Talk:Astral body

Strange

The astral body is clearly mentioned in many Tibetan and other Eastern texts that are more ancient than Plato. In this article there's no such mention.

Why

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.

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)

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.

5. Science rejects the astral body a priori and the scientific method is designed to exclude effects caused by the astral body. The goal of science is to explain all things purely in physical terms.

6. Conventional medicine rests on the scientific foundation that there is only the physical body, and attempts to explain all symptoms in terms of physical disorders, although in practice much ill health is the result of disturbances of the astral body. In clinical practice this generates masses of tests that are negative despite the presence of symptoms. It also produces many diagnoses that are simply descriptions of symptoms (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome, eczema) as the system fails to identify any physical disorder to attribute the symptoms to Aniksker (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC).

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)

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)

Skepticism is not a POV - the word is often misused. Scientism is a POV until there's a scientific consensus on the nature of mind. At present the article explains that these are Theosophical terms and so they can only really be explained from the Theosophist POV - in terms of science now widely considered superseded, classical, Asian, mediaeval and vitalist thought, as well as the mind-view of Freud and his followers. It ends by pointing out that there is still a place for such thought wherever science ponders the a possible dynamic and organising field or force of mind. If some prominent person has made a statement to the effect that most scientists do not accept such theories, by all means bring it on. Redheylin (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/theosophy/ww/setting/anthropology.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Astral body. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303081359/http://users.panola.com:80/lindgren/aura.html to http://users.panola.com/lindgren/aura.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Two sections have been removed

Neither one mentioned, much less cited, that the material was about the "astral body." Please provide citations of the equivalence before returning. Skyerise (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge/split discussion

The article makes no clear distinction between Theosophical and other systems. It is categorized as Anthroposophy and Theosophy, and as such should only have examples from those traditions. To include other systems without a majority of secondary sources saying that the differently named and described bodies are identical to the Anthroposophical or Theosophicallly defined 'astral body' is a pretty big violation of WP:SYN. Skyerise (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• @Skyerise: The Golden Dawn section explicitly referred to the "subtle body of refined Astral Light"; also see the "The Modern Era" section. If that's not explicit enough for you, move it to Subtle body not Body of light. Personally, I think it refers to both the astral body and body of light, because they're the same thing. However, if you're going to insist on explicit wording only, that line contains neither "astral body" nor "body of light", only "subtle body".

The cats are irrelevant; the cats are supposed to reflect the content not the other around. A mismatch can be fixed by adding/removing cats. Regarding the other problems, I've got an idea for what to do about it but I'd like to think it through. Can it wait a day? -- Scyrme (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and because they are the same thing, they should be merged. There is cross-duplicated material. Or separated with just a see also listing between them. Go for it. You chose, merge or distinguish. Frying other fish... Skyerise (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

When you're done, I'll remove redundant material from body of light, taking it Thelema-centric. If you merge, it can be moved to Subtle body (Thelema) in line with Great Work (Thelema). Skyerise (talk) 02:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Porque no los dos?

I suggest we do this in order:

1. Distinguish Western philosophical tradition.
   1. Create Okhema and make that the home of the Classical/Hellenistic Platonic material, free of 19th+ century syncretism and editorial synthesis.
   2. Redirect Augoeides to Okhema. (main article should be the original concept; plenty of secondary literaure for Okhema exists) (Edit: since you have plans for this I'll leave it to you.)
2. Distinguish Eastern philosophical tradition.
   1. Split Subtle body (esotericism) and move all the 19th+ century material there; this would parallel Energy (esotericism) and Plane (esotericism).
   2. Merge Body of light, Astral body, Etheric body, and Septenary (Theosophy) with Subtle body (esotericism); no point having multiple neglected, low quality articles on these overlapping subjects.
   3. Organise Subtle body (esotericism) into clearly defined sections.
3. Update the template.
   1. Remove subtle body links from Template:Planes of existence.
   2. Cleanup what's left or just delete it? Doesn't seem like a particularly useful template.

This should ensure distinctions are clear and that no undue weight is given to the POV of 19th/20th century weirdos on articles primarily about Hellenistic and Indic philosophy. Okhema and Subtle body can end with sections on "Influence" with "further information" links to Subtle body (esotericism).

