Talk:Seven rays

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

Religion: Left Hand Path / New religious movements Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Left Hand Path work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Occult Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blavatsky did NOT write about the seven rays - in the sense it is used in this article. I feel that reference should be removed, or explained more.

kh7 14:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blavatsky DID write about the SEVEN RAYS - and throughout her writings there are continual references to the septenary aspects of creation, manifestation, and evolution. Arion 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this look so much clearer if it were in two tables, like the one here? That's the Alice A. Bailey table and then there'd be another for the Church Universal.

Also, does Alice Bailey define the master of the fourth ray as Serapis or Serapis Bey, because they are different, and in the current description it has Serapis yet links to Serapis Bey. Might be worth clarifying or sourcing. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 16:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a proposal to merge this article with "

It's a question of notability as established by reliable sources. The standards are at

WP:SOURCES. Currently, the article does not appear to meet those standards. Fireplace (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The notability is established by reliable sources. This religious / philosophical belief has been part of esoteric and religious organizations for centuries. Arion (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is whether the topic "Seven rays" "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Which sources in the article meet that standard? Fireplace (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These sources:

• Partridge, Christopher ed. New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities Oxford University Press, USA 2004. pages 330 - 334

• Lewis, James R. Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective Center For Academic Publication 1994.

• Braden, Charles S. These Also Believe MacMillan Publishing Company 2000 pages 257 - 307

Notability is established by reliable sources. Arion (talk) 05:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll take a look when I get a chance, it seems they are all in my university library. The question is whether they give significant coverage to the seven rays doctrine itself, or whether they just give coverage to the religious movements. Fireplace (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I checked the sources. The first source you gave does not discuss the "seven rays" in the pages you cited, nor in any other pages I saw, nor in the index. The second source does not seem to be located in the Harvard library system, which is the largest academic library in the world -- making me doubt that it could constitute "substantial coverage". The third source you gave doesn't seem to mention the "seven rays" either, although a couple times there are passing references to a "seven-fold committee". Certainly nothing rising to the level of substantial coverage. Any more wild goose chases you want to send me on? Fireplace (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeated the "wild goose chase" accusations several times, so you have forced me to respond. "Wild goose chase", in my understanding, refers to someone telling someone to go somewhere to find something that is not there, and that person knows it. I gave the references to you in the full belief that I had seen that "Seven Rays" belief mentioned in those books.

I apologize if the reference to the "Seven Rays" septenary belief was not specifically mentioned in 2 of the 3 books that I mentioned to you and that you checked. I have all 3 books in my home library, but did not actually check for specific mention of that "Seven Rays" belief before I mentioned the books. I remembered that they made a summary statement on some of the beliefs, and I thought that the "Seven Rays" theory would definitely have been mentioned. I still have not had time to go to my home library to check into the text of the 3rd book, but I hope to do that soon. Arion (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the Seven Rays references I was remembering from the 3 books I mentioned to you:

• Lewis, James R. Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective Stanford, California: Center For Academic Publication 1994

page 4: "Guy Ballard's contact with Saint Germain in 1929 placed him in the same role claimed by Madame Blavatsky. Upon his return to Chicago, he began to deliver dictated messages to a small group who met in his southside home. From that time forward he regularly dictated messages from Saint Germain, Jesus, and those personages described by Blavatsky as the Lords of the Seven Rays - those Masters most immediately concerned with the course of human evolution."

The other book's mention of "seven-fold committee" apparently refers to their organizing that committee in a manner that corresponds to each of the "Seven Rays". Arion 3x3 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not seem to constitute "significant coverage", as required by

WP:N. Fireplace (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree about keeping this as a separate article, and I wrote the reasons at the other discussion on the other talk page. --Linda (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now less a question of merging, and more a question of whether this would survive AFD. If someone points to reliable, independent sources giving this topic substantial coverage, I'm happy to let the

WP:N issue drop (see my comment immediately above yours for why Arion's sources don't work). Fireplace (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

This is to inform editors on this page that this topic, along with a list of related topics, have been mentioned in a report at this link on the WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It has been mentioned in the noticeboard report that some of the articles listed in the report may be nominated for deletion.

