Talk:Astral projection

Leave skepticism here untouched

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

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

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

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)

Looking for Astral Projection Help in Toronto, Canada

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

Why no History?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the Latin

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

Did you read section 3 of this page? The 2nd source does cite projection: read it more closely. The source for the 2 words together is listed, and you can search it at [1].

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

NPOV?

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

And what was not NPOV about this section [2] that it should be changed radically and then the changes edit warred in? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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