... and other kind of automatons, created beings.
>This thread is NOT about
- the New Age version of tulpas (which is the original term for REAL thoughtforms, and not for imaginary friends)
- beings summoned from grimoires (that's why I started this separate thread)
- role-playing
>This thread is about:
- how to create REAL thoughtforms (guides, tutorials, etc)
- discussions about thoughtforms (anything, really)
- your experiences with these beings
>inb4 accept Jesus
>inb4 any kind of fedora tipping
>inb4 this is not real / muh role-playing
This thread is only for those who
- already worked with thoughtforms and want to discuss this topic, tell about experiences
- want to learn how to create these beings
What's the dif between a thoughtform entity, tulpa, and imaginary friend?
>>17865969
About $56.50
>>17865962
OP here.
About my experiences:
>created many servitors
>my metaparadigm is chaos magic(k) - obviously
>most of my servitors had simple tasks
>then I started a project to create more universal thoughtforms
>I upgraded one of my old servitors (to help other thoughtforms, improve itself, etc), which was a good idea
>then created a new one, to replace all the other servitors
>it went rogue
>created more universal thoughtforms, desperately tried to fix the bug
>they were all flawed, one of them attacked a friend of mine, the other took control over me one I was drunk
And here I am, trying to kickstart my old project.
Maybe I'll be luckier this time.
>>17865974
No really, what's the dif?
>>17865978
>the other took control over me when I was drunk
fixed
>>17865969
Thoughtform: general term for a created entity
Tulpa: original Tibetan word for thoughtform
Imaginary friend: it's New Age idea - that thoughtforms are imaginary beings; you literally create a separate partition in your mind and make it sentient.
While it's possible, it's also totally useless.
Only teenagers and very, very lonely people practice this so-called tuplamancy.
It's not magic(k)- or occult-related.
>>17865962
>>17865969
>>17865997
Also pic related
>>17865997
>create a separate partition in your mind and make it sentient
Why would you do that instead of improving aspects and allowing yourself access to use when needed? Or learning to control, leverage, or effect your states of mind?
Not trying to be an ass, just intrigued.
>>17866006
I agree.
"Tulpamancy" is for weak-minded people (no offense).
I prefer real servitors.
They are, y'know... real.
>>17865962
Still OP:
My "simple servitor" creating method:
>I always write down everything, mostly on my pc
>first I name the being
>then I find or draw an image for the servitor
>after that I make a list of all the abilities / skills I want to give for the thoughtform (I usually use the same list for all my servitors)
>slowly I start to feel that the spirit has its own qualities, character, "style"
>sometimes I draw a nonfigurative, random (thus unique) sigil and put it at the end of the list
>then I have this little ritual (it's absolutely intuitive): I command the spirit to come alive, to follow my commands
>I command all of my servitors through / via my "diary", which contains the lists of them, their functions, all their missions, everything
This is how I created servitors, years ago.
Simple-minded spirits for simple tasks.
I always visualized them next me, like I gave them commands for real.
Many of them developed a personality (with habits and needs), after a few missions.
I "used" them as a boss would use the employees: summoned them, gave them missions, banished them.
Pros:
>they could manage smaller tasks
>they were obedient
Cons:
>they could manage only smaller tasks
>they couldn't always handle upgrades (they kinda liked to remain simple spirits)
And that's why I started to work on the universal thoughtform project...
>>17865969
The first two are fancy names used exclusively on /x/.
Other than that, they're exactly the same.
>>17866014
I can do that too.
Poltergeists are for weak minded people. I prefer real ghosts. They are, y'know... real.
>>17866048
See this >>17866005
>>17866050
What do you mean?
>>17865962
Isn't a Tulpa just a fancy name for a Ghost in the Machine? What you're asking is how can I create a being with my mind? There's one answer for that that is completely possible. AI.
Whether you can create one in the Aether is another question entirely. The real question is, are these ethereal beings real? Can they interact with physical objects or only with minds? If they can interact with your mind, how do they do it; quantum mechanics? Does that mean they can interact with Quantum Computers?
If so that means that the existence of Tulpas/Gods/GOD would be able to be confirmed by an AI capable of astral projection.
>C^f: fotamecus: 0 of 0
>http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/chaos/texts/fotamec1.html
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjkMYO95kKI
"EVOCATION
Evocation is the art of dealing with magical beings or entities
by various acts which create or contact them and allow one
to conjure and command them with pacts and exorcism.
