User talk:K2709

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, K2709, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chakras - Number of Petals[edit]

Hi K2709,

I welcome your involvement. I wrote a response to you and TheRingess in the "Talk" page dealing with the "deletion consideration". I also commented on the merging proposition.

See you there...

Thank you wv (talk) 09:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: plane (metaphysics)[edit]

You seem to be an interesting person! Thanks for clearing up the box in this article. I will post some more thoughts on it shortly, because I did not go to the most original source for neo-Theosophy, and that needs to be corrected.--Dchmelik (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

some things you might be interested in[edit]

I see you have first-hand and advanced knowledge of kundalini & chakras and the subtle body/bodies, etc., but have only been here a while. Here are some more things you might be interested in: WP:WikiProject_Occult, golden bowl (not written yet, but on the silver cord page.) That bowl is in an ancient text passage that also has the terms 'silver cord,' 'pitcher,' 'cistern.' I have a semi-esoteric source that explains what the four are, but people have other ideas. You edited silver cord, and perhaps we or anyone you know would be able to come up with something to write for 'golden bowl.' I thought it was the aura, but it is supposed to be the head or its energy.

There are also some yoga terms 'gold cord' and 'passage' in the head that I am trying to re-find for a possible future golden bowl article. 'Pitcher broken at the well' and 'wheel broken at the cistern' are going to be harder to come up with subtle body ideas than 'silver cord loosed' and 'golden bowl broken.' Like the 'petal (chakra)' article that debunked things I think most of these terms are also mainly physical... but maybe there is nothing wrong with people's few extra associations, since the chakras have to do with the 7 principles that have to do with 4 of the 7 planes, and all that has associations--Dchmelik (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

In kundalini yoga there are references to both the silver chord and the golden chord - which may be your "golden bowl". In the simplest terms, the silver chord is like the connection along the spine from the mulhadhara (root chakra) to the base of the skull (5th chakra), and the Golden chord is the connection between the pituitary to the pineal gland - i.e. the connection and opening of the 3rd eye to the crown chakra. +RogerThatOne72 (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for this detail. I had some awareness of this, enough to feel the irony when I read this line:
"Matthew Henry's commentary, for example, states that the silver cord refers simply to the "spinal marrow."
If I remember rightly the exact chakra correspondences vary somewhat across sources (intuitively I'd expect silver to extend to 7th so that the two segments of governor meridian touch). There's also a likely correspondence between the golden bowl and a kundalini symptom described by some as the golden helmet, which to me anyway expresses as three (not obviously coloured) arcing strips of tight pressure extending left, right and upwards from the third eye region. Lastly, the Hunas consider the golden cord to be a connection to the higher self, making it another aspect of the antahkarana. I must look into all this more some time... K2709 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

kundalini, chakras & reincarnation.[edit]

K2709,

I must say first: "You've got a nice userpage!". Simple & with pictures. Keep it that clear please.

Second: My homepage "Vitruvian Man" (2) is blocked bij moderator Beetstra who seems to be always "on holiday" for months. Some people say that they've never seen a chakra (not scientific). I've never seen an atom! Yet I think that I know a lot more about nuclear physics than Albert E. (Got private lessons via URENCO)

Fill in the "o" of Rob, on the place of the dot and you can see what's blocked here: http://www.r.btenberge.nl http://www.r.btenberge.nl/animatie4

I should be pleased by some help of friendly (5 pillars) moderators to unblock my contributions. It's not commercial stuff, but didactic.

