Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
MysticOnion

I succeeded in creating a Tulpa

78 posts in this topic

Reading this post made me feel like I was drunk!

I wish I had an imagination like that.

Reading that makes me wanna drink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
'In the literature' is a term doctors and other scientists use to mean something has appeared in a legitimate study in a peer-reviewed journal. It does not mean it was simply written down in a book on the subject.

Perhaps when the phrase is found in a scholarly article, that is what it would mean.

In my post, the meaning of the phrase was clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about David-Neel and her creation. This is the most commonly cited example of one.

Are there any other historical records of these things made by other people?

It's hard to study the phenomenon when there are such few cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I did this - it took quite a long time and I wasn't doing it knowingly. I had no idea that I was creating such a thing but when I read about Tulpas I realised what I was doing.

The Tulpa I created was a tall man who would wear a dark suit, he had long-ish dark hair and wore a silver ring on his right hand and a pentagram around his neck. He could also shape-shift into a serpent. He had a lot of knowledge and qualities that I myself didn't have. The Tulpa eventually began to manifest on his own and it was as though he did have a life all of his own. At first it was just psychics that picked up on him but later other people began to see him around me - they would just casually mention it or something. Like "Who was that guy you were with?" When I know I was on my own.. that sort of thing.

At first when I realised he was a Tulpa I concentrated to make him stronger because I really wanted to see if I could do this and actually give him life. He had a whole range of his own emotions and he started to be able to communicate with other people. He began to refer to me as his "mother" and it seemed to me that he was communicating and interacting with others without me having to be around. He was a huge energy drain as well and during his existence I was plagued with terrible nightmares and irrational fears, yet at the same time he was able to accurately predict events in the future such as Earthquakes including locations, number of dead, that sort of thing.

Eventually because the Tulpa started to rebel and was getting a bit out of my control I had to draw the energy back to myself and sort of destroy him, though I feel now he is not actually destroyed. His energies are now part of me again.

What do you think of this? Is creating a Tulpa possible or was I simply... hallucinating?

I am not schizophrenic I assure you - I have an open mind and I like to experiment with things and dabble in the occult here and there. This was an interesting experiment for me.

These are the end stages of schizophrenia. You need to seek professional help immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think he was just joking around

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are there any other historical records of these things made by other people? It's hard to study the phenomenon when there are such few cases.

Ain't that the truth?

It is hard to filter through the mountain of crap on "thought forms" and "constructs" to get to actual experience reports. It is especially rare to find reports with an awareness of the hallucinatory character of the experience. "Shared hallucination," however, taps into metaphysical speculation that everything is a hallucination, and "Folie a deux" is too specific a psychiatric phenomenon.

I think there is a real opportunity to get some insight into how individual minds work, and how they interact with each other. But, unfortunately, to broach the subject mostly brings out the trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So like Moonie2012 said, We are still waiting on those prediction.

Stir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets not be so rude about asking him photos and paper evidence, still sir why dont you just give us your method of creating a Tulpa? If we prove it and we achieve it then we will believe you. You dont need to provide paper evidence only type your method, if it is true you dont have to fear right? Please type it sir because I have in 2 weeks a school party and I would love to enter accompained by an Angelina Jolie clone which shouldnt be difficult given the fact you created a Harry Dresden. Nah but seriously if you want credibility at least you should post your method proving you actually have faith in your abilities, also the post about poor parenting skills is true even if it sounds as a joke and if you really succeeded in that should take it more serious, a sentinent beign is always a big responsability we were given by God the ability to create with thought which is after all the foundation of our creation, you decided to create it and should take responsability for your actions, this things shouldnt be regarded a joke or even a "hooo I created a Tulpa" and treat it like a toy I am not saying I believe you did it neither I dont believe neither I claim I have created one I just think this isnt outside the possibilities and I am just pointing that if this ability would be mastered we should take it with responsability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I don't believe it. How exactly does one have a few lengthy conversations (with an imaginary person a friend MADE, no less) and not know if they are dreams? Come on, she KNOWS they were dreams (if it actually happened at all).

In the year-plus since this thread appeared, Carl Jung's Liber Novus has finally been published. It is a record of his seminal "active imaginations," which happened mostly in the second decade of the last century. Active imagination, in an evolved form, is now a typical tool in Jungian analysis.

