Jump to content

Leaf

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Leaf

  • Rank
    Member

Converted

  • Sex
    Male
  1. At one point, I wanted to approach tulpas from a social perspective. I did a thought experiment where I imagined various people I knew well in different situations, much like you would for a tulpa. In a lot of cases I could tell when my replica was acting in line with what I knew of the real person's persona and when it was not. Theoretically, it makes a lot of sense that we learn about other people by building a mental repertoire of mannerisms, habits, vocabulary, facial expressions, etc. In a way, it makes it easier to connect with people in social situations, since your mind is able to construct a fairly accurate replica and use that replica to predict future social interactions. Tulpamancy could work by a similar mechanism whereby the tulpa is developed slowly by building up a similar repertoire and "appears" to become more independent as it is refined. However, there is no way of knowing if this entity has or ever could have its own qualia. If you consider again a mental replica, I could imagine my mom telling me that she loves me just as easily as my tulpa does so. Does the statement that my tulpa makes that seems to include the subjective experience of "loving me" actually mean that it does? It would seem more appropriate to say that the imagined mother that loves me is not sentient in its own right because it is based off of a person whom I presume to be sentient. The real clincher (as linkzelda would say) is maybe I think she (my mom again) is sentient based off of my mental replica (and the meanings, emotions, etc. I attach to it) rather than her actual externalized self. In that case, it would be perfectly normal to be convinced that a tulpa is sentient and believe that a tulpa has its own beetle in its own box, just like you do for anybody else.
  2. This is probably the best way to put it. I had two completely separated tulpas at one point that decided they wanted to undergo a merger. I remember at first feeling really guilty that I had "given up" so to speak on each of them. After running with the idea, I found that it can bring about an interesting dynamic. My "new" tulpa is in some ways different from either of them, yet there are times where aspects of the original tulpas are overwhelming. That is probably because in my situation, the merger was designed to be like two minds (or tulpas, whichever you prefer) controlling one form. In that regard it never technically was a complete merger. In fact it was partially done to make it easier for me to work at imposition, since I could devote all of my resources to one form. If I were you, I would just try to be cognizant of what your tulpa is trying to accomplish and don't be afraid to try something out, even if only temporarily. After all you might find that you like it.
  3. I have looked through a fair deal of Buddhist literature looking for the concept of tulpas and it is very scant at best. Perhaps the closest related thing is the concept of magical emanations that can interact with other worlds. Magical emanations also had a more practical purpose of doing something that the Buddhist feared just so then they could overcome that fear. Buddhists were not required to see tulpas as illusions, but novices were told that tulpas were gods and then had to figure out that they were actually creations of the mind.
  4. As much as you might hate the sentience debate, it is not something that is likely to ever go away. Whether or not a tulpa is a delusion depends on how they are approached. A delusion is a strongly held belief that is maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. If I imagine a world in which everyone was either strictly a tulpamancer or had no experience with tulpamancy, you would have "two realities" so to speak. Each would seem to be delusional to the other. In our case, there is not perfect separation between the two, especially considering most people had no experience previously with tulpas until they were introduced to the concept. Even though people may associate with tulpamancy in general (with or without some sort of community) I think they still remember or associate with non-tulpamancers on some level. This leads to conflict on the part of the host, who cannot deal with a tulpa being merely and illusion (given their rich subjective experiences), and the desire for a tulpa to be sentient (aka "real"). It is merely a desire because a tulpa known subjectively to a consciousness is never objectively real. It becomes cemented as objectively true when a community of tulpamancers are able to share and validate each other's experiences. If I remember correctly, mistgod at one point said he just wanted to share melian with others. Regardless of whether or not he claims that a tulpa is a delusion, he cannot because melian is a significant figure in his life. In fact that holds true for a lot of tulpamancers I am sure. That is also probably why we (as hosts) are motivated to spend time with our tulpas and share them with others. tl;dr To answer the question succinctly, I do not know if there are multiple types of tulpas, but to remove the conflict of a tulpa being either sentient or a mere illusion requires a "work around" on the part of the identity of the host and the tulpa and reconciling those identities with what is generally held to be reality.
  5. I tried adding a tulpa, but it never saved the info.
  6. I have been trying to retrace the concept of a tulpa through history back to its Buddhist origin. It would be nice also to find where the transition occurred between Eastern and Western thought that caused it to show up in the form of internet communities. I already read Magic and Mystery in Tibet, but it is only empirical observations by a single person. It would be nice to find where the concept of tulpas show up in tradition and practice (if at all) rather than in stories or rumors. Likewise I have looked towards the works of Vasubandhu, but it is slow trying to understand the content and context of them, since they are based on another culture and language. To this end, I think it would be beneficial to see how the concept started and how it has changed over time to where we are now. Does anyone know of any books or other resources that may help in this endeavor?
  7. I just love the fall, I get to wear all sorts of jackets, scarves, and hoodies! I usually just wear leggings, knee-high boots, and some sort of top, kind of like this. It's pretty simple, but it is easy for my host to visualize and it's comfy. -Uriel