Best regards RobRob ten Berge (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Caduceus article[edit]

Hey! Wanted to remark again what a great addition you made, even though small, to the Caduceus article. Thanks. I Hope that the article on kundalini syndrome is worked out soon, and perhaps there might be a connection there too. . . .. --Cpt ricard (talk) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your addition of the caduceus reference article to the kundalini yoga page. If you need some help with the "syndrome" pages, which as I understand have been a mess of misinformation, I can help at times - call on me.+RogerThatOne72 (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR[edit]

Just a friendly reminder that you are restricted to 3 reverts in 24 hours on any given article by WP:3RR. On Astral Projection you have 4 reverts in the last 24 hour period. I am assuming this is just an unintentional mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Astral projection[edit]

Are you really an astral projector? Would you care to e-mail me and tell me about it? I am interested to hear about it. Regards, Mitsube (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing it since my teens. It's nowhere near as unattainable as people think, it just takes a bit of reading and lot of practice. Is there anything in particular you're interested in? It's quite a substantial topic to just start typing away at at random... K2709 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Well how did you first start? And have you learned information that you could not have known any other way and used this to prove to someone else that you have done it? It may interest you to know that this is described in the early Buddhist texts as forming a "mind-made body". Mitsube (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"Mind-made body"? Yes, worth knowing...
I started off with one of Sylvan Muldoon's methods - developing a habit of reality checking during waking life, which sometimes lets you become conscious of times when you're not awake (lucid dreaming). At these times, rather than staying in the dream I'd let the scenery to fade, and then become aware that in reality I was lying in bed in the dark, experiencing sleep paralysis and intense vibrations. Projecting from this state was/is then a matter of struggling to pull away from the bed, using no motion, just a change of attention. The analogy of zooming a camera is good as you stay still in one sense but experience major relocation in another. It took me a few weeks to first achieve paralysis, but leaving the room took a while longer as the pull back to my body was substantial.
After years of experimentation that I never felt was 100% watertight, I did eventually prove its validity to my own satisfaction by unknowingly OBE-witnessing a minute of my future, days before the fact. Having routinely documented what unfolded in-between-times without any suspicion or hope of its nature, I was afforded a golden opportunity to critically compare reality with detailed written notes just seconds after the second viewing took place, and in doing so managed to conclusively rule out each and every objection I had left.
My take on proving this sort of thing to anyone other than yourself is that you can lead a horse to water, and that's it. Projection is just too trippy and erratic to subject to test protocols. If you cause someone to think you've proved it, they got there with far less rigour so were just being sloppy, that's not real proof. Similarly, when someone disbelieves, they're again lacking rigor, falling back on the words of those they trust instead of actually verifying everything for themselves firsthand. Suspended judgement is *everything*. K2709 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing! Sounds exciting ... Mitsube (talk) 07:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief Reply[edit]

I left a brief reply to your comment on my talk page. --Mbilitatu (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Lucid dream[edit]

Thanks for your suggestion on my talk page but it wasn't really my intention to participate a lot in the english Wikipedia, mainly due to the fact that english is not my native language so I'm unsure of the correctness of what I'm writing. And since it sounds like the discussion re-opened on better bases, I'll see if a consensus can be reached. -- Basilus (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Request your help on an article[edit]

Hi, I have been working on the Plane (esotericism) article. I am finding it quite hard though to find sources for the planes such as Buddhic plane, Divine plane or Logoic plane. To be honest with you I am a bit skeptical about these planes, do these planes even exist? These planes are not even mentioned by parapsychologists. I accept that an astral plane exists it seems many such as Hereward Carrington, Robert Crookall etc also said so, but many of the others I can find no references for outside of Theosophy, and Theosophy seems to be quite unreliable. You may be experienced in this area, give me a reply on my talk page if you get a chance.GreenUniverse (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

7 = Physical (incorporating etheric) 6 = Astral = emotional 5 = Manasic = mental 4 = Buddhic = intuitional 3 = Atmic = spiritual = nirvanic 2 = Anupadaka = monadic = paranirvanic 1 = Adi = divine = logoic = mahaparanirvanic