These beings have a legion of names drawn from the
demonology of many cultures: elementals, famihars, incubi,
succubi, bud-wills, demons, automata, atavisms, wraiths,
spirits, and so on. Entities may be bound to talismans, places,
animals, objects, persons, incense smoke, or be mobile in the
aether. It is not the case that such entities are limited to
obsessions and complexes in the human mind. Although such
beings customarily have their origin in the mind, they may be
budded off and attached to objects and places in the form of
ghosts, spirits, or "vibrations," or may exert action at a distance
in the form of fetishes, familiars, or poltergeists. These beings
consist of a portion of Kia or the life force attached to some
aetheric matter, the whole of which may or may not be
attached to ordinary matter.
Evocation may be further defined as the summoning or creation
of such partial beings to accomplish some purpose. They may be
used to cause change in oneself, change in others, or change in
the universe. The advantages of using a semi-independent
being rather than trying to effect a transformation directly by
will are several: the entity will continue to fulfill its
function independently of the magician until its life force
dissipates. Being semi- sentient, it can adapt itself to a task in
a way that a non-conscious simple spell cannot. During moments of the
possession by certain entities the magician may be the
recipient of inspirations, abilities, and knowledge not
normally accessible to him.
Entities may be drawn from three sources — those which are
discovered clairvoyantly, those whose characteristics are given
in grimoires of spirits and demons, and those which the
magician may wish to create himself."
>Source: Peter J. Carroll - Liber Null
>>17866045
what tasks can servitors do?
>>17866063
>cont.
"In all cases estabhshing a relationship with the spirit follows a
similar process of evocation. Firstly the attributes of the entity,
its type, scope, name, appearance and characteristics must be
placed in the mind or made known to the mind. Automatic
drawing or writing, where a stylus is allowed to move under
inspiration across a surface, may help to uncover the nature of
a clairvoyantly discovered being. In the case of a created being
the following procedure is used: the magician assembles the
ingredients of a composite sigil of the being's desired attributes.
For example, to create an elemental to assist him with
divination, the appropriate symbols might be chosen and made
into a sigil such as the one shown in figure 4.
A name and an image, and if desired, a characteristic number
can also be selected for the elemental.
Secondly, the will and perception are focused as intently as
possible (by some gnostic method) on the elemental's sigils or
characteristics so that these take on a portion of the magician's
life force and begin autonomous existence. In the case of pre-
existing beings, this operation serves to bind the entity to the
magician's will.
This is customarily followed by some form of self -banishing, or
even exorcism, to restore the magician's consciousness to
normal before he goes forth."
>>17866065
>what tasks can servitors do?
Depends.
I used them as "employees" or soldiers.
You tell them to go X location, do Y mission, but try not to Z.
Then you banish them.
The results (mostly) are magickal.
Synchronicity will happen, and you'll have your results without knowing the "How?".
Things just work out.
And that's why you can't make these beings physically appear.
They are spiritual... or mental.
It's possible that you just cheat / bypass your own conscious mind to achieve these results.
It's all the same you nub, demons are powerful thought forms of collective conciousness of millions of people around the world, tulpa are minor though form only of a particular person's counciousness. Anyway, how's your experience with servitors? do they try to control or possess your mind? I have intrusive thoughts so I have always avoided jumping into this thing.
>>17866005
I am actually very interested in the sigil type . I can't imagine willing another being into existence, but pushing my own will upon the world around me is something I'm a little more interested in.
Could someone with a little more knowledge about sigils care to explain how to go about creating them and some general uses?
>>17866086
>It's all the same you nub
It's possible.
>demons
I wouldn't call them demons, but whatever.
> (...) are powerful thought forms of collective conciousness of millions of people around the world
They call entities like that egregores.
>tulpa are minor though form only of a particular person's counciousness
Yes, you're right.
>Anyway, how's your experience with servitors?
See this >>17865978
And this >>17866045
>do they try to control or possess your mind?
Why would they want to do that?
It's possible, tho.
You have to program them right to avoid any bugs and errors.
Also: if the psychological model is right, they are all in your mind.
The question is: can they control you?
It happened only once for me: one of my thoughtforms took control over me, but only for my own good.
It was a defense mechanism.
>I have intrusive thoughts so I have always avoided jumping into this thing.
