This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Thoughtform redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the creation or dissolution of a tulpa entity or any other forum like topics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this redirect. You may wish to ask factual questions about the creation or dissolution of a tulpa entity or any other forum like topics at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion on April 23, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
This page may be an unfortunate product of inaccurate translation from another language into English. The result neglects articles, conjunctions, prepositions, word order, word choice, and agreement of subject, verb, pronoun, etc., that are necessary for meaning.
An example in particular: The section "Phenomenal world as thoughtform" in which "Lawler cites Bateson from Lovelock", with repeated use of the word "imminent," which means "impending," or "about to happen"... which appears to be a confusion with the word "immanent": Existing or remaining within; inherent; or: Restricted entirely to the mind; subjective.
Can this passage really mean:
The individual mind is impending but not only in the body. It is about to occur also in pathways and messages outside the body, and there is a larger mind of which the individual mind is only a sub-system. This larger mind is comparable to God and is perhaps what some people mean by God, but it is still about to occur in the total interconnected social systems and planetary ecology.
Could Lawlor or Bateson or Lovelock have actually intended this meaning? Isn't it more likely the intended meaning is more along the lines of:
The individual mind is existing or remaining within, but not only in the body. It is inherent also in pathways and messages outside the body, and there is a larger mind of which the individual mind is only a sub-system. This larger mind is comparable to God and is perhaps what some people mean by God, but it is still inherent in the total interconnected social systems and planetary ecology.
Without reference to the original version, it's impossible to confidently correct the English language version and provide clarity. rowley 03:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
However the potential scope is vast: a materialist might argue that all deities or concepts of deity are "thoughtforms" within the provenance of this article, pagans argue that the Devil in Christianity is a politically engineered thoughtform... I could go on and on, but won't. How to proceed? Maybe merge the article with Egregore to achieve a better-structured coverage, taking care to avoid tendentious bias in the structure (example: by excluding god/s which "really exist").
Quacksalber 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Janet and Stewart Farrar ("A Witches' Bible", ISBN 0-919345-92-1) give a detailed discussion of "Thought-forms" (several refs in their Index). These they relate to (Jungian) complexes, their use of the word "thought-form" following Egregore pretty closely. They provide a case-study (allegedly factual) in which a thought-form they named "Mara" was deliberately fabricated by their coven to guard a seal breeding-ground called Inishkea (see: http://www.museumsofmayo.com/deirbhile3.htm) against marauding fishermen. Nowhere however do the authors consider the possibility that with "Mara" they might have been chanelling a pre-existing psychic being or complex under the illusion they were inventing it.
Quacksalber 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've written a new introduction in an attempt to improve this article. It preserves as much as I consider reasonable of the existing material (on Tulpas). Quacksalber 05:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Deletion: To my knowledge "Thought Forms" was a term developed by Theosophists( Theosophy), so the Leadbetter and Besant references are spot on, and I would emphasize this. The Tulpa reference and talk about the Egregore shows the complexity of the subject and the enormity and power of thought forms. I find the Jungian discussion interesting, although a little bit off course because I feel "thought forms" are a mystical concept, not science or medicine.
I would include a link and disscusion on the Hindu term Samskara or Sanskara--which should be merged and improved upon. Samskaras are basically thought forms or actions that build up over time and can begin to influence us if the behavior or thought is repeated over. If we do not clear up our samskaras we carry them forward into a future life as karma. As I have noted samskaras, or thought forms, also coalesce at a particular place. See Geographic samskaras. [2]-- 69.202.125.148 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)madis senner
As there has/have been no creation of wiki-headings in this discussion page I find it difficult to follow debate. Please excuse my crude language usage in the article and the idiosyncratic way that I have cited references. I have endeavoured to ensure that the
paper trails are
auditable for
probity.
That said, this is a bloody difficult subject to communicate and define let alone nail...refer
phurba and
vajrakilaya.