Although the "Red Book" (as Liber Novus has long been called) was unpublished, some of its contents were discussed in Jung's autobiography, Memories, Dreams, and Reflections. Its first edition was in 1961. I use the 1989 revised edition, in English.

Of particular relevance to this thread, Carl Jung created a thought-form he called Philemon. Nobody else, so far as I am aware, ever observed Philemon. Jung himself, however, did.

Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to

me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which

I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their

own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself.

In my fantasies I held conversations with him, and he said

things which I had not consciously thought. For I observed

clearly that it was he who spoke, not I. He said I treated

thoughts as if I generated them myself, but in his view thoughts

were like animals in the forest, or people in a room, or birds in

the air, and added, "If you should see people in a room, you

would not think that you had made those people, or that you

were responsible for them." It was he who taught me psychic

objectivity, the reality of the psyche. Through him the distinction

was clarified between myself and the object of my thought.

He confronted me in an objective manner, and I understood

that there is something in me which can say things that I do not

know and do not intend, things which may even be directed

against me.

Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight. He

was a mysterious figure to me, At times he seemed to me quite

real, as if he were a living personality. I went walking up and

down the garden with him, and to me he was what the Indians

call a guru.

~ from Chapter VI of MDR.

So, the poster's quoted question, along with his claim to know another person's thoughts, might just as well have been directed to Carl Jung.

The basic phenomenon is well-attested. It is "in the literature," even in the strictest sense of being part of the working corpus of scientific and clinical inquiry. Actually, MDR has long enjoyed a respectable citation history, but with the publication of Liber Novus, the status of Jung's experiences is unequivocal, and the record of his pertinent work is now complete.

-

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for the method of this person to see if this is true, which is actually a much more kind proof request considering some people here go to the exaggeration of demanding paper evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard Warper.

Still waiting for something? It's your first day here.

If you use the site's search function, then you will find two other threads by the same OP, both more recent than this one, about this idea and based on her experience.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=146945

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=146895

and she (yes, she's a woman, that information appears at the left of each of her 3,600+ posts) also participated in this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=143775

All of that, along with the information in this thread, should give you a pretty good idea of the range of methodological possibilities, and the choices which she made from within that range.

----

Nerd Herder has nothing to prove personally, since she made no claim in this thread except that she had had a personal experience, which her friends shared with her to some extent. From her OP:

What do you think of this? Is creating a Tulpa possible or was I simply... hallucinating?

Reasonable questions are not claims.

-----

It is always fraught to necropost, as happy as I was to see this thread back in play after such a long quiescence.

One reason why experienced members at UM don't necropost, and inexperienced ones oughtn't, is that other, newer threads may contain other, newer information.

One way to find out whether there are other, newer threads is to use the site's search function.

And finally, if your interest in the matter only pertains to one particular member's activities, then you may wish to consider using the personal messaging system.

Best wishes for an enjoyable stay in our community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-

I want that book pretty bad, after finding out about it randomly on one of my internet travels.

I agree with the thing about thoughts not being created consciously by ones self. Although some are or I couldn't type this haha. But a lot of thoughts just come in like suggestions to the conscious controller of their world. :)

The thing you were saying about how real is this world made me think about my own ideas on this matter. What I think is that we are seperate subjective pieces of a subjective whole...

The Army tought me you can do exactly what you think you can do. And Maybe we are what we think we are.

but man I want that book so bad, and the pictures look amazing. I have seen similar things myself and I am drawn to it...

People need to really be careful about what they call reality. And stop judging others so much because for them something is real or fake. For me It's varying degrees of "reality" based on how much effect something can have on you. So completely fake (for me nothing is) would have zero potential effect on you, and completely real can effect you in all ways mental physical and everyone else in all ways mental and physical. And I think there are infinate things inbetween that are something more like half real...

But I don't expect most of generalizing people to even get what I mean by half real haha so no worries. :)

As for the topic poster it could be real or maybe not real, there is no way for me to know, only YOU KNOW. And for the rest of you, quit being insulted when someone says something you can't believe. It's like you think people only say such things so they can feel above you, when in reality most of these things people say that are un-believeable to you are percieved as real to them, and they are not bragging get it... ?

Your reality should not be threatened so much by someones dillusions right?