If it sounds bad, don't do it.
Magic(k) is not for everyone.
>>17866101
Sigils are "cast it then forget it" type of spells.
You make a symbolic or a totally random image for a specific purpose, then you achieve a gnostic state (deep meditation, dancing like a shaman, prayer, intense emotions, etc) and... and that's it.
After the ritual, you take the sigil away (or throw it into the trash) and wait for the result.
I like automatons better, by the way.
>>17866131
Thanks for the explanation on using sigils.
I don't want to get too involved in something that might be beyond what I want to handle and they seem like a good way to at least influence my own mental state in a positive way.
Just as an example, If I've lost something, I can come up with a quick "sigil of finding" or however you want to call it and meditate on it for a while, and with a little luck the lost item will be easier to find?
>>17866154
>Thanks for the explanation on using sigils.
You're welcome.
>I don't want to get too involved in something that might be beyond what I want to handle and they seem like a good way to at least influence my own mental state in a positive way.
Sure, ok.
Sigils are better for you.
>Just as an example, If I've lost something, I can come up with a quick "sigil of finding" or however you want to call it and meditate on it for a while, and with a little luck the lost item will be easier to find?
In theory, it's possible.
But I'm not an expert on sigils, I only created thoughtforms.
I got a really long story of my creation, here's the start
>Be me in a world that is perfect with no sin.
>Start imagine
>One day they start to live life of thier own
>Open up to new possibilities, create a copy of that world with more options
>Invite friends to new world
>ftw everyone start to create by themselves, and do sins
>none of them could get out from this place.
copy of myself inside this new world start doing the same thing
>shit goes out of control
>Every lope down this rabbit hole, more ideas, more knowledge - more creation and sins
>(Dies) Wake up as a universe seeing everyone burns in hell! DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE! New try
Do your tulpas have free will? have you ever thought you might be same as a "tulpa" (thought into existence) by god.
continue?
>>17865962
Guys can you recommend a good guide on how to create a thoughtforms, servitors and egregores?
So basically it's still just all the same shit. All of it is in your head and still has no effect on the physical world. You say it's different than tulpas, yet the experiences you're describing are no different than my experiences with my tulpa/potential experiences with my tulpa (since he's not likely to go rogue, even though he's capable). Just because you say it's spiritual doesn't just suddenly make it so.
>lets have a thread about imaginary things, but exclude one imaginary thing I don't like.
You idiots are like kids on a playground
>>17866655
Thank you. Somebody fucking gets it.
>>17866647
>>17866655
>>17866688
I know you guys love /sum/, but give us a chance, ok?
>>17866619
Check these articles: http://www.chaosmatrix.org/library/sseg.php
I apologize for bumping what appears to be a dead thread, but is it possible to create a thoughtform being without meaning to?
Is it possible for any of these forms to influence physical reality? Or if something was able to do so, would that be something else?
>>17868824
Just like tulpas, yes it's possible.
>>17868992
OK, that makes sense.
How would one distinguish an egregore from something that did not originate from myself?
Also, the picture in >>17866005 seems to imply that, to create an egregore, you first have to create a sigil that you turn into a servitor and then into an egregore? Am I interpreting that correctly?
>>17869272
In the strictest sense, yes. Before an idea fully forms, it can have a basic name, making it a sigil. From there, the more you follow that inkling of an idea, the more you expand on it, the more likely it is to become a useful servitor at some point. When you've given it enough mental flesh to become an egregore, it can continue to evolve on its own, potentially becoming a godform.
>>17868824
>is it possible to create a thoughtform being without meaning to?
Yes it's possible.
In theory we're all doing this 24/7.
>Is it possible for any of these forms to influence physical reality?
Yes, it is.
Although, in my experience, these goals are achieved through synchronicity.
>Or if something was able to do so, would that be something else?
What do you mean by this?
Could you explain, please?
>>17869272
>How would one distinguish an egregore from something that did not originate from myself?
An egregore can be
a, an entity created by a collective (gods, companies, etc)
b, the next evolutionary step of a servitor, a fully automated being
As Carroll said you can work with "alien" beings, for example spirits from grimoires or the lwa from Vodou.
These are usually more powerful than your own entities and have specific rituals, chants, etc.
>to create an egregore, you first have to create a sigil that you turn into a servitor and then into an egregore?
