Talk:Thoughtform

message: :Merge - I didn't flag the two article's for merging, and I don't see a discussion here (did I miss it?), so I added this section. I've encountered both "thoughtform" and "thought-form" in published writings. I'd go with thoughtform. I vote for the merge. I don't have the time to do it. 5Q5 14:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge - See Talk:Tulpa#Merger proposal. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge discussion

message: 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)
replies: text: Oppose Deletion: The entire article isn't that bad... that particular paragraph is clearly quoted by someone who misread the quote, or else was poorly translated to begin with, but the rest of the article isn't in bad shape, and deserves to be retained. I'm deleting the  tag. If you really think the whole article should be killed, take it to AfD. -- DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose - I agree with Dr.Gaellon. (Ghostexorcist 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose Deletion: The article is confusing, but is in need of heavy editing, not deletion. The concepts are interesting and informative, and the author's take on the topic original. 
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"). 
* I recommend a structure which admits "cyber" beings like Max Headroom (character), but excludes overtly fictional characters like Gandalf, or fictionalised historical characters like Merlin and King Arthur.
* We might then have a rare old squabble about which category Jesus fits. With luck it might cover new ground.
* Ditto Gandalf, especially when he escapes from his book/s (The Hobbit). Tom Shippey confabulates Gandalf with Taliesin (in: "J. R. R. Tolkien: Author of the Century" ?-check this).
Quacksalber 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion of article

message: 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)
replies: text: At the very least, some way needs to be found to mention tulpa in the lead. IPSOS (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure of article

message: *Construct- Constructs can be made to perform the same tasks as thought-forms, though there is a major difference in their creation: A thought-form is created from your personal energy, and is thus an extension of your consciousness. It is part of you. Constructs are made from imported energy, and although they have a link to you, they are not part of you. 
*Homunculus- The Homumculus appears occasionally in the folklore of Eastern Europe as a construct made from natural materials such as dirt, roots, insects, feces, and other substances. In these stories the creature is revived through incantation and acts as a vehicle for the astrally projected mind of a sorcerer. 
::Homunculi also appear in various contemporary theories of cognitive philosophy and psychology to account for different facets of consciousness, such as memory and will-to-action.  The cognitive equivalent of thoughtform goes by different names in different theories:  agents (Minsky), or schema control units (Norman-Shallice), for homunculi of action / decision; memes (Dawkins) for homunculi of memory; etc.  In the words of cognitive philosopher Daniel Dennett, “Homunculi – demons, agents – are the coin of the realm in Artificial Intelligence, and computer science more generally.  … Calling the units in these very different theories homunculi (or demons or agents) is scarcely more contentful than calling them simply … units.  They are just units with particular circumscribed competences, and every theory, from the most rigorously neuroanalytical to the most abstractly artificial, posits some such units.”  Daniel Dennett, Consciousness Explained (1991) Penguin p 261   These thoughtforms are, by definition, considered to have self-awareness and wills of their own.  Dennett classifies homunculi theories as being either static or dynamic depending upon how units vie for moment-to-moment attention (importance): “Bureaucratic theories … organize homunculi into predesigned hierarchies.  There are no featherbedding  or disruptive homunculi, and competition between homunculi is as tightly regulated as major league baseball.  Pandemonium theories, in contrast, posit lots of duplication of effort, waste motion, interference, periods of chaos, and layabouts with no fixed job description.”  It is because cognitive homunculi theories are congruent with – and can be considered a generalization of – Tulpa and Theosophical conceptions of thoughtforms that I amended the sentence:   It is contended that a meme is not a thoughtform, though it may be deemed an informative correlation.  As mentioned in the article proper, this depends upon how the term thoughtform is defined.  If it looks like a thoughtform, walks like a thoughtform, and quacks like a thoughtform, who is to say that it is not a thoughtform?   The only discernible difference between the cognitive and magickal views appears to be that homunculi are created by everyone all the time unconsciously; whereas thoughtforms are created by magicians quite deliberately.   The thoughtform concept is also echoed in Carl Jung’s Active Imagination technique, in which certain archetypal thoughtforms or homonculi of awareness such as Anima and Animus are invoked by the practitioner in quasi-dream states or by artistic expression. (Carl Jung, Jung on Active Imagination, Princeton 1997)     HarKop 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  others like tulpas 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title: Jargon-filled intro

