Talk:Astral projection/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Blavatsky and Proclus

In Isis Unveiled, H. P. Blavatsky summarizes the pagan concept of man as follows: "Man is a little world--a microcosm inside the great universe. Like a fetus, he is suspended, by all his three spirits, in the matrix of the macrocosmos; and while his terrestrial body is in constant sympathy with its parent earth, his astral soul lives in unison with the sidereal anima mundi. He is in it, as it is in him, for the world-pervading element fills all space, and is space itself, only shoreless and infinite. As to his third spirit, the divine, what is it but an infinitesimal ray, one of the countless radiations proceeding directly from the Highest Cause--the Spiritual Light of the World? This is the trinity of organic and inorganic nature--the spiritual and the physical, which are three in one, and of which Proclus says that 'The first monad is the Eternal God; the second, eternity; the third, the paradigm, or pattern of the universe;' the three constituting the Intelligible Triad." (Manley Hall) Redheylin (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have scanned an online copy of Isis Unveiled and Secret Doctrine and there is no hit for "astral projection". The earliest hit so far is Moina Mathers' "GD Flying Roll 36". Redheylin (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned several places in Isis Unveiled, including page 483 (randomly pulled page) [1] I'm not sure what you are using to search it, but it's right there in the link above. You can also do a "find on page" in your browser here [2]. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Question: In the article it says "The term 'astral', representing a subtle plane of being, is derived from the philosopher Proclus and in English the word was first used to mean 'starry', in 1605 AD[3][4]" Refs 3 and 4 is an online etymology dictionary that doesn't mention Proclus at all. In the above quote, Blavatsky quotes an abitrary statement by Proclus that doesn't refer to "astral" either. As such, I'm wondering how the term is derived from Proclus? The statement is suggesting that Proclus originated the term, but that's not backed up by either the sources in the article or the above quote. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good question! That's also an inherited piece that needs proper referencing, particularly after the material has been re-ordered. The statement, though, is not arbitary, since HPB cites Proclus referring to the "three intelligible worlds", and he does call the middle one "astral". It needs a little more work to show that Blavatsky was aware of that, but probably someone has noted it. I noticed it was insufficiently referenced and have not fixed it, which is unwise seeing the thing has been edited by folk who think that the word "astral" is Latin. Even the date 1605 was a year out before I checked. I shall find a suitable secondary source - it is right that Proclus used the terms "astral" and "plane" though, and that Blavatsky knew the terms through Taylor and Levi, who used the term "astral body". Redheylin (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

I'm editing with an aim of nominating this article as WP:GA. I've made substantial additions to the body of the article and cleaned it up considerably. The WP:LEAD of the article I haven't touched because that is typically what editors fight over. I'd like to fix that up before nominating it, and welcome any comments in that regard. The article, to be GA, should also have relevant images. Considering the topic dates back further than copyright laws, any help finding a suitable graphic concerning astral projection (or even astral planes) would be appreciated. This article, I feel, isn't as comprehensive on the topic as it should be to reach FA status. Yes, I'm aware that there are significant gaps in coverage, for example there are belief lines that can be expanded upon, but it's fairly broad in coverage if not specific enough for FA. It meets the GA requirements after the lead is written following the guidelines of WP:LEAD. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• I found an image in a related article and put it in one of the sections. Maybe not the best but at least it's a start and can be improved when someone else finds something better.--Godfinger (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I appreciate it. There's some other pre-copyright sketches I know of, but I'm not sure who the original artist is. If I discover that, I'll add those too. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Got carried away and added a couple more!. I wont be offended if you want to remove them and have ::something better but it's a start anyway.--Godfinger (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, two of them are in use on Etheric plane and subtle body. It would be better to find new stuff. Redheylin (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but have you got any new stuff by any chance--Godfinger (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)???

Yes, plenty, but neilparr is claiming the page as his own and he wants to exclude a lot of relevant data. When the data is in place, the illustrations are also available. Redheylin (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR. I never said to exclude anything. In fact, I said the article is not yet comprehensive enough. I have no idea what you're problem is. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin: offer some prose for inclusion here on the talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. And you just be good, alright?

My problem is getting recognised as a co-operative and competent contributor. Redheylin (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that a problem? I've thought you were doing quite well, though I haven't really been keeping track. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I thought you two were meant to stay apart? Well, you'd better be good too! You'd better all say an oath that what you really want is a smooth-reading, impeccably sourced piece, and a good time doing it. Nobody wants to say something unverified, right? The way I see it, people of faith repress their doubts, people of doubt repress their faith. Me, I can live with the conflict. So I can live with all of you. Redheylin (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to what you said about getting generally accepted. Anyway, we are allowed to continue ongoing debates, even with each other. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK! Blavatsky is a primary source for theosophy; she is a secondary source for Levi and Proclus et al. If such quotes inadvertently give an impression of how classical and mediaeval ideas were romantically rediscovered by Queen Victoria, that's just added value. Now here's my problem. The other one. I already spliced in a quote-piece that I had just added to astral body, by a Jungian;

an...out-of body experience, wherein the spiritual traveller leaves the physical body and travels in his/her subtle body (or dreambody or astral body) into ‘higher’ realms."[7]

but it is not GA to use it twice. A hack historical approach wants a little start-para like this, but an anthropologist would be good for a change. I'll sort it. But I also added this piece to "body";

Such doctrines were commonplace in mystery-schools and gnostic sects throughout the Roman Empire until a unity of doctrine was imposed in the great councils of the Roman Christian church. But among Muslims the "astral" world-view was soon rendered orthodox by Quranic references to the Prophet's ascent through the seven heavens. Scholars took up the Greek Neoplatonist accounts as well as similar material in Hindu and Zoroastrian texts.[9] The expositions of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), the Brotherhood of Purity and others, when translated into Latin in the Norman era, were to have a profound effect upon European mediaeval alchemy and astrology. By the fourteenth century Dante was describing his own imaginary journey through the astral spheres of Paradise.[10]

Throughout the renaissance, philosophers, Paracelsians, Rosicrucians and alchemists continued to discuss the nature of the astral world intermediate between the world and the divine but, once the telescope established that no religious heaven was visible around the solar system, the idea was superseded in mainstream science.

In the romantic era, though........