I don't see any reason for forking a "Subtle body (Thelema)"; Crowley's writings on the topic aren't original, others associated with the Golden Dawn (eg. Regardie (1937), p. 79) describe the "body of light" in relation to astral travel in the same terms. Locating a Thelema section on Subtle body (esotericism) would provide that section with useful context. -- Scyrme (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Look, I'm developing body of light. I have plenty of sources. Do what you want with subtle body and astral body. When we're both done, we'll see if there is a better naming scheme and what should be summarized where. Skyerise (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: The esoteric section of Subtle body covers other subtle bodies in addition to the Astral body so a merge in the other direction doesn't make sense. I maintain my earlier suggestion: split Subtle body (esotericism) and merge the various neglected forked articles into that. You suggested I go ahead; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. -- Scyrme (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a section merge, not the whole article, for the section that essentially duplicates much of this article. Merge to here and rename, right? That's always been my point - that the section titled "Western esotericism" (with sections titled Theosophy, Post-Theosophy, and Fourth Way) shouldn't be in two places, here (where we have the same sections at more length) and tacked onto the end of subtle body. Skyerise (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

There are no "other subtle bodies in addition to the astral body" in that section. It's all summarizing of the same material as in this article, unnecessarily, because Western adaptations of subtle body are different than the Hindu/Buddhist source systems. Skyerise (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, subtle body (esotericism) is a bad title. They should be something like Subtle body (Eastern esotericism) and Subtle body (Western syncretic) and Subtle body (Western esotericism). Skyerise (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Skyerise: Could be done by merging to here renaming, but I was going to do everything simultaneously by creating an article at the new title using the collected material, since the new title would need a new lead paragraph and reorganised structure anyway, and doing this way would avoid an awkward phase with article being awkwardly structured and mistitled for its actual content. I was expecting to do it tomorrow or on Sunday, since this isn't urgent. -- Scyrme (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"There are no "other subtle bodies in addition to the astral body" in that section." ...??? That's not true at all. Causal, mental, etheric; all mentioned there but not here; this article doesn't contain the word "causal". -- Scyrme (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if it is renamed to Subtle body (Western syncretic) or Subtle body (Theosophy) or whatever, those should be in here, shouldn't they? Skyerise (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Subtle body (esotericism) follows an established precedent (Energy (esotericism), Plane (esotericism)); your suggestions are either excessive disambiguation (pretty sure Wiki guidelines have a section on this but I don't remember where), too narrow (article would cover more than Theosophy), or plain wrong ("eastern esotericism"?). The content, scope, and structure should be clear after the split/merge; if you want to suggest a different name it would be better to do it then. -- Scyrme (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

- here, I think this is a correct outline - almost all of the division into four bodies is Theosophical, but 'astral body' is used the most ambiguously, pretty much as a "broad category" referring to any or all and thus subsuming its particular usage, which is why we have this mess. Skyerise (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Category:Eastern esotericism is a category, placed correctly on Subtle body, just as Category:Western esotericism is properly placed on this article. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

And the purely Western view of body of light is a completely separate intellectual tradition, with no overlap with the intellectual antecedents of subtle body, though elements of it were also borrowed by Theosophy which is why that tradition is syncretic and distinct from but derived from both. Skyerise (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That's wrong though. "Astral body" is a subset, not a broad category, and does not refer to the eastern concept of the subtle body as a whole, even in the schemes of Western esotericists (Theosophical and non-Theosophical alike). As for the Theosophists, their division of the subtle body is/was more than 4-fold, and "astral body" is never synonymous with "subtle body" in general. The term is used differently by different authors, leading to some messiness, but not like this. The messiness is largely limited to the distinction between the astral and etheric bodies.

Re: "eastern esotericism", I was questioning its applicability to the proposed article not the term itself.

I don't dispute what you've said about the body of light. -- Scyrme (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the term 'astral body' existed before Theosophy. In the east, it referred to what is described in subtle body and illusory body. In the west it referred to the body of light. Theosophy overloaded the term by restricting it to a specific sub-body. When you read 'astral body' in the literature, it's simply not possible to know which one is being referred to without context. Skyerise (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Never heard of "astral body" being used in the east, only in Western interpretations influenced by syncretic use. Are you sure that's not a modern interpretation? What eastern term is "astral body" translating if it is pre-modern? -- Scyrme (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

'Astral body' was always a synonym for body of light, even before Theosophy. You may be right that it never referred to eastern esotericism before Theosophy, but it's part of the language used to discuss the Western 'body of light' in the context of Astrotheology. I don't think that means we should assume the reader isn't really looking for subtle body. Subtle body is the inclusive term, which refers to all four of the Theosophical bodies together. It's not one of the sub-bodies. Skyerise (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer if Theosophy had never existed. They made a bloody mess of everything and their complicated four-body system is actually pretty useless for anything besides getting students to pay for books, memberships, and personal tutoring. Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, don't dispute what you've said about the body of light; I agree with you and don't recall saying anything contradictory, but if I did then I was mistaken. As for Theosophy, agreed, except (as I said before) there's more than 4 so it's actually worse than you think.

