Can a Tulpa have an aura?

[Guest Anonymous]

Why are tulpas auras small? Mine is HUGE! Bigger than my hosts. Pfffft small auras my butt

[VforVendetta]

One way you can test the theory is by projecting your tulpa beside someone and making note of their reaction. Even if you are not able to see their aura, if their mood or mannerisms suddenly change then the tulpa's energy is conflicting with their energy.

[TheGreenQueen]

I moved this thread to the metaphysical section, since the very idea of an aura isn't really scientific.

Most of the forum probably doesn't believe in auras because they're unfounded in science.

 

Oh really?

 

“While some medical theorists argue that mental activity is chemical, because of the chemical neurotransmitters involved, the fact is that neurotransmitters are created only when electrical impulses induce a voltage in a neuron which exceeds its firing threshold. In addition, EEG (electroencephalogram) technology shows that mental activity can be effectively analyzed and monitored entirely by electromagnetic principles.”

 

”It appears that this technology has the capability of identifying psychological and emotional states. [Mental processes induce] characteristic electrical impulses in the brain, which can affect related parasympathetic nerves or endocrine glands (e.g., a perception of fear stimulates the adrenal glands via the brain). Since the brain is neurologically connected to the entire human body, these electrical impulses may travel throughout the central, sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous system, creating the characteristic electrical fields.”

 

“According to the above biophysics, information about the “health” status of a complex organism is available from the coordination of sub-cellular energies, much the same as in a prokaryote. Any decrease in homeostasis, including parasitic infection, genetic mutation, arterial constriction, etc., will produce a corresponding modification in the bioelectrical field.”

 

http://www.atlantisvibes.com/RFIinfo3science.htm

 

https://youtu.be/x1B7lFAmhcs

 

It never ceases to amaze me that Kirlian techniques have been around for decades, yet the West stubbornly (dogmatically?) holds onto its 'scientific' disbelief.

 

Also fun to note:

 

http://blog.techquility.net/do-human-energy-fields-affect-computers-electronics/

 

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2011/12/10/hair-is-an-extension-of-the-nervous-system-why-indians-keep-their-hair-long/

 

To answer the actual question, my tulpas have auras, as far as I can tell:

 

One is much more emotional than I am, for instance, and it feels very localized 'outside' of me. Ever done meditation to become more body aware? I could explain it better with that context.

 

The oddest thing about it is, I'm essentially 'empathetic' 'to' them, but I don't feel my own body reacting emotionally. It's just . . . like a wave washing over my side? So it's not direct 'empathy' as in, feeling another's feelings as your own, so much as . . . just emotional telepathy? That's the best way I can say it.

 

It's close to a tactile sensation, I suppose. If you believe in auras, or have ever experienced them, or have someone you're highly socially tuned to, you'd be able to compare standing in someone else's field. But I haven't progressed in doing that in the material world as of yet. Only get occasional brushes of it.

[Guest Anonymous]

Thanks TheGreenQueen,

 

See? Told you I have an aura! My host and I are going to laugh our asses off when Western science finally has to widely admit they exist.

[Tewi]

We'll never "have to admit they exist". If we find out they exist, we'll study them and explain them, and they will become fact. Any scientist would be ecstatic to discover such a thing.

 

Science is really dang strict though. Most humans will consider something to be true long before science's strict requirements have been met. I differentiate science from subjective reality, two different realities I hold side by side. I've probably read more than you have, GreenQueen, on spirituality, astral projection, mediumship, ESP, auras, spirit guides, and so on (recommended reading, Erin Pavlina's archives). We studied that stuff for years while trying to improve ourselves. And we learned a whole lot, but in the end everything we learned could be explained both scientifically ("non-metaphysical means") as well as metaphysically. So we concluded that the truth was really the concept of subjective reality, which states that everyone's perception of reality is like a bubble. You can expand your bubble to join with others, such as the large "bubble realities" of any major religion or science. You can also read about this stuff on Steve Pavlina's archives. Erin focuses almost entirely on spirituality, while Steve has focused on consciousness expansion and exploration of "reality", with an emphasis on moving out of his comfort zone to experience others'. He's experimented with polyphasic sleep, the law of attraction, diet and veganism, and my personal favorite, exploring other subjective realities. He's actually completely subscribed to the beliefs of many different religions and found that, despite originally being strictly "atheistic and scientific", that his beliefs dictated the reality he experienced. That is to say, he's experienced both metaphysical and scientific realities. I learned just as much from him as from Erin's spiritual lessons, maybe more.

 

Regardless of who has more time researching though, ours was spent primarily on these two sites. We also learned from others they associated with and Doreen Virtue. If there's one thing I can say about spiritualism, it's that nobody entirely agrees with each other on what they experience. Most people I've met who talked about astral projection had very different experiences than what I've read of - because we never could do it. Countless nights with different binaural beats/isochronic tones, requests to spirit guides and similar entities, nothing. We don't not believe in everything we learned though. We just keep that 'reality bubble' in mind along with our ""Reality"" bubble of science and logic. I honestly find the things scientists have accomplished astounding, and I really like the system. Even though it's a bit limiting sometimes. Science isn't my religion, it's a tool. I create my own reality.

