Talk:Astral plane

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes - see astral projection. ··gracefool |☺ 00:56, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: And regardless of whether or not one believes in the objective reality of the Astral, this is still a concept worthy of consideration regarding the history of ideas.  Not everyone believes in a supernatural deity, but there are still wiki entries on God etc.  Anyway I improved the page by replacing some vague sentences with more specific ones; also included references to Theosophy etc  M Alan Kazlev 02:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Also see mind-body problem.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 03:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Real?

message: 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)
: Lucid Dreaming can be considered a portal or gateway to the Astral Plane. Xia'Zhun (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucid Dreaming takes place on the Astral Plane? 

message: Links removed, at least for the time being:
*Gnosticweb Mysticweb  Astralweb Articles and Courses on the Astral Plane & Lucid Dreaming
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)
thread_title:  External links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A heartfelt apology...  

message: 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)
replies: text: I know. Go ahead! Redheylin (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not clear whether you mean the Popular Culture page is trivial or the whole page.  As to the whole page, I completely disagree with both your claims of triviality and of "factoids."   1)  If you want to see genuine triviality on Wikipedia, go read a dozen or so cameos of allegedly significant figures in Mormonism (and I don't mean the famous leaders--they're significant; I'm talking about the Joe Schmoes I know or knew personally and, if they ever taught a college class or headed a local congregation, they seem to have made it here), none of whom has any good claim of encyclopedic general interest beyond warming the hearts of fellow Mormons when they find these bios here.  Second, as pointed out above, this is not a trivial subject because it has a legitimate place in a discussion of the history of human ideas.  2)  What is "related" to the astral plane is hard to establish, since it's an arguably real thing, but can't be proven.  I personally know, oh, 25 mystics or mediums who think they know a lot about it and would agree with most of what is written here on Feb 10, 2017.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.210.117 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The astral plane in popular culture 

message: I have redirected this article and merged the reliable material into the main Plane (esotericism) article. GreenUniverse (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: 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)
thread_title: Boundary to be crossed?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Show "Legion" - Marvel Universe or Television? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ssgranz, if you're not interested in discussing this section and trying to establish a consensus for it, I am going to remove it as it lacks proper sourcing. Note, declining to join a discussion that was started and continuously re-adding the content would constitute edit warring. Opencooper (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture