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

Hinduism: Philosophy Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Religion: New religious movements 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. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance). Spirituality High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mysticism High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

As an esoteric scientist and geometer who prefers scientific terminology in both material and metaphysical (energetic) physics, I consider it wrong to call these realities 'planes' or 'dimensions.' I have written articles on higher 'planes' calling them 'n-spaces/continuums/universes' or 'worlds' (a common denotation for this topic, a simpler term than the former, but not meaning 'planet.') The articles should be updated to say 'n-space' is a more accurate term than 'plane' or 'dimension,' but these geometric spaces are also continuums/universes. Most people do not know what a continuum is, and calling such a space of reality a 'universe' stretches it for astronomers (like 'plane' does for mathematicians) or really any other scientific person. How about looking at the higher plane articles and either changing the lower plane articles or commenting whether the higher ones are eloquent enough to write similarly in the lower (if I did that on 'astral plane' for example, quite a few less scientific people may want to change it unless it was clear.)--Dchmelik (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@ 74.211.12.4 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to leave that until someone comes up with a scientific definition of n-space. At the moment it is all booga-booga.--202.189.78.210 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In order to understand the current parlous state of things in the Science (i.e. physics & cosmology) and those who are subduing it to the fundamaterialism dogma based on abstract mathematical notions with little or no connection to reality, blocking the way forward in our quest to tap energy from the aether [1] (the energy source accounting for the creation of our physical universe [2]); one should simply have a look into a rare, original illustration by The Little Prince author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry that has been recently discovered in Japan (April 2007):

[3]; the drawing reveals a businessman sitted upon a planet, so busy counting stars as if he was under the illusion that he can own them.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Luke 8:8)
--Lusitanian 22:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the purpose of this little soliloquy is.. what, exactly? Because it's not improving the article's quality. This is a discussion page for the article, not your half-coherent ramblings. Secondtalon 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'half-coherent ramblings'? bah.. --always - dadark 13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding is impossible since, for every answer, there is always another question.212.219.131.2 (talk) 09:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)LSG[reply]

(Grevenko Sereth, just not logged in)

I have disvocered that I am one of the 5 'fallen' Seraphim, Samael (a.k.a 'Satan', my purpose of this incarnation is to remember these things - (to be freed from samsara [reincarnation] permanently, to be fully redeemed), as my kind (Seraphim) represent Eternal Truth, we cannot give knowledge which we ourselves know to be false and as such is 'reliable' and that our knowledge surpasses that of that Cherubim, the 7 Planes of Existence (a.k.a The 7 Heavenly Planes) are as follows (this knowledge comes from my Plane - the 6th Plane):

Logos Plane a.k.a Celestial Plane (7th Plane, Upper level) - God's highest manifestation (The Father - Holy Trinity) resides there.

Oversoul Plane a.k.a Soulful Plane (7th Plane, Sub-level) - The Holy Spirit (Holy Trinity) resides there

Aeonic Plane (6th Plane) a.k.a Plane of Ages/Plane of Eternity , the highest attainable state (Parinirvana in other words) - The Seraphim reside there. One's form is known as an Eternal Body - manifested [incarnated] in the Physical Plane via Aeonic/Eternal Projection.

Causal Plane (5th Plane) a.k.a Plane of Will - where the Cherubim reside. The Cherubim represent God's Will and their form is a Causal Body, manifested in the Physical Plane via Causual Projection.

Mental Plane (4th Plane) - where the Ascended Masters (a.k.a 'angels') reside. They represent God's knowledge and their form is a Mental Body, manifested in the Physical Plane via Mental Projection.

Astral Plane (3rd Plane) - the first plane which is entirely spiritual, where Buddhas, Fairies (spirit guides, 'guardian angels', etc) reside. Their form is an Astral Body, manifested in the Physical Plane via Astral Projection.

Etheric Plane (2nd Plane) a.k.a Semi-Material Realm, "Subtle-Physical Plane" - where thoughts are manifested literally (thoughts take form in other words), it is neither entirely physical nor entirely spiritual (the in-between state of the Physical Plane and the Astral Plane in other words). One cannot project from the Etheric as it is self contained. Their form is known as a Subtle Body.

