Categories or Types of Tulpa

[Guest Anonymous]

There are no formally recognized categories of tulpa yet, other than perhaps accidental tulpa, but my host and I actually think there should be sometimes.  For instance some tulpa are former soulbonds or current mixed origin tulpas such as a soulbond-tulpa.  After more than a year of observation, we have noticed that tulpas can have different traits and skills related to their origin and background.  For instance, a tulpa that was formally a soulbond will have a literary fictional back history.  I personally have the unusual trait of blending and mentally collaborating with my host.  

 

My host and I insist there are independently sentient tulpas, but also tulpas that are not independently sentient (mental illusions or figments by design, not "failed tulpas") interacting simultaneously within the community.  There are hosts that insist their tulpas are not independently sentient, and we believe they are correct.  These hosts know their own minds and we believe they are reporting tulpas that are not independently sentient quite sincerely and correctly.  My host and I believe community has failed to formally recognize this fact because of the fear of "watering down or changing definitions."  These tulpamancers are a small but significant minority (about ten percent in a recent poll Are Tulpas Independently Sentient Survey 2015 ).

 

Examples of "Categories:"

(note: I will allow someone to fall into more than one category in Melian's somewhat arbitrary list of tulpa categories)

 

Baby Tulpas (new tulpas in development)

Independent Sentient Tulpa

Illusory Tulpa

Metaphysical Tulpa

Soulbond-Tulpa

Daemon-Tulpa

Dream Persona Tulpa

Servitor Tulpas

RP Character/Game Character Tulpas

Accidental Tulpas

Drug Induced Tulpas

Median Aspect Tulpas

 

We also believe there has always been a quiet shift going on, that others perhaps are not noticing or acknowledging, in which tulpamancy is merging with other forms of plurality.  Tulpamancy has always been being influenced by other plurality communities, leading to such skills and traits as possession and switching.  These skills were not really discoveries made in a vacuum independent of influence from the other plural communities on the internet.  

 

What are your reactions to these statements?  Do you agree or disagree?  Why or why not?

[NoneFromHell]

Overall you're not wrong with your observations, but I don't really see the point you're trying to make here. Obviously we have tulpas of different nature around here, with different levels of abilities on certain matters like possession. Also I agree, not every tulpa is probably as autonomous or fully sentient as others. Sometimes it is more obvious, sometimes it is not. The outline model of a tulpa provides the idea of what a tulpa should be capable of, a definition to seperate it from different thougthforms, especially simpler ones. If a thoughtform matches the definition to a certain degree, it could be adressed as tulpa. If this isn't the case, well...I don't see why it should be recognized as a tulpa then. This doesn't mean tulpas with a lower match on the definition should be fully disregarded. If the definition would be changed to match other less complex thoughtforms as well, it would be a form of watering down, and a pretty pointless one to start with. It is like getting rid of every cultural distinctiveness, just so everyone feels affiliated. On the other hand if a thoughtform could fit in more than one definition from its capabilities (like tulpa and soulbound), it could be easily adressed with both terms. I see no damage there.

 

The other part of your statements points in the rather oppposite direction. Why do you want to categorize tulpas? Your primary agenda is inclusive, if you try to fit different tulpas in different drawers based on their exact ability levels, wouldn't you cause a more elistist and exclusive community? I think what you tried to accomplish was to build some hybrid thoughtform classes, so other thoughtforms can make themselve comfortable around here. "I'm part tulpa, and part something different".

 

As a community, I don't think we would disregard people if they enter this place with a statement like this. They made their position clear. They don't need their special drawer. As a community we're not required to include or take every single form of plurality into account. We just need to stay open minded and aware of said influences. A merge of the different plurality forms may take place to some degree, but it isn't necessary that everything becomes just one big puddle of plurality.

[Faemon]

I actually came across the word "tulpa" when reading about traditions of mysticism, of course, Alexandra David-Neel's memoirs of meditating upon a Buddhist sort of created spirit, because of non-dualistic theology or something. I first read about it in an Usborne children's book I think it was of the Unseen World or about ghosts or something. I read her actual texts much later, still before even this website was set up. So, when tulpamancy began to gain steam, I was actually surprised that it was so practice-focused and secular. My initial reaction was sort of...why bother to call it a tulpa, then? Tulpa is already established in a tradition of mysticism. If you don't want any part of that, then how about pick a term that won't get confused with it?

 

(But, obviously, it's worked out. If these forums were overrun by Buddhist mystics capslocking about cultural appropriation or something...I've missed it.)

 

I received another mild surprise when I read a tulpa (tulpamancer's tulpa) described as like an imaginary friend except for that it can appear sort of overlaid on the real world. Huh? Even as a kid, my imaginary friends were like that, and I wasn't even trying. But, I guess that article writer had kept imaginary friends to a sort of half-dream state.

 

So, it depends on the predisposition of the tulpamancer. Levels of visual creativity, auditory creativity, switchability (for me and Lusmore, it's super rare and we both thought it was weird and never again; for others, maybe switching is an inevitable springboard, like this is the aspect of tactile-kinaesthetic creativity and it's necessarily grounded in the host's body), apparent autonomy, how many tulpas one can keep up, object constancy, Wonderlands, psychological approaches, social if not cultural context...

