Heaven that you, in your blind judgment, may see "spiritual hosts of wickedness in the high places", we are taught about The Father (pls. see John 14:2).

Preparing to add additional data

I've been trying to make some organizational changes in an attempt to get setup for adding some additional data. Please let me know if I'm headed in the wrong direction. What I would like to see is some additional information on the different astral planes, as well as the different spirit world beyond those, such as data on astral beings encountered, astral wildlife, astral entry structures, etc. I'd also like to add a section that discusses the fact that there are many different preparations exercises and separation techniques without actually describing them in a cookbook fashion. I think it's important for someone perusing this subject to know that they exist as an overview of the information. I'd also like to expand upon the connections this topic has with different religions and esoteric groups, such as Indian yogis, theosophy, occultists, ritual magic groups, etc. A comprehensive summary would give the interested reader many different "jumping-off points" into related topics. These tie-ins are reflected in the literature, which ranges from subjects such as astral projection to chakras, auras, meridians, psychic abilities, mediumship, the spirit world, UFOS, and many other topics quite freely. Those topics shouldn't be discussed here, just mentioned where they relate to this topic. I would also like to see the scientific or skeptical side enhanced as well, for balance, although it may be better placed in the main out of body experiences page. Godshatter 05:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible to get stuck on the astral?

I don't see this in the article, but I've heard many times that while you're in this state, "you" are connected to your body with some kind of silver elastic-like substance. If someone moves your body or somehow you fall out of bed or whatever, this elastic-connection is broken, and your subconscious won't be able to find your body, thus you'll be stuck in the astral forever, while your body is in a coma. This is what I've heard...if someone can confirm this, maybe it could be put into the article? Draconiator 05:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)no i was just fucking around haha lol!!![reply]

The criticism section of this page is a little lacking…

“Although the evidence of astral projection does suggest there is a supernatural element…”

That statement is a little too bias to be in the criticism section. The scientific community’s default position is usually a form of naturalism. It is highly unlikely that institutions such as The National Academy of Science are of the opinion that Astral Projection is anything more than pseudoscience.

For the sake of balance, the criticism area should be expanded to include the views of naturalists and skeptics. I imagine that The Skeptic Society would be a good place to begin research into that area…

If anything, someone should take the “Although the evidence of astral projection does suggest there is a supernatural element…” and plug that into an “evidence” section, and then proceed to describe why New-Age “scientists” believe that “the evidence of astral projection does suggest there is a supernatural element.”—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iglessner (talk • contribs).

Intentional Projection

article says: "Those who are regarded as psychics often say the subconscious (dreaming) mind controls the spirit or astral body, resulting in falling dreams or waking up with a falling sensation and sudden jerk. Many end with the feeling of suddenly "falling" or "snapping" and sometimes "pulling" back into their physical bodies. Most non-lucid dreams are not remembered by the conscious mind, making the experience of astral projection subjective. Believers in astral projection point out, though, that most ghost sightings often define the ghost as a lucid or transparent apparition walking the earth."

But from what I've heard the state of astral projection is induced by falling or snapping out of the body while in a dream/altered state.

Wow, good job!

I initially came to this article with the purpose of looking it over and revising it -- then I realized that the sources I was going to add are already there, and it's a pretty well-written article already. Kudos to everybody who's worked on it thus far! --Spazure 08:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs some improvement

This article is good in some ways, but contains a lot of unsourced material and what seems to be a lot of WP:OR. A good example:

"The phasing model, which was defined by Robert Monroe, holds the belief that it is impossible to actually leave your body in the truest sense of the word, and that the astral planes and the physical world are merely points on the long spectrum of consciousness."

This is unsourced, and doesn't really represent what Monroe said.

Another good example: "Astral projection is controversial. It is not observable or testable by scientific method." This is totally unsourced, and could not be sourced anyway, as it is a statement requiring negative proof. It also ignores experiments like those done by Tart and those done on Monroe- to give a very small sample.

I'm going to go over the article pretty soon, so this is a heads-up to try and source this stuff. That's not to denigrate any of the obvious hard work and care people have taken with this article, however (: –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admire most of your recent copyediting and rewording efforts, thanks for taking the time to work on this article! In the future though, please discuss before deleting entire sections.spazure (contribs) 08:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could, but the section didn't have any sources. I often delete sections, and usually no one minds. I just figured that it could be re-inserted with a source if anyone cared. In other words, Wikipedia never truly deletes anything (: Will discuss here in future... though I don't want to delete more sections. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Method

I believe that Carl Sagan in his book 'Broca's Brain' (I think it was that one) suggested an experiment to test the reported claims of Astral Projection. He proposed that the phenomena could be tested scientifically if the subject could describe the details of a drawing on a piece of paper that the experimenter had produced-the subject of course having no previous knowledge of the drawing. This experiment could be done several times and so test the phenomenon scientifically. Hence I have altered the intial statement that 'It is not observable...by scientific method' to 'To Date it has not been observed by scientific method' --Godfinger 15:28

Great, I just made the same change. Seems we have to keep an eye on it (: –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

International Cultic Studies

The last sentence of the first part states:

The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".[1]

Although this is a referenced quote I think that this is a very loaded statement that only reflects personal opinion and bias.A more neutral quote would be more appropriate. The International Cultic Studies Association no doubt has it's own agenda and it may be more appropriate to include some other statement which reflects the view that Astral Projection is unsupported by scientific evidence. The current quote and the previous entry stating that Astral Projection is not possible to test by scientific method reveals more of a bias towards the belief ( similar to personal faith ) that supernatural events are impossible rather than the more neutral scientific attitude that holds that empirical evidence for such things is lacking. --Godfinger 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the only bias is that this article is hijacked by believers in unreasonable and often outright stupid claims and phenomenons. The International Cultic Studies Association is a reliable association with its own agenda: science and reason. If empirical evidence is lacking and cannot be presented, it cannot be tested and verified and as such fails in the eyes of science. Please learn what a scientific method is before you insert your uneducated POV into Wikipedia articles.--Svetovid 18:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an uneducated POV you are just displaying your own chauvanistic POV here and intolerance of those who disagree with you. I have no problem with disputing the claims of those who maintain the existence of the supernatural or who have a different interpretation to Astral Projection to your own POV but the choice of quote is inherently judgemental and loaded that uses words designed to judge and condemn rather than to assess objectively and it simply comes across as chauvanistic. If it is to be disputed then I think there are better , more neutral quotes you could find. It is not true that Astral Projection has been disproved, and it would only need one scientifically verifiable case to provide evidence of it which as yet, you cannot justifiably say will never happen unless you claim to be psychic or something. All one could say is that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support the phenomenon and maybe elaborate on the statement with scientific theories that would provide a credible alternative explanation.--Godfinger 18:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, let that stand- but of course we have to take out the absolutist negative claims which cannot be supported by evidence, and attribute to skeptics. That is just the way skeptics sound, and there is no reason the article shouldn't present their stance in their words. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe reality and science offend your feelings and especially wishes but there is no reason why you should state your personal wishes as a fact. For the last time, learn what scientific method is and what it requires.
Scientific theories do not exist without observable and testable proofs.
Also see Russell's teapot to understand the difference between personal experience/wish/thought and observable reality (that analogy is specifically about religion, but the same logic applies here).--Svetovid 22:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Unacceptable. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Svetoid: Despite your comments I am fully aware of what scientific method is about. Don't make unfounded assumptions on my education. You have no knowledge of my background. Scientific theories exist without proof which is why they are called theories and not facts. Theories about the origin of the universe for example. The theories may be scientific in nature because they rely on other scientific facts and and theories which work within general scientific paradigms. Please familiarise yourself with the differences between theories and facts. In this case it may be true that there may be a lack of empirical evidence but you cannot state with any certainty that it will always be the case and so the correct scientific stance would be to say that there is a lack of empirical evidence. Your attitude resembles a faith in scientism rather than science. I don't disagree that the article could be better if it was balanced with scientific arguments but in the interests of producing a neutral and unbiased take on the issue of Astral Projection I feel that your 'scientific' stance reveals more of your prejudice and desire to imply that people who believe this stuff are somehow stupid rather than any genuine desire to contribute to this article objectively. --Godfinger 11:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific theories exist without proof which is why they are called theories and not facts."
This sentence is enough to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are talking about. Read at least the linked wiki articles.
I don't think some people are necessarily stupid; they just don't like reality and substitute it with their wishes.
I don't even object to that as long as they don't try to impose their skewed view of reality on others when the others are either unaware what's going on or are against it, which is this case.
Astral travel and similar games/nonsense are based on personal experience/testimony and does not claim anything else. Again, read the linked Russell's teapot article with an open mind to understand the difference between reality and what you or anybody else proclaim is real.--Svetovid 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the fallacy of Russell's teapot in reverse. You are assuming that the lack of proof of a proposition is proof that the proposition is untrue. You could of course take the view that the proposition is unfalsifiable if you wish to subscribe to the Critical rationalism of Karl Popper -a view which undoubtedly has been very influential. However it has not been without it's critics as you will learn if you actually took the trouble to read the article on Scientific Method yourself. --Godfinger 15:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an invisible horse flying around you all the time, undetectable by any current devices. Prove me wrong.
The point is that it's up to you to prove a (ridiculous) claim (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
The text is accurate: "to date there is no empirical evidence for it, and thus it is not observable or testable by scientific method." What is not correct about it (logically and factually)?--Svetovid 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a ridiculous claim. In fact a lot of the claims of quantum physics are also ridiculous but they can be upheld by scientific evidence. However, you cannot prove that it is not the case so you cannot make sweeping statements about it. To do so is beyond current scientific knowledge. You may have reasons to think it is unlikely but beyond that, you cannot say more-which is what I am trying to point out to you.Just because something seems silly to YOU does not constitute proof that it is untrue or will never be proven true or false by science. --Godfinger 16:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A gem of a quote from the argumentum ad ignorantiam article :

