Talk:Third eye

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third eye article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hinduism Mid‑importance

	Hinduism portal 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Buddhism Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Spirituality Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

The Consept

Considering the concept of a third eye comes from Hindu teachings, the fact that the article talks about it through christian, gnostic and taoist teachings is a bit stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.200.24 (talk) 23:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. oknazevad (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's entirely from Western New Age Spirituality (Theosophy, etc.). In ancient scriptures, chakras are visualization suggestions, not descriptions of existing structures. See http://hareesh.org/blog/2016/2/5/the-real-story-on-the-chakras . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.205.217.211 (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

I added a short section referencing these pages; it was immediately reverted with the tag "Unsourced and this article is about an ancient mystical concept, not pop culture."

I think this misses the point.

Many Wikipedia pages have a section "In popular culture", in order to differentiate the material in other sections, which concern the topic of the page, from material that has been used, abused and distorted by the popular media.

The reason for including the section is that, many people in the English-speaking world who have heard of the third eye got their information from this bestselling book. It seems to me that it is worth mentioning the book, while pointing out that its ideas are not based in fact. The source for the statements made is the "Main Articles".

212.159.102.166 (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KJN

Yes, I was the editor who reverted your edit. Some articles have popular culture sections, but there is no consensus on adding them to all articles. It may be worth including in this article, but certainly not in a dedicated section (in my opinion). At the very least, there would need to be at least one reliable (secondary) source that discusses third eye in relation to the book. - Mr X 16:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I could copy references from the "Main Article" pages, but I did not want to do that because:

(a) (paradoxically given the reason for the reversion) I felt that adding references that are really about the popular book was not appropriate for a page on the spiritual concept

(b) I have not read those references, so my propagation of them would be inappropriate. I could find a print reference that I have read, but this would take an inordinate amount of time, and it would not be particularly helpful to readers if it cannot be found on the Web.

(c) I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that references to other Wikipedia pages would be sufficient.

In any case, Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes warns us against failing to be bold. "Yes, you might mess things up a little. But someone else will probably clean up after you. Really, go ahead and change it." Reversion is the enemy of this approach. I don't care if my text is ruthlessly edited, removed from its own section, etc etc, because that is the whole point of Wikipedia; but if it is reverted, no one else gets the chance to improve it. - 212.159.102.166 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC) KJN[reply]

This should not be conflated with "mind's eye".

The phrase "mind's eye" refers to mental imagery and not to mystical powers of heightened perception; earlier revisions of this page (prior to 29 January 2017) specifically mentioned that the third eye is not to be confused with the mind's eye. Since 29 January 2017, this page now conflates the two, and has inappropriate references to aphantasia and mental imagery (concepts that pertain to the "mind's eye" but not to the "third eye".) Msraia (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I'll move the content that belongs on that other page, and fix up this article...BrianPansky (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 TY4

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2022 and 16 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Leannecr (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Leannecr (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3rd eye

learn more? 50.33.36.61 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and the Third Eye

The Buddha never taught the third eye concept in Buddhism. Hinduism however does. 2601:281:D300:B750:D851:6E72:82D7:ED5D (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The third eye is often associated with religious visions, *️⃣ clairvoyance, the ability to observe chakras and auras,[2] *️⃣ precognition, and out-of-body experiences.

Why do you confuse the third eye with clairvoyance and precognition? The third eye has nothing to do with clairvoyance or precognition.

Smutron Ros Smultron Ros (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]