You are hereForums / Mysterious Britain / Hauntings / Elementals

Elementals


22 replies [Last post]
Matt.H
User offline. Last seen 3 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2008

Elementals seem to be the "in" thing with many paranormal groups - a location simply isn't deemed spooky enough unless it has one! Shadow people seem to have been eschewed in favour of this vaguely applied term, no doubt furthered by unscrupulous and plain misguided mediums.

I'm wondering what people's views are on this. Obviously, books like "Conjouring Phillip" suggest at the possibility of creating thoughtforms (which I think is the better phrase to use, since elemental has connotations with nature spirits etc), but recently it seems to have got out of hand!

Mauro
User offline. Last seen 2 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
It probably all started when

It probably all started when Alexandra David-Neel related how she was trained by a Lama mystic to conjoure a tulpa, the original thoughtform. Her books contain many anedoctes and conversations with very learned Lamas about these curious products of the human minds. Too bad very few bother reading them anymore.
Ghosts "created" by people expecting to explore an haunted locale or having a "spooky" evening out in the woods seem to be all the rage but seem to be the least consistent of them all. Can't they just be just allucinations?

__________________

"Louhi spoke in riddled tones of three things to achieve: find and catch the Devil's Moose and bring it here to me. Seize the Stallion born of Fire, harness the Golden Horse. He captured and bound the Moose, he tamed the Golden Horse. Still there remained one final task: hunt for the Bird from the Stream of Death"

-Kalevala, Rune XIII-


Daniel Parkinson's picture
Daniel Parkinson
User offline. Last seen 2 years 17 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
I am aware of elementals and

I am aware of elementals and thoughtforms through Occult literature (Dion Fortune etc) but didn't realise they had crossed into paranormal investigation, again it would be down to a belief system, and if they are the "in" thing they are probably just as dubious as the peripheral shadow people.

About 15 years ago when psychic questing was popular 'thought forms' were a big part of that: supposedly left at sacred sites by nasty occultists who wanted to take over the world. hmmm!

Are they a similar idea? incidently was there any scientific validation for the Phillip ghost.

I also remmember reading that the Tulpa Alexandra David-Neel created turned a bit nasty and she had to spend a great deal of effort to rid it from her mind, but I can't remmember the full story and have never read the original source.

It would be great if they did exist, you could create one to do the ironing, washing up, cleaning the list is endless

Matt.H
User offline. Last seen 3 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2008
Yes, the roots of it are

Yes, the roots of it are undoutedly in the occult and I would imagine you could trace it right back to shamanism etc.

Whilst with the "Phillip" experiment there's supposed to be camera footage suggesting something beyond human fraud is at work, I would confidently predict most elementals found on paranormal investigation are little more than wishful thinking.

That said, focussed wishful thinking is precisely how Phillip and Davod-Neel's Tulpa were conjoured up! It's interesting to consider that many famously haunted locations may be self-fulfilling prophecies.

Turtlethrone's picture
Turtlethrone
User offline. Last seen 2 years 4 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 8 Nov 2008
I have not given Thought

I have not given Thought Forms much thought of late, well not since I stopped Questing and dabbling in the occult. It should be easy to write them off and ignore them but speaking from experience I am not sure I can do that so easily.

Of all the clairvoyant imagery I have witnessed over the years, it is the ones I have connected to ritual experiences that seemed to stand out. Where as the usual images were only seen by myself and showed no sign of intelligence, these connected to rituals or as I believed seemed different, almost as if they knew I was there and on two occasions could be seen by others with me. One was a black figure that started showing up after we found a stone artefact in Glastonbury (yes a quest of sorts ) which was seen by a few people and on one occasion by 3 or 4 at once. The account that really sticks in my mind though is this one:

I was midway through a meditation ritual with a friend referred to as MrB . I think I made the mistake of making it to general. A presence was felt followed by a cold sensation being noticed. I looked at the nearby chair and saw a skull hovering a few inches above the cushion. It looked REAL! MrB then told me to look at the same chair, because he could see a skull, hovering above the cushion.(This is the only time he had ever seen anything. The fact he saw it actually had me very worried). We could both see it moving slowly left then right. I was fascinated, then realised that I had no idea what it was or how to get rid of it. Try as might, I could not banish it. To be honest I did not try hard, I did not actually have the slightest notion how to get rid of it . Then in my usual style, I thought, well, what harm can it do and I decided to remove the visualised circle of protection and ignore it. The skull shot around the back of me and hit my spine. I was sort of paralysed or froze for a length of time. It felt like a few minutes but I can’t really remember the exact timescale, maybe it was seconds. MrB was a bit freaked, but I survived and that is always a bonus. Chalk it up to experience, make a few notes and move on. I would not advise anyone to buy my Grimoire should I ever write one.

If possible I would like to establish the difference between these experiences, my usual clairvoyant experiences and ghosts. Are they linked? What makes them different if they are?

