Anyone here ever...try to create a thought-form (aka, tulpa)? If yes, did you do it according to practices devised by Ken Batcheldor, or by the those involved in the "Philip" experiment? What were the results? Thanks!
Unsu...01/26A tulpa is the Tibetan (from the Bon religion to be exact) word for a thought form creation. That is, manifesting an object or a living entity that has never existed previously. The Dalai Lama is a tulku, which is similar in nature, except that a tulku is born through a woman's womb (an immaculate conception), while a tulpa is created directly.
An independent tulpa can create a secondary being/object, known as a yang-tul, which in turn can create a third degree being, called a nying-tul. High-level adepts and Buddhist saints are said to be able to create up to 10 different degrees of tulpa.
The name tulpa has historically been interchanged with such words as "djinni" (better known in the West as "genie"); "egregor"; "shoggoth"; "elemental"; or "golem"
Egregore: from a Greek word meaning "watcher." A thought-form created by will and visualization. A group egregore is the distinctive energy of a specific group of magicians who are working together, creating and building the same thought-form or energy-form. from: Golden Dawn Glossary
The Kabbalah names 72...national angelic regents, which the Hebrews call Elohim; the metaphysical technical term Egregors is also used for them. Derived from the Greek word egreoros, it means "watcher" or "guardian".
"Satan is not an actual discarnate, sentient being, but is more than just a symbol. Satan is, at the very least, today's most powerful magic(k)al egregore." Diane Vera, from "Intro to Satanism"
"A metabeing specializes or tailors the generic constructs and data structures of general and specific intelligences to its environment. That is, it defines a shared worldview; it names emotions and responses; it provides models by which its individual participants can understand themselves and their world. In so doing, the metabeing performs a function too large and complex to be done by an individual in a single incarnation. However, the worldview provided by the metabeing can overconstrain the evolving individual." Deb Bodeau, from "Metabeings and Individuals: Aids and Obstacles to Growth"
"Under the sway of a single strong emotion, the crowd gives birth to a rudimentary form of egregor. That collective personality, made up of emotional energy and very little else, has little intelligence but a great deal of strength, and it increases that strength by a simple feedback loop. It reflects the emotional energy that gave it birth back into the consciousness of the people in the crowd - the individuals who are at once its creators, its component parts, and, in extreme cases, its victims. This feedback effect is central to the whole phenomenon, and plays a critical role in the way egregors are used in magical lodge work." John Michael Greer, from "Inside a Magical Lodge"
"In 1805, the emperor Dessalines sacrificed French men and mulattos to the bloodthirsty egregor, under the pretext of preventing a return of French military power to the island after the 1804 Independence...The simplified vision of the Marxist-Leninist of class struggle cannot by itself explain the complexities of the Haitian political arena....Dessalines...later died of a violent death and became a Zandoric loa of the Ogou types. The vodoun of the egregor were not always present to protect Dessalines against the machinations of his enemies, although potentially a fractal element of those entities is supposed to be with him at all times. It seems that the fraction was unable to generate the high-energy vibratory state that would make him invulnerable." Reginald Crossely, M.D., from "The Vodou Quantum Leap"
"When congregations gather in their temples, they create eidoses of prayer, which assemble into a collective egregor-eidos of a deity. When millions of people worship it, the material deity eidos acquires tremendous energy at the lepton level of matter. There arises feedback: a believer not only supplies the deity with energy, but receives genuine assistance from it upon supplication." "Quantum Mechanics and Some Surprises of Creation"
"An egregor is an angel, sometimes called watcher; in Hebrew the word is ir, and the concept appears in The Book of Enoch.... Thus, Irim, the city of the Nephilim is again linked with the Book of Enoch, since the Nephilim, according to that Book, were the sons of the Irim (the egregors.)....Although the Irim, the egregors, are angels on both sides of the camp - fallen angels as well as faithful ones." L.S. Bernstein, from "Egregor"
"An Egregore is an artificial being, a created spirit or Golem, which exists to perform the Theurgist's will. These creatures contain a modicum of intelligence, but are
not truly free or alive. If the Theurgist dies, the Egregore also dies. It is best for the Theurgist to set a time for the Egregore to cease to function in any event. Sometimes, Egregores are commanded to enter objects, at which time they become somewhat like talismans. An Egregore is constructed in a similar fashion, of course, to a talisman. The temple is constructed, then the Theurgist visualizes a growing ball of energy forming with each exhalation between his or her palms. When the ball becomes very large, it is colored with visualization, and sometimes with an appropriate tool or symbol, and also given a name." Pat Dunn Jr, from
"Many of the traditions of other cultures are guarded by egregors far more potent that those of the strongest Western lodge organizations, and those egregors - as with those of lodges - are deeply linked to specific patterns of organization and intitiation." John Michael Greer, from: "Inside a Magical Lodge"
Hope this helps some ;-)
01/26Thanks for sharing the Bon view on tulpas. Almost all of the tulkus I've heard of though did have human fathers except Padmasambhava, although I'm not sure what you meant by 'immaculate conception'. Certainly I've heard of the Golden Dawn view of egregor type spirits which attends to groups, although I'm less familiar with embodied ones. Of course there is the famous story of the Hassidic Rabbi who made the golem out of clay which then went out of control and wreaked havoc. I believe that was the inspiration for the Frankenstien story of Mary Shelly. I suppose stories like that are one thing that has dissuaded me from considering such persuits.