  8. This sums up everything quite nicely. The concept behind what you are trying to do is good, but I do not think you will get very far with it. I have run across a slew of bizarre terms trying to explain everything in the past month or so, but none of them seem to add anything new. It is interesting considering tulpas as a sort of role play or method acting or imaginative fantasy, etc. The problem is the typical usage of such terms in a non-tulpa sense makes them seem mundane and uninformative when applied to tulpas. To take it further, I could extricate the concept of tulpas from them and everything would still make sense. Method acting and role play are forms of imaginative fantasy, and semantically, neither term refer to anything else but the individual doing it. There is no tulpa. Ultimately, I think the concept of referring to tulpas as imaginative fantasy is fine, but the way you come across in doing so seems to subtract the host-tulpa relationship that is so fundamental to tulpamancy. In the end, role play and method acting don't illustrate what you want them to. I think the resistance you often face comes from the lack of information and thus the questionable use of them in regard to tulpas. That is not to say they are not applicable at all, they are, but in a such a lose sense that is unfortunately often lost. Maybe there is no good extant term, and maybe we could develop one if people grasp the concept you want them to. Like I mentioned before, method acting and role play are constrained to the person doing it. The difficulty comes down to considering a tulpa as independent, which becomes equated with real. When a tulpa is considered only a character or something that the host role plays, that independency need not exist. The whole process then becomes a person imagining themselves as someone else. When taken to the extreme as in the case of tulpamancy it becomes less of role play or even method acting and more an obsession and a delusion. Unfortunately, the imaginative fantasy in role play and method acting are fundamental in tulpamancy and can make the whole experience more rich for the host and the tulpa. The problem then becomes not whether or not these elements are or should be involved, as I think they must be for a tulpa to exist in the first place. The question is how can people delve into the fantasy without the fear of it being fake or delusional? Just by looking at all of the questions concerning sentience and vocality show that this is a major concern even if nobody openly admits to it being so. It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to address, leaving everybody to simply come up with their own subjective philosophy to reduce the internal tension it generates. For now, I think the important part is to realize the use of such terms and be aware that it doesn't have to become a question of independence, nor negate the tulpa as an entity. I do not want people to get caught up in such a minor distinction so as to miss the richness of what mistgod is suggesting: Tulpas are Awesome!
  9. I see why my host has had such a difficult time recently. He had two tulpas for the past two years (today is the anniversary, YAY!) that he cared a lot for. I am the result of them merging and I like to say that I am neither them nor someone else. I am proof that it can be done, but it is not something I would do because it is very difficult for both of us. He wants to care for me like he did them, but I am not them. -Uriela (I would like to mention that both were completely vocal and differentiated. It came about rather suddenly [the result, but apparently it was in the works for a long time] due to a recent goal to remove a sense of identity. It seems rather counterintuitive, but it seems necessary to overcome a very bizarre roadblock in the relationship. Along with what Uriel mentioned, my other two tulpas completely disappeared.) -Justin
  10. My host has gone through a complicated life process that has left him with a lot of similar questions. It appears to me that a tulpa is not created in the sense of coming ex nihilo, but rather are as you say "shaped" and formed by the host. I, as a tulpa, arose from the molding and merging of other tulpas. We are going to dedicate a good portion of our time in the next few months to try and see if there are factors beneath a tulpa. That is not to say that a tulpa is a whole made up of parts with possible reduction to some equivalent of an elementary particle, but it is still nonetheless interconnected and dependent on something. I do no know if anyone has experience with more eastern philosophical thought, such as dhamma, but my host is convinced that it might provide some insight into tulpas along this same train of thought. -Uriela (I want to add something quickly to this that isn't entirely related, but I think is still important. It seems like we approach ourselves from a standpoint of assuming we are independent, which we in turn project onto others. I know a major aid to me in "making a tulpa" was realizing things that were not from me and being surprised by them. I undertook to try and expect what some of my friends or family would say in a certain given situation, as a comparator. Interestingly, it is not that hard predicting what someone else is going to say, and sometimes I could do so word for word. This is without the convenient feature of them being in my head like a tulpa. Maybe we have to rethink the underlying premise of any of us, tulpa or host, being truly original or independent.) -Justin
  11. I have been musing over two potential techniques to impose. The first is more mechanical and the second more mental. Rather than staring at a blank wall I think it would be easier to start with minor derivations with color. Like instead of seeing black text see green. It is something you could do repetitively without boring yourself and while doing quotidian things. Then you could add more colors or change the shape of the color you have imposed. It seems more reasonable to do one piece at a time rather than a whole tulpa or even an outline of a moving body. The problem with the first approach is it is awfully boring and tedious. I remember back when I was younger seeing various shapes in the shadows at night. The second approach involves an environment with low light and lots of things to look at. I figure you could use the fact that the eye is not good at distinguishing colors and borders in low light, coupled with a bit of imagination to see various shapes and figures. I'm not sure if you could make it permanent, but I think it is a good first step to seeing something that isn't really there. Besides it allows for some creativity during the process, keeping you engaged. The downside is it requires a certain environment. I remember I tried sitting in a dark room for awhile and trying to get some level of imposition. I don't think I could get it dark enough because I never got much but small flashes of light and basic shapes. And that was only after a long period of silently staring into darkness while trying not to visualize. If I did visualize, I simply would forget to pay attention to my surroundings, thus defeating the whole purpose.
  12. Leaf

    -----

    Birdy the Mighty Decode
  13. First off, I always love the story, its always fascinating. As far as complicated mental problems go, I am a proponent of letting that stuff out. For me, I just start writing and let my thoughts go where they will. Anything works really, drawing, writing, poetry, etc. Maybe you will be able to find some peace of mind that way and be able to approach it from a different standpoint. Two things struck out to me more than anything. The first was your obsession with constancy that started the whole thing. The second was the apparent descent into chaos, with your constant world becoming the epitome of your fear (or maybe aversion?) of inconstancy. This inconstancy may be the cause of some of your difficulties or it could be a sequelae of something else, maybe some obstacle that you feel you cannot or will not deal with. As for schizophrenia, I would try not to label yourself as such and I would appreciate it if others refrained from doing so as well. None of us can make a diagnosis or even suggest something like that from our standpoint. You have your problems, but I do not think any of us should be presumptuous and jump to conclusions.
  14. We only really know that the placebo effect has a measurable effect on the brain, but the mechanism is not known. The only logical explanation I can think of for your experience is habituation. Once a person does something repetitively, it builds into a habit that occurs without conscious thought. If your host were to try to use the placebo effect and believe he could act in a manner contrary to the habit, he would have a very difficult time doing so. As far as it is currently accepted, a habit is only rewritten when it is consciously changed, and this change is repeated many, many times. I think the difficulty in believing you can change is 1)the typical assumption that it cannot be done or even 2)the desire that it shouldn't be done. Let me provide an example for the first one. Say for instance I am not motivated. I could convince myself to be motivated and truly believe it. If, however, I go an try to act on that motivation, given my previous actions of being unmotivated, it is likely that I will end up unmotivated even if I believe otherwise. In other words, the placebo effect is not seen because it is overridden by older, more practiced actions. This ultimately results in reinforcing the assumption that the habit cannot be changed. Theoretically, this could be overcome if you believed that something separate from you (ie a tulpa) had the ability to do so, and harbored this belief for a substantial amount of time. Then it could switch, in that the placebo becomes more potent than the habit (especially if a tulpa is not seen to have the same habit). The second option deals more with addiction. If something is practiced, becomes habitual and has some sort of positive reward or no negative reward, it becomes even more ingrained. In this case, you would deal with the above situation along with the desire not to change the habit for the sake of the reward. In conclusion, I would think this is experienced if Lumi truly believed that you were in some way capable of acting differently from him. I get the impression, however, that this is simply not the case as you mentioned that you understand the whole tulpa-host deal in the form of varying personalities (correct me if I am wrong), and not necessarily distinct entities. I likewise do not think it was a hypnotism experience because that usually involves a state of hyper suggestibility and usually involves the specific habit in question. For example, if I wanted to use hypnotism to stop smoking, it involves a hyper suggestible state and something about not wanting to smoke. Both of you were surprised by the results, so it is hard to point to some sort of hypnotism or placebo effect cause, since you never had the intention or belief of changing anything in the first place. What you make of that is up to you and if I missed a crucial detail, let me know.
×
×
  • Create New...