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]) or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proved false or that a premise is false only because it has not been proved true."

Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make. You are making a logical fallacy that "a premise is false only because it has not been proved true". You really need to study your articles a bit more carefully before you start criticising other editors logical faults. Otherwise it just makes you look so uneducated. --Godfinger 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a gem from Godfinger (talk · contribs): "Scientific method is not a recipe." No better proof that this editor has abandoned reason is needed and I rest my case.--Svetovid 15:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a gem of a quote from the Scientific Method Article :

'The scientific method is not a recipe: it requires intelligence, imagination, and creativity[15]. Further, it is an ongoing cycle, constantly developing more useful, accurate and comprehensive models and methods' --Godfinger 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should modify the view expressed in the Scientific Method article that you exhort us to read since you claim to know so much more than the rest of us plebs --Godfinger 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You quoted that alone! You took it out of context.--Svetovid 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am content to let the current revision rest and wont challenge the International Cultic Studies quote even though I am of the opinion that it is a slur and really has no place in this article. We could discuss the philosophy of science untill the end of time but really, this is not the place so I think it best to avoid 'scientific method' discussions in the article. I prefer to use the 'sceptical model' as I think that is inclusive enough. In fact the sceptical model section could probably be expanded in this article. However, I still think there are better quotes that could be used to lend dignity to the sceptical position. If I find one-I'll post it on this page to allow discussion rather than indulge in endless edit wars. --Godfinger 14:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lend dignity? Is it a problem to say that emperor has no clothes; that new-age nonsense is irrational and mainly laughable?--Svetovid 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of subjects in the Wikipedia that you may consider to be nonsense.That is your opinion. Nonetheless there are many perspectives on these issues other than your own and it is legitimate to include them all.However it is not the place here to mock something just because you don't believe it or aren't able to tolerate it because of your own POV. The quote you put there is a slur. You want it there because you want to mock the subject.It comes across clear as daylight and makes your position appear to be a form of chauvanism rather than a legitimate stance. If you think that the sceptical position should be taken seriously then I believe there are better ways of going about it.--Godfinger 08:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it would be more appropriate if the quote went something like this: "International Cultic Studies Association claims that the idea of astral travel is simply self-deception". It would seem less like mocking and still be a correct quote. What do you think? Anton H 19:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The word "childish" seems to me as completely unnecessary and offensive. It doesn't add anything other than the writer's personal opinions. The quote would only be better without it. Anton H 19:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes are generally to be avoided in summaries. There is no reason to single out one skeptical institution- indeed, we should not. There is no reason at all for this source. Also, since the article makes no claims to be anything but an interpretation, skepticism is barely notable at all. ——Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed for consensus-building

I've removed the following paragraph so that we can build a consensus version here on the talk page. Here is the current verions:

Astral projection is controversial. To date there is no empirical evidence for it, and thus it is not observable or testable by scientific method. The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".^[1]

Here is my suggested version:

Astral projection is controversial. Skeptics say that there is no empirical evidence for it. The International Cultic Studies Association labelled astral travel as "transparently childish self-deception".^[2]

Basic reason: 1) we don't know that there is no emperical evidence. 2) Even if we did, it doesn't follow that astral projection not observable or testable by scientific method.

–––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, you have a strong bias towards defending this unreasonable belief so your opinions need to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Second, you presented that you do not understand what science and scientific methods are ("Even if we did, it doesn't follow that astral projection [is] not observable or testable by scientific method.") Is there any empirical evidence then? No, and astral projection does not make the claim that it can produce some.
[2]

“

Beliefs in paranormal phenomena pose a problem for psychologists who want to understand how people create and maintain these beliefs when there is no credible evidence that they have any basis in fact. When psychologists probe for the origin of these beliefs, they find that believers in psychic phenomena often use scientific jargon and fundamental concepts of scientific understanding, but the words do not match their usual definitionsand the concepts are misunderstood.

”

--Svetovid 00:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks, or I'll report you. Let's see what others have to say. –––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I knew you'd use that as defence. There are no personal attacks. You demonstrated you have bias (your profile and edits show that) and that you don't understand what scientific method is.--Svetovid 09:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing to talk page pending citation

The following needs citation badly. I hope someone can source it, and then we can put it back in:

Mental projection

Mental projection is projection of the astral body to the mental plane via utilisation of mental energy while within the astral or etheric to phase into the Mental, or a different process used to project directly into the Mental Plane. The active subtle body of the mental plane is the mental body, which constitutes the intellectual consciousness of the projector in general. The environment is generally highly colorful and kaleidoscopic in nature, like the astral, and shifting consciously. The difference is that even mathematical functions and thoughts will manifest seemingly physically. The buffer zone between the astral and mental planes is known as the Akashic Records, and appears as a library of knowledge of past, present, and future possibility. There are many theories as to why the perceptions of these records and the mental plane in general differ from projector to projector, but the general consensus is that the Akashic records will appear differently, like a computer or library to different people at different times, and that the future is always sketchy and can often change mid-viewing to the projector.

–––Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the sources

I haven't really cleaned up the sources in the sense of naming them so the appear nicely in the list- they are now repeated, except one. The reason for this is that the article will probably change a lot in the future, and named references are much easier to mess up, leaving future editors with no clue as to what the original source was. –––Martin^phi_{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using terms such as "model"

Since the only explanation for "astral projection" is the skeptical idea, giving equal footing to all three "models" (and even calling them "models") is unreasonable. ScienceApologist 21:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't focused on the consensus reality of scientists or any other group. It's focused only on proven facts that we can ALL agree on. For example, it's a proven fact there are different beliefs about astral projection.