I believe the topic poster believes this is real. And infact it is real. But it doesn't mean it's real outside of her mind, but what is outside of her mind? Just think about that.

~Muddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome aboard Warper.

Still waiting for something? It's your first day here.

If you use the site's search function, then you will find two other threads by the same OP, both more recent than this one, about this idea and based on her experience.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=146945

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=146895

and she (yes, she's a woman, that information appears at the left of each of her 3,600+ posts) also participated in this thread:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=143775

All of that, along with the information in this thread, should give you a pretty good idea of the range of methodological possibilities, and the choices which she made from within that range.

----

Nerd Herder has nothing to prove personally, since she made no claim in this thread except that she had had a personal experience, which her friends shared with her to some extent. From her OP:

Reasonable questions are not claims.

-----

It is always fraught to necropost, as happy as I was to see this thread back in play after such a long quiescence.

One reason why experienced members at UM don't necropost, and inexperienced ones oughtn't, is that other, newer threads may contain other, newer information.

One way to find out whether there are other, newer threads is to use the site's search function.

And finally, if your interest in the matter only pertains to one particular member's activities, then you may wish to consider using the personal messaging system.

Best wishes for an enjoyable stay in our community.

Thans for the welcome, and yes indeed was my first day, by the way I found the book written by Alexandra but unfortunately she gives no detail on how it is done and really her manuscripts are the only "real" thing the western world has of such an experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, muddy.

I agree with the thing about thoughts not being created consciously by ones self. Although some are or I couldn't type this haha.

Oh, yeah. And Jung was a mature adult, already a world-recognized authority on the human mind, somebody who went toe-to-toe with Sigmund Freud and more than held his own - and then he noticed for the first time that some of his own thoughts aren't consciously created.

I can scarcely imagine that. But it happened.

What was the world like, not so long ago? Where did people think their surprising thoughts came from?

but man I want that book so bad, and the pictures look amazing. I have seen similar things myself and I am drawn to it...

It really is a stunning book. More than $100, but when you think about it, there are just plain textbooks that cost that much, and this is no textbook.

The book even smells good, from the density of inks used to reproduce the paintings.

Hello, again, Warper

found the book written by Alexandra but unfortunately she gives no detail on how it is done

She doesn't separate this incident from the results of tsams practices generally, of which she did a lot, and wrote about them, not being different from what Tibetans generally were doing. The practices aren't secret, tibet tsams is searchable. Nor are those the only way to do it.

Jung used active imagination, for example, or, to be precise, a prototype version of it. Current clinical methods, what usually come up in online searches, are less intense.

That said, I am unsure that the mechanics are only what the tulpa-maker does or doesn't do. There are other factors, I think, that drive the phenomenon. I would bet heavily that physical and social isolation contributed to David-Neel's success in sharing her hallucination, for example. She reported the circumstances, but she wouldn't know herself what role the isolation played (nor do I, of course).

her manuscripts are the only "real" thing the western world has of such an experience.

I suspect that we have shared hallucination reports by the bushel basket. The problem, I think, is that the experiences are often reported as something else, including as simply real events.

That would be expected when the report comes from somebody other than the tulpa-maker, or if the maker is not intentionally making the tulpa. By definition, a hallucination appears to be real. Many people's repertoire of "real things" includes a host of otherworldly candidates to be what the person thinks the tulpa "really" is. And that's what shows up in the reports, not "shared hallucination."

So, the distinction of David_Neel's report is that she reports a shared hallucination, in as many words. She also acknowledges that her control over the situation was only partial. Somebody else might have reported "I made a real little Tibetan monk." And as to control, "Yes, just as I intended - I made a real little Tibetan monk, one who thought for himself."

Or, my camp was visited by a ghost of a Tibetan monk. Or a Tibetan monk blilocated to my camp. Or... well, you get the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice.

I plan on trying this.

Expect a rash of Slender Man sightings.

^_^

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the year-plus since this thread appeared, Carl Jung's Liber Novus has finally been published. It is a record of his seminal "active imaginations," which happened mostly in the second decade of the last century. Active imagination, in an evolved form, is now a typical tool in Jungian analysis.

Although the "Red Book" (as Liber Novus has long been called) was unpublished, some of its contents were discussed in Jung's autobiography, Memories, Dreams, and Reflections. Its first edition was in 1961. I use the 1989 revised edition, in English.