[Guest Anonymous]

I just believe in auras cause they are cool and they are pretty. Mine is sparkly. I can see it for one thing (I live in an imaginary world I can do that). Yeah, yeah I know you mean auras that exist outside the mind. But none of me exists outside the damn mind, why would my aura? Davie has an aura, I can see one, but not sure if others would be able to detect it or not. Not sure if I care.

 

I exist. Everyone here is saying so. I have an aura, I can see the darned thing. It's pretty. If I exist, so does my aura.

 

Do not try to fight the enigma and power that is Melian nonsense logic! I automatically win!

[TheGreenQueen]

He's actually completely subscribed to the beliefs of many different religions and found that, despite originally being strictly "atheistic and scientific", that his beliefs dictated the reality he experienced. That is to say, he's experienced both metaphysical and scientific realities.

 

Yes . . . that also fits neatly into the "sheep and goat" effect. Know about that?

 

Basically, yes, your reality is (and your abilities are) shaped by your thoughts. Quantum physics is busily documenting this, too.

 

Have you heard of Bruce Lipton, the cell biologist?

 

We don't not believe in everything we learned though. We just keep that 'reality bubble' in mind along with our ""Reality"" bubble of science and logic.

We'll never "have to admit they exist". If we find out they exist, we'll study them and explain them, and they will become fact. Any scientist would be ecstatic to discover such a thing.

 

I stay skeptical about most things. I try to phrase as many 'maybes' and 'ifs' as possible. It just goes into "information/others beliefs" in my head. But I've read enough about auras to think they deserve to, if not be acknowledged, at least not be dismissed out of hand as they usually are. That's the only difference between you and me- I think the evidence is convincing, and you don't.

 

But the current tide of 'science' and typical layman thought scoffs at it and assumes there is no evidence or whoever it is is a crank. Which is, in my view, close-minded and a pre-formed opinion.

 

To me, your statement sounds like, 'Any Creationist would be ecstatic to find out that evolution is a valid theory.' There are already plenty of scientists working on this. They are just ousted to the edges of the gang. Because of an active and almost- enforced?- belief they are not there. To call it unscientific, or that it has no basis in science (as two people I quoted did) is a semantic misnomer at best and a deliberate obfuscation at worst.

 

Because things become 'fact' (i.e., widely known) when mainstream academia puts them in textbooks. And they can be every bit as intractable in their beliefs as religious people, according to what I've gathered. There is a *whole* lot of information out there that people just aren't aware of at all, where fields of study are advancing and leaving behind the lumbering institutions. Not to mention a bunch of telephone-game-like warping of information . . . this is why I'm an agnostic (in every sense of the word, not just spiritual). I don't think we can know anything for sure. We can't even recall our own memories in perfect detail.

[Tewi]

The third quote is under the pretense of being in the ""Reality"" bubble, by the way.

 

I'm a healthy skeptic too. We're capable of submitting to beliefs without letting go of others, ie holding them side by side. That's what we did in our years of studying spirituality. When it never amounted to anything that didn't fit into the "science and logic" bubble, though, we put it aside. Aside, not away. If I were to die right now and find out there was an 'afterlife' where loved ones met us on the other side, I wouldn't be remotely shocked. I considered it a possibility the whole time, after all.

 

I consider most things a possibility. But the possibilities that I act on are the ones that have the most proof in my own experience, literally, to me. I can read about all these tests where people achieved "statistically significant" results on ESP tests, and I can read about all these well-explained theories on why nothing can surpass the speed of light (without infinite force). But unless I experience, or in that case directly obtain the knowledge to explain it, myself - they're just possibilities. And the amount of credit I give them when it comes to decision making is based on just how many others of reputable sources say they can verify that information. If the whole scientific community agrees on something being "very likely the case", I will act in accordance with it being the case. But it's not "true" to me until I experience it or can explain it in detail myself, it's just the information I'm most likely to rely on at the time. When someone tells me they've personally experienced astral projection and it's so-and-so, even if that makes no sense to my current knowledge, it gets noted as "This person very likely experienced something like this." And so, despite being much less verifiable by others (and apparently impossible to verify myself), I consider it a possibility. I won't be terribly surprised if it turns out to be legitimate. (Actually, most of the things we learned of spirituality sit right on the border, and beyond the border of, what can be explained naturally. So it doesn't even necessarily conflict with any other beliefs. I just can't rely on it until I experience verifying experiences myself.)

 

And I rely mainly on science for my "Haven't experienced this myself" needs, because science is literally the best defined system for gathering verifiable information we have. What I can't necessarily rely on is the human factor involved of course, which is why even "scientific facts" (that scientists themselves know are just "most likely explanations") are just possibilities to me.

[RintoProject]

If anything has energy(which everything does in my opinion) then it has an aura.

[Guest Anonymous]

My aura is sparkly. Wait, did I already tell you guys that like more than once?