Now, this is not yet impeccably cited and even if it were I would not want to repeat it, but I do want it to be clear that these things had specific meanings in terms of the classical-mediaeval world-view, which was rediscovered, as I said, by Queen Victoria and her Punjabi ghillie, though this is PR and we cannot put it in. The fact that I left those Theosophists defining terms in the other article is not an argument for writing every article with any more than a recognition of the importance of the TS in the way these ideas have been received in the last century. Redheylin (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a snip I already proposed - it was VERY influential in Christian thought. Then look up Scotus Erigena. Redheylin (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

You didn't mention what prose you wanted to add to the article, nor how you think it should be restructured. Surely you don't want to have all of that here. If you did, it would be very bad, because all that above discussion of metaphysical propositions on heavens and earths farmed from various religious traditions... all of that is quite separate from the esoteric/occult proposition that one can actually visit there while you're still alive, ie. projection. Where's actual references of yours saying that people can leave their body and visit the heavens appearing? Only the first quote talks about actually projecting. Eg. A medieval concept of several layers of heavens, even one called astral, does not support the idea that being able to visit them while you're still alive is a medieval concept. In the astral body article, you have a gap between the Neoplatonist concepts of heaven and hell where there's no proposition that one can travel there until they're dead and Dante's imaginary journey (ie. not presented as real) and the "The Occult" period where people started saying they could actually visit the place (Levi, Blavatsky et al) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neal. Write some actual prose for inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There's yet another version at astral plane. Remember that many OOBs, like Muldoon's, are begun by illness, cold, intoxication and other pathological or near-death states. Obviously the people who report these things came back. Most instances are involuntary. So a good deal of the literature cannot be separated from NDE. Obviously there are people who report primarily real-time real-world transportation of POV, there are others who report otherworld features like tunnels of golden light and meeting angels or ancestors. It is the second type that is understood as astral" in the true sense. Do you want actual stories of people who left their body? Plato's myth of Er, Cicero's "Dream of Scipio", that kind of thing? Well there you are then.... St Paul's friend......although whether he was in it or out of it I know not, Redheylin (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd like to see some actual prose for evaluation about astral projection, and some explanation of how you want the article restructured. That's what I asked for. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Every indication from scientific investigation is that sensory perception is dependent on such bodily structures as the nervous system, and there cannot be sensory perception separate from the physical body. Therefore, instances of perceived out-of-body experiences must be in the mind of the experiencer. Similar experiences have been, for example, induced with drugs or brain stimulation.

ScienceApologist, you have modified this. Now in the first place it quotes skepdic twice over. Second, skepdic is not an authoritative source for general statements about cognitive science. The wikid pages start from the premise that perception is sensory and do not consider extra-sensory perception. Please, if you want to apologise for science, do not rely on journalists and web pundits. Third, the sentence Therefore, instances of perceived out-of-body experiences must be in the mind of the experiencer is tautology. You have written "we cannot have experiences out of the body and this proves we cannot have experiences out of the body". You then mention "similar" effects; this needs amplification. Did they convince a large number of people that they had left the body? I'd like to know. Can you please put these things right? Redheylin (talk) 01:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the cognitive science bit. I will get a standard text for that one shortly. The other issues I'm having a hard time following. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

OK - you can write; "people who doubt that perception is possible other than through the sense organs must obviously seek another explanation". But then, what is the explanation? Why do some people have it and some not, what brain-states are involved, what is the evolutionary advantage, what is the role in the psychological economy? As it stands, you are not offering the millions who will want to understand what is happening to them any kind of explanation at all. Just; "it can't be happening, so it must be something else." Call that "science"? And I certainly want to know if those simulations made a similar number of people think they had actually been out of their body. Redheylin (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It says drugs and brain stimulation as the explanation. Your other comments baffle me. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really trying to assume good faith here, but I noticed by your user page edits that you've only been around since April. Have you familiarized yourself with what Wikipedia is not? The above seems to be a number of weird ideas conflicting with the WP:SOAP section. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What dyou think I am selling then? Redheylin (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, by the comments above and others, I'm concerned you're just here to "sell" the idea that astral projection is more important than it actually is, ie. advocacy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How important astral projection is to an article about astral projection? Could you put me right then, and give me an objective and quantified consensus of its importance? Or are we perhaps getting off the subject? There are several related articles. There's a lot of data. It involves some thought, where to put everything. But so far, the idea that the astral spheres were a fundamental part of science for 2000 years, referred to by Plato, the Bible, many classic works of the middle ages and renaissance is not very well represented. We need a comphrehensive source to determine what weight to give each aspect, do we not? Redheylin (talk) 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

We are writing about an experience that 1 in 10 report. We are offering a history of such notable reports and notable ideas about that experience. Users, especially those who have personal experience, should get an informative and balanced article. Where is advocacy in that?

Yeah, who cares that the source for those numbers actually draws a distinction between the New Age/occult term astral projection and OBEs in general, right? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

These are the distinctions we need, these are the sources we need, especially if they give a reasonable history. The online articles are good but short. I agree that mostly brain-state explanations belong on the OOBE page, mostly "occult" explanations belong here, mostly NDE experiences belong there and so on. Most likely, an account of the doctrine of subtle bodies belongs in astral body mainly, and the idea of seven heavens under astral plane. But all these ideas are associated, and we need the smallest number of secondary sources that deal with all the bases, from witches flying to sabbats, through the laya yogis like Yukteshwar to Agrippa's famous piece that everyone quotes. Plato, Cicero, Paul, Proclus, Dante, oddments like "The Vision of Adamnan". The matters of ghosts and mediums and visiting ancestors. The incidence of similar ideas all over the world. Clear data about who means what by what (etheric, spirit, soul, subtle body etc). A fair acknowledgement of the Theosophical and neo-Rosicrucian material's cultural legacy but not the present dominance of that viewpoint. I think I need to leave you awhile to digest all this, look into it, think about it. I can get on with referencing another page and preparing a few more paras about these key texts. You began by drawing a distinction between "out of body" theories and "brain" theories, and we end with St Paul saying "whether in or out I know not". The same conversation has been going on for 2500 years. It's our job to give a full account of that, and there are a dozen articles to do it in. Why not have a dozen GA's?? Redheylin (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead rewrite

Any one interested in drafting a lead rewrite compatible with WP:LEAD, please post them below. I personally feel it's not a brief summary of the current article (comparatively too long), contains excessive citations, and can generally be cleaned up. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: "in science"