Someone searching "astral body" but looking for Subtle body would have to be very confused, but I suppose it's not implausible. If you're suggesting Astral body be made into a disambiguation page after the split/merge, alright, I can see how that could be helpful. We can sort out the details of what the disambiguation page says about topics it links later. I hope we are now in agreement over how to proceed. I'll try and sort out the split/merge tomorrow, since you seem keen on moving forward quickly. -- Scyrme (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the actual problem is that there is no overview article for the bodies in Theosophy? Skyerise (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The split/merged article will have an overview; it's part of the plan. -- Scyrme (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

OK then. For now I have pointed Subtle body (Western syncretic) to Septenary (Theosophy). Not the ideal place but it at least mentions and links to two of the bodies... unless you know of a more thorough coverage in one of the other Theosophy articles? Anyway, we seem to be more or less on the same page so I'll leave you to it. Change or remove the merge template details as you will. Skyerise (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, also, anybody looking into the Theosophical bodies is pretty much guaranteed to be that confused... Skyerise (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: Something came up, so I haven't had time to get this finished, sorry. I am working on it; I wanted to let you know it won't be finished until later this week so you know what to expect. I suggest you focus on something else for now, and I'll update again when it's done. -- Scyrme (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I've got very little interest in the Theosophy material, though of course it could be presented better and expanded. FYI, I moved a little of Augoeides into body of light, then in the process found that a couple of sources gave lists of synonyms (see top of body of light), and it is actually considered synonymous, so I merged the rest. Which was very little because the bulk of the long quotations were simply not essential! Also Farr was definitely on the Western side; she created the education system of the GD and wrote many of the "Flying Rolls" about the topic, so I removed it from here. What's left seems to be all Eastern/Theosophy derived, though I'm not really sure about Gurdjieff - he was likely using Arab sources which might be more connected to the Western tradition. In any case he's syncretic so probably belongs here. Skyerise (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Potential sources

Nearly all these articles use the term "body of light", which is a specific lineage of teaching which runs through Hermeticism, Neoplatonism, Renaissance magic, Rosicrucianism, Ceremonial magic, and Thelema. Its derivation is not at all related to the Theosophical traditions which were based on the Indic yoga traditions - but Theosophy might also have intermixed some of this separate thread. That's for the writers of this article to establish. Some of these sources also use the term 'astral body' and have information relevant to Theosophical syncretism. Most should be accessible through WP:LIBRARY. Skyerise (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• Asprem, E. (2011). "Pondering Imponderables: Occultism in the Mirror of Late Classical Physics". Aries. 11 (2): 129–165. doi:10.1163/156798911X581207.
• Asprem, E. (2017). "Explaining the Esoteric Imagination". Aries. 17 (1): 17–50. doi:10.1163/15700593-01701002.
• Behun, W. (2010). "The Body of Light and the Body without Organs". Substance: A Review of Theory & Literary Criticism. 39 (1): 125–140.
• Bregman, J. (2016). "Synesius of Cyrene and the American "Synesii"". Numen: International Review for the History of Religions. 63 (2–3): 299–323. doi:10.1163/15685276-12341424.
• Corrias, A. (2013). "From Daemonic Reason to Daemonic Imagination: Plotinus and Marsilio Ficino on the Soul's Tutelary Spirit". British Journal for the History of Philosophy. 21 (3): 443–462. doi:10.1080/09608788.2013.771608.
• Finamore, John F. (1985). Iamblichus and the Theory of the Vehicle of the Soul. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.
• Kissling, Robert Christian (1922). "The ochêma-pneuma of the Neoplatonists and the De Insomniis of Synesius of Cyrene". American Journal of Philology. 43: 318–30.
• Leãa, L. (2005). "The mirror labyrinth: reflections on bodies and consciousness at cybertimes". Technoetic Arts: A Journal of Speculative Research. 3 (1): 19–41. doi:10.1386/tear.3.1.19/1.
• Partridge, C. (2016). "Aleister Crowley on Drugs". International Journal for the Study of New Religions. 7 (2): 125–151. doi:10.1558/ijsnr.v7i2.31941.
• Pasi, M. (2011). "Varieties of Magical Experience: Aleister Crowley's Views on Occult Practice". Magic, Ritual & Witchcraft. 6 (2): 123–162. doi:10.1353/mrw.2011.0018.
• Serra, Nick (2014). "Aleister Crowley and Western Esotericism". Magic, Ritual & Witchcraft. 9 (1): 107–113. doi:10.1353/mrw.2014.0012.
• Shaw, G. (2015). "Taking the Shape of the Gods". Aries. 15 (1): 136–169. doi:10.1163/15700593-01501009.
• Walker, Daniel P. (1958). "The Astral Body in Renaissance Medicine". Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institute. 21: 119–33.