Mauro
User offline. Last seen 2 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Here's the unabridged

Here's the unabridged passage reagrding tulpa creation from the 1931 American edition of Magic and Mystery in Tibet, notes in brackets are mine:

Incited by many wonderful legends regarding the power of ancient tubthobs [mystical and spiritual masters] to create tulpas, a small number of ngagspas [lama magicians] and lamas endeavour, in great secrecy, to succeed in that peculiar branch of esoteric lore.
However, the practice is considered as fraught with danger for every one who has not reached a high mental and spiritual degree of enlightment and is not fully aware of the nature of the psychic forces at work in the process.
Once the tulpa is endowed with enough vitality to be capable of playing the part of a real being it tends to free itself from its maker's control. This, say Tibetan occultists, happens nearly mechanically, just as the child, when his body is completed and able to live apart, leaves its mother's womb. Sometimes the phantom becomes a rebellious son and one hears of uncanny struggles that have taken place between magicians and their creatures, the former being severly hurt or even killed by the latter.
Tibetan magicians also relate cases in which the tulpa is sent to fulfil a mission, but does not come back and pursues its peregrinations as a half-conscious, dangerously mischevious puppet. The same thing, it is sais, may happen when the maker of the tulpa dies before having dissolved it. Yet, as a rule, the phantom either disappears suddenly at the death of the magician or gradually vanishes like a body who perishes for want of food. On the other hand, some tulpas are expressly intended to survive their creator and are specially formed for that purpose. These may be considered as veritable tulkus [see note 1 below] and, in fact, the demarcation between tulpas and tulkus is far from being clearly drawn. The existence of both is grounded on the same theories.
Must we credit these strange accounts of rebellious "materializations," phantoms which have become real beings, or must we reject them all as mere fantastic tales and wild products of imagination?-Perhaps the latter course is the wisest. I affirm nothing. I only relate what I have heard from people whom, in other circumstances, I had found trustworthy, but they may have deluded themselves in all sincerity.
Nevertheless, allowing for a great deal of exaggeration and sensational addition, I could hardly deny the possibility of vizualizing and animating a tulp. Besides having had few opportunities of seeing thoughtforms, my habitual incredulity led me to make experiments for myself, and my efforts were attended with some success. In order to avoid being influenced by the forms of lamaist deities, which I saw daily around me in paintings and images, I chose for my experiment a most insignificant character: a monk, short and fat, of an innocent and jolly type.
I shut myself in tsams [spiritual retreat] and proceeded to perform the prescribed concentration of thought and other rites. After a few months the phantom monk was formed. His form grew gradually fixed and life-like looking. He became a kind of guest, living in my partment. I then broke my seclusion and started for a tour, with my servants and tents.
The monk included himself in the party. Though I lived in the open, riding on horseback for miles each day, the illusion persisted. I saw the fat trapa [low-ranking monk], now and then it was not necessary for me to think of him to make him appear. The phantom performed various actions of the kind that are natural to travellers and that I had not commanded. For instance, he walked, stopped, looked around him. The illusion was mostly visual, but sometimes I felt as if a robe was lightly rubbing against me and once a hand seemed to touch my shoulder.
The features which I had imagined, when building my phantom, gradually underwent a change. The fat, chubby-cheeked fellow grew leaner, his face assumed a vaguely mocking, sly malignant look. He became more troublesome and bold. In brief, he escaped my control.
Once a herdsman who brought me a present of butter saw the tulpa in my tent and took it for a live lama.
I ought to have let the phenomenon follow its course, but the presence of that unwanted companion began to prove trying to y nerves; it turned into a "day-nightmare". Moreover, i was beginning to plan my journey to Lhasa and needed a quiet brain devoid of other preoccupations, so I decided to dissolve the phantom. I succeeded, but only after six months of hard struggle. My mind-creature was tenacious of life.

Note 1: A tulku is often improperly called a "living Buddha" or a "reincarnated lama". I won't bore you with the details, as interesting as they are, but learned lamaist mystics mantain that a dying person well versed in mental exercises and occult arts can project his "psychic energy" in another, newly born body which will remain coherent and allow him to continue pursuing the same goal he had in this life.

__________________

"Louhi spoke in riddled tones of three things to achieve: find and catch the Devil's Moose and bring it here to me. Seize the Stallion born of Fire, harness the Golden Horse. He captured and bound the Moose, he tamed the Golden Horse. Still there remained one final task: hunt for the Bird from the Stream of Death"

-Kalevala, Rune XIII-


Ian Topham's picture
Ian Topham
User offline. Last seen 5 hours 3 min ago. Offline
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
I think this is a great

I think this is a great subject and just like DJP and Turtlethrone I was involved in Psychic Questing (of sorts) and the occult. Questing seemed to expect you to accept the phenomena and not question it, hence for a long time I pondered on thought forms.

I must admit that after speaking to MrB mentioned in Turtlethrones experience and indeed knowing them both rather well, it is an experience that has me perplexed and fascinated.

I have to ask though, if thought forms can be created and interacted with, how come they have not been subject to serious scientific investigation and we don't know much about them?

Mysteryshopper
User offline. Last seen 3 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
I don't know much about

I don't know much about elementals - how would you recognise one?

Agricola's picture
Agricola
User offline. Last seen 4 years 19 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Can we do a definition of

Can we do a definition of elementals? I always thought them to be a more non-physical version of a familiar. Am I talking balls anyone?

Matt.H
User offline. Last seen 3 years 45 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 6 Nov 2008
By my understanding, an

By my understanding, an elemental is something connected to nature itself and not of human creation. So you've got nymphs, driads and the like as well as some forms of black dog. However, these can be manipulated by humans - which is what has allegedly been done at Woodchester.

On the other hand, thoughtforms such as David-Neel's are purely created by humans.

Mysteryshopper
User offline. Last seen 3 years 8 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Sorry to repeat myself but

Sorry to repeat myself but how would you detect / recognise an elemental?



Share/Save

Navigation

Recent comments

Featured Site