The report at the noticeboard was not posted by me. I'm placing this comment here as a courtesy for the editors working on this article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All one can do with any religion, let alone those apart from the mainstream, is to faithfully report their beliefs taken from the literature of the believers of their religious belief system. In doing so, we are not assesing truth claims (such as the Mormons believing that God is a physical being on another planet), one simply reports on the beliefs held, with as much accuracy as possible - with reliable sources and references.

There is no need at all to assess the truth claims of the 20th century new religions. If people were to delve into assessing the truth claims of religion, then an entry on Christianity may as well begin with assessing whether God exists. The best approach would seem to be an accurate rendition of any movement's beliefs, nature, history and activities (regardless of what a Wikipedia editor's own views are). Questioning the validity of religious beliefs isn't the role of an encyclopedia entry. Arion (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Rays are more than only a Theosophy concept, they are in lots of religions.

So I changed around the page a lot tonight and it has lots of new references.

The short parts still need to be made longer and the Theosophy parts need to be organized and cleaned up but I think this is a good start.

I made a section for early western mystery traditions because I have some info to put there but I didn't have time to get to that. --Linda (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that addresses my concerns about notability. Fireplace (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I added the stuff I found that the Gnostics and early mystery religions used the Seven Rays too. --Linda (talk) 07:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources saying that the "seven rays" referred to in early religions, catholicism, hinduism, and theosophy all refer to more-or-less the same concept, or at least are all related to one another? I'm worried that there might be some

original synthesis going on here. Fireplace (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

When I saw your note earlier I did some research and found some sources. But now it's too late to write it up tonight. I'll add them in the next few days when I'm not so sleepy. --Linda (talk) 11:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are added now. Good night! --Linda (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section:

In the

neo-Platonic elements with others that were Persian or Babylonian in origin. Later neo-Platonists, such as Proclus and Iamblichus

, rated them highly.

Ok, it appears that attempting to gather a different source for this would be original research. In fact, looking at the original source, it's kinda shoe-horned here, since it really isn't about "seven rays," but there's the occasional mention of "seven" being important in the Chaldean oracles and the above religions. The self-published source does not mention much in the way of seven rays. Reworking it. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following will need clarification:

Quote: "The energy healing system of Reiki requires the student to pass through a sequence of levels, by mastering the "key" to each level. The key for the second level is known as the key of "oneness" and is attained by passing through each of the seven rays."

I am both a Reiki Master-Teacher and practitioner and this is the first time i've ever heard of this. This isn't part of original Reiki as taught by Mikao Usui, so for accuracy the article needs to specify which branch of Reiki this refers to rather than simply "Reiki". It is somewhat like saying that the head of the "Christian Church" is the King of Norway, when he in fact is only the head of the Church of Norway not of "Christianity". HansNZL (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cite, credentials are irrelevant here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@ Ian Thomson - The onus is the other way around. Essentially it's like saying "Christianity is a Martian Religion" and then citing someone's published fringe theory saying so. If people familiar with Christianity point out that Christianity wasn't formulated on Mars, it is hardly fair to tell them to hunt down a published source stating that "Christianity is not a Martian religion". This has nothing to do with my personal "credentials", i am simply giving advice about editing the article much in the way I don't have to prove I have a degree in English to correct obvious spelling mistakes. Whether you choose to believe in my "credentials" or not doesn't change the fact that the article is wrong. Go to the library, look at reference books about Reiki, then you'll find that few (if any) refer to what the article asserts. There may be a fringe branch of Reiki that believes in this, but implying that this belongs to all (or even most) schools of Reiki is false, yet that is what the article implies. HansNZL (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