"It's focused only on proven facts that we can ALL agree on." - That doesn't even make sense. Also, scientific facts are indeed facts.--Svetovid (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally disputed

This article is extremely pro-astral projection and definitely violates WP:NPOV. What's more, a lot of the "facts" contained in the article are cited to less than reliable sources and so I think that a major overhaul is due. I tagged the article accordingly. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you probably noticed that the article was hijacked by a few astral projection fans, who do not allow any neutral edits (as evidenced by edit history and talk page).--Svetovid (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are some skeptics who evidently would prefer that any article on AP be purely a neurophysiological interpretation or only contain statements that imply that AP experiences are merely dreams or hallucinations. That anyone who believes or thinks otherwise is an idiot. Such edits made to this effect can hardly be considered neutral. There are several statements in the article that refer to that skeptical interpretation, and the definition of AP itself has been described as paranormal. Given the phenomenological nature of the experience, the skeptical interpretation offers nothing more of value to the article. The sources too , are quite reliable in so far they include several standard works on the subject, that contain descriptions of techniques that can be practised even by the skeptical. No doubt, people who have these experiences may have different interpretations to the ones suggested by certain editors who probably have not studied the subject much. The FACTS are that people do have AP experiences, that there is a body of literature that reports about these experiences, that discusses the use of AP in several spiritual and occult disciplines, and may be of interest to anyone who is curious about the life of the mind or psyche or spirit or whatever you might be inclined to call it. All of this is relevant to an article on Astral Projection--Godfinger (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overly cynical

I feel this article takes on an overly cynical tone. Science offers no reason to doubt the exitence of an astral plane. Science can in fact offer a potential explanation. Our universe as it is currently understood contains a balance between matter and energy. This balance allows for the enormous amount of activity that takes place. Now our universe is generally thought to have begun with the big bang. Some view this as a miraculous event while others see it as a natural process. Let us assume it is a natural process. If this is the case then there is nothing to stop this process happening many more times. There could therefore be a potentially infinite number of universes co-existing. This theory, known as the 'multiverse', proposes that there are many different kinds of universe in existence. These other universes need not neccesarily share the balance of matter and energy that is found in our own. They could be made of entirely matter, or entirely energy. A universe made entirely from energy could not occupy any space, since space is a concept defined by matter. Such a universe then would neither be near to us or far away from us. It would just be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.187.193 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astral Projection and Possession

I think that the following edit is not relevant to the 'separation model section. Many advanced "practitioners" claim that the biblical "Jezebel" refers directly to the craft, and that astral projection is an apparent necessity, mandatory (device, key) in all cases of "possession".[8] [9]

Also, I cannot find any references to the publication on the Internet. I doubt if this is an appropriate source. I have my reservations about the other source. It seems that this could be interpreted as an attempt to suggest that Astral Projection is associated with demonic possession and does not belong here so I have removed it. But of course, feel free to discuss.Godfinger (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously did not follow the link. I can agree that it doesn't belong in the 3 models at all. Anyone here familiar with the book/movie "Invisible Man"? ell, that's the perfect model of astral projection: Peeping Tom, sadism, & a code of Silence. I rest my case. CalFellows (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then the removal was justified, since the intention of your edit was to say that Astral Projection is somehow 'evil'-which is hardly a neutral POV on the subjectGodfinger (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was not to say that it's evil, but merely show that it does tie in to witchcraft & possession (paganism). Crowley's work will certainly get you there, The Key of Solomon, and so will much of the occult literature from the 1600s (Gabalis). There is a code of silence and a lot of misinformation (magical nonsense) being put out there by the astral projection crowd in order to hide the plain and simple truth of it, "THE INVISIBLE MAN"." How simple is that? Is there some way to properly make these "pointers"? Would you care to germinate? CalFellows (talk) 00:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I misunderstand where you were coming from and I'll have to read up on it more -but if you think think is an important aspect of Astral Projection then it probably needs it's own section and headers. So maybe an 'Astral Projection and Witchcraft' section-or 'Occult' section-and as long as the sources are good enough then I think it may be interesting Godfinger (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The initial description is what really needs some work, needs to point to the "Lemegeton" which is the most widely used guide to astral projection. Crowley fits right into it at that point (authored one revision), and then the points that I made would fit accordingly. If you want to see the fantasy nonsense (occult propoganda), just read Robert Bruces work: - tinyurl.com/289mld - CalFellows (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to best do that but what you say is interesting although it seems that the 'model' (maybe not the best word) you talk about doesn't seem like a model to me. The link to the 'game theory' paper I looked at and although interesting-could be considered 'original research' and may not be suitable according to Wikipedia guidelines. The other reference I just can't find and the link you provided doesn't lead anywhere.-Also I'm puzzled by the 'Invisible Man' analogy since the 'invisible man' had a physical body that became invisible which is quite different to the idea of some sort of Astral Body-which is what the initial description refers to.

However the Occult/Magickal tradition that you are referring to I'm sure has a lot of relevance to the article and I have often thought that some sort of 'History of Astral Projection' section would add value to this article-in which case the angle you are coming could be better incorporated into the article. Alternatively you could possibly add a subsection in the 'Projection Types' section and elaborate on what you have to say- mentioning the 'Lemegeton' and other classic works Godfinger (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, give me some time and let me think this one over. What I was speaking of is more of an expose', truth be told, and my thoughts are that it could well start a freaking flame war. You should have left it in place, or put it back; would have been nice to see the peeps stick their head up (a little action). CalFellows (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An expose? Mmm. It sounds that you have an agenda here and I think it would run counter to certain Wikipedian guidlines-'Wikipedia is not a soapbox' for example. Of course there are many finer points of the argument here and I'm open minded about all sorts of issues so if you have something interesting to contribute go ahead.I'm not here to remove other peoples work if it adds value to the article and is in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines and policy. As for putting it back-well, as I said I don't think it had a place there and again, I had an issue with the source.However if you say that there is some sort of 'code of silence' or whatever you are trying to say then you need to back it up with a notable or reliable source. Even though you have some problem with Robert Bruce-he does seem to be a notable figure and so I think it is reasonable to refer to him even if you disagree with him. Maybe some other editors think differently and hopefully some other editor will have an opinion on this matter to help build consensus on what is and what is not appropriate to include in an article of this nature--Godfinger (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an earlier discussion, someone was pointing out that Near Death OBE and even Traumatic OBE is never mentioned. The initial description is what needs work, would give place to certain "passing mention" without turning this into a soapbox. CalFellows (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a go at working at it if you think it needs it-but I think one of the problems we face is to differentiate Astral Projection from Out of body experiences and Near Death Experiences. I tend to think of Astral Projection as a way of inducing an OBE type experience which involves interacting with some sort of 'Astral World'.Of course, there may be other definitions-but I think it is something that has to be decided on so it defines the scope of the article. An OBE is simply what it says and it does lead to other types of approach-a physiological explanation for an OBE as opposed to Astral Projection as some sort of paranormal or occult activity. Hence there are different articles for what are arguably different phenomena albeit having certain similarities. So if you want to alter the description are you sure it is relevant to Astral Projection as such? Maybe it is relevant to another article--Godfinger (talk) 19:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for Astral Projection Help in Toronto, Canada

Hi, Can anyone help me learn astral projection techniques in Toronto, Canada or refer me to a source that can? Thanks Chris organika2@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.166.225 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some terminology errors. Possibly re-redirect 'mental projection?'

'Astral' meaning 'starry' and 'light' may be an accurate enough term, but 'astral plane' meaning 'spatial metaphysical non-2-dimensional space' is ambiguous and a reason scientists do not investigate it. It is not Minowski space, but if one wants to apply that idea 'plane' should mean 2-d, and one should say 'world/continuum/universe.' Also the article says astral projection is etheric or spiritual: both are incorrect. Ether, though generally not proven to exist, never meant anything beyond physical (but somewhat energetic;) etheric projection is OBE in 3 dimensions. Spiritual is far beyond astral (though it is a 'reflection,') and spiritual projection is projection from the soulful or low spiritual world up! One might agree deity is 'spirit' not 'ghost;' why not use a more accurate term?

Since this article discusses etheric and spiritual projection, should mental projection be re-re-directed here to a section? It might be okay with me as long as some of that article was transferred. OTOH maybe it should be left and also etheric projection should point to OBE.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why no History?

