Talk:Thoughtform

Merge discussion

 * 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)


 * Merge - See Talk:Tulpa. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

General discussion of article
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)


 * 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)


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


 * 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"). Quacksalber 00:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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).

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)
 * When the present article is in better shape, might this reference find a place in it?

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.--69.202.125.148 18:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)madis senner

Structure of article
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)


 * At the very least, some way needs to be found to mention tulpa in the lead. IPSOS (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

others like tulpas

 * 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)


 * Phantom-In Initiation Into Hermetics, Franz Bardon mentions that phantoms are animated forms of the imagination of departed human beings.Through the imagination and remembering the dead, either through praise, adoration, mourning etc., imaginary picture forms of the dead are created and are given life, which, when often repeated, have a fairly long life span. These created picture forms are called phantoms. This type of phantom is one which makes itself known to the spiritualists, necromancer, sorcerer etc.


 * Servitor- an entity created by magic(k), often to serve its creator. Servitors are widely used by practitioners of postmodern magic, quantum sorcery, chaos magic(k)/psybermagick. It is not unusual for one to create an servitor based off a pop culture persona wether fictional or not. A 'super' servitor is sometimes called an egregore.

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.

Neutrality
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)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?
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 Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andries (talk • contribs) 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I favour Dharmic Traditions as some lineagues of Buddhism are not "religion" and stating that they (namely the Dharmic Quaternity) "originate" from India is contrary to the shared Doctrine of Dharma. Dharma is the asseveration and bond, not India.  Neologism... what porky pies!
 * Wending words of Wyrd...
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Jargon-filled intro
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. &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Information for inclusion in the article at a later date
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.

Scientific and magic/magik uses of the word
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)
 * Jung encountered the concept and terminology from Bardo literature. Hence, his deportment and cultivation of the thoughtform concept within Analytical Psychology. They are not so different. The difference you opine is an imputation. So? Sew. Sewing seams of that which 'seems' different.
 * How unseemly
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Springnuts (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dream Yoga
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)
 * 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))

Further exploration
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)

Information extracted from page with no citations to be worked into this article when citations emerge
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 ) has similarities with that of thought-form but usually entails the activity of just one thinker.

The supporters of a thought-form
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.

The need for careful definition
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:
 * deliberately created by a group of people, or by one person and communicated to others (i.e. there must be multiple supporters)
 * the creator/s is/are aware of having originated it
 * it is believed capable by its supporters of exerting action in the real world (i.e. it is not confined to some fictional world).

This definition deliberately excludes:
 * overtly fictitious being like Mickey Mouse or Frodo who are never presented by their supporters as existing in anything but their own fictitious world,
 * folk-heroes and beings which might possibly have a historical prototype, like Santa Claus or St George, but are the subjects of manifestly fictitious tales,
 * personifications of elemental or natural phenomena like Mother Nature and Jack Frost,
 * putative originators of popular ideas, like the "Sod" of Sod's Law,
 * gods or demons of accepted religions. These, it can be argued, pre-exist the activities of their supporters, who have merely channelled (manifested, invoked, incarnated, discovered) them in order to bring them to other people's awareness.

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.

Properties
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.

Published reports
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: ) 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)

Runemal: Runic Oracle
Consulting the Oracle of the Runes to access energetic processes supporting the emergence of thoughtform phenomena, three energetic signatures identified themselves as key:
 * [[Image:Runic letter isaz.svg|14x30px|i]] îsaz "ice"
 * [[Image:Runic letter jeran.svg|14x30px|j]] jera "year" or "harvest"
 * [[Image:Runic letter pertho.svg|14x30px|p]] 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)