message: 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). 
::A poem doubtless
::To honour and commitment: 
::I dishonour due to humility and doubt. 
::I, today, am yielding the fruit of samaya.
::Seminal dissemination! 
::Empty vessels: Bumpa are filled;
::As full vessels: Kumbha empty.
::To propagate, to cultivate!
::Truth takes the form of the vessel 
::By WITCH it is housed!
Ah
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  A further annotation to the above, I read the above again today and it doesn't convey why this experience was seminal. You see, at this stage in 2008 I didn't know Tibetan and I had no idea how a T could be yielded from a Spr but it still arose spontaneously in my Mindstream upon waking and it was heard as well as seen and felt, it was a unity of body-voice-mind-quality-activity experience. I know of such experiences in science under the rubric of hypnogogia that may entail auditory experience. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dream Yoga]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further exploration 

message: Janet and Stewart Farrar (A Witches' Bible, ) 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: ) 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)
thread_title: Published reports

message: Consulting the Oracle of the Runes to access energetic processes supporting the emergence of thoughtform phenomena, three energetic signatures identified themselves as key:
: îsaz "ice"
: jera "year" or "harvest"
: perþô "chance, fate, orlog"
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:  (accessed: during Losar in Melbourne)
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 01:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runemal: [[Runic]] [[Oracle]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Take a look at it.  It's not well sourced in most of the text, and as the main editor above says "I wrote this article from my own realization. Now I am finding scholarship and citation to authenticate".  In other words, it's mostly original research studded with some supporting facts when the editor could find them. That's the reverse of Wikipedia editorial practice. --Haemo (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That does sound like original research, yes. Shall I replace the banner? —Whig (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: That's about right, Whig, tho I have my doubts of it being well referenced. The author should be given some chance to reference.  Use citation requests.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The concept is notable, especially as tulpa, but well-referenced it is not. --Haemo (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict.  I was agreeing with Whig.  Changed post above. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: This article is not "well-referenced" at all.  The references are for isolated words and phrases only, and effectively amount to dictionary lookups only, just for those words.  The sentences stringing everything together are WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, as the creator of all this verbiage has himself admitted.  Casual passers-by being taken in by the superficial appearance of "sourcing" was predictable. rudra (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fake sourcing, lovely. Okay, I withdraw my objection. —Whig (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't fooled.  I just think that -partly due to the mean way it's being handled- that we should assume a little good faith, and, leaving the current five tags in place, put in some cite requests, and give the author a chance. In a while, come along and see if the stuff is getting sourced, and if it isn't delete all the OR, or delete the article if it isn't notable.  ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Me, and a friend, are going through it right now and rewriting what we think is at least sort of comprehensible, leaving behind little  tags as we go.  So far, literally every clause needs a source. --Haemo (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine so.  I doubt it can be sourced, but give the guy some chance, at least a few days to try. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have heard of both Thought forms and tulpa's. So I'd ask for references and give it a little time. If nothing else, Tulpas should be saved.(I could swear it had it's own articel once...)Kairos (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there conceivably be an encyclopedic article to be made on Tulpa? Even as a stub, that might be preferable to this. —Whig (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think that might be all we can salvage.  I'm going to try to fix the first, and just the first section.  If it can be sourced, then we'll work from there.  If it can't, I'm rolling this article back two years to the stub. --Haemo (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Likely necessary.  I don't care, I just think we should speak with kindness to the author while we're about destroying his article. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, we should not bite. —Whig (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Well, he isn't exactly new, but ganging up on any author is not good.  Or at least, being mean while you're ganging up, as then you are ganging up on the author rather than just reforming the article. ——Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, I rewrote the first paragraph.  Yes, it's all OR.  I'm going to wait a little bit before trying to do anything else — he can at least try and source it in the meantime.    It gave me a serious headache. --Haemo (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're nice to the thoughtform it might not cause a headache, but I don't know if that will help. —Whig (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge with "Tulpa" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Using swami-center.org as a source or link

message: 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." makeswell (talk) 01:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed sentence