Who came up with Astral Projection? The Ancient Egyptians? Somebody in the 1900s? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a Theosophist might say the priest[esse]s of the pre-Vedic universal wisdom religion, for initiation such as being buried for 3 days (or almost.) However, any dream may be involuntary astral projection.--Dchmelik (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did they start calling it "Astral"? Is there documentation? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read (I do not recall where except 1/2 was OED) it is because the plane has permanently visible light from stars; 'astral' also means 'starry.' However it also surely means 'spatial,' and the plane is beyond the material as space in physics is beyond 3 dimensions. As I said on mental projection, 'temporal' is better unless 'astral' means 'derived from [higher] space' but not that higher space itself, because similarly our 3 dimensions are involved in temporality.--Dchmelik (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly construed the notion of astral projection has been with us for as long as we've been here. Some recent theories on cave paintings (mainly accepted by the scientific community) hold that those paintings depict things seen during "astral journeys"/altered states of consciousness (ASCs). One amusing point in the article now is the "discovery"/argument by skeptics that astral projection can be induced by the use of drugs. The fact of the matter is that drugs have been deliberately taken (until such drugs were made illegal in the West about 30 years ago) in almost all known cultures for the sole purpose of facilitating such "journeys". Talk about one step forward two steps back. Some interesting reading is David Lewis Williams on rock art, Benny Shanon on ayahuasca, Rick Strassman on DMT, and Jeremy Narby on knowledge gained in altered states of consciousness.76.76.11.111 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask because I expect it to be in the article, not the talk page. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word dates: astral--1605, plane--1604 (http://www.etymonline.com/.) So, for English, 1605 or later, but both word roots are Latin so the term could be centuries old. Of course translations of it are millenia old in several religions. I know for sure it has been in English since at least the mid - late 1800s... why does it matter?--Dchmelik (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing an encyclopedia, and I was always taught the Five Ws (and one H); Who? What? Where? When? Why? How?. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I will add some info, though what I add might have to be improved upon.

Introduction

I've changed the introduction to try to get away from the New Age definition to a more general experiential definition. The main thinking was to define the phenomenon in a way that is least theoretical and controversial, and then let the theories and controversy be dealt with in other sections. The other thing I have added is that AP is an intentionally induced experience as opposed to dreaming, NDEs or other OBEs which tend to happen to one.67.212.177.10 (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to keep the 'paranormal interpretation' in there and the part about 'personal testimony' to satisfy the skeptics who frequent this page from time to time to ensure that there is some sort of npov approach to this article. I wont revert it myself but I think someone else probably will or at least change it--Godfinger (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should base the definition of a well-known about, but poorly understood, phenomenon on New Age ramblings just so we can include criticism of them. This battle between people who took too much acid in the 60s and people who should probably have taken more is such a naive way to approach a fascinating aspect of consciousness. There is no doubt that our consciousness, whatever that is, can "travel" to "places" beyond our normal imaginings (dreams, for example). At root, all AP is is the ability to control that journey. None of this is disputed. It seems to me a good idea to start of with what is known, uncontroversial and absolutely fascinating, before rushing headlong into problematic definitions and ill-informed criticism. There is a really good article in here somewhere if it can be allowed to emerge. 67.212.177.10 (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, rereading the new intro I think it's better than what you had before

Ok, I'm not really interested in fighting a battle over it. If someone changes it back then so be it. I just thought it was a much better way to kick off what could be a fascinating and excellent article IMHO. 67.212.177.10 (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from and I rather like what you've written The 'paranormal' interpretation I was stressing was to protect the article from attacks by certain skeptical editors-however I think you've managed to phrase it in a way that overcomes that problem. Somehow it needs to be phrased so that 'New Age' interpretations don't come across as 'scientific facts' but still let the article include some of the more 'controversial' interpretions to be mentioned. Maybe the part about 'planes of existence' should be altered as this too could sound to be a bit too 'new agey'-although it could be mentioned in the 'models' sectionGodfinger (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- The new intro. says it is 'intentional' and not voluntary. It may be intentional if one lucid dreams and it seems involuntary, because of subconscious intent, but if it happened without trying to someone while meditating awake, they might not think it was intentional.--Dchmelik (talk) 12:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the intro makes too much of this. Some definitions have it this way but others don't. Will alter that part of the definition.67.212.177.10 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave skepticism here untouched

It is an Encyclopedia... It is not to teach "beliefs", but to document the knowledge. So I am glad to read the skeleptic version!

189.58.0.125 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what point your trying to make. The skeptical views have been a part of this article for a while now. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia teaches proven facts. The fact is that different people have different beliefs about astral projection. Some claim to have experienced it themselves, while others claim that those experiences are illusions. Beyond that, there's no proven facts about the reality (or lack of reality) of astral projection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.216.37.31 (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot have proven facts about the lack of something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.70.23.227 (talk) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect,this talk page is a place for discussing improvements to the article-not for general discussion or preaching. Any more irrelevant biblical quoting will get deleted. Thanks.Godfinger (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Latin

I was looking at this in terms of trying to copy edit, since the syntax is poor. However the sources are not really accurate. The first source for the Latin source of "astral" is fine but there is no source for the two words together and what that combination of words may mean , and the second source doesn't really source "projection". Since this has possibly dubious pertinence anyway, I would delete it.(olive (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)) ... and did(olive (talk) 04:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Did you read section 3 of this page? The 2nd source does cite projection: read it more closely. The source for the 2 words together is listed, and you can search it at [3].

The problem is that: the source for astral is noted and the possible source for projection may be cited.... note that none of the definitions for projection refer specifically to the kind of projection that is astral. Further, the term "astral projection" is not sourced at all in those lines . I didn't check the final source not realizing it was online ... it was late I guess and since I'm basically only copyediting, I'll take your word for it . None the less the other two sources are not appropriate for encyclopedic content since the pairing of the two together is a kind of OR and no definition for astral projection is given in those sources. I would suggest deleting that info, and the first two sources or clearly state that you are defining the etymology for astral and then defining the etymology for projection, while leaving in the last sentence and the source should define what you need in the section. My thought is that that noting the etymology of the words separately is not really useful, but I leave that to you for now . As it is the syntax is rather weak and the etymological information not accurate.(olive (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

NPOV?

What was non-NPOV about these edits that resulted in this edit with the edit summary of "Fix WP:NPOV". There was nothing point of view in my edit. All you did was cut words and summarize. The point of view didn't change. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what was not NPOV about this section [4] that it should be changed radically and then the changes edit warred in? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe's phasing explanation does not allow for a complete mind-brain connection, but rather Monroe believed that our concepts of physical reality do not apply to astral travel.

Excuse me, but I find this sentence even less intelligible than the rest. Can anyone help?? Redheylin (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the answer is in this book. ;) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no idea about that. Read this version: [5]. [6] You are working with a completely shattered version, and I would like to have some consensus that it either be restored or something good be put in its place. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does look "shattered" - but I have just removed a ream of tautologies - things pretty much like "astral projection is when you astral travel on the astral plane and it is astral and you project and it is a plane and you travel, so it is called astral travel or astral projection". I suggest you use your magic power to resurrect former pages and fly any useful lost material back in rather than reverting. Redheylin (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he's allowed to edit the article right now. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. well he can hunt it out and put it on the talk page and then someone can paste it in. Redheylin (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I can edit. As far as I can tell, I'm just not supposed to say certain things and not supposed to revert in a certain way.

However, I'd like to paste them here and have a general consensus as to what to put in the article before doing it, else it will just be my opinion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary views get prominence

This sentence "...capable of traveling instantaneously in space and/or into symbolic inner landscapes" really bothered me because the whole point is that astral projection supposedly involves an astral plane, from the occult/esoteric/theosophical perspective (it's primarily a theosophist term). "Space" is a physical concept and "inner landscapes" suggest some psychological perspective. I wasn't surprised to see that the source is a psychological source. The problem is that the prominent view is the theosophist's view since it's their term. The previous wording "...capable of traveling to non-physical planes of existence" is much more compatible with that prominent view. Astral projection isn't primarily about a psychological view of astral projection. It's part of an occult belief system. Redheylin, you made that change, wouldn't you agree? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree - in fact I have spent a fair amount of time on these pages removing woo-woo circumlocutions like "ancient teachings of the western mystery tradition" etc. and substituting "Theosophy". And, by the way, the reference to Indian philosophy is key and should be amplified.

