Are servitors, tulpas etc. real, or am I being rused? Is it some sort of scam? I see that a lot of the websites on the topic advertise their books in everything. Is that what it is? An elaborate scam to sell books?
If they're real, why hasn't there been any scientific studies on the topic?
>>17124453
Go to trash tulpa general.
killing tulpas isn't that hard, is it?
>>17124453
>why hasn't there been any scientific studies on the topic
Because they're not real. Can you imagine what it'd be like if everyone could materialize their own imaginary friend?
You're not dealing with some kind of ghost, you're creating an alter ego that you talk to as if it's separate. People who experience what seems like a tulpa are either deceiving themselves out of wishful thinking/experiencing some kind of hallucination. Spoopy demonz won't suddently pop outta nowhere if you try to make a tulpa.
>>17124453
People use these "thought forms" to manifest desire and also manipulate/attempt to manipulate humans.
You think these beings are made up but you are summoning genies through a black portal (at least when a ritual is involved, but how many times has your imaginary friend when you were little get you in trouble)
>>17124453
A tulpa is considered to be a creation of another entity within your own mind. People who have supposedly created tulpas say that it is a part of you that you have deluded yourself into molding and turning into a separate consciousness with a separate thought process. The idea that you can delude yourself and make a separate entity and consciousness within you is much more believable than stupid magic shit, seeing as neither have any proof what so ever.
Egregores are NOT to be fucked with. I used to know a lad that was more versed than me in the occult and he created one. At one point he lost it only to realize it had become "strong" enough to move by itself without anyone to imagine him doing so. He abandonned the whole thing right after and dismantled it before it could do any weird shits.
>>17124578
Buddhist monks made tulpas, it's very known but poorly documented
Don't do dumb shit, unless you know wjat you're getting yourself in
>>17124578
>he's implying that anything not documented and extensively studied by da SCIENCE doesn't exist
Top fedora tip sir
>>17124789
Anyone can claim anything and "document" it. The word "document" can be thrown around and means gives no credibility.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>>17125056
Not that anon but claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If tulpas (tulpaes?) were truly real then it would be documented. They would be well known and exist outside of autists & horse fuckers.
>>17127604
Documented in the sense of scientifically observation and writings with empirical evidence
>>17124609
>neither have any proof what so ever
I can understand your position, but exactly what kind of evidence you you even expect for a tulpa? It's an initiated phenomena only for the person experiencing it, it's not like it can become anything more than a part of that person or affect anything outside of that persons mind. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, neurology is still making slow advancements and in the future when we have more capability to decode raw brainwaves into something we can understand, the we can confidently dismiss it.
>>17127604
Very few people even know they can even make the attempt of know what a tulpa/thoughtform is. Even fewer ever did so correctly. I wish we had more documentation as well, but it's no surprise there's so little documentation outside of of modern attempts. See above, I don't think any real neurologist has tried to 'test' for that sort of abnormality, if only because anyone credible wouldn't be anywhere tulpas are discussed seriously or not know about it at all (As far as I've looked at least).