Sensory/physical views are science's view. Religious view is that it's non-physical. Placing science as a fact over non-physical spiritual realms that aren't under the purview of science is a no no. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to find a reference to a reliable source that says that religion has a different view of what causes information about physical reality to occur. I have yet to see any reliable source which makes that religion/science distinction in that way. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You need a ref that says religion has a different view than science's sensory one? That's in the very next paragraph. Theosophists and Spiritualists believe it's a non-physical body. One view is in science, the other is outside science. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Religions say it is non-material, but not necessarily non-physical.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The religions that have doctrines on astral projection specifically say non-physical. They describe a physical plane and an astral plane. Also, they typically don't say non-material. They typically draw a line between physical and astral and say the latter is composed of a "finer matter", presumably having no conceptual reference point for a completely non-material existence. Further, they describe the sensory perception of the non-physical as a completely separate separate sensory system -- an astral sensory system -- only having correlates to the physical but completely distinct. None of those views are related to science, and science are not related to them. They're completely separate views, one scientific and one religious. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, so the point is that they wouldn't necessarily object to any of the statements in the first paragraph, they would just offer a counter (as in the second paragraph). This is why we don't need an "according to science" clause. It's totally unnecessary. Yeah, they're "separate views", but saying that it's "according to science" that people only use their senses with respect to their nervous system is unjustly narrow. No one actively disputes such a point. They only augment it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A person who holds those views would very much disagree with "Therefore instances of perceived out-of-body experiences must be in the mind of the experiencer, and there cannot be sensory perception separate from the physical body." Obviously if they believe in a wholly seperate system of sense, they would object to a statement that sensory perception is dependent on the body, and I doubt they'd agree that it's all in their minds.

And this:

There are currently no scientific research programs that take the astral projection interpretation seriously as there is no scientific evidence that astral projection represents anything more than anecdotal accounts of spirituality and meditation.

Is very much argumentative. For one thing, it's unsourced. When you take an unsourced statement that says "there are currently no... [insert anything]", the first response is "how would you know?" When you use unsourced words like "take it seriously", that's really begging for an argument because, again, "how do you know what people take seriously". An anthropologist may take religious accounts seriously if not factually. It's unverifiable in every sense of the word. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, upon reflection, you can keep both revisions, even the unsourced one. I'm just going to move on to another article. Between Redheylin and your reverts, I don't really have the time to particpate when the environment is ideologically loaded. From my first edit[3] to my last edit[4], the article improved enormously. I don't know why I get so much grief. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure? The hypothetical "person" might just say that there is something other than sensory perception going on. See the second paragraph of the section. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to alternative wording for the no scientific research programs, though you and I both know this is true I'm sure we can come up with a statement that will satisfy everyone. We need to indicate unequivocally that science rejects any suggestion that people can perceive the world through astral projection. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm so frustrated, honestly, is that I spend so much time sourcing stuff -- what's it been, four days at least? -- and then I get sidelined into Redheylin's unsourced arguments on the talk page and get reverted when I remove unsourced material from the mainspace. That's really what irritates me, why do I have to spend all this time researching when no one else bothers with it? Why am I questioned when I'm sourcing stuff? I have absolutely no problem with sourced material of any kind. I added a great deal of the skeptical/science's stance material in the article, and I added Redheylin's sourced points about the Neoplatonists and whatnot. That's what I mean by ideologically charged. There's a bunch of "we need to say this, we need to say that" but I'm doing all the leg work. If you guys start doing some of it, then I may come back to it. But right now I don't see any reason to. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neilparr - you are asking why you have to spend time? I stated repeatedly above that you were creating a POV fork. ScienceApologist is perfectly right that you have not given adequate authority for your distinction between "science" and "religion" - to do so, as I said many times, you need a comprehensive secondary source. I stated above that, otherwise, you would create a hermetically-sealed, self-referential piece that would be a justified target for skeptical attack. What you made of the piece on Servetus is a case in point - I suggest you go back and read again.

Your distinction, that all religions say the astral is immaterial and non-physical, is flawed, since the Gurdjieff system and Avicennan neoplatonism are just two that represent the astral as made of a subtle material, whereas Plato and Cicero give it dimension and location at least.

But ScienceApologist's edits are also highly questionable. You have not modified the reference you undertook to do, but have continued to make further unsourced and slanted edits. You write "We need to indicate unequivocally that science rejects any suggestion that people can perceive the world through astral projection." You know that a scientific consensus requires an authoritative source, so find one. And please find sources for your other remarks or they will be removed. Thanks. The accurate sourcing of material is our greatest responsibility. It is not, though, incumbent to source every remark here. Myth of Er and Dream of Scipio do have their very own articles. St Paul is hardly obscure. I listed more. You have a search engine. How can you co-operate if you do not look at the material? Redheylin (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, bugger off. The reason it takes so much time is that I source things I add to the article space rather than just alluding to things on the talk page. I repeatedly asked you for sourced material and all I got was your insistence that astral projection is the root of everything and quotes that never referred to actual projection. You and ScienceApologist can duke it out for awhile because he very much agrees with me that there's a distinction between science and religion, as do most philosophers who live in modern times. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 04:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Be civil. You refer to Demarcation problem a page that states; "The problem can be traced back to a time when science and religion had already become independent of one another to a great extent." On the basis of this you say that editors have to "Duke it out". However, the "astral" belongs to a world view in which this demarcation did not exist. It is your failure to research this world view - and it goes without saying that skeptics know nothing of the history of science - that is creating the conflict. I put forward sourced material and, instead of discussing it you grievously misquoted it. You took that upon yourself, it is very easy for me to put forward sourced material. Redheylin (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Simple. Astral projection article. Sourced material about astral projection. Anything else is synthesis. If a reliable source draws the synthesis, like the sourced material about "ka" in relation to astral projection, then it's not WP:SYNTH (original synthesis). Anything else is. I was very clear and civil with you about that. Going on and on at the talk page and not producing reliably sourced material that is verifiable for the actual article is disruptive editing. End of story. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We saw in the "William Harvey book" that the astral body is a neoplatonic concept, that it derived its name from Proclus, it was important in renaissance medicine, that it is a body of light acquired by the soul on its downward journey through the astral realms and is thus an intermediate between body and soul. We heard that it is a realm of angels and demons. We saw HPB refer to this as the "sidereal" realm, which is a synonym.

