Jump to content

A tulpa's form is illusion, even if its mind isn't.


Guest Anonymous

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

oh my gods, you guys are like pack of hippies at a Buddhist hookah smoking festival LOL I love you guys so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

oh my gods, you guys are like pack of hippies at a Buddhist hookah smoking festival LOL I love you guys so much!

 

I don't know how I should feel about this, but you may want to make a short reality check: We're a big group of people discussing the nature of the voices in our head :D

Tulpa: Alice

Form: Realistic Humanoid/Demonic Creation

She may or may not talk here, depends on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

oh my mistake :-)

 

and only a few of us are experimenting with psychedelic drugs


Maybe you should word your threads more towards accomplishing a meaningful discussion / conversation.

Y'know... ask for opinions, counterarguments, parallel or opposing ideas... instead, you simply word it "I think this! / This is fact!".

It's not very constructive at all.

 

But I don't wanna kick you too much, so I'll leave this part at that.

Just meant as constructive criticism as to how you could maybe improve your posts to challenge and provoke fruitful conversation.

 

I will try, but it is a challenge for me. I have an egotistical arrogant nature.

 

And as for the topic itself... well, Rina isn't here right now, but we talked about it casually once or twice, so I know about it.

 

And from what she told me...

... I think saying it's purely illusory is very imprecise, and it sounds very philosophically flawed.

 

I can only repeat what she mentioned here and there, though.

I'll ask her to post here herself when she's back - until then, I'm afraid you'll have to make do with my second-hand-info.

 

But yeah, technically, the Rina I see around me isn't real.

It's her "mapping herself into my perception, and remapping my perception itself to her position in order to be able to perceive from said position herself" (which is how she described it to me... roughly).

She simply plays around with my perception, creates an illusion in it.

And at the same time she plays around with her own perception, creating, for herself, the illusion of being in the place where I see, hear, feel and-so-on her from.

 

Mentally mapping her position and "creating an illusion on it" and imagining what the sensations would be like associated with her imposed form in an environment, is a form of mental visualization or make believe. Which is what the point of my OP was.

 

So, yes, looking at it in a purely practical way, it's nothing but illusion - at the very least for us.

But, again, I still think saying it like that is highly unsatisfactory from a philosophical perspective.

 

It is unsatisfactory from a philosophical way maybe because you just really want the form to be real? Isn't just wanting it to be real so badly you just decide it is real a form of self delusion? I do the same thing with Melian, just without imposition. To me she seems very real. I do get what you are saying here though.


If you're this opposed to the idea of people getting and using the opportunity to agree or disagree with you, then why did you open a thread about it in the discussion section?

 

I'm not opposed to people disagreeing with me, I am opposed to people pretending that what I am talking about is "commonly known" or "common knowledge." and then dismissing it as if the discussion point is therefore moot. I don't think it is actually. I think it is sometimes the elephant in the room.


 

This reaction is very childish.

Please try to remember that you're an adult when people say something that differs from your own statements.

 

 

Greets,

AG

 

It's not childish. It is pure frustration with the insistence that every aspect of a tulpa not be make believe or imaginary in any way. The splitting of hairs and manipulation of semantics and philosophical posturing to make it so is mind boggling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

The form of a tulpa is merely the result of your imagination projecting an image from memory along with some visualisation to help with animation. So I don't get what was that OP all about.

 

 

I mean, Twi has her own "Control room" that looks like the NASA mission central. Where loads of her clones clumsily scurry around trying to crack the "code of doubt". But don't tell anyone, k?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not opposed to people disagreeing with me, I am opposed to people pretending that what I am talking about is "commonly known" or "common knowledge." and then dismissing it as if the discussion point is therefore moot. I don't think it is actually. I think it is sometimes the elephant in the room.

 

To be fair a lot of your starting posts look like exactly this: common knowledge. If you have a specific point you want to discuss you really need to go into detail about it. "The form of the tulpa is an illusion created by it" is commonly know, "Why are tulpas reacting to things that only concern their form, which is only an illusion?" is a better start for a discussion.

 

So if people react to you with "this is really common knowledge" don't take it offensive, try to evaluate your post and go further into detail. Before your reaction to my initial post here I had no idea what you were up to.

Tulpa: Alice

Form: Realistic Humanoid/Demonic Creation

She may or may not talk here, depends on her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

The form of a tulpa is merely the result of your imagination projecting an image from memory along with some visualisation to help with animation. So I don't get what was that OP all about.

