![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Does anybody really believe this? There is really no need to invoke something like an 'astral world' (meaning non-physical, I guess) to harbour feelings/emotions, as suggested in the article, as they are just physical brain functions... Srd2005 20:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The question "Does anybody really believe this?" is fashioned of ignorance. If you paid me $10 a believer, I could find you 1000 in Tucson, Arizona alone in the next seven days, all with signed affidavits of belief. Well, maybe 20 days. My guess is that I could ask, say, 50 people in you the question-asker's circle and at least five of them "really believe this."
This is a pretty amateurish rendering of an astral plane article. Example: The book that tells of one man advancing to a planet called Hiranyaloka does not, in the version I read, claim that any or most earthlings ready to advance "beyond" Earth will necessarily go to Hiranyaloka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.210.117 ( talk) 21:49, February 10, 2017 (UTC)
I would consider Lucid Dreaming to be an induced state of conciousness rather than a part of the Astral Plane? Surley it is what differenciates it from Astral Projection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.160.115 ( talk) 21:16, May 26, 2006 (UTC)
The existence of the Astral plane is often mentioned by the Hindu guru, Paramahansa Yogananda. In his Autobiography of a Yogi, this is mentioned quite comprehensively. Should this piece of information be included more into this article? I think a mere summary of this is not enough. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 18:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Links removed, at least for the time being:
Reason: Copied from Talk:Astral_projection#External_links
I would add that sites making commercial publicity (e.g courses, seminars, free or paid) should not be accepted at this article. From my point of view, this article (and other related articles) - which tries to bring the most accurate data and perspectives on themes not common and also not easily understood in current-day society - should include only selected external links to articles, studies, research and forums who may bring some indepth value to the present article; otherwise, it may misguide users leading them into no end illusions and more or less serious "disappointments" (being the less harmful ones 'money exploitation' and 'power submission to individual(s) or organization(s)'). Regards, -- 88.214.143.49 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This posted comments from the above topics, cannot mislead or create any illusions. Although, there may not be a scientific proof of the beliefs. Many here in the United States have the right to the Constitutional Rights Amendment 1. Freedom of Expression and Religion and Belief. Many people in other international countries have the same rights as well. Therefore, anyone is entitled to there opinion and belief. Many have the right to seek their own spiritual truth. One has no right to say others can't believe in what has been said in these articles. So, it cannot mislead nor will it misguide, or create any illusions whatsoever. So, these people have the right to their own individual belief. It is like saying I can control you for the rest of your life and force you to do things against your own free will. It is called "World View." "My Point of View" or "I see things in my own eyes". To follow another persons beliefs is why the world is very dysfunctional in society today. I intend to offend noone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.146.146.59 ( talk) 21:21, June 11, 2007 (UTC)
I removed the following claim:
In whose conception? This claim needs a reference, if it's a notable belief. -- Beland ( talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
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) 09:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the most trivial trivia page I've ever seen on wikipedia - none of these factoids are even related to the astral plane. Someone remove it, or at least flag it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.217.120 ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I have redirected this article and merged the reliable material into the main Plane (esotericism) article. GreenUniverse ( talk) 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I find the opening lines' emphasis on the belief that the astral plane is limited to some kind of brief layer a spirit crosses when coming to or leaving Earth to be incomplete and have added Yogananda and Bailey references to try to round it out. I may go looking for other examples (writings of Annie Kagan, Theosophy, Helen Greaves, Brigham Young and others come to mind) of how, at least in the last 150 years, the grand majority of believers in Spiritualist, other New Age and Hindu congregations see the astral plane as a vast quasi-universe of nonphysical reality. Perhaps these believers imagine higher nonphysical layers that Are Not the astral, such as the "causal" world. Yet when I read the "realms that are crossed" intro, I get the idea the astral is like the border crossing from Arizona into Mexico. I think most 21st-century astral believing types would see the astral more like the whole country of Mexico, nearly endless, many-faceted. Greaves speaks of "further initiation in the Spheres," which means the astral realm, as so involved and highly extending as to be beyond human grasp. I don't know that the Urantia Book uses the term "astral," possibly not. But it describes in more than a 1000 pages of detail a nonphysical universe that sounds like the astral plane to me. Moabalan ( talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC) − Earlier I labelled the astral plane as I found it on Feb 10, 2017 as woefully incomplete. If the current article mostly treats belief in a near-Earth transition layer, I'd go further and call it misleading. I invite your reactions to be expressed here or in article editing. Thanks, Alan of Tucson Moabalan ( talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Moabalan ( talk) 19:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I think the show
Legion (approaching 2nd season) could use a mention. It's a critically-acclaimed, extremely creative/intelligent rendition of the Marvel character
Legion but the show is a little bit its own world too. It can be absolutely baffling or dizzying, and the astral plane is a core element. I'm probably too lazy to do this myself but I'd figure I'd at least start a topic on it. An issue, though, if a note is made, should it go under the "Marvel Universe" section or "Television"?
Squish7 (
talk)
23:54, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Please include [[User:Squish7]]
in replies to ping me.
@ Ssgranz: IPC content needs to demonstrate the impact of the topic. This is not shown merely by the name-dropping or inclusion of the topic, but rather by demonstration that reliable sources made note of it. Reliable sources are things like national newspapers, not the work itself or genius.com. Please read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content for more information. Opencooper ( talk) 05:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)