It appears we have many references for numbers 7 and 6 existing, however I have looked and all of the other planes seem to be inventions of the Theosophists - there seems to be no evidence they exist. I doubt these planes exist, and I can not find many references for them outside of Theosophy. Sylvan Muldoon, Hereward Carrington, Robert Monroe and Robert Crookall did not mention any of these other planes it does not look like so they probably do not exist. There is alot of coverage for the astral/etheric and the physical but none of the others. You seem to know about this topic, what references have you learnt this from? Or you are talking from personal experience? GreenUniverse (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah well...the big issue is that when you, me or any of the authorities above gain consciousness in some random plane or other, that plane isn't labelled. You / me / they don't know for certain where they've ended up. They have to guess, by passing their perceptions through the filters of their existing conceptual frameworks, which may well not include any consensus labels at all. Monroe never explicitly described any visits to any "atmic" plane for example, but in Ultimate Journey he described plenty of experiences of hanging out with a group consciousness of his own incarnations called his "I-There", which correlates extremely well with the reincarnating entity that is the "atman". Common sense says the atmic plane would be where he found it. He talks of "I-There clusters" too - odds are these were the monads of the monadic plane he was reaching. Bruce Moen claimed the same, only slotting in his own preferred label of "disk" most of the time.
Just digging out a copy of Astral Dynamics (2nd ed), I see Robert Bruce says exactly what I've just said - "Dimensions [...] do not have signposts in them saying [...] "Mental Planes - Watch your Mind!" [...] So, in the following I have used descriptive names to describe some of the higher dimensional levels I have experienced [...] Rainbow [...] Mystical [...] Spirit [...] The Summerland" (p308-312). So non-theosophical mentions of higher planes are out there, they're just in disguise and so are very awkward to tie together without sounding like OR or SYNTH. K2709 (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting points, if we do look at it that way then you may be correct. The thing is it will be hard to dig out these other planes if they are being mentioned under different names or in disguise, somethings which come to mind are Richard Bucke's Cosmic Consciousness model, Sri Aurobindo's concept of supermind, Emerson's oversoul etc, there are many more. There seems to be loads of related terms depicting where somebody has reached a higher stage of consciousness. In New Thought they call it Christ Consciousness, or in mystical teachings Buddhic consciousness etc or nonduality. The article would need an expert on the topic. I might try and give it another shot at some point, I did ask an anthroposophist if he could help with some Steiner references.
One thing which does need to be completed is the bottom of the article, who inhabits the planes? If I can remember correctly Charles Leadbeater and Lord Dowding were placing goblins, gremlins, fairies and other beings on some of these planes. Not impossible but such ideas will be total crackpot to the general reader and alot of people will sadly laugh at this sort of thing! However more serious researchers such as Carrington, Monroe etc etc have not mentioned any of these beings so maybe they are just inventions of the Theosophists?, however Robert Crookall mentions that spirits or "soul bodies" do dwell on the astral plane after death. I read a book a couple of months ago and a lady who reported to have an astral projection or similar experience to one of these planes said when you die you get a mansion house and beautiful garden on one of these planes!, interesting but I have not been able to find other reliable sources for such claims, saying such radical things is a dodgy thing as some people may commit suicide if they believe they are getting a paradise on one of these planes, lol. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that kind of inhabitant listing brings credibility issues with it for sure - it would need a lot of context to hold its own. Monroe was indirectly involved in corroboration of some of those suspects through interactive audio supervision of one of his protégés (Rosalind McKnight), but generally there isn't a lot of reference around. Maybe the Ethereal being article could come to the rescue here, either for sourcing or just as a link.
Concerning specific realms for specific dead people, Monroe (again) had a well formed framework for this, the simplest likely mapping being seven sub-planes of the astral plane corresponding in his terminology to focus levels 22 to 28 (for context, 25 in this system contains all religious mainstream heavens and hells). He wrote a little about custom abodes too. I don't think he stated a focus number for them, but authors with ties to his institute (such as Bruce Moen and Frank DeMarco) associate them with 27. K2709 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

ethereal being[edit]