Of particular relevance to this thread, Carl Jung created a thought-form he called Philemon. Nobody else, so far as I am aware, ever observed Philemon. Jung himself, however, did.

Philemon and other figures of my fantasies brought home to

me the crucial insight that there are things in the psyche which

I do not produce, but which produce themselves and have their

own life. Philemon represented a force which was not myself.

In my fantasies I held conversations with him, and he said

things which I had not consciously thought. For I observed

clearly that it was he who spoke, not I. He said I treated

thoughts as if I generated them myself, but in his view thoughts

were like animals in the forest, or people in a room, or birds in

the air, and added, "If you should see people in a room, you

would not think that you had made those people, or that you

were responsible for them." It was he who taught me psychic

objectivity, the reality of the psyche. Through him the distinction

was clarified between myself and the object of my thought.

He confronted me in an objective manner, and I understood

that there is something in me which can say things that I do not

know and do not intend, things which may even be directed

against me.

Psychologically, Philemon represented superior insight. He

was a mysterious figure to me, At times he seemed to me quite

real, as if he were a living personality. I went walking up and

down the garden with him, and to me he was what the Indians

call a guru.

~ from Chapter VI of MDR.

So, the poster's quoted question, along with his claim to know another person's thoughts, might just as well have been directed to Carl Jung.

The basic phenomenon is well-attested. It is "in the literature," even in the strictest sense of being part of the working corpus of scientific and clinical inquiry. Actually, MDR has long enjoyed a respectable citation history, but with the publication of Liber Novus, the status of Jung's experiences is unequivocal, and the record of his pertinent work is now complete.

-

Or a spirit guide.... Got to love jung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Seeker

The other day, I'd noticed that this thread had re-resurfaced. It was good to read it again.

Or a spirit guide.... Got to love jung.

That's what makes it a tulpa, the awareness that the perceived "other" is actually a product of oneself, of one's own activity. Whatever autonomy or sense of separate identity there may be, the recollection of the "other's" origin in one's own action or situation persists.

... I understood that there is something in me which can say things that I do not know and do not intend, things which may even be directed against me.

Thus, Jung reports what Moonie denied three years ago, the possibility of having a conversation with an autonomous someone whom you have MADE, and fully believe that you have made, but who does not answer to you, and who does not play dummy to your ventriloquist.

I can only assume that Moonie is unfamiliar with his dreams, since dream characters have these same attributes. Or, maybe Moonie thinks sane people only dream when they're asleep.

Of course, there's an alternative theory that Jung may have "attracted" some being that really was different from him. That would be most people's understanding of "spirit guide."

What I quoted in the post two years ago, and just quoted again now, was from Memories, Dreams and Refletions, which was written about 40 years after Philemon. Jung's judgment about the origin of Philemon, then, benefits from his cliinical experience with his patients, the refinement of "active imagimation," the process which yielded Philemon, and Jung's extensive scholarly research into alchemy. Jung's assessment, in turn, has been second-guessed by his school, which includes a wide range of people, for another 40 years.

The consensus about Philemon is solid: he was part of Jung. Of course, somebody could have done worse than to have Jung as a spirit guide :) .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware of this thread until it resurfaced - it is very interesting.

With regards the manifestations reported by David-Neel and Jung, there does not appear to be a sense that the figure each of them coaxed from their pyche had any knowledge that was not within the minds of their creators. Jung referred to Philemon as 'superior insight', but that does not suggest this insight was external of Jung himself, but was tapped through his sub or unconscious mind.

What I find a little disturbing in the report made by the OP, however, is this sentence...

He had a lot of knowledge and qualities that I myself didn't have.

'Qualities' are rather subjective and I would dismiss this part of the sentence by translating it as "he possessed qualities I do not, or do not usually, exhibit'. This leaves the option that the OP did actually 'possess' those qualities, but they were not a part of her usual personality.

However, the manifestation having knowledge the OP did not possess is far more problematic. Sure, we can translate that as we did the 'qualities' and make this knowledge something the OP does possess, but is unaware of possessing it. But what if this was knowledge the OP really did not possess?