But there are a couple of riders. First, Theosophical terminology is inexact, and there has been a lot of undisciplined switching between "astral" and "etheric" which confuses things. You will see that the quote I inserted relates to the distinctions made later about "realtime physical" travel and other varieties such as akashic records and all the rest. It's clearly important to distinguish between flitting around the room and visiting the seventh hell! Second, astral projection refers to a class of experience which is actual and which has a body of investigative work (Crookall and Monroe) that depends very little indeed on Theosophy. I myself was aware of the idea long before I was aware of Theosophy. It's a common idea. This common idea requires an intelligible analysis, and occult systems tend to be self-referential and incapable of analysis and test. I think it is clear that any "inner plane" will ultimately be referred to a state of consciousness (see Monroe), and I do not therefore think that mere appeal to a single "belief system" - even that which coined the term - can suffice. I also find that vague statements lead to slack wordings - how can one "travel to" a non-physical plane? Surely if it is non-physical it is also non-spatial, so there is no to and from? That's why I am coming over all mentalist. I do not think a "non-physical plane" can be rigorously defined, and the result will be quite justified skeptical attack. Redheylin (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, though, we're not here to validate quasi-religious concepts, just document and describe them as the concepts are given. We shouldn't care if calling it non-physical doesn't make logical sense. We're not here to validate it. Point is, they describe it as non-physical. The common definition of the "astral plane" is that it's non-physical and outer, not inner. That is, in the concept one leaves the physical and travels in the non-physical, always portrayed as a concentric outer circle with the physical nested in it. Psychologists describe that as really just hanging around in some aspect of the inner-consciousness, but that's their view of the experience, not the primary description of the experience itself as it was developed. The prominent notable description of astral planes and projection is the one I just gave, and the other views, descriptions, and explanations are alternate views and adaptations to the concept established by Theosophists. They're all notable, certainly, but not more notable than the primary description. If we were just here to talk about out-of-body experiences or mind-body disassociation, we'd be editing those articles. Here the discussion centers around "astral", a Theosophical concept described as non-physical and outer. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, though, we're not here to validate quasi-religious concepts, just document and describe them as the concepts are given. We shouldn't care if calling it non-physical doesn't make logical sense. We're not here to validate it. Point is, they describe it as non-physical.

Right - but there is a great shortage of proper secondary sourcing on all these pages. So we need an account by some notable non-Theo, preferably one who takes care to talk sense. The question is not of non-physicality:

The common definition of the "astral plane" is that it's non-physical and outer, not inner.

Well, again, secondary sources. I am not going to create a personal synthesis that makes no verbal sense.

That is, in the concept one leaves the physical and travels in the non-physical, always portrayed as a concentric outer circle with the physical nested in it. Psychologists describe that as really just hanging around in some aspect of the inner-consciousness, but that's their view of the experience, not the primary description of the experience itself as it was developed.

Um, that's not so. Look up "panpsychism" and "collective unconscious". Physical dimensionality does not apply to dreams and thoughts, it's meaningless to say "outside or inside" - that's what "non-physical" means!

The prominent notable description of astral planes and projection is the one I just gave, and the other views, descriptions, and explanations are alternate views and adaptations to the concept established by Theosophists.

There's that Indian ref for a start, and the Egyptian ka - what you are really saying is that Theosophy invented the TERM, which the article notes. To say they are then the final authority is to say that the phenomenon is unreal. Nobody would say "Newton said "gravity", so we can never know more than he did and we can never disagree with him". If we make "astral" a purely theosophical concept, then we will POV fork with OOBE, causing confusion, delete all Monroe, Crookall, Carrington.... and say "astral projection is a theosophical belief and no more". And this is all for an argument to authority.

They're all notable, certainly, but not more notable than the primary description. If we were just here to talk about out-of-body experiences or mind-body disassociation, we'd be editing those articles. Here the discussion centers around "astral", a Theosophical concept described as non-physical and outer. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So in the first place we need that secondary source - that's clear. I have tried to get around this to some extent on other pages by using late Theosophical abstracts, but it is far from ideal. I think most people think "astral projection is going out of the body" not "astral projection is a Theosophical concept and all non-Theosophical ideas are invalid". But we can try the Google test if you like. I agree with phlegm rooster that we need a historical-comparative approach. Hence the NDE para. Redheylin (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be rude, but if you could not reply to my post within my post, I'd appreciate it. I don't want your comments looking like my comments. The Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology (the source I used) is a secondary source. It's published by Thomson Gale, a respected research publishing firm that produces academic encyclopedias on a variety of topics, mostly pertaining to religion, history and social science. Blavatsky's books would be primary sources, not an independent encyclopedia by a respected research outfit. What they say is exactly "The term is chiefly employed in Theosophy, and those numerous occult systems derived from it" (my emphasis). And they're right. The numerous modern New Age systems are derived from Theosophy which introduced the concept. Otherwise they'd all be calling it something else (for example "subtle body" from the Hindu traditions). It's Theosophy that further divided the subtle body into several more, including the astral body. It's likewise not called "ka projection" from the Egyptians. It's astral projection.

Regarding your comment "Physical dimensionality does not apply to dreams and thoughts, it's meaningless to say 'outside or inside' - that's what 'non-physical' means!" That's also synthesis. The independent sources pertaining to the concept of astral projection describe it as "outside" the physical body. We're not here to correct their flub, synthesize in additional concepts like panpsychism and collective unconscious to "fix" their problem of contradicting themselves by saying "outside" and "non-physical" at the same time, or anything remotely similar. Further, the concept of astral projection isn't even about dreams and thoughts. Dreams and thoughts are about dreams and thoughts. Astral projection is about the belief in an astral plane and that one is capable of projecting themselves there. The astral plane and other planes of existence are not metaphysical concepts regarding dreams and thoughts, they're believed to be actual planes of existence, most of them separate from the physical. Sure it doesn't make any sense. "Separate" is a physical term relying on locality so how can we call it non-physical? We don't. They do. We're not here to make sense of paradoxical concepts, just document them because they're notable.

Regarding the idea that it's a POV fork from OBE to describe astral projection as a Theosophical concept relating to the astral plane (which it is), it's not a POV fork to do that, or rather to start with that (which is why I titled this "Primary views get prominence"). I didn't say it was the only view. I said the primary view (like Thompson Gale says "chiefly"). After describing that it's chiefly a Theosophical concept relating to a astral plane, then you go on to describe other views, eg. the psychological view that it's inner states of consciousness pertaining to thoughts and dreams, or the New Age view that it's non-local, non-spatial, or any of those other concepts derived after the Theosophists, provided that they're reliably sourced and not originally synthesized to the concept (in other words, the source makes the conjecture that collective consciousness resolves the locality paradox, not Wikipedia). That's what I'm saying. Theosophy is all over the astral plane related articles. The view that astral projection is not about a Theosophical concept, but rather that it's simply about out-of-body experiences in general, is not the primary view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so Gale is your source - well, so far it is the best objective secondary source. I have a feeling there may be other views, though, so shall look. I have no intention of creating a synthesis, by the way, I was simply saying do not expect me to write arrant nonsense unless the secondary source gives arrant nonsense. The obvious question, then, is; what kind of language does Gale use - can we have some verbatim on the talk page, please?

Some confusion has arisen about the origin of this term "astral" - this is much better-treated under "astral body". There it is established that Blavatsky attributed the word "astral" to mediaeval alchemists" but that her immediate source was Eliphas Levi. It further emerges that the first user of "astral" (Greek not Latin) and "plane" was Proclus and that the original meaning of "astral travel" derives from a journey through the seven spheres (as when going to heaven after death or in initiation). So, rationally, "etheric travel" means moving around the earth, while "astral travel" means moving through the heavens, the solar system. Theosophists acknowledge these roots and therefore provide the rationale for synthesis with neoplatonic sources. Would you maintain that "astral travel" differs from "astral projection"? And does this not depend on whether the secondary sources follow Blavatsky or Leadbeater?Redheylin (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In his book Understanding Astral Projection, Anthony Martin, a practitioner of the topic, quotes 2 Corinthians 12:2. I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago - whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows - such a man was caught up to the third heaven.

