Rather than have this article be a mockery of the idea that there are ways to interpret lucid dreaming besides just "disconnected brain receiving random static", it would be great if a balanced presentation of the meaningful concepts and abstractions were given. It's clear that this article is going to have "adherents believe..." and "some who claim to be able to astral project say..." disclaimers, but even still Astral Projection should be honed down to something better than a catchphrase for "mind over matter". Is Astral Projection completely distinct from Remote Viewing, or does it include Remote Viewing as a subfield? I know the silver cord is fairly definitive (though I lucid dream quite frequently and have never seen such a thing), is there anything else? Metaeducation 29 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)
I am sorry for editing yours to poke this in, but as I don't know how to create my own post I have little choice. Having researched projection for some time now, I must inform and clear away some things. Astral Projection is NOT a form of lucid dreaming. It is more easily attained through this but it is possible and commonplace to project consciously. In short the body falls asleep (much as a foot or leg would) whilst the mind does not. The reason that it may be believed to only be attained in sleep and thus lucid dreaming is probably that at the second conscious projection is acheived, the body does indeed enter sleep mode and the brain likewise becomes just as inactive as an average sleeper would. It is the mind that is active, not the consciousness, transfered into one of the seven subtle bodies or layers of Aura, the astral body, which can walk around in the physical plane or jump to the astral. Astral projection really does not have much of anything to do with "mind over matter..." it is more accurately described as the mind going out for a walk. And since the mind is unlimited, so is it's neihborhood. Remote viewing IS completely distinct from astral projection in that you walk around outside of your body, whereas remote viewing is just seeing something that will happen, only lightly dipping the astral plane. It's the difference between seeing through a webcam with a blurring screen over the lens and actually being in the room and walking around unhindered. I hope this helped. And to your last question about the silver cord, since astral projection is completely separate from lucid dreaming, you will never see a silver cord as it is linked to your body, and thus only visible when your astral shell is outside of it. See my addition to :Astral Projection and the Bible: now :Astral Projection, the Bible, and the Silver Cord:. Sachiel 18 July 2005 9:37 GMT
actually there is no such thing as 7 auric layers and you do not actually leave the body. You actually do what is called "phasing". You change your focus of counciousness to a higher level of reality, The auric layers are from the traditional, mystic ways of astral projection and are all just assumptions. If you believe there are only 7 astral planes than that is all you will get!
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.
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)
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 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.
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)
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!!!
“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).
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.
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)
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:
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 (: ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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
The last sentence of the first part states:
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)
"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)
'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)
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. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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. | ” |
The following needs citation badly. I hope someone can source it, and then we can put it back in:
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.
––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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. ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
Who came up with Astral Projection? The Ancient Egyptians? Somebody in the 1900s? Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
And what was not NPOV about this section [4] that it should be changed radically and then the changes edit warred in? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
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. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
(Just hang on, ScienceApologist, we are debating whether the epistemology is theosophical.) Redheylin ( talk) 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
Here's a good source for how New Age movements try to divorce themselves from Theosophy, although their concepts are completely theosophically inspired:
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)
(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)
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
Rather than have this article be a mockery of the idea that there are ways to interpret lucid dreaming besides just "disconnected brain receiving random static", it would be great if a balanced presentation of the meaningful concepts and abstractions were given. It's clear that this article is going to have "adherents believe..." and "some who claim to be able to astral project say..." disclaimers, but even still Astral Projection should be honed down to something better than a catchphrase for "mind over matter". Is Astral Projection completely distinct from Remote Viewing, or does it include Remote Viewing as a subfield? I know the silver cord is fairly definitive (though I lucid dream quite frequently and have never seen such a thing), is there anything else? Metaeducation 29 June 2005 11:35 (UTC)
I am sorry for editing yours to poke this in, but as I don't know how to create my own post I have little choice. Having researched projection for some time now, I must inform and clear away some things. Astral Projection is NOT a form of lucid dreaming. It is more easily attained through this but it is possible and commonplace to project consciously. In short the body falls asleep (much as a foot or leg would) whilst the mind does not. The reason that it may be believed to only be attained in sleep and thus lucid dreaming is probably that at the second conscious projection is acheived, the body does indeed enter sleep mode and the brain likewise becomes just as inactive as an average sleeper would. It is the mind that is active, not the consciousness, transfered into one of the seven subtle bodies or layers of Aura, the astral body, which can walk around in the physical plane or jump to the astral. Astral projection really does not have much of anything to do with "mind over matter..." it is more accurately described as the mind going out for a walk. And since the mind is unlimited, so is it's neihborhood. Remote viewing IS completely distinct from astral projection in that you walk around outside of your body, whereas remote viewing is just seeing something that will happen, only lightly dipping the astral plane. It's the difference between seeing through a webcam with a blurring screen over the lens and actually being in the room and walking around unhindered. I hope this helped. And to your last question about the silver cord, since astral projection is completely separate from lucid dreaming, you will never see a silver cord as it is linked to your body, and thus only visible when your astral shell is outside of it. See my addition to :Astral Projection and the Bible: now :Astral Projection, the Bible, and the Silver Cord:. Sachiel 18 July 2005 9:37 GMT
actually there is no such thing as 7 auric layers and you do not actually leave the body. You actually do what is called "phasing". You change your focus of counciousness to a higher level of reality, The auric layers are from the traditional, mystic ways of astral projection and are all just assumptions. If you believe there are only 7 astral planes than that is all you will get!
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.
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)
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 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.
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)
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!!!
“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).
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.
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)
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:
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 (: ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
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
The last sentence of the first part states:
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)
"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)
'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)
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. —— Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
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.
––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
“ | 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. | ” |
The following needs citation badly. I hope someone can source it, and then we can put it back in:
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.
––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
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. ––– Martinphi ( Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
'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)
Who came up with Astral Projection? The Ancient Egyptians? Somebody in the 1900s? Phlegm Rooster ( talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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))
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)
And what was not NPOV about this section [4] that it should be changed radically and then the changes edit warred in? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
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. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
(Just hang on, ScienceApologist, we are debating whether the epistemology is theosophical.) Redheylin ( talk) 01:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
Here's a good source for how New Age movements try to divorce themselves from Theosophy, although their concepts are completely theosophically inspired:
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)
(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)
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)
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)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)