The words i have utilised were intentional. Though human and fallible, I am quite particular with quotations that i have referenced as well as the language usage. There has been much "talk" on this page and little constructive editing. I just reverted the article to a prior edit as the edits were not sensitive to pre-existing content and rail-roaded the opening of the article which as a consequence no longer conformed with Wikipedia specifications. I have also added this page to my watchlist as I am endeavouring to iterate
Vajrayana Wikipedia articles with this spiritual
meme and teaching with the related teaching of
mindstream.
BTW: in due course i will re-access the source to repair the imminent/immanent(?) debacle with full confidence... sometimes when i am tired i make errors...we can always place [
sic] on the true and correct quotation and add a purport in commentary.
B9 hummingbird hovering ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
We have three overlapping terms to rationalise, and maybe merge:
Egregore,
Thoughtform and
Tulpa (which re-directs here). What opened the discussion was a nomination to delete the lot as devoid of merit. Discussants say no, but appear to agree on the need for revision. At that stage the discussion was easy enough to follow without headings.
IMO if we are to retain the present content of Thoughtform intact, it is better renamed Tulpa. Thoughtform has published usage in a wider context, which the present article ignores. I accept the fit of my suggested intro with the existing content left room for more to do, but do not accept it "rail-roaded the opening of the article". Do shoulder it aside and revert the text, but the problem remains. Someone else try now.
I don't agree "this is a bloody difficult subject to communicate and define let alone nail". Try. When not so tired. Quacksalber 01:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The terms Elemental, Elementary, Familiar, and Jinni are also sometimes used to refer to an artificial entity but these terms have other meanings as well.
Also, some believe that beings such as Bigfoot and Lochness Monster are actually thought-forms. No wonder people encounter the apparitions but when people try to find them there is little success.
The "Detailed Description" section is full of glowing accolades, like "resplendent and scholarly tome", "trailblazer" (which points to a disambiguation page), "evocatively described", and the question of whether or not Alice Bailey was "inspired". This should be replaced with more neutral language.
Also, is there any reason why Annie Besant deserves her own section? Was that added by her publicist in an attempt to sell her book? Alfvaen 18:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Annie Besant should have her own section; her (and Col. Leadbeater’s) book is the classic work on the subject. HarKop 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. Andries 15:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose to use the alternative phrase Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries ( talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't understand what this is talking about. It would help if the intro could be read by someone who hasn't memorized the writings of Charles Fort. — Gwalla | Talk 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Scribe 27 (2002: pp.208-9) states:
"Tulpa" is a Tibetan word that refers to a thought-form which has accumulated so much energy from repeated invocations that it has in effect, taken on a life of its own and become semi-permanent. This initially sounds like a good thing, due to the fact that it frees up the magician to attend to other tasks, but if something goes wrong in the formative process, the tulpa can mutate into a destructive and parasitic invisible enemy that you can't get rid of!!! For this reason, neophytes are strongly discouraged from attempting to crate any sort of "lifelike" thought-form! If a thought-form is given arms, legs, and a personalty, there is a much grater chance that it could develop into a tulpa. Examples of tulpa include: "guardians" and "watchers" created by adepts, "familiars," "totem animals," the homonculous, and other forms of invisible friends and servants. After an adept has created a semi-permanent protective "sphere" around his (or her) property (extending up into the sky and down into the ground), their next "precaution" is usually to post a few tulpas on "sentry duty" within the perimeter (these often take the form of mastiffs, animated suits of armour, or dour man-servants). Formulated correctly, they prove highly competent in this capacity. [1]
The use of the term by eg Jung is so different to that in magic/magik that I suggest it belongs in a separate article Thoughtform (Psychiatry) or similar. Any views? Springnuts ( talk) 22:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I wrote this article from my own realization. Now I am finding scholarship and citation to authenticate. On waking this morning and starting to progress the Dream Yoga article and writing on the "yid lu" (Tibetan), the orthography "sprul pa" manifested unbidden in my mindstream. Vajrayana is profound. This is a blessing for me to not doubt my inner knowing, my ' gnosis' (Sanskrit: Jñāna).