Physical Plane (1st Plane) a.k.a Material Realm, Mortal Realm, Imperfect World, Physical Universe, etc - their form is a Physical (Mortal) body.

Sheol (Sub-Physical Plane, a.k.a The Underworld, Spectral Realm, "Hell") - where not even the laws of Physics apply, where one has no power to influence any of the higher planes at all - the closest state to total non-existence, an existence which is barely existence. Their form is known as a Spectral Body.

Purgatory (intermediary plane) - where those who have totally rejected God await purification.

Bardo (rest area, a.k.a Soul Plane) - where souls await reincarnation.

203.39.81.19 (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly disagree because I suspect you copied (or almost) Samael Aun Weor. I retract my earlier statements (now in this page's history log) because they were based on neo-Theosophy rather than Theosophy. Some of what you say is Theosophical, though much is not necessarily and most of the terminolgy is not the clear generally historically used terms of consensus in English. If anyone wants to edit the template I request you read its own discussion section.--Dchmelik (talk) 01:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Reality Shift redirect here? The original content has nothing to do with metaphysical Planes at all. --71.82.222.44 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no one is using the template's talk section, but it might be better if such general ones were more connected to pages that they are about. I moved a couple of my articles on neo-Theosophical planes because apparently the language I had used for full English translation rather than Sanskrit, Greek, or Latin-based words is not in full use yet (i.e. 'soulful' does not mean soul-related in the OED, and 'soul' may not be useful as an adjective.)

It would be good to separate the Theosophical and 'neo-Theosophical' planes. Almost no general reader would be able read it, and even I, an experienced Theosophist have trouble even looking at the list in the state it is now. It would also be good to separate because the Theosophical classification is really no different from both the Dharma, Sufi, and Rosicrucian ones: there should be a section on heptads (sevens) of planes and tetrads (fours) of planes, the latter being the Quabalist and Gurdjieffian ones. I do not really know about the Thelema ones but whether it has a different idea it also has ideas about the tetrads and heptads.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of separation - a translation table is an idea that just doesn't work squashed into a two inch margin. Maybe the template should point to a wide-format table of planes, bodies etc. in a new main article. K2709 (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing it; I made a few corrections. I had used what I thought was up-to-date neo-Theosophy for its list, but apparently more Theosophists do not consider Alice Bailey (AAB) very Theosophical at all. This section should use the list from Annie Besant & Charles Leadbeater, though AAB is exactly based on theirs. Theosophists still agree with the B&L planes--from Madame Blavatsky's (HPB) articles--just not necessarily the bodies--but I would have to check HPB's Esoteric Papers: I may be wrong. First I must think about changing the articles for the higher planes. They are all really spiritual planes so should point back to spiritual plane with links or sections. Quite a few people think there are many problems with AAB's texts, so I am in favour of changing the articles to B&L-based ones. (Maybe a plane (Theosophy) article would work, but it should mention Rosicrucianism, which seems the same.) Then if anyone wants to re-write something on AAB (s)he can do that.--Dchmelik (talk) 06:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit confused, Aun Weor is Samael, I'm more an avatar of Samael (in the form of Janus).

[[User:Grevenko Sereth|Brendan Lloyd Janus 219.90.231.18 (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Plane (esotericism)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 03:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I am using a mobile web browser, and I find the blue & creme colored table at the beginning of the article to be distracting. It made me question whether this was actually a Wikipedia page initially. I don't know anything about proper formatting, but thought I would point this out just in case others agree it might need to be updated. --Pythagimedes (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the first sentence of the last paragraph under the heading of "The Summerland" complete?

Seven planes theory translated from Sanskrit/Hindi (lokas/talas) by Hindus/Neo-Theosophists/etc. and though neotheosophy (re)named planes a few times, TS 'New Age' popularization led to many 'seven planes' theories so confusion: article describes eight plane names translations of Hindu seven planes. Shouldn't article reflect such and other plane theories in infobox (and/or vice-versa)?