03/25Hi everyone. So far in all definitions of Tulpa, I read that "it could be an OBJECT or BEING"........Ok, but everybody talks about a Being and I'd like to know how to create an Object.........Please help me whoever has valid information in this regard.
Unsu...01/27Here ya go (not the book, but the next best thing) --
There is no doubt at all that psychokinesis is not an easy skill to learn as an individual - the strains on sanity are usually too great. However, the British psychologist Kenneth Batcheldor and engineer Colin Brookes-Smith, back in the late 1960s and early '70s, developed a methodology for educating psychokinesis as a group-skill, to provide phenomena for their research on the physical operating-mechanisms of psychokinesis. The key parts of their methodology - in other words, their magical-technology - was published in the Journal of the [British] Society for Psychical Research, Vol.47, No.756
(June 1973), pp.69-89; the notes below are adapted from Batcheldor's 'List of Rules for Sitters', in pp.11-12 of Colin-Brookes-Smith's Manual of Advanced Psychokinetic Procedures (1970). The term 'sitters' relates to the use of a card-table wired with strain-gauges and motion-detectors as the feedback component and 'output' part of the technology; the members of the group would be seated around the table, whilst instrumentation was used to provide objective records of any phenomena. As will be seen, the key focus of the technology was on management of the psychological issues -
particularly the management of 'witness inhibition' and 'ownership resistance'.
1. At least three but not more than six sitters
2. Only those capable of friendly co-operation
3. No extreme sceptics seeking convincing evidence
4. No inflexible Spiritualists or scientists
5. Both sexes, no age limit
6. Agree to meet once a week at the same place and time
7. Use a comfortable living room with familiar surroundings
8. Sit in any preferred order
9. Use the dimmest possible light tolerable without discomfort (unless extremely confident of success in stronger light)
10. Use total darkness for advanced phenomena (unless unusually confident of success in dim light)
11. Hands on table - not necessarily touching each other
12. Never change conditions even slightly, unless this is essential to relieve tension or increase expectancy
13. Avoid arguments - sense and resolve even covert disadgreements about procedure
14. Avoid immobility of posture - move freely, behave naturally
15. Don't worry about accidentally imparting movement to the table
16. Be relaxed - engage in light-hearted talk, jokes and laughter
17. Smoke initially or during breaks if you wish
18. Avoid long silences and boredom
19. Be patient, just wait calmly and cheerfully without irritation
20. Don't comment on the time, weather or topical news
21. Don't become too interested in any particular conversation
22. Don't say or think anything that implies doubt
23. Don't do anything that implies or arouses doubt
24. Don't perform tests or impose controls in half-hearted belief
25. Don't try to 'will' the phenomena
26. Cultivate an attitude of serene confidence
27. Avoid all thoughts of any particular experiment 'failing'
28. Avoid both long-term scepticism and 'instant' doubt
29. Don't explain away every little happening
30. Don't express (surprise or) astonishment at any PK display
31. Don't concentrate your gaze - even in the dark - where PK is imminent
32. Don't focus your thoughts analytically on specific phenomena
33. Encourage a generalised idea or image of the experimental task
34. Don't apply critical analysis during or after a PK display
35. Keep your mind in 'neutral' - be an uncritical observer
36. 'Pigeon-hole' your observations for future consideration
37. Let the spokesman give all the commands
38. Use wording unambiguous in its intention
39. Use a tone of voice implying unquestioned obedience
40. Don't comment on or distract atention from specific commands
41. Start with what seems easy and plausible
42. Grade the tasks commanded
43. Maintain plausibility throughout the experiments
44. Practise each step sufficiently - but don't let it become tedious
45. Don't hurry the steps - wait for each response
46. Go back one step if no response is forthcoming
47. Don't repeatedly call for something not forthcoming
48. Revive interest and excitement by some free uncommanded action
49. Call 'STOP' if free activity ignores commands, then regain obedience
50. Briefly express approval for sucessfuly performed tasks
51. Don't consult 'the table' on procedure or theories
52. Don't ask for spiritistic messages
53.A void being led astray by the offer of prizes
[The above table is copyright ©1970 Kenneth Batcheldor.]
