"Safe Place" - Wonderland Guide

[Yori]

I'm not saying that I support the notion that describing your wonderland is dangerous, but the arguments you used to reply to her were fallacious.

---

Shui, I can attest to this forum not being a scientific source. A professor of mine looked at it and told me himself that this was not a scientific source, perhaps thinking that I was using it in that way, and it's not any small number of individuals' faults. It's just not. It cannot be used as a scientific source of information on tulpas themselves, but it could be used in a study of people claiming to have tulpas.

 

As for the guide not being complete... it's alright that it doesn't have info on everything, but it was incomplete in the first place due to no description of how to create a safe place that differs from a wonderland, and a method wasn't even described...

 

I don't see how it expanded your knowledge, unless you mean that you didn't know the more you work on a wonderland, the easier it becomes to visualize.

[Linkzelda]

Alright:

 

Before I begin' date=' please note that some of the things I describe here may not be widely accepted by the non-spiritual. By non-spiritual, I mean a person who does not believe in the spiritual world. EDIT. I feel I must re-emphasize this, because of the criticism I received from a non-spiritual standpoint, regarding a spiritual subject. If you are not at least a little meta-physically minded, this probably isn't for you. [/quote']

 

Firstly, it’s good that you put up a disclaimer here, and although this is a no-brainer, many people forget to add this. Some may forget to read the whole disclaimer entirely, and because you’ve admitted that this a bit more meta-physical, it should be shifted to meta.

 

Unless of course suggestions such as this or this can be implemented, this suggestion of mine may be useless.

 

Before I nitpick on the parts of the guide, we know this for sure:

 

• You have the intention to make this a wonderland guide with an implied meta-physical mindset
  
• You have a format for people to hopefully understand the symbolism, analogies, metaphors and such for your guide.
  

 

Now let’s begin. Please note dancing-with-dragons, my statements below are merely suggestions that might make this guide more presentable to GAT’s standards. You are not obligated to change the content of your guide, but do note if you take this route, it will have to be shifted to meta or whatever section applicable in the future.

 

A "safe place" is, essentially, a wonderland with benefits. Those who are experienced in shamanic journeying may use their safe place to access the higher realms, or the personal underworld. You could also call your safe place a "departure point", or "World between worlds", because it is often used to access other worlds.

 

In a safe place, no other entities can harm you (more on that later). It is your own, private world. Creating a safe place normally have nothing to do with Tulpas; however I noticed the similarity between "safe place" and "wonderland", and thought it would be beneficial to expound more on the subject.

 

Although you’ve presented an association here with shamanic journeys, it’s not something pragmatic to use as an example. Here’s why:

 

Using the example that shamans/shamanism/whatever use a “safe place” to access higher realms, and then making the association with:

You could also call your safe place a "departure point", or "World between worlds", because it is often used to access other worlds.

I suppose there is a little difference between the two.

WONDERLAND - Created primarily for human-tulpa interaction.

SAFE PLACE - Created for personal safety and shamanic journeys. Can be used as a wonderland. Private.

 

Doesn’t make the word “safe place” any different from a “wonderland.” Unless you have credible evidence that people can access other people’s minds or embark in other realities, wonderlands are considered to be private to the host and the thought-forms they choose to interact with as well.

 

I understand this guide is more meta-physical, and that people who don’t take meta too well should ignore it, but behind the logic of the GAT system, it’s not up to its standards.

 

Trying to make a distinction between “safe place” and “wonderland” is merely unintelligible equivocation on your end.

 

Here’s a suggestion to reduce this ambiguity : It’s best for you to just use “Wonderland,” since that’s the accepted term in this forum. I understand there’s people who use “conworld,” “paracosm,” and such, but it’s a matter of disposition on the individual level. At an aggregate level, it’s best to use “wonderland” instead.

 

Imagine for a moment for a newcomer trying to read this guide. Although they may cherry pick and ignore the meta-physical parts, they may be confused on settling the “distinction” you’ve made with safe place and wonderland. This may create queries on the Q&A section on “Is this a wonderland or safe place?”

 

The chances of this is pretty low, but it’s to show how newcomers can gravitate on certain terminology and be confused on what “these people stated in this guide or that guide” and such. Just something for you to consider IF you wanted this to be presentable to GAT’s standards. If you’re sticking to the meta route, feel free, but it should be shifted accordingly.

