Talk:Spiritual density

Welcome.
Welp. I've done as much as I can do with this article; I've attempted to differentiate explicit and obvious different modes of consciousness into 7+ levels...

I have attempted to give a slight history of the origin of spiritual density terminology and I have defined a basic system from which we can proceed.

This article IS open to discussion, however, since it's been up three weeks and I've not seen complaints, I can assume that perhaps none of this material really is open to discussion.

Yes, this is my baby. I've been working on the density problem for years. But if you feel that changes need to be made, I'll be more than happy to oblige you in letting you make them.

I have done some scrubbing up and I'm adding details.

- ironyWrit

-

Exert from Monty Python's “The Meaning of Life”.

Exec #1 (Graham Chapman): Item six on the agenda: “The Meaning of Life” Now uh, Harry, you’ve had some thoughts on this.

Exec #2 (Michael Palin): Yeah, I’ve had a team working on this over the past few weeks, and what we’ve come up with can be reduced to two fundamental concepts. One: People aren’t wearing enough hats. Two: Matter is energy. In the universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive. Some energies have a spiritual source which act upon a person’s soul. However, this “soul” does not exist ab initio as orthodox Christianity teaches; it has to be brought into existence by a process of guided self-observation. However, this is rarely achieved owing to man’s unique ability to be distracted from spiritual matters by everyday trivia.

Exec #3 (Terry Jones): What was that about hats again?

AFAIK this idea is actually ancient Sufi teaching. - TIDA - — Preceding unsigned comment added by TIDownunder (talk • contribs) 05:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Disputed
As a non-theosophist, I have problems with the article. It should be clear that these levels exist within the theosophical framework. Further, I strongly disagree with many of the choices of people listed.

Further, I'm glad if you learn things from the Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and many other people -- but putting them as references within your article is stretching things. In particular, I've read the Bible, the Koran, and several of the Buddist scriptures, and none of them refer to 'spiritual densities'. Even if you're building on their work, you should only refer to authors and speakers who were within this framework.

Further, do you have any references that Noam Chomsky, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Max Planck, or Carl Sagan were involved in the theosophical movement?

Chip Unicorn 23:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The way to make this article cleaner and remove the dispute is to state what relationship the disputed people had with the idea of spiritual density.

Chip Unicorn 23:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Welp.
I could remove the topic of theosophy from the segment, but "spiritual density" as a new age term has moved beyond theosophy, as has the entire branch of this type of cosmological model.

I have only really recently just written the article...

... references to individuals listed are as examples of a higher-degree of thinking and that of service orientation.

... the original theosophical model was only the root... many ideas since have surfaced, I have tried to synthesize it the best way I could since when I stumbled upon this article it was a stub.

How should I best fix it according to the above clarification?

ironyWrit

... it may even be in my best interests to remove the lists of names, altogether, which I may end up doing.

Ah, I see what you are saying. I shall go back and just refer to people who are only involved in the development of this article, thusly I will remove the disputed tag.

ironyWrit

keep me posted, obviously you're the disputer, I won't remove the dispute tag until this falls in with your standards.


 * I have a problem with listing people under a topic because they "possibly have a higher sense of awareness", when they may never have been aware of the topic. (Rasputin, though he may have lived during the flowering of various Spiritualist times, likely never heard of Spiritual Density.  Jesus, Mohammed, and the Buddha certainly never did.)
 * If you list people under a topic, they should have something directly related to the topic. For example, Madame Blavatsky is excellent for this topic: as the founder of Theosophy, I would not be surprised if she had written about this topic.  Also, Robert Anton Wilson has written about this topic and closely related topics, so he certainly remains.  (And Aleister Crowley, certainly did know about Spiritualism, and may have written about this topic.  I don't know; I have only read one book by the Beast.)
 * I think that a list of names is a good idea -- but limit it to the people who created and extended this idea!


 * Further -- you commented that this is no longer just a Theosophical idea. It would be fascinating to give original sources as to how the idea of spiritual density was created, and how different groups within the New Age traditions treat it: what differences there are amond the different groups.  You are much better-equipped to discover and write about this than I am.
 * I hope that my criticism makes sense. You've already worked hard on this report, and I hope that this will become an article-of-the-day.

Chip Unicorn 00:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That's true, I will have a lot of work to do, as there are so many people within the new-age movement that dispute with each other about the nature of spiritual density. But it is a very specific part of the new age movement that deals with Extraterrestrial visitations and such things as different levels of the universe.  This article needs a few of those backgrounders and also some mention of ETs, and a mention of other vibrational, physical densities.  It is a work-in-progress, as it stands, and I'm hoping that the ideas will present themselves in talk.

ironyWrit 00:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good luck with the editing. Remember that you can always just specify a reference to make something true.  "Albert Einstein and Marie Curie had sex on June 9, 1969" is certainly not true -- neither Albert Einstein nor Marie Curie were alive on that day.  "In his book Things I learned while completely stoned, Swawi BogusSalami says that Albert Einstein and Marie Curie had sex on June 9, 1969." may well be true, if Swami BogusSalami did write that!