The above 'Rules For Sitters' were designed for use in experimental (laboratory) induction of PK, but give a good idea of the general conditions under PK can be applied. There are some very close parallels with my (Tom Graves') own work on dowsing - the only major differences being that my dowsing induction rules were designed for individuals rather than groups, and that PK is more susceptible to doubt even than map-dowsing. But given suitable training conditions and techniques it should be possible to train people to use PK (rather than induce it solely for lab experiments, which runs
counter to 'necessity'). There are no real reason why this should not be possible - the difficulties (see the article in The Unexplained 106) are practical, not theoretical. In some experiments Batcheldor and Brookes-Smith even combined PK with a bizarre form of dowsing, apparently with significant success: they used a little spring-mortar to fire a tennis ball over a high partition, to land on a random square in a marked-out grid, and then 'asked' the table, through PK-induced movements, to identify which square the ball had landed in.
Note the psychology used to manage the inevitable oscillation between doubt and belief - essential, the same concept of 'manipulating beliefs as tools' as described in SSOTBME - and also the ingenious avoidance of 'ownership resistance' by personalising the table (much as per pendulum dowsing) and by stating that the results are always a group effort, so that "everyone else causes it, not me". Brookes-Smith commented that, in this kind of practical research, experience tends to reinforce belief - in other words, to weaken 'witness inhibition'. Although the problems of (self-)discipline would be much more difficult to manage, it might be interesting to try the same basic techniques with school-children, whose 'world-definitions' are likely to be more fluid than those of adults.
Although it's not mentioned in the List of Rules above, Batcheldor often used another ingenious trick to weaken 'witness inhibition' - plain ordinary cheating! Before the session, a pack of cards was dealt out, face-down: it was the job of the person who picked out the Joker card to give the table a shove every now and then, to give the sense that paranormal activity was happening. For the research purposes, this was actually entirely permissible, because the instrumentation was designed to identify when this (literally!) manual type of intervention occurred. Brookes-Smith commented that quite
often, a typical instrumentation trace would show the Joker giving the table a shove upwards; the Joker would stop pushing; the table would stop for a moment, and then move upward again, without manual intervention, before returning to 'normal' on command.
Related text (unknown source) –
Batcheldor was one of the first investigators to get raps and table movement a séance type of setting. Batcheldor thought that there are three big reasons why PK might succeed or fail. They are:
1. Belief -- even the slightest doubt is bad news for getting results
2. Ownership resistance -- a term Batcheldor used to describe people's reluctance be responsible for PK
3.Witness inhibition -- the fact people are sometimes very uncomfortable watching PK, no matter who is responsible for it.
Batcheldor felt the best way to get around all three of these problems is to use a group party atmosphere. Often he would have one person "prime the pump" by faking an event to get around the need for belief to get things rolling. Ownership resistance was less of a problem because no one knew who in the group was actually responsible for the PK. Perhaps most importantly, he used laughter, singing, and a light party-like atmosphere to cut down on witness inhibition. This method was used by the Toronto group in their table tipping experiment that became a paperback book, Conjuring up Phillip. This research suggests that the unconscious knows how to do psi -- it just needs to have a set goal and a way to keep the conscious mind from interfering with the production of PK.