source according to our guidelines, we can state in some fashion that her teaching is dubious. Two of the three, we can remove it. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you :) HansNZL (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. according to the authoritative publication The Reiki Sourcebook, any healing system that departs so drastically from Reiki (as this seven rays version of "Reiki" appears to) is not actually Reiki - it is another healing system all together - perhaps inspired by Reiki, but not "Reiki". HansNZL (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've done some internet searches and i frankly can't find any sort of seven rays Reiki, let alone seven rays being at the heart of the Reiki system! - Just some allusions to seven rays philosophy being used by people who also practice Reiki. In any case here is Mikao Usui's (the founder of Reiki) original manual, a primary source that makes no mention whatsoever that "the key for the second level is known as the key of "oneness" and is attained by passing through each of the seven rays".

P.S. Ian, before you squabble with me further I suggest you acquiant yourself with what Reiki is, starting with the Wikipedia entry about Reiki, which, (as expected) mentions nothing about a seven rays attunement process (because it has nothing to do with Reiki). HansNZL (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to familiarize yourself with

undue weight by including Usui's work, but unless you can find something wrong with the actual source in terms of Wikipedia's guidelines, it stays in the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ian.thomson, the way you are applying these rules is a form of malicious compliance, but I will meet you half way: while Carolyn E. Jackson is simply plain wrong and the article misleads people by including her false claim, your edit is sufficient enough to make the inclusion of her spurious statement tolerable (for now). Thank-you. When I am next at the local library I will find out the exact pages in the (far more authoritative) Reiki Sourcebook which point out that what Carolyn E. Jackson is promoting is not Reiki at all. I've tweaked your latest edit to make it clearer. HansNZL (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, malicious compliance would be if I was feeding people bad info about medicine. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thompson, I believe it is your ego which is making you pig-heading about this, thereby negatively impacting on the content of the article. Not only is your approach to this issue classic malicious compliance, you are also gaming the system and behaving like a rules lawyer. It is Wikipedia and those mislead by the article who are paying the price. HansNZL (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reiki Sourcebook, Bronwen & Frans Stein (2003), O Books publishing,

When I am next at the central library I will look at other Reiki books, which will inevitably further corroborate this one. HansNZL (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you need a source that specifically counters Jackson. Right now, it's attributed to Jackson, and there's a notification that it does not appear in the original teachings. Even if you find something that specifically counters Jackson, her bit is still going to be there, just with a part after saying "but X author says this is wrong." That's how our

Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines

to discredit the Jackson source.

And on another note,

personal attacks are NOT acceptable here. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Regarding the essays you've brought up:

WP:WIN

- Of course this is not a game to be won, so why are you coming back after the issue is resolved to try to win? I see the pot calling the ket- no, the cast of Friends]] black here.

WP:Fringe theory, or removing those sources under sockpuppets while marking the edits are minor. Also, "Using policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that some editor is editing in bad faith, with the 'evidence' for this itself being an obviously unreasonable bad-faith interpretation of that person's action" and "If gaming is also knowingly used as a basis to impugn another editor or to mischaracterize them as bad faith editors, then this may also violate the policy of no personal attacks." - One of the foundations for this site is WP:Assume good faith

.

WP:WL

- Wikilawyering isn't simply trying to keep the articles within the guidelines, it's bending the guidelines to get around them, or introducing quasi-legal concepts. Wikilawyering in this case would be

• someone bringing outside legal terms (like "malicious compliance") to insist that the article be "corrected" to
  match their POV instead of just reporting what's found in published sources
• citing essays like guidelines
• saying that my following statements about the scientific validity of Reiki and accusations of malicious compliance are a
  WP:personal attack
  .