Chip Unicorn 01:02, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand that. The thing about this topic is that there aren't "credible" sources, per-se.  It is a cosmological model that has gotten scant attention from the scientific and spiritual communities, at large.  I attempted, in my own work to shed some light on the "infinite subject" (so to speak), and I dissected and assimilated everything I've learned from researching the topic, over the years, including countless books, advice, and when I really didn't have an external answer, plain old intuition.


 * The methodology for the delineation points is this: What's the most very different thing that can happen upon the next stage?  At that point, those EXTREME differences (e.g. between inert matter and life, life and intelligent life, intelligent life and the next plane, etc, and so on...) would delineate entrance unto a higher plane of existence.


 * It is by no means a mainstream topic (although if I finish this article it might become one).

ironyWrit 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying the list of people! Good luck with your work...

Relation to Surat Shabd Yoga
Hi IronyWrit,

You certainly have put a lot of work into this artilce. Thanks! Would you mind adding a link to "Surat Shabd Yoga"? This spirituial practice also involves progressing through the "spirituality density," although that term isn't used.

Regards,

RDF

Need for Encyclopaedia Format
This page reads more like a personal essay (personal research) than a wikipedia article. While i would have absolutely no problems with any of this material on your own website, i question its suitability, in its current form, for wikipedia. See What Wikipedia is not,No original research, and NPOV. Also you seriously need references in the article itself, you can't say "Theosophy says that..." You need to say "Blavatsky (The Secret Doctrine p.whatever) says that...". Or have notes like [1], [2], [3] etc and a seperate section at the bottom that gives the refernces. Especially, as currently written it presents a sympathetic pov which is not suitable for wikipedia (tho it would be perfectly fine on your own website!); it should be written in a NPOV manner (i know it isn't easy if one feels passionately about a subject!) M Alan Kazlev 03:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I realize a lot of that. I was hoping someone would take the time to clear it up.  I think when I do finally have the time, I'll focus more on the concept than on the currently "accepted" definitions for densities 1-8.  I don't have the time, though.  I realize it's not an article written to standards...  I'm not a wiki-guru, of course.  The problem with references is because this topic is a lot looser than one might like it to be.  People who can read anything and come to a logical consensus might just let it go.  Human beings are far more limited.


 * -ironyWrit

I'm going to make a few small changes to this page, you can undo them if you dont think they are revelatory but you should really read the law of one saga and the transcripts from cassiopaea, they have much corroberating data -Dave


 * Thanks for that. That fits perfectly in with the general flow of ideas.  Well, that's what collaboration is all about.  I am quite familiar with the Ra materials.  In this article, although it's a bit of a stretch, I'm trying to synthesize all the information on density from everywhere and give people some background knowledge, along the way.  The idea goes far beyond the New Age movement, and channelling.  It's found in major religions, and across all subcultures.

Why the Cleanup and POV tags?
I have just added Cleanup and POV tags to the top of this article. While I have no intention of disputing whether or not thse concepts are factual, I find the article at present to be confusingly organized &mdash; forbiddingly so. Moreover, it presents its particular sort of spirituality as Truth, which is not what a Wikipedia article should do. It certainly appears that many people have used the term "spiritual density", though I cannot yet judge whether or not they use this term in a consistent way. The job of this article is to report the ways the various spiritualists have thought about this concept, not to push an original view itself.

Please read No original research and Neutral point of view.

Anville 12:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For those same reasons, I'm on the edge of reaching for the AfD template. There are a number of pages that cover this kind of topic already - for instance, Subtle body, Septenary (Theosophy) and Plane (cosmology) - and show how comparison of different views on levels of spirituality can be handled objectively. In contast, this article just expounds a personal take on the subject.


 * PS "But if you feel that changes need to be made, I'll be more than happy to oblige you in letting you make them". That isn't how it works here. You don't "let us" make them. By posting to Wikipedia, you bought into the deal that others can edit what you wrote. See also Ownership of articles. Tearlach 16:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen this in time to vote on it. Some of the edits were high quality. Is there any way to extract them for possible inclusion in another article? -- 216.234.56.130 20:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Dreadfully sorry.
I've been reading the rules per article ownership.

Actually, I was in favor of "deleting" it myself, after realizing that I couldn't take it anywhere else, and I had a hard time with sources.

... someone said there were high-quality edits in this article, so perhaps there is an archive of this article somewhere...

I would have voted to delete it as it is, since I was the owner of an article I could not maintain.

New Page
I made a new article (still stubby), which is not based on original research. The rest of the conversation here applies to the iold, deleted page M Alan Kazlev 04:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so much for that bright idea! I couldn't find a single applicable reference in either Google or on Amazon com. Looks like the term, catchy as it is, is original research as well. Anyway I made it a redirect to Plane (cosmology), this being nmore approprate than Transpersonal psychology M Alan Kazlev 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)