This article is incoherent
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)
 * The key to your opinion is "suspect". It is commendable that ignorance is owned, rather than projected. Wisdom is hard won, gnosis is the fruit of grace. If you require clarification read through the entire article a few times, read all the wikilinks, contemplate the contents, then read the article a few more times. Informed, then your opinion would or may be of value and useful in iterating this article. This article is incomprehensible to a shallow grazer. It is 'covering' the principal interior mystery of a mystery tradition, the content of which has yet to enter onto the catwalk of the Ivory Tower of the World Stage in the mode of protracted scholarship. If you do not have the karmic vision and proclivity condusive to cognition, it is impenetrable. Mysteries and secrets, as thoughtform, have a way of keeping themselves.  Though primordially clear, pure and luminous as the 'resonant crystal matrix' of Indra's Net, Dzogchen is a vast indeterminate field.
 * Ah
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to also say this is incoherent, and that this article is inappropriate for a general purpose encyclopedia in this currency form &mdash; as you admit. --Haemo (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Who designates Wikipedia a "general purpose" encyclopaedia? What is the definition of "general purpose"? That is your mind-forged manacle. The endeavour of Wikipedia is to map human knowledges in their entirety.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 02:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Five pillars of Wikipedia states that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost; it "includes elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". Notice that it is not a textbook, an indiscriminate collection of information, nor a publisher of original thought.   A fundamental aspect of our guidelines is that a Wikipedia article should be "clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail". This is not. --Haemo (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mindless drivel
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)
 * It should be noted that the term Deva+Naga+ri is constructed from a conjunction of deva "divinity" and nāga "serpent"
 * Wikipedia isn't a reliable source, didn't u know? BTW, do your research into the etymology and I await your apology.
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's your source? This looks like original research to me. --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 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)
 * deva-nāgarī
 * Monier-Williams (p.493, col. 2): f. 'divine city writing', N. of the character in which Sanskrit is usually written (prob. from it having originated in some city)
 * also in MW (p.533, col.3) under nāgara: (fr. nagara) relating or belonging to a town or city [...] = deva-nāgarī [...]
 * Yes it may be true that I do not [k]nØ[w] a bija's worth of Samskrita, but how did they found the cities? They founded them upon genius loci often manifesting in the form of Naga. I am a siter of Temenos; I am a builder of Temenos (some say reservation preservation); Temenos, I destroy.
 * Svaha
 * B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 04:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * NB: Ø = a pregnant VOID.

Proposed deletion
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. &mdash;Whig (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * That does sound like original research, yes. Shall I replace the banner? &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The concept is notable, especially as tulpa, but well-referenced it is not. --Haemo (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict. I was agreeing with Whig.  Changed post above. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 06:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Fake sourcing, lovely. Okay, I withdraw my objection. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Me, and a friend, are going through it right now and rewriting what we think is at least sort of comprehensible, leaving behind little cn tags as we go. So far, literally every clause needs a source. --Haemo (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Would there conceivably be an encyclopedic article to be made on Tulpa? Even as a stub, that might be preferable to this. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * That's true, we should not bite. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 &mdash; 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)
 * If you're nice to the thoughtform it might not cause a headache, but I don't know if that will help. &mdash;Whig (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I tried. The editor in question just completely reverted all of the work I did last night, including the notes requesting citations.  This is getting ridiculous. --Haemo (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess being nice to the thoughtform didn't work. This article should be put up for AfD, I think. &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is a kernel here (esp. of Tulpa) which is encyclopedic. We just have to trim out the innumerable paragraphs of original research to get down to it.  It's clear that B9HH has some sources which could be useful, so I want to save the encyclopedic part. If you look on the fringe theories noticeboard, there are a bunch of other articles he's done similar things on. --Haemo (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not remove the redirect on Tulpa and try to create something useful there? I hope B9HH can help but maybe it would be best to discuss sources in talk rather than edit warring. &mdash;Whig (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's agreement on the fringe theories noticeboard that this may be the better approach. I've reverted the redirect, and removed the popular culture sections from here, as they came from Tulpa originally.  Thoughts on what else might be possibly encyclopedic here on tulpa would be welcome. rudra (talk) 22:15, 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)

Proposal to merge with "Tulpa"
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)

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

removed sentence
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)