I think you have seen this article already, but It would be interesting to know your opinion on the ethereal being article. Theres lots of original research going on. I have merged some of the content from that article to the planes of existence article, see the bottom section, theres some theosophical references on who lives on the various planes. GreenUniverse (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Further opinion[edit]

If you have the time, it would be interesting to get your opinion on this article: Morya (Theosophy), I consider it one of the worst articles on wikipedia, I believe articles should be improved but this article is not worth working on. It is filled with original research from top to bottom, no third party reliable references at all, nothing. Last month or so I submitted it to be deleted, but at the last minute a Theosophist entered the debate and it was two votes to one, so I lost out. This user agreed he would try and help the article but as predicted he has since not logged in. The article is mostly copy and paste from two Theosophist books not notable at all, absolute wild claims and crank talk, it is hard to even understand what the article is saying, you would have to be an experienced Theosophist to understand it all. Most of the articles content is already found on the Ascended Master article, so I do not see why we need the article at all, as it is mostly original research and fringe pushing from the Theosophist crowd and copied material. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

More than anything else, the article suffers from inadequate framing. For Wikipedia's purposes, Morya needs to be described as a belief held by a religious group, not a poorly researched person. HPB and followers believe(d) that she was in contact with person x with transcendent characterisics a, b and c such as memory of prior high-profile incarnations, ability to materialize in front of her, channel book material through her. In their seven rays system, they link him to ray number z, that sort of thing. This framing would get the basics across to interested parties without forcing them to believe anything.
I think that some theosophist sources discussing theosophist beliefs are usable, inasmuch as Christian sources are usable for describing equally 'wild claims' like resurrection from the dead - care just needs to be taken that the sources weren't all sitting next to each other at the crucial moment. Use of differing generations of theosophists, or offshoot groups, would be sufficient. They have to make sense out-of-universe of course, which is perhaps more of a hurdle. K2709 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Very interesting photo on that website, she actually claimed they could materialize? I have studied spirit photography and materializations sadly it is all fraud.. everything from cheesecloth to rubber dolls being employed. Well the Theosophists have less than 6,000 members worldwide today, they are very eager to get their claims onto wikipedia and I have no problem with that if some of their stuff is well referenced but morya for example only exists within Leadbeater and Bailey books, we don't need an article for every single ascended master. It is mostly anonmous IPs who work for the Thesophical society editing these articles. A lot of them recently got merged, but recently I have noticed some are being put back on wiki, such as the Isis Unveiled article. It would be worthwile to watch some of them I guess. GreenUniverse (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

If you get the time check out my proposal on the near death experience talk page at the bottom. Would be interesting to see if you agree or not. Cheers. GreenUniverse (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Subtle body[edit]

I have fixed the subtle body article, it is looking better. One thing I wanted to ask you is about the silver cord. Is the silver cord mentioned in near death experiences? Or is it mainly just astral projection? GreenUniverse (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That article's a lot more satisfying now, thumbs up! Good to see one of the Projection of the Astral Body illustrations in use at last. There are NDE silver cord cases out there (eg here), but they're far from ubiquitous, and don't feature in any of the accounts I have to hand. As I recall, Sylvan Muldoon found that the width of his cord was proportional to his health, which would logically make them pretty close to invisible during NDEs. K2709 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethernal beings[edit]

The article is back again, since there was no consensus to redirect it, that out of process, and is now at AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethereal beings I'm contacting everyone who participated in the discussion previously, who hasn't been told yet. Dream Focus 14:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Ethereal being[edit]

New comment(s). Please respond. -Stevertigo (t | c) 17:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

RM[edit]

I can see in your contribution page you are more or less active, I have started an RM here: Talk:Pandit_Gopi_Krishna#Is_the_name_change_appropriate.3F --Tito Dutta (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soul retrieval[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Soul retrieval has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Lacks notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, K2709. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, K2709. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)