I would baulk at legitimising such a claim without extraordinary evidence, for it would be far more extraordinary than the claim of manifesting the hallucination to begin with.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Leo. I haven't seen Shirley, the OP, around here for a long time. I can only talk about Jung and some of the historical stuff, in hopes that maybe that sheds light on the remark you quoted.

If Jung had said of Philemon,

He had a lot of knowledge and qualities that I myself didn't have.

and he actually did say

... I understood that there is something in me which can say things that I do not know.

Jung would be speaking of conscious knowledge. That "I understood" was in the early Twentieth Century. It was a surprise that there might be unconscious knowledge. Now, it's not even "psychology" anymore. Economists hold seminars about "tacit knowledge" as a factor of production, and writers of technical manuals wrestle with the difference between knowing how to assemble a bicycle and knowing how to explain how to assemble a bicycle.

My guess is that Shirley stirred up some of the same stuff as our colleagues in the Ouija board threads routinely discover: everybody knows more than they know they know.

"Bruce couldn't possibly have known that."

The hell he couldn't, especially when Bruce just showed that he did.

Qualities would be parallel. In Jungian terms, if you don't have some quality, then your Shadow or Anima/us probably does, at least to some extent. This stuff is notoriously projectable, even without anything special like a hallucination as a projection target.

If there's more to it than that, then we need to summon Shirley to tell us about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often wondered if the beings I have interact with are just constructs of my own psyche. Even explored why it would be so. They were not concously created and they have all their own Atributes. im an open minded person but in the end I'm left with my experiences. Certainly if I were to take a materialist perspective, I would say that they cannot be real... But as of yet materialism remaines unconvincing. Nothing to me says that other kinds of beings can't exist, so if one is presented to me Ill take it at face value until their is reason not to.

The fact that people can create tulpas is in no way evidence that my experiences are other than what they seem. Most attributes of tulpas do not aply to spirit guides. But I would not doubt if one could bleed through especially it being a mental construct.

I do however see great similarities in tulpas to dream characters. Even how tulpas turn against people with internal conflicts. Creating one could be a risky game indeed if you are not at peace with yourself.

Of course everything is a mental construct. Possibly us... if we do have the godlike power of creation... Then Mabey a tulpa is an actual created being. A grandchild of the being that created us. The physicality of a being has nothing to do with it's sentience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha have i met him, yeah we go for beers quite often

I wondered where he went when he wasnt on my shoulder. :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, i have heard of others doing this, i heard they can leave there creators and can kind of, ......im not sure how to put this... but kind of haunt people like ghosts.... this may seem far fetched but i believe that it is possible to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My cousin and I created a tulpa around 1977 or 78. We played out in the woods together inventing adventures for ourselves and made up a half human half cat creature named Catamus to be our adversary. One night we both saw our imaginary cat guy and freaked out. We stoped playing that game promptly but continued to have sightings of the creature for a few weeks.

I know, sounds like BS but after not seeing eachother for decades we recently spoke and Catamus came up in the coversation. We were both like "we imagined that right?" But we both agree that although kids have vivid imaginations that we both beleive we saw our imaginary character become a solid real entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's always good to see this thread again.

Welcome aboard, karlharr. If you look at some of the other threads mentioned in post # 36, I think you'll get a sense that that is why so many people are interested in this phenomenon. It is a candidate explanation for a lot of different things that are reported around here.

Oversword

Both you and your cousin should write up your experiences. As you can see from the rest of the thread, there are very few reports about this with much detail. The best reports are probably the "Philip experiment" examples, but those lack the spontaneity of yours. It would be of great value to a lot of people if you shared your experiences.

-

Edited by eight bits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's always good to see this thread again.

Welcome aboard, karlharr. If you look at some of the other threads mentioned in post # 36, I think you'll get a sense that that is why so many people are interested in this phenomenon. It is a candidate explanation for a lot of different things that are reported around here.

Oversword

Both you and your cousin should write up your experiences. As you can see from the rest of the thread, there are very few reports about this with much detail. The best reports are probably the "Philip experiment" examples, but those lack the spontaneity of yours. It would be of great value to a lot of people if you shared your experiences.

-

I'm interested aswell. I have encountered a few people that have unwittingly done this to themselves and are convinced a demon is after them. I will encounter more, so i need as much info as possible to effectively help these people. I know a psychologist might be a better option for them but for many that is not an option.

I want to explore this topic to it's fullest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.