Talk:Astral body
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do we have articles for astral body, subtle body and Body of Light? Dan 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Because, as you may see from the mentioned articles, there are systems, schools, traditions (from the eastern to the western world, older or more recent ones), that explain in different ways (but perhaps very similar in the whole) the possible constitution of man's subtle bodies and their relation to other possible planes of existence beyond/behind the physical plane/world.
Contents |
[edit] Astral body vs. Etheric body and Emotional body - Astral plane vs. Etheric plane and Emotional [desire] plane
From discussion page at "Etheric projection" article:
I am interested in how the use of the word "etheric" and "astral" came into use, at all. The closest I can figure, is that etheric implies "being part of the air," while astral implies being part of the higher consciousness. 01:18, 25 June 2005 Psychicbody (Talk | contribs)
- It seems to me that the terminology "astral" was misused by neo-Theosophical writers who, after Blavatsky death, interpreted the astral body as being the emotional (desire) body related to the world(plane) beyond the etheric one. This may have happen because during the astral projection the emotional body is connected (molded) to the astral body (which is etheric). Later, and in current-day, several schools and new age organizations and authors followed the neo-Theosophical conception/error(?).
- The conception of an "astral body" is perhaps originated in the mediaevel alchemy treatises (spiritual/hermetic alchemy) and described as being formed by "aether" (as in the original Blavatsky teachings). This means that the Astral projection article is talking about projection the "Etheric projection":
- however, as both bodies (astral and emotional) are connected during the astral projection it may not be unreasonable to conceive that the astral body provides also the support to the "flight" into the higher/emotional [desire] plane (so perhaps that's why also it is called also, to the emotional plane, the "Astral plane").
- On the other hand, ordinary people, who supposedly have also an etheric body and an emotional one, do not have memory of an "out-of-the-body state"; so, also it is not unreasonable to think that it is due to this special formed body, called the "astral body", that the individual is fully aware, and later still remembers, the out-of-body flights.
- If this is the case, this article "Etheric projection" should be merged into the "astral projection" (as a section). However, other points of view are welcome. 17:15, 28 June 2006 88.214.129.125 (Talk) (a perpective)
[edit] Astral Body
1. As I understand it, the Astral body refers to the irrational soul. This takes us back to Plato's parable of the irrational and rational souls struggling with each other. This article should therefore start earlier than the Neoplatonists.
2. The astral body disappears in the West at the time of the eighth ecumenical council http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const4.html Canon 12, where it was declared anathematous. A Renaissance perspective on this can be found in D.P. Walker's article 'The Astral body and renaissance medicine', Journal of the Warburg Institute, 1959
3. Maimonides, in his introduction to Ethics of the Fathers, quotes the philosophers on the soul, as do other Mediaeval jewish scholars. Jewish tradition therefore, in general shares the Greek understanding of the soul as having three levels; vegetal (dealing with basic body growth and functions), emotional or irrational - the astral body, and the rational soul.
4. The astral body is well known in cultures around the world, though of course with many different names. In China it is known as the yin body, and it contains the acupuncture meridians.
[edit] Reorganization
This article reads like a mess of different people adding sentences here and there, which is probably how it has formed. As a result, it reads rather badly.
- Firstly, I feel the method of citation for this article is inadequate. I can't tell what information comes from where. Some things are obvious, but others, such as the introduction, are too ambiguous to tell exactly where the information is coming from. We really need to implement an inline citation system. What I want to do is create a Notes section that will have inline citations, new citations can use the inline, and hopefully we can convert the rest over.
- Second, I think the headings are not worded or organized well. I'd like to see something like the following:
- Introduction
- 1 Interpretations
- 1.1 Neoplatonism
- 1.2 Theosophy
- 1.3 Max Heindel
- 1.4 The Mother
- 1.5 Anthroposophy
- 1.6 New Age
- 2 Artistic depictions
- 3 Photographing
- 4 See also
- 5 References
- 6 Notes
- 7 External links
I say something like this because we may find that we can do away with some of it. --T. Baphomet 18:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Heindel was influenced by Steiner, so his section should come after the one on Anthroposophy M Alan Kazlev 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Or at least I thought he was; their cosmology and teachings are very similar; but maybe they were both equally influenced by Besant/Leadbeater post-Blavatsky Theosophy M Alan Kazlev 07:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Healthy Skepticism
Let's say a hypothetical Wiki reader with no understanding of New Age and its (rather dubious) scientific foundations were to stumble upon this entry. He/she may very well be tricked into thinking the astral body is a real, observable phenomenon. Can we please get a scientific (read SKEPTICAL) perspective, or at the very least a sentence about how astral bodies may be make-believe? Just a thought. MosKillinest 06:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- The trouble with this suggestion of course is that it represents a bias towards a particular viewpoint, i.e., scientism or skepticism, in violation of NPOV policy (assuming there even can be such a thing, but we can at least try!). The goal should instead be as much as possible to write an article that doesn't pander to any one philosophy, neither to skepticism, religionism, or any particular ideology or belief-system. Instead we simply report and summarise what others have written or taught about the astral body, regardless of whether we as editors agree or disagree with what they have said. So the Theosophists say this. Rudolf Steiner says that. Some say it can be photgraphed. Otehrs say it can't. And so on, neither condeming nor approving. I agree with you that the sceptical position should be included, but this means starting a new section, not rewriting the entire article. James Randi (or whoever else) says this. Some-one else says that. Include citations. That way all relevant povs, including scientism and scepticism, can be covered, but the tone of the article itself is not compromised M Alan Kazlev 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think that you both have a point.... Can we say add a point that reads something like most people (at least in north america) and the scientific community as a whole doubt the existence of such a body. I am not sure where most people in the world hold opinions, I know many other places of the world can be more religious. I don't know... something to let people know that this is not something that is commonly agreed upon. But it should be factual and at the same time no sceptic heaven. Knightt (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