 

The creation process is quite similar to those found already on the forum. So I wont go into much detail. Basically, just imagine a special, relaxing place in your mind. Try to imagine the details. The earth under your feet, the wind in the trees, etc.

 

*NOTE. You may want to include some caves or other earth openings in your safe place. This will allow you to use them to access your underworld.

The more you visit your safe place, the more solid it will become.

 

I understand you’re trying to suggest symbolism, metaphors, and such to promote the “security” of the wonderland (or safe place based on your disposition).

Although this isn’t a big issue, since you’ve stated “just imagine a special, relaxing place in your mind,” giving an introduction that one should be more sensory descriptive instead of only resorting to one or two examples may be a better option for you.

 

I understand that people can do their own research for creating symbolism (e.g. creating a guard in the wonderland, barrier over the wonderland), but do take into consideration of more examples if possible.

 

CREATING A SAFE PLACE

 

• You can change the sub-title “CREATING A SAFE PLACE” to “CREATING A WONDERLAND.” You stated you won’t go into much detail, but for your case, you’ll have to be more detailed and expand how you would go about creating a wonderland.

 

Do not tell anyone what your safe place looks like!

 

Let me say that again, Do NOT give away descriptive information of your safe place to anyone. If you do, other people can easily access it, (if they know what they're doing). By telling other people about your safe place, you are opening the door for negative entities and other people to enter. Essentially, you are allowing someone or something the opportunity to cause you harm. (From a spiritual point of view). Thus, your safe place wouldn't be so safe, would it?

Since you have no credible evidence for this, you may want to strip this entirely and try a different approach.

 

The reason why I suggest taking this bit out is:

 

By informing others that one shouldn’t tell anyone what their wonderland looks like, this censorship may end up making issues more likely to occur that you’re trying to prohibit for the reader/newcomer who’s considering making a wonderland.

 

They may end up trying so hard in making their wonderland rigid and secure that if they see subtle or significant changes to it, questions like this may show up.

 

Inform the reader that wonderlands being sporadic, spontaneous, and inconsistent is a common issue one may face. Provide them the information that learning how to settle down and shift into more positive thoughts of being accepting of change to the wonderland and such can lead to more stability and security, and that practice makes perfect.

 

This is why I am against the "What does your wonderland look like?" posts. People actually draw a map of their wonderland and publish on the internet' date=' where hundreds of people, members and guests, can view it. NOT a good idea! To help clarify my point I'll use an example. Would you give your house keys to a complete stranger? Of course not! Same principal here.[/quote']

 

How you’re trying to see things from what others have done with showing blueprints/maps/work-in-progress of their wonderland as a bad thing is just your personal disposition. Stating it’s not a good idea increases the probability of paranoia and exponential worrying.

 

Although to those who have a broader sense of tulpa, it’s just a matter of ignoring what you’re saying, but to a newcomer that’s trying to extract and being open-minded to as many perspectives from guides as possible, it can be a detriment.

 

And your example with the house keys is a non-sequitur, it doesn't make your disposition more pragmatic.

 

People actually draw a map of their wonderland and publish on the internet, where hundreds of people, members and guests, can view it. NOT a good idea!.......This does not apply to your tulpa being in your wonderland. Tulpas are created from your mind. Even an independent tulpa is reliant on you, and should be trustworthy of you.

 

You see, this is where you’re making a contradiction (from how I see this):

 

It’s not a good idea to show your wonderland format/blueprint/etc. to others, especially on the internet, because others can view it, and potentially access the confines of your mind and distort it.

However, this logic doesn’t apply to tulpa being in your wonderland, because they’re created from your mind, and because of this, you don’t have to worry about others changing them.

 

Do you see the contradiction here? You’re using tulpa as anomalies from wonderlands, and this is going to cause more vagueness and ambiguity. Both are created from the mind, and you know this, and this is why you may want to remove this.

 

SUMMARY :

A safe place is different from a wonderland in that it is private, and is used for many purposes. A safe place should never be shared with the public. A safe place allows access to the higher realms and underworld. A safe place can be used as a wonderland. A safe place solidifies the more you use it.

 

Again, what I’m about to suggest is IF you wanted this guide to be within GAT’s standards:

 

Remove the idea of safe place completely, since it’s a matter of disposition between it and wonderland. It’s an unintelligible equivocation and may cause confusion for a newcomer trying to gain insight on creating a wonderland.