"Into the third heaven is astral travel alright, and yr man seems to use this as his base to discuss "astral projection" from a neoplatonic POV - certainly this is a neoplatonic reference, this third heaven - it means the heaven of Venus. The same conflation of OOB, Astral Projection and Astral Travel is found in other popular texts visible online. Redheylin (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a great resource! I love it, and it was worth every penny I spent. Unfortunately it's also two volumes, 1500+ pages, relatively small print. It covers a multitude of occult related topics. Anything in particular you'd like me to look up and copy here? I respect copyrights and don't want to type it all up, so I'm not going to post their entire article on the topic, but if you'd like me to look up something in particular, I'd be happy to. Unfortunately as a print encyclopedia it doesn't delve much into etymology. The concept is Theosophical derived from Hindu mysticism. Dunno what the origins of the word are. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Just hang on, ScienceApologist, we are debating whether the epistemology is theosophical.)Redheylin (talk) 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nealparr, that is generous of you. If you really think it is a good resource then fine. Still, the couple of books I just looked at were considerably less "primary" about Theosophy, though it is clearly important. Do we have a solid citation for the first use of astral projectionItalic text? Redheylin (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this line: "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an esoteric interpretation of a type of out-of-body experience"? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good source for how New Age movements try to divorce themselves from Theosophy, although their concepts are completely theosophically inspired:

"In a similar vein, post-theosophical prophets find it necessary to point out that their messages have been arrived at, not by reading the texts of their predecessors, but through an independent revelation. Vicky Wall, the founder of Aura-Soma therapy, rests her case heavily on staples of the theosophical doctrine such as the existence of ascended Masters, Atlantis and a melioristic conception of reincarnation. Nevertheless, theosophy is not even mentioned in the index of her book The Miracle of Colour Healing. Despite this denial of a recent historical lineage, revealed teachings have deep roots in the Esoteric Tradition. Of the positions discussed here, theosophy is the earliest that is based on information said to originate with spiritual masters. These suprahuman teachers used a variety of paranormal means to transmit their messages to Madame Blavatsky as well as to Alfred Sinnett. Prophets up to the present time rely on older revealed texts within this lineage: anthroposophy incorporates theosophical beliefs, as does the American lineage briefly mentioned in chapter 3. New Age revelations recycle and combine doctrines from New Thought, fragments of theosophical inspired beliefs, the revelations imparted to Jane Roberts in the 1970s and assorted contemporary legends."

Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age By Olav Hammer (page 341)

The above in a nutshell: The lineage of esoteric beliefs post-theosophical point back to theosophical, although later derivatives deny this lineage. This source explains why astral projection is a theosophical concept eventhough you may never see the word "Theosophy" in the index of a book on the topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I accept that and agree with it and it is verifiable and hard to contravert. Certainly all good post-theosophists ought to try to contact those masters, but those masters just keep spouting Blavatsky and Bailey! And even apparently independent people in the 20s, like Walter John Kilner or Muldoon and Carrington are certainly post-Theosophist - they do not use that terminology just out of the blue or because of their Tibetan guides. Theosophy was a major intellectual force and it is our job to delineate that. What I was asking about, though is a citation of the first ever use of the term "astral projection". And there is also the Golden Dawn, and their French forebears, who were always talking about astral light, but I do not remember if they used the words projection or travel. However, Levi is established as Blavatsky's source for the word astral, and it ultimately goes back to Proclus. Proclus is talking about astral travel as in astrological, and that is what the quote beneath says. "Astral" is the middle reality of the triad and corresponds to the solar system.

So astral projection and travel are the same, Theosophy is the primary source of those words in our culture. Post-theosophists have astral masters giving them the low down on the cosmos, but there are now various empirical studies with a variety of other paradigms being presented, such as the Jungian, the brain-state. OK? And we can trace the Theosophical usage ultimately to Proclus, to the after-death and NDE , and also to astrology. So it starts with Theosophy, goes back, then goes forward? Some books have details of OOBs before HPB, but not called "astral" - does this belong here? Redheylin (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't really help on the first-use of the term. I don't know who coined it. It seems reasonable that Blavatsky used it first, and borrowed the term from something she read somewhere. In this context, the context of a separate plane of existence rather than an alternate spelling of astro-logical where it could possibly date back much further, it's likely it's an original term. But that's just my speculation. I don't know the etymology of the word.

I can help on the lineage. Here's how that goes:

First comes Spiritualism (mid 1800s) with its defining characteristic that "mediums" can contact the dead and receive messages from beyond the grave.
Next comes Theosophy (late 1800s) and its founder Madame Blavatsky, a self-proclaimed medium. Blavatsky had Western spiritualistic influences that she augmented with Hindu mysticism and other ideas. She added a great deal to the simple concept of the "accessible" afterlife proposed by the spiritualists, juxtaposing West and East concepts and adding many of her own novel interpretations of each. Theosophy was strong well into the early 1900s.
Next comes a wide range of theosophical offshoots (late 1800s to 1950s). Here's where you get your Golden Dawn. During this time you also had such New Age founding influences as Edgar Cayce as well as many, many derivatives of Theosophy including Anthroposophy and other esoteric/occult movements.
Between the 1950s and late 1960s all these various lines branched out even further. Gardner established Wicca and neopaganism. The UFO craze spawned UFO "contactees" that supposedly received messages similarly to mediums but here it's from space-men rather than the dead. This is when the term "channeling" starts to show up and semi-replaces "mediumship". During this period there's a whole host of other quasi-religious movements all stemming from the same Theosophical roots, all borrowing the same concepts and adapting them to suit the times and philosophy of the group.
And then, of course, we have the counter-culture movements of the 1960s and 1970s when comparatively more people were seeking alternative lifestyles and religious ideas to experiment with. The "New Age" was born. The defining characteristic of the New Age movement is likened to a piece of postmodern art, that is mix, mash, sample, appropriate, virtually a "make your own religion" borrowing from whatever suits you. Since there were already a large number of alternative religious ideas established stemming from Theosophy, theosophical ideas were incorporated quite a bit. As part of a number of counter-culture "revelations", adherents felt esoteric and occult ideas were "hidden knowledge" kept from them by oppressive mainstream religions like Christianity.
The New Age movement was popular well through the 1980s and 1990s, dying out somewhat at the end of the 1990s for any number of reasons. However, during the New Age movement there was much ignoring, denial, or suppression of these epistemological roots. In some cases you had New Agers saying it's Eastern mysticism (which it clearly wasn't), or that it dates back to ancient times (which it clearly didn't), and so on. What it dated back to was Theosophy in elaborate concepts and Spiritualism in basic idea of an accessible afterlife. The connection to Eastern mysticism and ancient beliefs were novel reinterpretations by these modern movements rather than actual Eastern mysticism, etc.

Now, interspersed with all of that you have psychical research and the pursuit of evidence of the survival of death. That started in the 1800s as well, with the Society for Psychical Research. They latched on to many of these ideas and tried to test them with the science of the day. They investigated mediums (exposing many as fakes and claiming some were real). They investigated clairvoyance. They investigated all the various ideas associated with survival, like reincarnation and out-of-the-body experiences. They pursued astral projection. All of that research was likewise spawned in reaction to the claims of Spiritualism and Theosophy, rather than a novel idea. The lineage there was "Hey, look at what we can do. We can talk to the dead and travel in the afterlife" followed by "Oh, really, let's see if we can test that". The research was post-concept, rather than pre-concept. In other words, the collection of accounts of out-of-the-body travel didn't spawn the religious movements. The religious movements spawned the research.