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering (
talk •
contribs)
03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
tul: [Tib.] patterns =
sprul
yang-tul: [Tib.] secondary tulpa =
yang sprul
nying-tul: [Tibetan] tertiary tulpa =
nying sprul
B9 hummingbird hovering (
talk •
contribs)
10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thought-form is an occult term used to describe beings or entities deliberately created by the agency of human thought, particularly as a group effort. It overlaps the term Egregore used in Chaos Magic. The concept of Tulpa (see [3]) has similarities with that of thought-form but usually entails the activity of just one thinker.
In folklore the Bogeyman is a being which parents tell a child about in order to scare it into obedience. Let us call the parents plus the child, who conspire or cooperate to create the illusion of the Bogeyman's existence, the supporters, and extend this term to cover all those responsible for the "human thought" giving rise to a given thought-form.
In the widest sense, any entity which is the subject of contemplation or acknowledgement, or spoken of (between two or more people) as if it existed, might be considered a thought-form. Such a notion is too general to be useful: it includes all scientific theories and all legendary beings such as the Angel Gabriel, historical personages accruing legends such as Gautama Buddha, and legendary characters whose historical existence is a matter for rational debate such as Jesus, St George or Robin Hood.
Working definition. For the purpose of this article, we define a thought-form as a being:
This definition deliberately excludes:
This does not prevent a being in any of the above excluded categories becoming a thought-form by changing its nature to escape its categorisation. For example, suppose Mickey Mouse were to appear in a dream to a lady whose life is thereby changed for the better. Why Mickey Mouse, formerly a fictitious character, would thereby escape exclusion and merit consideration as a thought-form is because he is no longer overtly fictitious (the lady believes she has seen him, albeit in a dream) and he has exerted an effect in the real world, namely by changing the lady's life.
The above definition of thought-form is careful to say nothing about whether it possesses intelligence (which is independent of the pooled intelligence of its supporters). Nor does it say whether its action in the real world (e.g. to kill someone) is due to its independent activity, or arises as an indirect result of what its supporters allege it to have done (e.g. pronounce sentence of death upon somebody living). Like all abstract notions, even robust ones like circles and straight lines, what constitutes a thought-form depends on one's perspective and beliefs, especially what one believes to be the nature of the "real world".
One person's thought-form can be, or subsequently emerge as, another person's god, angel or saint. History offers us examples of a deliberately invented thought-form doing so, e.g. the ancient snake god that Alan Moore worships while calling it "a complete hoax and a glove puppet". Another example is Mithras, god of Contracts. Encyclopedia Britannica (Eighteenth Edition) asserts that Mithraism was put together by an unknown "religious genius" in the Roman Empire during the 1st Century, presumably to furnish the young Empire with a compliant cult to inspire its soldiery.
An objection to Mithras being a thought-form under our definition is that it/he pre-existed the foundation of the Roman cult, being none other than the Persian god Mithra (see: Mithraism). One answer to this is to accept that Mithras is a thought-form built-up from (divine) precursors. Another is to allow that, as the number of supporters of Mithra increased (viz. to include the adherents of the Roman cult Mithraism), the original concept altered in nature.
The god Serapis, similarly, originated as a deliberate political act by the heirs of Alexander to combine two or more Egyptian gods, Osiris and Apis with Greek imagery in the form of Ceres. Indeed the Egyptians themselves throughout their history habitually combined deities in a manner surprising to us.
Janet and Stewart Farrar (A Witches' Bible, ISBN 0-919345-92-1) makes several mentions of thought-forms, which they relate to the Complex in Jungian psychology. They report a case-study in which a thought-form, "Mara", was deliberately fabricated by their coven to guard a seal breeding-ground called Inishkea (see: [4]) against marauding fishermen. The authors claim that people unconnected with their coven have actually reported seeing "Mara" on the island, in the act of fulfilling its (her) purpose.
Might the Farrars have channelled a pre-existing psychic being or complex, under the illusion they were inventing it? As exponents of Wicca they would be well aware of that possibility, but instead they write as if they had originated "Mara" by careful synthesis, albeit with components taken from Celtic folklore.