 

And since you’re fairly new, your perspective on using “safe place” more than “wonderland” may or may not change. And because of this, it doesn’t make the guide something a newcomer would take action in doing, whether it's meta-physical or not.

 

 

Recap:

 

• Wonderland is a better word to use than safe place in order to reduce ambiguity and confusion to newcomers reading this guide

 

• Go into more detail on how you would go about creating a wonderland without mentioning "Accessing to other realms, departing, etc."

 

• Maybe add "Disclaimer" to the introduction you have italicized. This is just nitpicking on my end, but it should be made clear that's a disclaimer you're putting up. And you may want to include that none of the information you're providing should be taken as objective evidence.

 

• Providing links to what you feel others should look at (without being militant about the resources/links being true and applicable for everyone) is a good idea. But it should be used as something optional and at the end of the guide. Maybe a "Suggested Links/Resources" or something like that can be implemented.

[Kiahdaj]

Sweet Jesus... You aren't the tl;dr master for nothing, Linkzelda...

 

My biggest problem with this guide (besides the fact that it's in the guide section) is that it's pretty much completely worthless. Nowhere in the guide does creating a "safe place" diverge from creating a wonderland. Essentially, he made a guide about creating a wonderland, with nothing more than any other wonderland guide.

Yeah, he tells you what a safe place is, and all that, but that would be better suited as a general "look at this" thread--not a guide, considering there's nothing new here.

 

If he'd made a "safe place" thread in the metaphysics board, I'd have no complaints here--it would be where it belongs, and it wouldn't have the audacious title of "guide".

[Sands]

He actually did summarize it correctly for once Kiahdaj, so hey, good job Linkzelda. I want to see more of that.

 

Here's my wonderland guide: Imagine a place, boom, wonderland. Enjoy.

[Kiahdaj]

Yeah, that's literally what the wonderland section of my guide consists of.

[GrillNinja]

I read through dozens of books looking for any mention of anything similar to this idea. (I've listed many of those books in this post.) Often I'd read an entire book and believe only a few paragraphs, or maybe only a few sentences. And that's how I assembled most of my knowledge about tulpa. When I came here, I knew the methods to make a tulpa -- I joined this community mostly for the reassurance that those methods weren't a lot of hokey, and I wasn't throwing away months of my life on a pipe dream.

 

Thanks Shui for the book links. Most appreciated.

[Zero]

Mother of post.

 

Anyway you're taking my criticism wrongly, dancing-with-dragons. You're basically saying "you're not esoteric so I won't listen to you."

Just because you speak of esoteric things doesn't mean you don't have to make sense. I'm a Buddhist myself, I believe in esoteric things to a certain degree, but I can enjoy it when things are actually coherent. My complaints about your guide was that it's incoherent and inconsistent, and that it looks like you hadn't put much thought into it. I'm also not really sure what you're trying to teach that can actually help advance a tulpa (since, just as Sands said, imagine a place and you have a wonderland, imagine it more often and, you have a wonderland.)

 

This is why I said your guide belongs in the "Metaphysical" section. Not because your guide is something I can't accept, but because it's a guide to something that's not exactly related to what the other guides on here are trying to teach. This "safe place" sounds highly personal and as tulpa related as a wonderland - in which case you'd only be rewriting what plenty other guides have done.

 

Basically, I'd like to see you relate this to tulpas somehow other than saying "yeah your tulpa can be in the safe place too and uh, they can do stuff there." a.k.a. any tulpa-related benefits that can't be found in the wonderland and don't you dare say my tulpa can ward off demons better within a safe place.

[Yori]

Linkzelda, are you implying that guides should only contain things backed by credible evidence, or would you give the same suggestions if she posted this in the metaphysical section? There's no real way to 'prove' what she claimed - people could simply say that anecdotes of such things happening are made up. There isn't credible evidence for the tulpa phenomenon either, other than the fact that hallucinations are real.

[Sands]

This forum and its boards are meant to look at the psychological/scientific/whatever side of tulpas and whatever is related to tulpas. Because we're trying to be professional (heh) and scientific, you can and will be questioned if you claim things without proof. Many of the things we talk about here can't be proven, but you better at least explain your shit in a way that makes sense. And seeing that this side of the boards doesn't accept magic, you're not going to convince anyone by claiming it's magic.

 

That's why the metaphysical boards are around. Post your metashit there, don't pollute the rest of the forums with it, because that's not the point of them. So, if you post supernatural stuff here, be prepared to back it up. And even then it's probably going to go to metaboards, unless you wish to take a more scientific look at the supernatural. In which case, again, "it's magic" doesn't really convince anyone or make for a good argument.