That's the basic timeline. There's a bit of a distinction between some of these studies drawn that I want to mention so we don't get off-track with our article, especially concerning the content that deals with research. There's a separation between "astral projection" and "out-of-the-body experiences". The first is a theosophical term and specific while the latter is a psychical research term and more generic. The first is primarily a quasi-religious topic involving a system of beliefs, where the latter is primarily related to research. Further, there's a connotational distinction between OBE (a psychical research term) and consciousness research in general, which might involve research into psychological dissociative states or feelings of mind-body separation. OBE research is primarily survival of death or psychic research, assuming an actual separation of the mind and body. Mainstream psychology and consciousness studies is entirely different, assuming a more materialistic interpretation of the experience, eg. hallucinatory. I once smoked marijuana and felt like I left my body. That's not an OBE in the strictest of terms. I don't think we should get carried away trying to mash all these concepts together. Rather, I think the article should talk almost entirely just about astral projection, mention the related concepts briefly, and link off to their main articles when appropriate. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a POV-fork developing here is there not? Now for the fourth time; I cannot trace any use by Blavatsky of the term "astral projection". That's what the article says and it seems to be wrong. The first use appears to be from the Golden Dawn, who were referring directly to Blavatsky's source for the word; Eliphas Levi. There is no evidence or citation, then, for the assertion that GD derived the term from Theosophy. Even Gale's statement that "The term is chiefly employed in Theosophy" is not supported by any more substantial citation and there appears so far to be no support for it from other authorities. Blavatsky used terms like "exteriorisation of the double". But there are plenty of pre-HPB references to this phenomenon that also do not use the term "astral". And use of the term "astral" traces to Levi and the neoplationists. I do not think, then, that you can defend the fork you are arguing for; that "There's a separation between "astral projection" and "out-of-the-body experiences". The first is a theosophical term and specific while the latter is a psychical research term and more generic." I'd like to see a citation for that "separation", and I'd like you to note that Gale is a contested and possibly unreliable source. Lastly I request you respond to points raised about pre-Blavatsky cases, and neoplatonic usage. Proclus' usage is not derived from "astrological" - he originated the use of the words "astral" and "plane" for speaking of OOBE, and links the concept clearly with NDE. Redheylin (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put that Blavatsky used it first in the article. It was already there. As I said, I have no idea who used the word first. The first use couldn't be Golden Dawn (est. 1888) because Theosophy was already around (est. 1875) and Blavatsky was already writing about it in Isis Unveiled (1877)[7] You're kind of being a little hostile. I research thoroughly before I post to the mainspace. If you have a pre-1877 source where Levi uses the term, by all means add it to the article, but you don't need to be attacking me about it. You'll also note when I said There's a separation between "astral projection" and "out-of-the-body experiences" that was here on the talk page, not in the mainspace, and I was referring to connotational distinctions, so I don't know why you're questioning sources on that. There is no source. It's on the talk page. If you'd like a source for why I'm saying there's connotational distinctions, here's one: "The term 'OBE' is preferred by parapsychologists for the phenomena also known as 'astral projection"[8] They draw the same connotational distinction I made. In the actual article I wrote "The term out-of-body experience (OBE) is often used interchangeably with astral projection." I didn't attempt to say there's a huge distinction, or POV fork, like you're suggesting. However, there is a distinction drawn considering that Charles Tart, a parapsychologist, coined the term in the 1960s (long after the 1800s) to avoid connotational judgements on earlier terms like astral projection. Trust me, I'm not making these things up.

The term "out-of-body experience" was coined by Tart in 1960 primarily to avoid the judgmental alternative names present in the literature which implied some nonexistent exact knowledge of etiology of the experience, for example, such terms as astral projection, ESP projecting, doubling, astral travel, etc.

Far Journeys, page 276

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have no idea when it was first used, and apparently you don't, I changed the wording to "as early as" rather than "it was first used". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for engaging, it is not hostility, but I am concerned that you're forging ahead with a plan for this article and the foundations are questionable. I know you are not making anything up. You are dividing a "chief" Theosophical sense off from the general OOB sense and you based that on the special terminology of "astral projection" (thanks for explaining that the entry is not your though). Now, as you say, the thing is primarily connotational - to allow non-occult language to be used to discuss the SAME class of phenomena. And I am not necessarily saying the two should be merged, but this "different connotations" is awful close to "different points of view", since the use of different language allows different viewpoints about the SAME phenomena.

Now, as I said, I took this distinction to be based on the an exact term that was demonstrably Theosophical. But this premise is collapsing, despite Gale. You now quote the use of the term "astral BODY" by HPB - that's quite different and she definitely did not originate that term either. I found it at http://www.scribd.com/doc/301894/Dogma-Et-Rituel-Eliphas-Levi-Part2 in Waite's translation of Levi. Blavatsky quotes Levi, who published in France in 1855. This is covered on the page astral body. I am still concerned that your plan for the article will, on insufficient grounds, create POV and factual forks with related articles and create a hermetically-sealed, self-referential and ultimately valueless statement. This is not a personal attack! But it is not just a question of adding Levi - there is no base now except Gale for calling astral projection a "chiefly Theosophical" matter. And it is easy to find a book called "astral projection" that does not agree with Gale. Or half a dozen. Redheylin (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning. Here you're saying that astral projection isn't chiefly a Theosophical term and saying that's cleared up by the astral body article. But in the astral body article Theosophy is likewise presented as the notable use of the term in the lead. To me it doesn't matter who coined or originated the word (like I said, dunno who did). It's where the concept of astral travel is "chiefly" used that matters. If Levi coined it, but Theosophy used it more (or Theosophy was more notable than the Golden Dawn for example), then it's "chiefly" a Theosophical term, like the sources say. What I really think you're failing to notice is that none of that has any thing to do with my "plan for the article". My plan for the article is to write a comprehensive treatment of the topic listing any major view discovered. Specifically, the plan is to present the concept as a esoteric belief (doesn't matter if it's Golden Dawn or Theosophical, it's still esoteric) and compare and contrast those beliefs. Nothing you've said demonstrates a POV or factual fork because the article is meant to display all the various views on the topic that are notable. As I said, if you have sources demonstrating a pre-1877 use of the term, by all means put that in. To challenge a reputable source that says it's chiefly used in Theosophy, however, and make wild accusations that I'm trying to create a POV fork, you'll really have to demonstrate that Golden Dawn and Levi, if they coined the term, were more prolific and influential than Theosophy. Because, really, if that's not the case, it doesn't matter who coined it. It's still mostly (chiefly) used by Theosophy and the schools of thought they influenced (like the source says). Regarding the "SAME phenomena" business, I made the distinction clear. One is primarily used in research and the other is primarily used in esoteric beliefs. Esoteric usage is not the same as research usage. They're different topics, not different views. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Also, looking through Astral plane, Astral body, and now Astral projection (the links in the navbar here that are themselves classified under "Theosophy"), I'm failing to find any of the articles that doesn't put Theosophy to the forefront. In fact, astral plane says "the term was popularised by Theosophy", so its hard to find where you saying "POV and factual forks with related articles" is justified, nor where "chiefly" Theosophical is somehow wrong and the very reputable source is unreliable. If Theosophy popularized it, it's "chiefly" Theosophical, regardless of whether Levi wrote about it first. You seem to be questioning the Theosophy thing and saying its a POV fork, but that's at the forefront of every article here. Are you trying to downplay that it's a Theosophical topic or something? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: From the first section on down (I haven't addressed the lead), do you have a specific objection to anything? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! That's why we are having this conversation. The piece uses a loose set of ideas and the usages may conflict with those found in related articles. For example, it says "spirit"; you click on it, you get "soul". Then it tells you this "soul" is astral body, which does not resemble any form of philosophy I know, since the "astral" is always an intermediate body and plane between body and soul (as in Proclus). Then it says that "astral projection was introduced into Europe", which suggests that this is a mere concept, nothing to do with the centuries of "astral" reports that go before it. Then we are told that such experiences are "either realms that overlap the physical in different levels, or states of consciousness" and suddenly we find we have switched to talking about "OOBE" without explaining the term. This article needs a comprehensive source to use as a model. There is no coherent effort to convey the thinking behind the expression, its history and how it matches up with the parapsychological accounts. Redheylin (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may bullet them for ease of use:

The piece uses a loose set of ideas and the usages may conflict with those found in related articles. For example, it says "spirit"; you click on it, you get "soul". Then it tells you this "soul" is astral body, which does not resemble any form of philosophy I know, since the "astral" is always an intermediate body and plane between body and soul (as in Proclus).