Note that the phrase "astral travel" links to this page, and that, given the above and that "travel" means "travel" in a normal sense, it is also reasonable to take formulations such as "journey through the sidereal realm", "through the intermediate realm", "ascent through the spheres" and so forth as synonymous. Redheylin (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MZZzKKLipQEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=proclus+%22astral+projection%22&source=web&ots=7__3GNwapQ&sig=FCixEteuqFHVjTlxup-3YoTXgBw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPP1,M1

shows a book called "astral projection plain and simple" which states that astral projection is projection of the astral body, that it is the same as OOBE, that this body is the "body of light", and cites Paul, Cicero, Proclus et al as exponents. Redheylin (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose or copy, please. I have no idea if you're just wanting to present notable beliefs or if you're trying to hang a coatrack around the topic if you don't present some actual written material you want to see in the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I notice you are not presenting your own material here prior to insertion. Redheylin (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying astral projection is connected to every belief system on the planet through categorically unrelated things either. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are making a lot of mistakes and ignoring a lot of data. This needs putting right. I had thought that, seeing your attachment to the piece, you might care to do it yourself. Redheylin (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. You can edit it too. After dealing with your comments on the talk page and ScienceApologist's reverts, I personally don't believe this will be a stable article for some time to come. But I am interested in having the article conform to Wikipedia's standards and policies. I've been an editor since 2005, and know my way around pretty well. I noticed that you started in April, not too long ago. I can help your edits conform to Wikipedia's standards, but I can't do that if you don't present anything that I can go over with you. You can edit the article, or the talk page. It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Go nuts. If I see anything that's questionable, I'll try to help you out by pointing out where it may not be Wikipedia compatible. I won't simply revert you (someone else might, but I won't). I'll discuss it with you and point to things I'm assuming in good faith that you may not be aware of. Sounds reasonable, don't it? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Taggings

Below is the statement that did not check out. The earliest known use is by Moina Mathers but cannot reference it as earliest so far.

The term "astral projection" was being used by Madame Blavatsky as early as 1877.

Note that it says that Madame Blavatsky used it as early as 1877. That's true, she used it in 1877 irregardless of who used it earlier. I have quite a few problems with what you've put in there already, but I'll wait until your done. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am done for now, but I want instances from all times and places. You ought not be dismissive that such a common sensation IS known in all times and places. No, there is no sign of the term "astral projection" in HPB - I checked. Please you check too. Redheylin (talk) 23:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We're here to talk about content and Wikipedia's policies, not my "dismissiveness". I have no doubt that OBEs are common, but that's not the least bit relevant. I have to go out for a bit, but when I get back I'll post the compatibility issues your content has with Wikipedia policies. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tonh.net/theosofie/hpb_cw_online/articles/v5/y1883_144.htm , though, attests the use of the phrase "projection of the double" in The Theosophist, Vol. V, No. 1(49), October, 1883, pp. 1-2. We are indeed here to talk about content, and that is why I mentioned I was hoping that you would desist from comments such as every belief system on the planet and all I got was your insistence that astral projection is the root of everything That seems to be dismissive. You have also stated that such references are "unsourced" - see http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MZZzKKLipQEC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=proclus+%22astral+projection%22&source=web&ots=7__3GNwapQ&sig=FCixEteuqFHVjTlxup-3YoTXgBw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result

for an example of a source - I could hope for a better - for the outline I have followed. Redheylin (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Firsts, firsts. Your right, it was "astral body" in 1877 rather than "projection". As I mentioned above, I hadn't gotten to the intro yet, and that includes the fact-checking part.

I should also say that it's not as bad as you made it out to be on the talk page, with massive restructuring and large brush strokes. So I'm happy about that, and retract my initial concern. The major problems with the material you added so far is that not all of it clear on sourcing, some of it seems to be synthesis, there's a few attribution issues (opinions presented as facts), and things along those lines. But, as I said, it's not that bad and it's something we can work with.

With your blessing, I'd like to go through and tag the parts I find problematic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tag away. There may be some semblance of synthesis, but the confusion surrounding the term necessitates some attempt at clarity, even though it may need to be constructed from more than one source. I can rework following Osborne more closely, and add in an overview of theological terminology by eg Purucker. Redheylin (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add <!-- Comments --> in addition to the tags to explain better why I'm tagging them. We can discuss, fix, and remove each tag in turn. Normally I don't like to mark up the article, but I want to explain why each part is problematic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There may be some minor wording changes needed, but I'm through tagging the bigger problems. The tags aren't meant to be mean or anything. They're problems with Wikipedia compatibility that need to be addressed for article quality. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Well this turned into something of a rant. Let me preface, therefore, by saying there is a lot of new information, much of which is very good. Let me also say I don't know who added what, so nothing here is personal. Obviously, it's had a lot of work and a lot of good information has been added.

Also, the quotes are mixed up. Sorry, but I'm just giving examples here.

I haven't been following this debate. However, I have some questions. The first one is why it is contradictory. For example, the section on research starts out "There are currently no scientific research programs that take the astral projection interpretation seriously as there is no scientific evidence that astral projection represents anything more than anecdotal accounts of spirituality and meditation. " Then it goes on to cite possible evidence. It also contradicts in that anecdotal evidence is indeed a type of scientific evidence. This is just a ruling on science itself.

The article conflates astral projection and OBEs, and misrepresents the evidence about their induction by quoting the Science article. It also deletes the responses to that article.

"There is little evidence for astral projection, and that which does exist rests mainly in subjective personal accounts of the experience."

Little evidence for Astral projection? Yeah, and there is little evidence the concept of blue. It's all anecdotal.

"Because of their subjective nature, however, there are many plausible explanations that can account for these experiences which do not rely on the existence of paranormal, supernatural, or psychic activity"

Indeed? Are there? I haven't heard any, but none are presented in the article that I see. Perhaps the plausible explanations should be presented, if indeed they exist. Why did "paranormal" and "psychic" suddenly show up there? What is the connection between being subjective and having plausible explanations?

"Some also state that "falling" dreams are brought about by projection."

Never heard that. I heard that it was brought about by the end of the experience of projection. But never mind.

"In this type of experience, it is said, there is no fantastical scenery and the experience seems more real."

The experience is not said to seem more real in the sources I've read, and probably the reverse. And there is also a bunch of "fantastical scenery," (which in the article as it now stands is a POV phrase, though it wasn't before when the article was more NPOV) for example ghosts or stuff that isn't really there.

Then you get to the section "Views of what it may be" and the POV really hits the fan, not to mention the OR. Looks like it cites textbooks or something which probably don't even mention the subject.

"Similar experiences have been, for example, induced with drugs or brain stimulation."

Nah. Not even remotely close with brain stimulation. The closest anyone ever got was ketamine, and that has nothing to do with evidence that it's "in the mind of the experiencer" any more than meditation or anything else means that it's all in your mind.

" and there cannot be sensory perception separate from the physical body"

OR if I ever heard it.

