Talk:Cosmic Consciousness

Bad article

Bad article. Bad! The principal problem is that, rather than reporting on what various thinkers have said about cosmic consciousness, and what their versions of the theory are, this makes a bunch of statements about cosmic consciousness which the writer presumably believes to be true. Stuff like "Humans can be conceived as partaking in this greater Consciousness. The idea does not contradict science or biology." Really? Who says so? And even if you can tell me which notable thinker says precisely that, you should simply report that they say so, rather than assert that it is true. This reeks of original research, synthesis and advocacy. I'm gonna put some templates on it and, if I it's not too much hassle, take a hatchet to the text. Misterbailey (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed an entire section as it was one big hunk of synthesis and would have to be rewritten from the ground up as an explicit presentation of the views of notable thinkers. Misterbailey (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"Bad article. Bad!"

Agreed. Dreadful article barely qualifying for term 'stub'. I promise to do some work on this one, I am particularly fond of Bucke's book of that title, it is important and deserves far better treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeeprs (talk • contribs) 10:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see some work has already been done on this article. It was shambling mess before. As I am only familiar with Bucke's work, it is good to see similar opinions referenced correctly. The previous article was crap. Thank you. Darkpoet (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much religious bullshit, for me, to consider this article even related. Cosmic awareness has NOTHING to do with modern religion and its practices. Even the thought that religion, as it's used (enslavement scriptures), has something to do with cosmic awareness would be stupid. Maybe, without research on the matter, I have better understanding than this gibberish. To be aware cosmically, one has to empathize with the universe, not criticize it. By all means, being aware cosmically, is to be aware of everything in its purest form. If everything in the universe vibrates, cosmic awareness is the receiver of all vibrations. There is no scientific way to portrait this in current time, for our current time is fed with deceit and impure information. Even if scientist, or better said their publishers, would not lie, we know jack shit about ourselves, the planet and let alone the universe. We can't even explain consciousness and it's very existence. Heck, we cant even explain our pyramids. In due time.. We will. But for now this moment, this particular article has insignificant amounts of value. - Unsigned. 5-8-14. 3:26AM

Work done

I have done some work on the article, including removing the repeated section and giving a more broad scope to the various conceptions of cosmic consciousnes that exist.KnowledgeAndVision (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The voice of youth

I am 12 years old and what the fuck is this shit??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.85.174.54 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When a reader doesn't get it, it's assumed they are not the target audience. In other words, "it's not for you". Another page or time maybe? 110.33.2.238 (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Patterns in nature

While this is not a necessary belief in pantheism, some pantheists see a cosmic consciousness as a good way of explaining the patterns in nature which seem to act almost wilfully, independent of physical laws, and as a bridge between the strictly impersonal god of some modern forms of scientific pantheism and a more personal, conscious and wilfully acting god.

Seriously? There are no patterns in nature which seem to act independently of physical laws. I will delete this sentence. -Deathmare 10:26 18 October 2010 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathmare (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Verification failed

The idea bears similarity to the ancient Buddhist concept of Indra's net, Teilhard de Chardin's conception of the noosphere, James Lovelock's Gaia theory, to Hegel's Absolute idealism, Satori in Zen,<ref>Benjamin Walker ''Beyond the Body'', pp. 27-8, Routledge, 1974 ISBN 978-0710078087</ref>

This looked wrong to me, so I checked the <ref> on Google Books and none of these works are mentioned. I will therefore add a {{Failed verification}} tag. I will also delete the mention of James Lovelock's Gaia theory as this is simply nonsense; according to Lovelock, Gaia has no consciousness and is a fully automatic system. HairyWombat 04:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Later. This article is a mess. I have added {{expert-verify}} in the hope that somebody with a philosophy background will check the mentions of Hegel, etc. Also, I believe it would be worthwhile for the other references to be verified. I am not sure what else can be done apart from just deleting the thing. However, deletion would be a shame given the number of editors who have contributed to it. I believe the topic is worthy of an encyclopedia article, but this article currently doesn't cut it. HairyWombat 17:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

References

The sources used here are extremely poor. The entire article needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I will fix this article soon. I am currently looking for references I noticed Ali Nomad has published a book titled Cosmic Consciousness. He adds Balzac and Leo Tolstoi to the list. GreenUniverse (talk) 15:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources 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. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Spam

The history part of this page assertions a bunch of random stuff ("the truth") and then pastes a youtube video, its just some guy trying to sell his book (the same truth-containing book listed in the article). Just spam, needs removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muloc7253 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation and?

In his theory of how enlightenment grows, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi uses the term in a somewhat different way: it is the state that arises as the physiological changes that take place during Transcendental Meditation start to become stable outside of meditation. At a some point, the meditator will start to notice this situation in terms of a never-changing background of "pure consciousness" that becomes present at all times, whether waking, dreaming or asleep. When that happens, the meditator is said to be entering the beginning stage of the first stage of enlightenment, "Cosmic Consciousness." Research on this physiological state is on-going, and Fred Travis recently published a paper in the Annals of the Academy of Science of New York, that surveys the published research and theoretical justification for performing it: Transcendental experiences during meditation practice. Should some mention be made of this? The state is mentioned, in passing, to everyone who ever learns TM, in order to give them a heads up that they may someday wake up and find themselves in such a state, and is described in many books and articles about TM. Sparaig2 (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Template

{{quote|}} is the common template for quotes. What reason is there to use {{Quotation|}} other than your personal preference? Though this argument of course backfires, but I also find it quite unpolite to make such changes to the style/lay-out of a page, and simply re-revert when you're reverted. See BRD. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

• So it's the common template. Fake diamonds are far more common than real diamonds, so fake diamonds must be better than real ones. Right? This issue will have to go to RFC or possibly ANI. There is no good reason to deprecate the Quotation template and good reasons to use it. Wahrmund (talk) 13:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
• Let me expand on this. Editors who prefer the old "quote" template are those who have not accepted the fact that print on a computer screen is very different from print on a page in a book. Each has advantages and disadvantages that distinguish it from the other. The advantages of computer print should be exploited by Wikipedia for the benefit of its readership. At the same time, disadvantages associated with print on paper can be avoided; one of those disadvantages is that placing a colored background into a set-off quotation is not feasible in a paper medium. Such a background, which can be used on a computer screen, is an excellent way to highlight and emphasize quotations longer than line or two. In books, this can only be achieved by the much inferior method of using smaller print and indentation from the surrounding text. That is actually a detriment to readability and overall appearance of the page. The Quotation template avoids doing this. In short, the new Quotation template achieves:
  • A better way to highlight quotations.
  • Improved readability (no reduced print size).
  • A more visually attractive page.
• Wikipedia's readers are the beneficiaries of these improvements.
• Wahrmund (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Good reasoning - serious! @Frietjes: would you have an opinion on this? Is there a "default" quote-template? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Except for "a more visually attractive page" - I find it very unattractive. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Bhagavad Gita

I have removed the following addition:

"Cosmic consciousness is also a state which only very progressed yogis can experience. Sri Aurobindo mentiones it and the Bhagavad Gita describes it in Chapter 11 : The Yoga of the cosmic vision."

References

• The first sentence is unsourced.
• Of course Aurobindo mentions it; he was familair with western esotericism and Transcendentalism.
• Bhagavd Gita: this is WP:OR, and typical pernennialist/Universalist POV.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)