WP:COMMON, but Reiki is pseudoscience, it's not like there's a right way to be wrong). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, the edit was made, issue was resolved, and you come back here about this -- you came back to gloat. How is that that I'm the one

WP:WIN is applied to here? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

@ Ian, I wasn't aware that the issue had been resolved because you never responded to my post (below) despite being very vocal about everything else. I'm glad that is now sorted. I wasn't "gloating", merely responding to the statements you made. Peace! HansNZL (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian, what - now you are trawling through my other edits (i.e. adrenal fatigue) to create trouble. EGO EGO EGO - let it go, please! Hide from this valid observation of your behaviour by dismissing it as a "personal attack" if you must. However such behaviour is toxic to the wikipedia project, if not creepy and bizarre. This

Again, what purpose does you coming back here serve? And what purpose does linking to that serve? Are you sure it's my behavior you should be so concerned about? It is actually common for experienced users to examine inexperienced user's edits to make sure they don't do stuff like alter other editor's comments on talk pages. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ian, well you too have come back here to continue this dialogue have you not? The issue here is that I should be able to comment on the sentence in the article which is (was) glaringly wrong to anyone with an intermediate acquaintance with Reiki without it becoming the long thread that it has become - not because this served the article, but because I was hit by a wall of bureaucracy and stonewalling that had nothing to do with improving the actual subject, but was instead in the service of your ego. No wonder so many people give up editing Wikipedia. It is you who wanted to "win" by arguing a ridiculous point in order to make yourself right and perceive another as wrong in your own mind (an ego bolstering strategy). I've got your back up because my comments have reflected your behaviour back to you, so you've run off and made silly comments about my other contribution (adrenal fatigue) in order to vindicate yourself (another ego bolstering strategy). At the end of the day I just wanted accurate information about Reiki - this isn't a "competition" for me. I'm also concerned you are stonewalling other people in the same way you have me which is why I am persevering with this dialogue. After all, you have described yourself as an experienced user on Wikipedia, so clearly you are influencing the content/tone of many articles. Perhaps you are innocently unaware of how you come across. HansNZL (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Ian, now perhaps we should both follow the

I would be totally happy with that. It makes clear that this is Jackson's system, not a description of Reiki generally. HansNZL (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Theosophy section already suffers from a complete lack of third-party sourcing. The following material lacks any sourcing whatsoever. t can be returned to the article if (i) it is sourced & (ii) it does not too-much dilute the (currently non-existent) third-party material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics of the seven rays

According to

Bailey stated that the seven rays that reach us on

On the local planetary level, it is believed by adherents of the Theosophical tradition that the seven rays are transmitted from the Solar Logos through the God of our planet, Sanat Kumara, then through the spiritual hierarchy of our planet which includes the "Masters of Wisdom" (Some writings term them the Ascended Masters or the Great White Brotherhood).

Each of the seven rays is believed to be associated with a different kind of

The "Gifts of the Holy Spirit" of the Church Universal and Triumphant for each ray are shown. For both Alice A. Bailey and the Church Universal and Triumphant, each ray has a jewel which is believed to focus the energy of that ray, which is indicated.

In a section below, the characteristic

Alice A. Bailey

Ascended Master Teachings

C.W. Leadbeater

C.W. Leadbeater gave a list showing the characteristic type of

• 3. THIRD RAY: Magic of Astrology (Natural Magnetic Forces).

• 4. FOURTH RAY: Magic of
  Hatha Yoga
  (physical development).

• 5. FIFTH RAY: Magic of Alchemy (Manipulation of Material Substances).

• 6. SIXTH RAY: Magic of
  Bhakti Yoga (Selfless Service and Altruistic Love [ agape
  ]).

• 7. SEVENTH RAY: Ceremonial magic (Invocation of Elementals, and Devas).

[End of removed material. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC) ][reply]

• Sources have been located and added to this material and it is now back in the article. Keraunos (talk) 02:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Seven rays. 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/20121020172010/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Knights_Of_The_Apocalypse to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Knights_Of_The_Apocalypse
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927044457/http://blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/other/photon.htm to http://www.blavatsky.net/confirm/ev/other/photon.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090803204747/http://www.sevenray.net/sri_education_introaw_sevenrays.html to http://www.sevenray.net/sri_education_introaw_sevenrays.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 07:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]