[Linkzelda]

Linkzelda, are you implying that guides should only contain things backed by credible evidence, or would you give the same suggestions if she posted this in the metaphysical section? There's no real way to 'prove' what she claimed - people could simply say that anecdotes of such things happening are made up. There isn't credible evidence for the tulpa phenomenon either, other than the fact that hallucinations are real.

 

I would be fooling myself and the guider maker if I wanted them to have everything backed up by credible evidence. Because it’s obvious that everything in this forum are merely ad hoc claims until scientific study/experimentation, peer-review, and other modes of the scientific method can be done to augment the reliability behind those claims. No one in this forum can do any of that (yet).

 

You’re merely looking at 1-2 parts that I gave a critique on and presuming her guide has to have scientific evidence that’s built like a fortress (That would be promoting pseudoscience, which is even worse than meta). You need to understand there are some parts that would have a newcomer go into a spiraling clash of confusion, and some parts where they can tell it’s just symbolism, metaphors, etc. to get the bigger picture, and they can move on in their journey in garnering perspective from others for this.

 

TL;DR: My nitpicking on certain parts does not mean the guide is bad, I’m merely trying to follow along the current system of the GAT. I understand we’re merely feigning a scientific vibe here, but pro-tip:

 

If we keep this up and go through the mannerisms that at least makes this forum flexible with all areas (including metaphysics and parapsychology), in comes self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

It’s what makes terms like “you are the hero that tulpa.info needs” "10/10 would read" spewed so much here.

 

___________________

 

The other issue is bias, and although it’s difficult for a person to absolve themselves from it, the least we can do is learn how to be vicarious in a newcomer’s position. Which means we have to stop saying “my guide does this already..” because it’s clear that notion is moot with how Q&A and General Discussion is abundant with repeated questions.

 

Guides are merely just guides, and when people see other’s trying to explain things in their unique perspective, to the other guide maker and/or veteran, they’ll just say “Oooh this is all the same, why is this needed? My guide stated this already, gooooosh.”

 

That’s the issue. Because about every single guide can be analyzed, and guide makers will resort to ad hoc rescue for their ad hoc claims.

 

Example of an ad hoc rescue is:

 

Linksmelda (yes I spelled that wrong for comical relief): "Hey, I like the presentation you have in mind for this guide, but here are parts that may cause confusion…."

 

Guide maker: "Omg GAT Member isn’t getting the overall purpose of this guide, he’s too lengthy."

 

Linksmelda: “I’m not here to shun down your guide, just suggestions on how you could make it better. You don’t have to change everything, just consider some things and maybe try things at a different approach.”

 

Guide maker: “But my guide is already perfect, anything you tell me that contradicts my dispositions and you are considered dumb and a butthead. Get away you NLP/Conversational/Neo-Ericksonian Hypnosis PSEUDOSCIENTIST. OMG AND TL;DR HAHAHA.” ---Then they proceed in their private circlejerking with friends to pad their broken self-esteem.--

 

There will be hypocrisy that occurs when guidemakers have their guides criticized, because they want to hold onto their ad hoc claims, and don’t know how to take criticism well. It’s easier to give criticism or critique than it is to take it.

 

I’m trying to absolve from giving ONLY criticism, I’m trying to give critique, which is completely different. Critique shows the presumed flaws/imperfections/etc., but it also provide suggestions on how to make it better. People will shut down on me if I’m a negative asshat to them with only stating the flaws.

 

You can critique on something, but you can’t criticize on something, you just criticize it. It would be me making an ad hoc claim for your ad hoc claim, it will get us nowhere if I couldn't give a more detailed explanation.

 

 

TL;DR: Think of it in this way, although the GAT may seem militant, imagine trying to get a guide/article/etc. peer-reviewed to actual scientists. The backlash (that would be a bit more euphemistic) you would receive from them would make responses here seem like child’s play. Use that to your advantage to make the guide better, that’s my disposition on it.

 

People who would (hopefully) give a critique to what I may make bold claims on are like my mini-Richard Dawkins. I just have to take the underlying value from what they’re saying, consider them, and then find ways to improve. And best of all, people are doing this for free. It saves me the time from resorting to any egomaniac biochemist, sociologist, or other scientists I used to exchange discourse with.