Then in that section, Monroe's views are misrepresented.

", the astrological spheres and other imaginal[13]"

This needs attribution, or explanation of some sort, I'm not sure what.

How come all the other statements are weaseled to the teeth, and this is not?

"The astral and etheric bodies are part of a complex system of "the subtle anatomy of man" which involves several bodies of increasing density."

If you're going to conflate astral projection with OBE, then you have to include in the research all the veridical OBEs. If you'd just stick to astral, you could do away with the research section altogether. Then you could just write about this as beliefs, and also take out all the weaseling.

Well, I think I am in the position of knowing too much of the subject. Not that I know much, but I know enough that I'm really sympathetic with experts who come to Wikipedia and see their fields impoverished and the presentation of information completely botched because editors don't have a wide enough perspective.

However, I'm not enough of an expert to really straighten it out. I just seriously question whether for the general reader this article is getting better. If I may offer one suggestion, drop science completely from it.

From the look of the hidden comments, it has a lot more problems than even I bothered with, as I'm mainly interested in the main themes and POV. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

::"There are currently no scientific research programs that take the astral projection interpretation seriously as there is no scientific evidence that astral projection represents anything more than anecdotal accounts of spirituality and meditation. "

"Similar experiences have been, for example, induced with drugs or brain stimulation."

there are many plausible explanations

" and there cannot be sensory perception separate from the physical body"

We are giving Science Apologist a little time to source this lot and develop a coherent theory. Conflation with OOBE - present in many secondary sources, see above.

"The astral and etheric bodies are part of a complex system of "the subtle anatomy of man" which involves several bodies of increasing density."

I have just inserted this to replace an account of this theory in Hinduism. It is not at all weasel, just unsourced but easy to source. You ask if the article is getting better - well, as you say, there's a lot of new information. Matter of fact, the article is based on a "superseded" philosophy of science. I do not think it is "botched" - it could be better and hopefully will be.

Redheylin (talk) 04:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes ok. If it's conflated with OOBE in the sources, and we really have to have it, then there is indeed a lot of work to be done on the research section and other science section. One could start by talking about the main areas, like NDE research, but significant changes need to be made. The Lancet article would probably come into play- and I think there is an ongoing study, isn't there?

I looked over the article for pro-astral projection POV, and couldn't find any. Thought it would be NPOV of me to complain about some of that also, but oh well.

I didn't say the passage above was weaseled, I said it wasn't- but everything else is, why leave that one out 0= Anyway, I hope that the tone of the article can also be made a little more NPOV.

In spite of my complaints, it looks like some parts of the article are holding up better than one would think. The Practices section is good. The article is not bad, just reads funny because of all the weaseling, and has also the problems stated. Didn't mean to get anyone's back up. But once you get through the lead, it's hard to be in a good mood. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying this because I'm guilty of it too, but don't bite the newbies. : ) Redheylin's a newer editor who seems to be taking constructive criticism well. I bit his head off earlier before realizing he's new (sorry about that). A perfect article isn't as important as better contributors. Just tag the stuff you have a problem with, explain the problem, and let Redheylin try his hand at addressing it. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by pro-astral projection? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The only things you can say that are "pro": 1) empirical: the odd suggestion that someone has actually accessed some perception in an unknown way - and there are always alternative explanations for THAT - 2) Argument to authority: the discussion of the phenomenon by people of note, like Cicero and St Paul. 3) Hypothetical constructs that might make the thing look sensible.

I think some of this kind of material might profitably be inserted, and duplicated material might be removed to make room. I am worried about POV-forking with the OOBE page, so there needs to be an overview if "non-astral" explanations are to be referred there and removed from here. I think there is sufficient material to justify the separate article. You have St Paul saying "whether in the body or out of the body I know not", you have people like Orpheus, Enoch, Aeneas and Dante apparently visiting the astral planes IN the body.

When it comes to the many-body thesis, I now have a decent source, but I have remembered that similar accounts, as kosha and subtle body, are also woefully unreferenced. I am prospecting for better academic secondary sources and before long will hopefully raise the game across the board. These endless chunks of primary-source "ancient wisdom" - how can they be left for years while people fight endlessly over a few selected "famous-controversial" pages? As for the "etheric-astral" confusion, this too needs nailing. No point neal tagging me saying it when there's a whole section sitting below that's even worse. This confusion is a very good reason to contextualise the Theosophical material properly with reference to classical and Hindu thought.

Whatever is left of the "research" section should doubtless be rewritten for better style when the content has been determined and balanced. Redheylin (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

But some of these skeptical sources are a joke - they are SO slack. I was just reading an account that stressed cerebral hypoxia. Gets to the end, says, of course, some people have ND-OOBE when their brain is NOT dying - ah well it must be the trauma! Yeah, right - the same effect from two separate causes, just because I say so! Dear oh dear. Redheylin (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol Nealparr, I was under the impression you were doing most of the editing, and thus was worried about biting your head off. I really haven't been keeping track. I have a generally positive impression of Redheylin, as I said above.

What I meant by "pro" was "pro-the-objective-reality-of-astral-projection-without-enough-weasels-or-attribution". Can't see much, if anything.

Is there any reason to believe Dante was not writing fiction of the results of visions, rather than astral projection?

FWIW, I think the distinction between astral and etheric is that astral is supposed to be completely seperate from the earth or physical universe, in a way similar to how the moon is seperate from the earth- connected, but not very closely.

