Talk:Thought-form

This article is an attempt to structure an over-generalised notion in occult literature in an objective way, to serve as a reliable vehicle for reasoned discussions about topics of wider significance. Others please contribute, especially to the section: Published reports (of thought-forms). If you alter the structure, could you please move major deletions into this talk page? Hopefully this will minimise risk of the baby disappearing with the bathwater.

Please do not offer "Allah", "God" or "Jesus" as examples, or aver that all gods or concepts of divinity are nothing but thought-forms. This is best presented here as "personal opinion" rather than something axiomatic. Quacksalber 17:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth are you doing with this page? We already have both an egregore and a thought form page. Did you create this one as a rough draft, with the intention of later moving its content? In any case, I've moved this from the article and replaced it with something relevant: the entity Aiwass promoted by Aleister Crowley in connection with his invented religion Crowleyanity which has subsequently gained followers. (The first part of the sentence talks about deliberately invented thought-forms.) You think Crowley deliberately invented Aiwass? Read Book of the Law; we have the founder's private diaries and the rough equivalent of a letter from Judas attacking his old teacher for believing he was God sent to die on the cross etc. In order to believe your implication here, we'd quite literally have to believe that Crowley lied every time he talked about it. Seems theoretically possible, knowing Crowley, but a tough sell. It certainly doesn't qualify as NPOV. Dan 06:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fear this situation could arise with every candidate thought-form offered as an example: someone will challenge it on the basis of it having been revealed, not invented. Whatever I personally believe about Crowley and his motivation ("lying" is a distinctly unsubtle term to use where Crowley is concerned) I am happy to accept that Aiwass is not a good example, for the very reasons I give above. Thank you for the snake-god example: IMO a much more defensible one.

Quacksalber 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What am I trying to do with this page? Well may you ask! It wasn't my original intention to create yet another page to compete with egregore and thoughtform, which I have suggested combining.

I still maintain they should all eventually be combined. I originally tried to edit thoughtform to widen its overly narrow focus. Refer to Talk:Thoughtform especially the archived delete discussion, also Talk: egregore. However the article has a guardian dragon who appears to considers s/he is the only one entitled to modify it, and summarily reverts other people's contributions. Another contributor objected to this behaviour and in exasperation nominated the page for deletion. I was one of those who argued for its retention, but now I understand better what lay behind the nomination.

I'm offering this page as a stub article (which other people can contribute to), inviting a consensus on what to do about existing thoughtform which IMO is best renamed tulpa.

Quacksalber 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]