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)

overly cynical

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

Astral Projection and Possession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)