Hypoxia? lol. I can find sources dealing with that, if you want them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did some cleanup/rearranging of material that was already there, added a very small amount of material, and that's about it. While doing that, some other folks seemed to really want to get in there and edit, so I stepped back from active editing. I'm not claiming any of the current copy because it's changed quite a bit from the version I had. I feel you guys can work it out. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh - what are you like? I wanted you to step back and discuss! Now you're feeling discouraged. There's no need, I've had my fun. All I am interested in is injecting a bit of history. There are so many issues - articles like Body of light and linga sarira that are personal essays by a Theosophist from the primary sources. It's hard even to find them. Some of them seem really duplicative. And then just now I thought I'd try "visitation" - I was thinking about visible ethers - and it redirects to "necromancy"! What I was saying to you, nealparr, is that I would not be averse to a plan of action and division of labour. I do know the classical and mediaeval sources quite well. Redheylin (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in participating, sorry. I don't actually agree with a lot of what your suggesting. Again, Wikipedia is about weighting views by prominence. Even Dictionary.com has the notable use as within Theosophy (saw that while formatting the ref)[5] and like I said before (and sourced), a lot of the various ideas about astral planes, bodies, and projection stem from Theosophical teachings regardless of who coined them or wrote about them first -- Theosophy popularized it. It's in every source I find except the New Age primary sources that want it to be about something ancient. The other uses like classical and medieval, notable sure, but not the primary use. Astral planes, bodies, and projection are notable today because of Theosophy and the writers they influenced, not the writers who influenced them. It's just not as notable, in my opinion, that they based their very popular idea on something that happened to also be Neoplatonic writings way back when. Like I said, the article's not that bad. You didn't mess it up or anything. I'm just not really interested in repeating my objections or working on it further. I tagged the glaring ones I had a problem with. You addressed them constructively. I appreciate that. This has nothing to do with you. I just don't personally have the time to invest in it further. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand the cultural view and the piece could very well do with a review of post-Theo and new age literature, which I wish you would consider taking on. It must be discouraging, since you were going for "good page". Of course I do not want to downplay the importance of the TS, but having nothing but is a poor do. By referring to the sources they were drawing on, they become secondary sources, and the subjects get added historical value and authority, and can draw upon a far more integrated and intelligent literature than the crystals and sun-signs crowd can provide. People need to be able to assess this welter of mysticism. Things like the astral-etheric confusion and the classical-Indian parallels can be dealt with more effectively. This is what I want to contribute - I am basically working on the history of medicine. You could just make sure I do not ignore the 20C too much in my quest? And, if you find another page you want to raise to the heights and you get tired of "all the legwork", why not drop me a note? Redheylin (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Out-of-body experiences

Main articles: Out-of-body experiences and Near death experiences

I am taking this piece out since it is tagged - let's cut it down to basics and refer to other articles for detail? Discuss!

There are currently no scientific research programs that take the astral projection interpretation seriously as there is no scientific evidence that astral projection represents anything more than anecdotal accounts of spirituality and meditation. Attempts to collect and classify accounts of these experiences date to the early 1920s. While some research before the 1980s sought to objectively validate out-of-body experiences, most treat reports as anecdotal accounts of spirituality and meditation. References to astral projection have appeared in parapsychology and transpersonal psychology, and have overlapped with other subjects essentially consciousness or death related. The term out-of-body experience (OBE) is often used interchangeably with astral projection, although the latter term is more anitiquated (OBE was coined in 1960 by Charles Tart primarily as a replacement for older terms such as astral projection).

Robert Crookall, a geologist interested in validating religious concepts of the soul and an afterlife, published hundreds of accounts of astral projection reported by people from all walks of life in several books through the 1960s and 1970s. He divided these into naturally-occurring out-of-the-body experiences (people who nearly died, people who were very ill, people who were exhausted, etc, and people who were quite well) and enforced OBEs, from anaesthesia, suffocation, accidents and hypnosis.

Robert Monroe, founder of the Monroe Institute, likewise published several accounts of his personal experiences and beliefs in astral projection in books like Far Journeys. Monroe said he developed a method for inducing the experience which he called "Hemi-Sync"

Charles Tart, a parapsychologist, conducted laboratory experiments to determine if these experiences have objective validity. For example, in a 1967 study, a subject was asked to discern a five digit number written down and placed face up in an adjoining room. Tart concluded that the subject was unable to read the number, but did provide some details of the activities of the technician monitoring the experiment. Tart summarizes, "Thus, there is some indication that ESP may have been involved with respect to the technician's activities, but it is not at all conclusive." Various other experiments along these lines were similarly conducted. Laboratory experiments like these which attempted to validate astral projection experiences, however, met with little acceptance, even within the psychical research community where they were conducted. Many psychical researchers regarded OBEs as simply a form of traveling clairvoyance and criticized the experimental methodology for failing to distinguish between the two.

While interest in paranormal aspects of out-of-body experiences has largely been relegated to non-academic fringe communities, a 2007 neurological experiment was conducted to examine what may lead subjects to feel they have experienced a mind-body separation. Experiments along these lines support the conclusion that the experience is an illusory product of sensory perception, rather than anything extra-sensory.

Robert Monroe, an altered states of consciousness researcher who has written extensively on astral projection and OBEs, feels astral projection is a kind of "phasing" where no movement outside of the body occurs. Monroe believed that the "astral" and the "physical" worlds are points on the spectrum of consciousness, and that experiencers simply "phase" into another area of consciousness and the locales it contains.

Redheylin (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Great- if even needed, it needs adjustment to become NPOV. It's also probablly wrong- I think there are ongoing studies. I know it gets Monroe wrong. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 17:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To say O.O.B. experiences are not taken seriously is disingenuous to the subject. Doctors in Trauma Rooms have, after reviving 'dead' patients (no Brain wave recording, heart beats etc), been surprised to hear those patients describe activities in the Trauma Room while they were 'Dead'. Those Doctors take the subject seriously.Johnwrd (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A problem with Astral Projection is it's similarity to 'Lucid Dreaming'. Experiments are in progress now in a New York Hospital were a Text and a picture are placed in the Trauma Room in such a place where only some one who is genuinely 'Out of Body' can see. It is unlikely the folks in New York will answer the Mystery of O.O.B.E.s once and for all, but they may well add to our understanding of the experience.94.196.169.175 (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

A heartfelt apology...

I should hugely apologize for my extreme idiocy and absent-minded rudeness; I had signed up an account here, and reading through (well, more like skimming through) barely half of all that I should have read before I took any action,... I took action. I had previously been under the impression that each of these article pages were the work of a vast many, and had no idea they were works of individual people. Assuming this, like a moron, I had posted up an external link on your very nicely done page (and some others for which I should apologize to their respective creators for) without asking. Someone named Consumed Crustacean had taken the links down, and explained things to me in polite detail, that I should come to you first and discuss the addition of such links, here, on a talk page, as is apparently explained in the parts of the orientative reading, that I neglected to fully read through when I first opened my account here. Had I done so in the first place, my rude mistake could have been avoided. (There's still much for me to read, I'm ashamed to say... still reading it now.)

I feel like a complete @$$ and I'm really very sorry.

As it turns out, according to the discussion on the WikiProject Occult discussion page, the article I wrote detailing a technique to be able to see the aura with the unaided eye was not acceptable for use here due to the article's whereabouts (anyone can write about anything there without verifiability), the fact that every thousand viewers on that page makes writers earn a few pennies (unrealized fully by me until recently), and that it's "original research".

Once more, my deeply sincere apologies. It was never my intention to overstep my bounds and scribble over anyone's art/hard work.