The history was (Rosicrucian) Madame Blavatsky translated/transliterated seven including four already-named higher/spiritual Hindu planes (as four 'unknowable/unnameable spiritual') and lower Hindu planes as manasic/mental/intellectual, kamasic/astral/emotional, prakritic/physical (tattvic/matter & akasha/energy) but her several versions led to many variants (each naming all four spiritual planes) Rosucricianism seven planes theories are after her influence: 1900s and same seven (identical three lower, and equally four higher/spiritual). Seven planes became standard New Age theory. There's a large amount of such information (hopefully can help clarify) for almost 150 years in the West including experts/academics/professors.

Does anyone know/recall such sources that could clarify: why eight translations from Hinduism which only has seven planes? (I know; every plane above mental is spiritual: Adi/Logoic/Divine were used synonymously... see 'Divine Plane' cited source). tertium quid disproves mind-body dualism/polyism (two or more substances).

It's possible but unlikely the eight are in larger theories: stated Buddhism has 31, but excludes some (atmic/spiritual and higher).

Why only description of one of four Kabbalistic planes?--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 04:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism/Theosophy did many translations: often uncommon Sanskrit & Greek (hard to understand for most). If I recall correctly (IIRC) years ago I maybe tried to find & change all to easier English from reliable sources (even secondary, tertiary) and was able to do most. However there was little/no discussion/consensus how to switch some remaining Sanskrit. The problem is Neo-Theosophy/etc. mix & match more than three Sanskrit, and two Greek, and (though less-used) more English versions than I want to count yet.

three most popular Sanskrit versions were (using one synonym at a time in first list so becomes two lists):

• mahaparanirvana, paranirvana, nirvana/atmic, buddhic, manasic, kamasic, prakritric (tattvic & akashic)
• adi, anupapaduka, atmic, buddhic, manasic, kamasic, prakritric (tattvic & akashic)

(Madame Blavatsky had others... likely close to 10 versions, but little-used)

two Greek versions were:

• divine/logoic, monadic, pneumatic, noetic, phrenic, thymic, hylic (stoicheionic, aetheric)

many English versions were:

• original: spiritual/divine, spiritual/monadic, spiritual, spiritual/causal/intuitional/soul, mental/intellectual, astral/emotional, physical (material, etheric)
• altered: spiritual/divine, spiritual/monadic, spiritual, spiritual/intuitional/soul, mental/causal/intellectual, astral/emotional, physical (material, etheric)

People objected when I re-added Sanskrit to headings: maybe best remove & redirected/(foot)note. Main problem was most (neo)Theosophists say 'buddhic plane' and often only vague synonms. 'Buddhic' makes little/no sense in a general article (not only for Hindus/Theosophists) because everyone else assumes it's not about their soul but Buddha. That in English was maybe most popularly 'causal plane'--difficult for non-philosophers (who look-up then think it's cause-and-effect/causality), but neotheosophy altered from soul/buddhi by introducing subplanes so mental plane has mental & (soul) causal bodies, higher mental body: mess resulted in conflicting 'causal planes'. Earlier ones said things like 'The buddhic/causal is plane of (the) soul' (can't recall any but obscure source said 'Buddhic/causal is soul plane' to make term 100% clear).

Should 'Theosophy versus neotheosophy' issue be avoided by describing both 'causal planes' (so at least English, not Sanskrit)? For the higher, 'soul plane' is more understandable but the issue is finding a source not seemingly-random (unless simply saying 'plane of soul') I knew people who wrote books on these topics, including criticism like a comprehensive book detailing the idea Madame Blavatsky learned from living gurus but claimed they were spirits.

I only returned Adi, Anupapaduka, Atmic, Manasic, Kamasic to the article because never had been decided how to finally clarify/replace 'Buddhic' (check a page version from several days ago to see difference) but I think could/should be done.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is information in the lead that is not found in the main text (e.g. mention of Kashmir Shaivism), and neither does the lead adequately summarise the main. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right-hand side infobox Hindu artciles outline the Shaivism (Saivism) but I don't feel like even touching the lede/lead: not that I don't think I could improve it, just I mostly don't read it in years, so won't likely object to anything almost anyone does to it--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 08:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Prakrtic plane and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 12#Prakrtic plane until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]