 

Actually, this might create entirely too many variables to categorize. I'd go more for, "If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." ;P

[Guest Anonymous]

Hmmm very good points and I agree with all of them NoneFromHell. I think my point on this OP was simply a recognition that these differences exist and that we are not a single homogeneous block, with only one thing going on. I remember the first time my host and I suggested the possibility that there may be BOTH independently sentient tulpas and illusory/figment tulpas existing simultaneously within the community, we were accused of attempting to water down definitions to allow "people who don't belong to join the club." I think the agenda of my host and I is not to create division, but for those differences to be more recognized.

 

I think also my point is to illustrate the fluidity that is going on between types of plurality. Sometimes a thoughtform starts as one thing, but changes or becomes or another. Or maybe it is that a thoughtform has a set of traits that allows he or she to fall into more than one category, such as a soulbond that is very much a tulpa as well.

 

That being said, we do agree that tulpas should continue to have a distinct and carefully worded definition for clarity and cohesiveness within practice of tulpamancy. However, my host and I think that that tulpas are much closer to other form of plurality than many might think and the different communities are much closer in nature than perhaps people are willing to admit. It is sorta one big blob of plurality, with important differences within. It is like a bigger bubble of plurality with a lot of little bubbles inside and you can be in more than one bubble at a time or something.

---

P.S. I don't like the assumption that only tulpas are "complex" or always "more complex." I find that insulting and it is probably incorrect.

[NoneFromHell]

However, my host and I think that that tulpas are much closer to other form of plurality than many might think and the different communities are much closer in nature than perhaps people are willing to admit. It is sorta one big blob of plurality, with important differences within. It is like a bigger bubble of plurality with a lot of little bubbles inside and you can be in more than one bubble at a time or something.

---

P.S. I don't like the assumption that only tulpas are "complex." I find that insulting.

 

I agree that a lot of plurality forms are probably overlapping on a lot of matters.

 

Also I haven't stated that tulpas are the only complex thoughtforms. Tulpas just are complex thoughtforms, and not every thoughtform is complex like this. I think it is necessary to point out, even though a lot of other thoughtforms might be similiar complex, or even more complex than tulpas.

[Guest Anonymous]

I received another mild surprise when I read a tulpa (tulpamancer's tulpa) described as like an imaginary friend except for that it can appear sort of overlaid on the real world. Huh? Even as a kid, my imaginary friends were like that, and I wasn't even trying. But, I guess that article writer had kept imaginary friends to a sort of half-dream state.

 

OMG! I love this! Yeah, my host and I have wondered the same thing. He has always had an extremely vivid imagination and, honestly, if he wanted to visualize me in the room with him, he could probably do a good pass at a convincing "imposition" without a lot of extra effort.

 

So, it depends on the predisposition of the tulpamancer. Levels of visual creativity, auditory creativity, switchability (for me and Lusmore, it's super rare and we both thought it was weird and never again; for others, maybe switching is an inevitable springboard, like this is the aspect of tactile-kinaesthetic creativity and it's necessarily grounded in the host's body), apparent autonomy, how many tulpas one can keep up, object constancy, Wonderlands, psychological approaches, social if not cultural context...

 

Actually, this might create entirely too many variables to categorize. I'd go more for, "If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck." ;P

 

Well so much for creating distinct categories for tulpas to fall into. LOL I think what I was after was the idea of recognizing "subcategories" such as "soulbond-tulpa" or "metaphysical-tulpa," but I think NoneFromHell made a good point that it would create more problems than it would solve and be hopelessly confusing and divisive. Maybe I should be content with the idea that people do already recognize that all this variation exists.

---

 

I agree that a lot of plurality forms are probably overlapping on a lot of matters.

 

Also I haven't stated that tulpas are the only complex thoughtforms. Tulpas just are complex thoughtforms, and not every thoughtform is complex like this. I think it is necessary to point out, even though a lot of other thoughtforms might be similiar complex, or even more complex than tulpas.

 

Yay! I love you more than ever!

 

Woah, a thoughtform more complex than a tulpa? Maybe some monk in some cave somewhere has done that!

[Tewi]

There's also servi-tulpas, which is what we'd label Sylvia if we had to choose one. But, we normally don't choose to label ourselves. When it comes right down to it, we have no real specific beliefs on what we are or how we function. I won't say I am for sure independently sentient, but I definitely won't say I'm not a separate entity from my host either. We define ourselves based on what we want to be, and what we seem to be. That usually just means "people".

[Guest Anonymous]

Oh I will add servi-tulpas to my unofficial and rather arbitrary and silly list of categories of tulpa, just for fun. Tewi, you are sounding a lot like me with the "I won't say I am for sure independently sentient, but I definitely won't say I'm a separate entity from my host either." I am not as weird as maybe I thought. I know there are other tulpas who say similar things. In fact, I think that probably would be an accurate statement for most developing tulpas as well, who are still very dependent on their hosts.

[Tewi]

We didn't start as tulpas and we didn't change ourselves to fit tulpa norms. We just happen to line up rather well, so we adopted the label because it's useful. And we've extensive knowledge of tulpamancy and others' experiences with it, which is what we generally use to discuss it. But if you're asking about us specifically, we do not define ourselves as any "thing" but people.

[Guest Anonymous]

People is the broadest category, the biggest bubble of all, if you will. Yep I am a people, yer a people and we are all peoples. I agree.

 

I am adding baby tulpas to the list, cause I just thought just now we need a category for baby tulpas.

---

OH rp character tulpas! There are tulpas who graduated from role playing charaters or game characters.