Not necessarily.
You can skip the sigil part.
Well, let's say that egregores are "fully autonomous" entities - in this case you MIGHT create an egregore if you design to be fully autonomous.
But these beings need to be powerful and independent, which freshly created entities are generally not.
>>17869437
>you MIGHT create an egregore if you design it to be fully autonomous.
fixed
>>17866600
I find this imaginary friend kind of tulpas extremely spooky.
Why would I want voices in my head?
>>17866647
>So basically it's still just all the same shit
Nope.
>>17866647
>All of it is in your head and still has no effect on the physical world.
Yes, they effect the physical world.
You talk about "tulpamancy", which really is bullshit.
>You say it's different than tulpas, yet the experiences you're describing are no different than my experiences with my tulpa/potential experiences with my tulpa (since he's not likely to go rogue, even though he's capable).
I actually told you my experiences.
Most of my servitors could cause changes in the physical world.
If your tulpas can do the same, then congratulations, you made actual thoughtforms.
>Just because you say it's spiritual doesn't just suddenly make it so.
Ok, here's the thing: I was rude with tulpamancers.
I admit it.
But creating actual thoughtforms has a long history.
Shamans, jinns, familiars, etc.
Yes, it's a spiritual thing.
Yes, it's difficult, even if many people claims that everybody can do it.
I don't know how spiritual is to create your tulpas.
Maybe it is, maybe it is not.
>>17869723
Tulpa are more than voices. The same way you have a sense of location, they can learn to have a sense of location. For the most part they'll feel separate from you if you're intent on having them be separate. Granted, this is a throughform thread and I'm from the tulpa community, so my stance pertains more to the psychological angle than the metaphysical. In either case, if you don't enforce control of your own mind, don't be surprised when shit starts to stink.
>>17865991
about tree fiddy
Need something cleared up...
I created a thoughtform, two, actualy, twins. I feed them with my anger
>inb4 edgy
and made them autonomous. They serve a purpose, and that purpose is protecting me from spiritual attacks.
Now, the question is, where do they stand in the distinction?
Is this basically the new terms for tulpas? Because tulpas became so toxic that it was an obvious sign to make fun of the tulpa believer?
Anybody who actually believes in this shit needs to see a psychologist.
The blue spheres are my friends
They are your friends, too
>>17866655
Right? I'm here to talk tulpas.
>>17865962
So why exactly is my specific, self-induced schizophrenia irrelevant in comparison to other specific, self-induced schizophrenias?
>>17869746
>Which really is bullshit
It's no more bullshit than this. The only one who directly experiences it is yourself, you're the only one with proof of your own experience.
Just because you achieve synchronicity doesn't mean it's the cause of your thoughtforms or magic. I don't partake in any magical practices, instead I just don't focus on negative aspects, put my heart into the things I do, and find that things just work out.
Also, while there is a spiritual side to tulpamancey, it's mostly psychological. Most guides are entirely non-metaphysical.
>>17870613
>Just because you achieve synchronicity doesn't mean it's the cause of your thoughtforms or magic.
>Just because you do magic it doesn't mean your magic is magic.
Wew, lad!
>>17869282
So if a thoughtform reaches egregore-hood, then it's fully autonomous, and we work together (according to the infographic). Does that mean it can choose on its own to become a godform? I was thinking that if I made a thing like this, I wouldn't really want it to be a servitor, as I wouldn't want it to serve me, and I wouldn't want it to become a godform, because I wouldn't want to serve it.
>>17869418
Sorry, I worded that weird. I've been having some experiences with an entity or something for the past three and a half years, and certain events have recently led me to believe that it might be a part of me, or something. I actually really don't know, but I guess you answered my question that yes, they can influence physical reality.
>>17869437
Right! Sorry, I guess I'm just not being concise, haha. I meant to ask how I would be able to distinguish an egregore that I unconsciously created from another kind of entity. Like I mentioned above, there's a thing with whom I've been having experiences over the past couple years, and I have reason to believe it may be something originating or attached to me, but I'm not really sure.
>>17871114
It's not evidence of it working. Correlation does not mean causation.
>>17866045
you have to be kidding me
OK take a cellphone, and record one drawing a circle on a blank sheet of paper,showing the whole pencil with no hands
if it cannot perform such a simple task, then should I introduce you to the mystical and ever so growing realm of computer programming?
