This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hinduism: Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Low-importance). Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Mysticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mysticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mysticism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MysticismWikipedia:WikiProject MysticismTemplate:WikiProject MysticismMysticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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

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)

Also see mind-body problem. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 03:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Lucid Dreaming can be considered a portal or gateway to the Astral Plane. Xia'Zhun (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 18:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure - go for it! If the Rosicrucians (or rather, Max Heindel, representing only one of a number of Rosicrucian schools) have a section then Yogananda should as well. There is a lot more that can be written anyway - e.g. the Theosophical and Neo-Theosophical interpretations, Max Theon, Alice Bailey, Rudolph Steiner, Robert Monroe, Ann Ree Colton, pop New Age interpretations, etc etc; all of which can (and hopefully one day will) be given their own section here M Alan Kazlev 02:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows, proceeding from what Manly P. Hall once wrote [1], if the Ones that Heindel represents, as the Ones that Blavatsky represents, hopefully one day, which figures soon [2], may clarify the Rosicrucian Way to those whose lack of faith in their hearts and whose illusions in their minds prevents them from seeing:

"Wherefore there shall cease all servitude, falsehood, lies, and darkness, which by little and little, with the great world's revolution, was crept into all arts, works, and governments of men, and have darkened the most part of them... But the work itself shall be attributed to the blessedness of our age." [3] --

88.214.143.49 18:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I have to start doing a more comprehensive research on the views Yogananda had about the astral plane. Moreover, from a brief overview, most of the Theosophical interpretations on this is somewhat similar to Yogananda's. Although it is impossible to scientifically prove the existence of the astral plane, their views on this must not be ignored as they are very credible sources on this area of study. On a side note, there is a HIGHER plane which Yogananda often mentioned and it is the Causal plane which is more subtle. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, re the similarity, this is because the Theosophical ideas (from the Theosophical Society Adyar, which seems to be big in India) were adapted into or incorporated with Vedantic concepts. I have noticed a number of gurus and spiritual teachers of the 20th century have used terms like astral and causal in this context, identifying them with traditional Vedantic concepts like sukshma and karana. Obviously it is a two-way street, regarding cross-fertisation of esoteric and spiritual ideas; the Theosophists were originally inspired by Vedanta etc, they then formulated this in terms of westren esotericism, this in turn was incorporated by the Hindu yogis and teachers, where it has become part of their living tradition (the Theosophical teachings themselves are basically just theoretical and intellectual).

And yes, all this cannot be scientifically faslsified, but to use empirical method to try to justify occult, esoteric and spiritual realities is highly misleading, as Jorge Ferrer has persuasively shown in his book Revisioning Transpersonal Theory. M Alan Kazlev 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

The word "astral" (like celestial) means of or like the stars and is used in reference to the astral plane because astral matter does not require a light source to make it visible -astral matter gives off its own light, like stars do.

In whose conception? This claim needs a reference, if it's a notable belief. -- Beland (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a text reference, but "in the conception" of hundreds of people I know in the new-age movement. Astral comes from the Latin for star. Accounts of seeing nonphysical figures who gave off what seemed like "inner light" number in the thousands. Mormon popular literature is replete with such experience recountings, to offer one example. The writings of Karen Baldwin and James Van Praugh are other cases.

Helen Greaves, an Anglican nun who delved into spiritualism and telepathy, is a perfect example: "During a Meditation Session . . . I had a distinct vision of Frances [her fellow nun who had died]. This was not the Frances I had known [but] a different Being, a Spirit filled with light, radiant and glorious. . . . her robe . . . of a soft light blue . . . sparkled and shone." Testimony of Light, H. Greaves, Rider Publishing, 2005, p. 129Moabalan (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I know. Go ahead! Redheylin (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 TucsonMoabalan (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Moabalan (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]