In Astral body#History, it says:

The late Neoplatonist Proclus, who is credited the first to speak of subtle "planes", posited two subtle bodies or "vehicles" (okhema) intermediate between the rational soul and the physical body. These were; 1) the spiritual (pneuma) vehicle, aligned with the vital breath, which he considered mortal, and 2) the astral vehicle which was the immortal vehicle of the Soul.

I find it hard to see how "the spirit, pictured as the astral body" in our article conflicts with related articles, especially in the way you're saying it does.

Then it says that "astral projection was introduced into Europe", which suggests that this is a mere concept, nothing to do with the centuries of "astral" reports that go before it.

It actually says "Astral projection was introduced to the Western world primarily through Theosophy and other occult precursors". Two key phrases, "primarily" and "other occult precursors". Again, I fail to see how this conflicts with other articles when those other articles say Theosophy popularized the term. If you'd like to change it from "was introduced to" to "was popularized in", I don't have a problem with that. I don't feel you should have a problem with it either since I'm sure we can both agree that they're the ones who popularized it.

Then we are told that such experiences are "either realms that overlap the physical in different levels, or states of consciousness" and suddenly we find we have switched to talking about "OOBE" without explaining the term.

No we haven't. The line says "astral plane or planes... are said to be". The planes are said to be either actual realms or states of consciousness. This statement doesn't refer to experiences. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recognise that related articles also dwell upon Theosophy. To some extent, as I said, that's my doing, as it was one stage better than "the ancient mysteries of the hidden masters" and other such. It is not at all satisfactory, even so, but it can hardly be said that I am trying to exclude theosophy. But I do not consider this "chiefly theosophical" to be adequately verified. If the Hare Krsna people said they are chiefly responsible for introducing the god Krsna to the west I would not argue. If they then said "so our theology must go first", I'd be troubled since I know this means goodbye to an overview and historical exposition. If they then said; "this Krsna should have a different page from the everyday Hindu Krishna, and it means nothing to us if Wiki users cannot get any grip on the relation between the two" I'd kick up a fuss. If on that basis I wound up with an article that read; "Krsna, an American god whose religion was started in the 60's" I'd be appalled, but this is pretty close to what we have here. Redheylin (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=m0cQQlZK43cC&pg=PA147&lpg=PA147&dq=dante+astral&source=web&ots=RG8Lyxc6wi&sig=ifJAIMJFDFH-F84NoWQb46iH_C0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=52&ct=result Redheylin (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird link to post in support of your argument, because there too it says the neo-platonists referred to the astral body as the soul. "Such Neoplatonic ideas also emerge in the theology of Servetus. He speaks of the element in the soul... This intermediate element which is chiefly called "soul"... and spirit... In this we recognise the astral body of the Neoplatonists." The only distinction they're making there is that this soul is between the body and the divine spirit itself (God). --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be overexaggerating things quite a bit on many aspects of what you're talking about. Also, are you saying you're responsible for those other articles? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has Servetus, a renaissance doctor, using the words "spiritus" and "anima" to describe two separate domains, (after what he considers normal Christian usage) that originate in Platonism (Plato did not speak English). I can find another source to contradict Servetus easily; the use of these terms is a can of worms that we do not need. If you want to talk about what neoplatonists said then we need to cite Greek and Latin terms, obviously, meanwhile you just red it too fast. I hope not to fast to note the object under discussion; Proclus' astral body and how it affected Dante, Paracelsus, Agrippa. This is a reliable and coherent historic perspective. Redheylin (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this conversation is going nowhere and all I want is a GA under my belt. Do you have anything you'd like to add to the article to address your concerns? Because I never discouraged you from doing that. The whole thread from my perspective is "principles first". Theosophical ideas about astral projection are obviously principle ideas. I can add neoplatonist ideas just as easily, but you're not making any useful suggestions here, like "I think we should add this based on this source." If you do that, I'd be happy to work with you. But talking in circles isn't helping. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is going nowhere because you are not responding to the issues I raised. It is not a question of addition - I already said - it will be a fundamental reorganisation. You appear to be saying that the GA will go under YOUR belt, YOU decide who you will work with on the article and so on, and that the article will be like this because you say so. That's the impression. I'd request you to reconsider all that I have said so far, respond, and then you will no longer be going in circles. Please do refrain from further theories about ME; that will help. Look at the article, the subject and what I have said about it. Particularly, if you could withdraw your dismissal of the neo-platonists, recognise the "soul-spirit" issue as a diversion, recognise that Proclus originated the terms astral plane, that this conception is found throughout classical and mediaeval literature, that this was known to HPB, that the Theosophical concept does not arise ex nihilo.... Redheylin (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about? I've responded in great detail to every issue you raised, and sourced every point I made. And now you're saying that because I want a GA article under my belt that's somehow ownership? A GA article that I contributed to substantially is a great feeling -- not ownership. You're being very hostile, have been for sometime, and totally without cause. What dismissal of neoplatonists? Because I said you misread the book and pointed out exactly where, that's dismissal? Good grief. Why do I have to recognize "soul-spirit" as a diversion? What diversion? Diversion from what? You're not making any sense. Am I just supposed to take you're word for it or something? The source you presented said the astral body is chiefly called soul. That's not my fault. It's the source you presented. Why should I recognize anything about Proclus? You said yourself it's presently unsourced. If you actually presented a source on it, I'd say by all means please add it to the article -- like I've been saying all along. When I asked what needs to be changed about the article, specifically, you say it needs to be totally rewritten. When I say you're not making any useful suggestions, you launch into an ownership complaint. Geeze, all I asked for was useful suggestions. Funny how I got anything but. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted a source referencing Proclus' origination of the phrase "astral body"; that it is the middle of three worlds is referenced by HPB. I have also said that use of the words "soul" and "spirit" without saying according to whom is ill-advised. Therefore, astral travel is travel in a world intermediate between heaven and earth, it is the world of the astral spheres, it is the medium through which the planets affect us - all this follows and is easy to reference. From this it is possible to disambiguate an experience of travel around the physical earth. Avicenna can be invoked on the difference between physical and astral materials. HPB offers a compendium of this material, aligned with the Indian, Egyptian, etc. The article, as I say, needs to be structured folllowing a comprehensive source that indicates the due weight to be given to each of these facets as well as the order of presentation. Otherwise, the whole article reflects your personal POV; effectively, that "astral projection" is (primarily) a social phenomenon of 20C Europe. This clearly implies a fundamental restructure. Concordance with related articles also needs to be considered. I am talking to you because I do not wish to undo your work, even though you have jumped in on the work I was doing. So I'd thank you if you would respond co-operatively to what is being said. Redheylin (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed where you posted the source, could you post it again below this comment? As I said, I would be happy to work co-operatively with you if you could extend me the same courtesy. You can start by not calling it my POV. I don't have a POV on this topic. I have third-party sources. I thought we already established above that Blavatsky is a primary source and that you agreed she was. More to the point, I'm wondering what needs to be restructured if she says that the ideas date back further than the 20 century to every ancient culture. Should we really be taking her word for it? It would have to be worded as "Blavatsky feels her ideas are aligned with Indian, Egyptian, ect." as it's her belief that they are. We have a belief section for her beliefs. What sort of restructuring did you have in mind? Do you have an outline to propose? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Reincarnation, Life After Death, and Astral Travel". International Cultic Studies Association. no date. Retrieved 19 August. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
^ "Reincarnation, Life After Death, and Astral Travel". International Cultic Studies Association. no date. Retrieved 19 August. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

[1] "Reincarnation, Life After Death, and Astral Travel". International Cultic Studies Association. no date. Retrieved 19 August. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

[2] "Reincarnation, Life After Death, and Astral Travel". International Cultic Studies Association. no date. Retrieved 19 August. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

More Content on Known Consensus of Astral Projection