I'm very sorry.

Coeur-Senechal (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Astral travelling is only a mind experience

An astral travelling is only a mind experience. A person sees in his mind a film. A person who this film sees, is in a situation between sleep and wakefulness. The person in this situation believes that it is not a dream but it is a reality. Any drugs help that the person comes into this situation, namely half wakefulness-half sleep. The another ways for this situation are hypnose, meditation, yoga etc. The brain control needs firstly that the mind is empty and any thoughts are not so much complex. Then it starts the astral travel, if the mind of person is arranged. Comparison: The red pill and travel in the Matrix film:

• Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.... Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself. This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.... Remember, all I'm offering is the truth, nothing more.... Follow me.... Apoc, are we online?
• Apoc: Almost.
• Morpheus: Time is always against us. Please, take a seat there.
• Neo: You did all this?
• Trinity: Uh-huh.
• Morpheus: The pill you took is part of a trace program. It's designed to disrupt your input/output carrier signal so we can pinpoint your location.
• Neo: What does that mean?
• Cypher: It means buckle your seat belt, Dorothy, because Kansas is going bye-bye.
• Neo: Did you...
• Morpheus: Have you ever had a dream, Neo, that you were so sure was real. What if you were unable to wake from that dream. How would you know the difference between the dream world and the real world?
• Neo: This can't be...
• Morpheus: Be what? Be real?

--81.213.142.44 (talk) 18:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

When I first started experiencing astral projections (pre-adulthood), I wanted to find out whether it was just a really intense dream state, or actually a sensory state with objective ramifications. So what I did was to take a (non-digital, stopped) clock, and behind my back set it to a random time (using the button in the back of the clock). Then, without looking, I placed it in a (half open) closet, making sure not to look at it. The experiment, therefore, was to show whether I'd be able to tell the time randomly set with the clock (I may as well had used dice, or whatever). The result was that, in the obe mode I saw the stopped clock and everything, but it displayed a time other than what I later learned it was, leading me to conclude that it is, in fact, a dream state rather than a one with objective abilities. (at least it was for me, at that time) El_C 12:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A highest quality film in dream

An astral travel experience seems so real that it is just like a highest quality three dimensional film. Man can say that it is like a theater in dream and better than watching a film in wakefulness. Comparison:

Dream Theater - Forsaken

Forsaken

For a while i thought i fell asleep

Lying motionless inside a dream

Then rising suddenly

I felt a chilling breath upon me

She softly whispered in my ear

(Forsaken)

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4m8bf_dream-theater-forsaken_music --81.214.110.130 (talk) 09:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nymph

Some angels wanted sexual relations with beautiful women. They came down to earth and made for themselves fleshly bodies like those of humans. At the present day they disturb still some of women. And sometimes make for themselves bodies like women. So they will to make sex with some of men.

Genesis 6:2: The sons of the true God began to notice the daughters of men, that they were good-looking; and they went taking wives for themselves, namely, all whom they chose.

Jude 6,7: And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home- these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1120469514869&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Cyber_Counselor/CyberCounselingE/CyberCounselingE

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Agartha&oldid=228132433#Agartha_-_Tartarus_-_.22pitch_black_caverns_of_underworld.22_-_a_status_symbol_of_sinned_angels --81.214.110.130 (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Veridical information

An editor removed content re. the search for "veridical" OOB perception on the grounds that the editor does not understand the word. The word is commonly used in studies, including those cited here. The editor's ignorance of the material being edited is compromising the quality of the article and, together with the removal of accurate accounts of such studies and persistent replacement with OR backed with faulty citations, is perilously close to vandalism. The editor is recommended to submit suggestions for changes to the talk page. Redheylin (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence was removed:

Although there have been a limited number of investigations directly examining the validity of the astral projection hypothesis and the perception during it, more typically reports of such experiences are problematically subjective and anecdotal, and the more quantitative of such studies have not reliably detected anything to support the astral hypothesis.

This is fully supported by the cited references, especially the Blackmore reference. The following was also removed:

Psychological studies have suggested possible neurological mechanisms for out-of-body experiences, without appeal to supernatural explanations.

which, again, is a gloss of two studies on the subject. Instead this has now been replaced by a weirdly detailed account of one of the two studies cited here. It is true that the term "veridical" is used in some of the studies that were cited in the lead, but neither of the two studies being discussed used the term. I had attempted to settle on a more neutral wording of the last clause in the sentence that would satisfy all concerned. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding this matter. I will recuse myself from further discussion here for a period of one week, or until the matter is resolved. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Verbal beat me to the punch. Lede looks good right now.Simonm223 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I've reinserted the Ring/Lawrence reference that was removed on grounds of being worthless hearsay. In reality, it's a scholastic peer-reviewed paper that's based purely on witness-corroborated reports. Ring's earlier work is important enough to be discussed in the older Blackmore article that Sławomir Biały replaced it with, so the worthlessness of this more directly relevant reference appears to be solely based on personal opinion. K2709 (talk) 22:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for a citation from the source to back the following statement;

"more quantitative of such studies have not reliably detected anything to support the astral hypothesis.[5]"

and also for an explanation of why the full analysis of the Blanke paper has been destroyed. In my view this, plus the removal of the normal language of papers on this subject (veridical, paranormal) appears to be a "dumbing down" to a NNPOV-OS. As the editor puts it, "detail" is "weird" and he prefers a "more neutral" language than scientific studies can provide - his own language, untainted by the "weird" terminology of the people he misquotes. Redheylin (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV isn't involved with my comment, but you need to ensure that the article is written for laymen, not experts. A "weird" term like veridical should be avoided. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be somewhat twisting Sławomir Biały's comments. He did not say that detail is weird and he certainly never said that the word veridical is weird. He said that the account of one paper was "weirdly detailed", presumably meaning that it was strange and apparently tangental to go into specific detail about one particular paper at that point. "Veridical" is a term often used by Susan Blackmore, that's true, but it is an unusual word and I agree with others that its inclusion, certainly at this point, does not help comprehension. Paul B (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Must agree that comprehension trumps many other considerations. The encyclopedia should be useful to laymen as well as scholars. I'd consider the use of "veridical" if the word was hyperlinked to a definition or contextual detail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Irbis - terms that are important enough in the nomenclature of cited scientific studies as to be used in the titles need to be EXPLAINED, not cut with the comment "whatever that means". The citation has been used, it is there to be seen and read, and it seems reasonable to ensure that the "layman" can figure out what the paper is going to be about. You would not venture, I think, to delete the word "quark" from an article on subatomic particles on similar grounds and that is why I am saying, as long as universities support study of "Astral Projection" is as long as this article must continue to map their findings and explain their terminology. Not to do so is leading to OS, NPOV, edit war and vandalism, because the object of the recent edits was to obscure and dumb down the "weird detail" of the current state of knowledge. At present you are arguing in favour of this, since you apparently agree that detail be avoided, so that the sources cannot be understood, so everything must be cut out except false citations and OS. Right, one more time:

I am looking for a citation from the source to back the following statement;

"more quantitative of such studies have not reliably detected anything to support the astral hypothesis.[5]"

Either take care of this or allow me to revert to a version backed by this source. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass removal of wiki-links by Irbisgreif

Do people like this? I find this minimal linking quite a barrier to navigation. How obvious is it now that eg. Sylvan Muldoon has an wiki article about him? K2709 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well just recently I have seen a lot removed - text, pics, links, citations - I've seen worthwhile, non-controversial, wiki style edits reverted - but no constructive contributions at all. I cannot get even one of them to check citations and it looks like none of them has read the cited papers. They must all be relying on their points of view, for all the signs I can see. I'd call this destructive editing. Redheylin (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Taoism

Re: this paragraph:

Taoist projection practice similarly involves development of an energy body. Energy drawn into the lower dantian is condensed and refined through chi kung circulatory techniques before being shot upwards along the thrusting meridian to exit through the crown to a point above the head. After this, consolidation of the second body's consciousness may be furthered by applying exercises including the small circulation of chi within the second body itself.

This wasn't intended to be an edit war, I merely pressed undo as part of the act of removing the one remaining sentence of chia-specific material that the paragraph deliberately no longer depends upon. This is why it shows up as a warring-style repeat revert rather than civilised diff-able edit. Please explain why this paragraph referencing a run-of-the-mill Dorling Kindersley overview book is considered so dubious. K2709 (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed the Mantak Chia ref; as he is categorically not a reliable source for orthodox taoism that satisfies me. I can't comment on Paul Brecher as I've never heard of him so I'm satisfied. But I am just one guy. It would be useful to point out that Taoism is not always homogeneous.Simonm223 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Chia is simply quoting from the Wilhelm-Jung "Secret of the Golden Flower" and similar books. The account is, though too complex and recondite, essentially correct. I moved it up the list to "beliefs" because it is indistinguishable from accounts from other parts of the world. It seems to me that the section should be divided into regional subheads but, before I could, you fellows got back to the vandalism and edit war again. Why is this? I can provide decent citations for what Chia says though. Redheylin (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Lower astral entity

Critics of astral projection have sometimes claimed that it can lead to the projection of a lower astral entity onto the body. It's unclear what exactly that means, but it would be a good idea if we had a stub on the subject. [6] ADM (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually critics of astral projection mostly just say it's a bunch of hokum. No stub necessary; if Reliable Sources exist for this than they could go in the main article.Simonm223 (talk) 03:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say that this is a fear rather than a criticism, based on an idea of the physical body being 'left empty'. Robert Bruce's exhaustingly detailed analyses of projection phenomenology lead him to conclude that both the physical and non-physical bodies are simultaneously fully occupied during projection, which would make this a non-issue. The general consensus of other authors I'm aware of seems to be that they never had this problem, that you project unconsciously every night anyway, and/or that protection should be used if deemed necessary. Bruce Moen says this sort of thing is related to incidental drug or alcohol use, not projection itself. K2709 (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Be highly careful of inclusion of in-universe phrasing when discussing a phenomenon which has not been conclusively verified as existing. Also be careful that sources used meet WP:RS criteria, paying particular attention to WP:FRINGE. Non-referenced material will most likely be deleted in short order.Simonm223 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

SimonM: the essay adequately shows that this "OOBE" idea is widespread all over the world. It is extremely common even among people with "ordinary" views - just this week an example was recounted to me (and I do not seek them out believe me) concerning someone's mother and an operation that went wrong. It is part of the human psyche, somehow, that this sensation is common and extremely subjectively convincing. At present researchers are trying to determine what exactly the experience is - there is an OOBE page where the science of the matter is discussed - and whether veridical reports can be generated: a few studies have given enough grounds for work to continue. However weird that may seem to you, your own obvious beliefs on this matter are as much POV as those of the "esoteric" fraternity. The OOBE page adequately covers this research, while the present page "Astral Projection", by its title and the fact that it too exists and does not redirect, is essentially concerned with a core worldwide religious belief comparable to the existence of spirits or survival of the soul. It is not, therefore, a "fringe science" page, though it should link clearly to the related pages, and the debate pesented ought to be essentially metaphysical. If you do not agree, the thing to do is to seek merger of the two pages - NOT to attempt to force both pages to deal with the same issues anyhow or the present page to deal with matters for which it is not intended. If an analogy will help; "God" does not appear in the page Big Bang, and "Big Bang" does not appear in the page God. This seems to me appropriate since it happens that, at the present time, non-compatible linguistic analyses are offered in human intellectual discourse between which it is not appropriate for mere wiki-editors to choose. Yet, however they are dressed up, I am seeing a lot of vandalising and edit-warring from folks who, like yourself, seem personally offended in their personal beliefs by these common beliefs. Redheylin (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some random person's webpage is not a reliable source any more than some random person's blog would be.Simonm223 (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You can say so - if it seems to you that sources are poor then there is this page and there are the relevant tags, and I shall see what I can do. If you remove information without consultation, knowing that there are active editors to work on the page, then I am going to assume you are uncivilly bent on destablising and damaging the page because of your personal NNPOV, and not seriously concerned with its improvement - because you yourself could check for better references if you chose. Redheylin (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits are good-faith. The source provided is not a Reliable Source plain and simple. Assume what you will.Simonm223 (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You are refusing to discuss your edits and to attempt to reach consensus? I cannot find any proposal or discussion and I cannot find any improvements to balance or citations. Redheylin (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

{Undent} My edits have been to delete unreferenced WP:SYNTH statements and to remove statements by Mantak Chia who is not a mainstream Taoist author but rather a pop-mysticism author who has frequently misused the language of Taoism in his work. If Chia is the only source for those statements they may not be valid for Wikipedia. If a reliable source can be found I won't block them.Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Simon - the above is a perfectly reasonable point of view to express when proposing changes here. I suggest in future you do so - I have already asked you to, and to refuse to seek consensus is uncivil, which erodes your right to the assumption of good faith. Redheylin (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)