Worth noting in the Farrars' account is the precautions they took to retain "Mara" under the coven's control, so that it/she could be recalled if necessary. Popular literature is full of examples of thought-forms getting out of the originators' control, e.g. The Exorcist, in which an agency channelled in fun by Regan in a Ouija Board working comes to haunt and subsequently to obsess her.
Although fictional literature is a poor source of valid reports about thought-forms, note should be taken of the story Tlön by Jorge Luis Borges which describes a long-running conspiracy to create an alternate world or parallel universe by an act of collective imagination. Borges refers to actual living people in his tale, some of whom have apparently entered into the spirit of the jest with their own published contributions, making Tlön an example of a thought-form escaping from its fictional vehicle and allegedly manifesting in the world we know. Such a device has clear potential for political satire however, and it may have been the author's purpose to lampoon then-rampant fascism.
B9 hummingbird hovering ( talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Consulting the Oracle of the Runes to access energetic processes supporting the emergence of thoughtform phenomena, three energetic signatures identified themselves as key:
Ice =
strange attractor
Harvest = factors, processes and resources that
yield emergence
Chance =
Orlog; birthing;
holy well
These ruins in triune relate to the
Norn (
phase space): the spinners of Wyrd and/or the scourgers of the Tree of Time.
NB: All those oracular lies...they lay in ruins...they
rest in Runes (pronounced "ruins")!
Thoughtform = yidam = imaginary friend = deity (God is no more [n]or less 'real' than human beings). Refer:
[5] (accessed: during
Losar in
Melbourne)
B9 hummingbird hovering (
talk •
contribs)
01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, this material is not accessible to the average reader, and it's mostly total gibberish to me. I suspect it's all OR, but I can't make head or tail of it. -- Haemo ( talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a
WP:RS for this asinine demented pseudo-etymology of
Devanagari? (<--- Go ahead, click through to the article to find the correct information.)
rudra (
talk)
04:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
B9HH, since you don't know a word of Sanskrit, you can stop trolling now. rudra ( talk) 05:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the proposed deletion banner, because I believe this article appears to be well referenced and is of unknown importance. If this is a significant concept in Tibetan Buddhism, then it may be encyclopedic. If this is just a personal essay by someone, and is not found in the references directly, then I would support deletion, but I would think there is no urgency to do so quickly. — Whig ( talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved stuff that has some chance of being encyclopedic (and relevant) to Tulpa. Looking at what's left, maybe there's salvageable material on 'thoughtform', but it seems unlikely. rudra ( talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I've observed that both articles cover pretty much the same topics, and even use both terms interchangeably almost all the time. Also, subsections concerning any of the terms are intermixed within both articles. I guess it would be sensible to merge those two and integrate all that properly, while removing duplicate information. I'm not sure which should be merget into which, so I'll leave that open to debate. There is also a possibility to sort both texts not to include duplicate materials, and those belonging to the other one... arny ( talk) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The site is registered to Mikhail Nikolenko under the organization name of CERN (though there is no valid evidence that this means the well known research organization) and titled "Divine Way of Spiritual Heart". The site's about page ( http://swami-center.org/en/text/about_us.html) is rather lengthy but does not make any particularly verifiable special claims of expertise or official status (apart from claiming to have created a new branch of science called "Methodology of Spiritual Development"). They do claim that their publications were created under the "direct guidance of God" but provide no verifiable evidence of God as an approving authority or third party evidence to substantiate this. The site fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO and should not be used as a link or reference on any article not directly about the swami-center.org site or organization.— Ash ( talk) 11:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The following has been noted as potentially original research. Whether or not this is so, it's place in the lede, and simultaneous lack of relation to the body of the article, means that it needs to be removed or something anyways. So, I'm placing it here for safekeeping... "The thoughtform is also one of the expressed (visualized) means of Samyama. original research?" makeswell ( talk) 01:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)