 

 

I mean, Twi has her own "Control room" that looks like the NASA mission central. Where loads of her clones clumsily scurry around trying to crack the "code of doubt". But don't tell anyone, k?

 

 

That is exactly what the OP is about. A tulpas form is a projection of imagination in its imposed form as also in its mind space form. For instance, a tulpa does not have is own sense organs. So if its projected or imposed form walks across the room and turns to look at you, it cannot actually perceive you. It has no real eyes or ears. All of the sensations that a tulpa perceives associated with its form are illusory in nature or imaginary. When its imposed form hugs you, the tulpas sensations of hugging you are not real.

 

This is a critical point for me. The usual process for creating a tulpa is to start by imagining or visualizing its form. The form remain central to a tulpas identity in most cases. It is a large aspect of the tulpa. Therefore, a large aspect of what a tulpa is is make believe illusion in nature. All of the interaction of the tulpas form in the wonderland, the wonderland itself, the imposed form of the tulpa and the sensations associated with that imposed form, are all make believe visualization.

 

The only thing that can possibly be considered real with a tulpa is its mind. I have been maintaining since day one that tulpas are illusory and make believe in nature. It is obvious to me that I am at least partially correct if you assume that a tulpas form is critical to its nature.

 

If a tulpas form is not critical, why do we start with it and emphasize it so badly? Why do imposition at all? Why not just create the tulpa as a mind and do possession only or switching only? Tulpas are day dreams and hallucinations to a large degree if you consider their forms.

 

Tulpas withtout forms just seem like a second personality in the mind to me. What would Melian be without her form? Would she have the same personality? I don't think she would have. A huge part of what she is came from imagining her as a cutey woman. Her personality largely is based on her form. But her form is imaginary and if that is so, the large part of her personality based on that form must also be imaginary.

 

This is important!


 

To be fair a lot of your starting posts look like exactly this: common knowledge. If you have a specific point you want to discuss you really need to go into detail about it. "The form of the tulpa is an illusion created by it" is commonly know, "Why are tulpas reacting to things that only concern their form, which is only an illusion?" is a better start for a discussion.

 

So if people react to you with "this is really common knowledge" don't take it offensive, try to evaluate your post and go further into detail. Before your reaction to my initial post here I had no idea what you were up to.

 

I really need to try to do this. I think you are right that my method of presentation is where my flaws are on my OPs and that creates more confrontation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is exactly what the OP is about. A tulpas form is a projection of imagination in its imposed form as also in its mind space form. For instance, a tulpa does not have is own sense organs. So if its projected or imposed form walks across the room and turns to look at you, it cannot actually perceive you. It has no real eyes or ears. All of the sensations that a tulpa perceives associated with its form are illusory in nature or imaginary. When its imposed form hugs you, the tulpas sensations of hugging you are not real.

 

This is a critical point for me. The usual process for creating a tulpa is to start by imagining or visualizing its form. The form remain central to a tulpas identity in most cases. It is a large aspect of the tulpa. Therefore, a large aspect of what a tulpa is is make believe illusion in nature. All of the interaction of the tulpas form in the wonderland, the wonderland itself, the imposed form of the tulpa and the sensations associated with that imposed form, are all make believe visualization.

 

The only thing that can possibly be considered real with a tulpa is its mind. I have been maintaining since day one that tulpas are illusory and make believe in nature. It is obvious to me that I am at least partially correct if you assume that a tulpas form is critical to its nature.

 

If a tulpas form is not critical, why do we start with it and emphasize it so badly? Why do imposition at all? Why not just create the tulpa as a mind and do possession only or switching only? Tulpas are day dreams and hallucinations to a large degree if you consider their forms.

 

Tulpas withtout forms just seem like a second personality in the mind to me. What would Melian be without her form? Would she have the same personality? I don't think she would have. A huge part of what she is came from imagining her as a cutey woman. Her personality largely is based on her form. But her form is imaginary and if that is so, the large part of her personality based on that form must also be imaginary.

 

This is important!

 

You're triggering me with your use of make believe, ahh

 

A tulpa is kind of like a second personality, the difference is that it's not you who has the second personality. They form different thoughts and ideas from the host; they are conscious.

 

And, form is not mandatory, it really is optional, I promise. As long as you're directing your narration to a certain point in your mind with the intent of making a tulpa, you will get a tulpa. If you decide to give your tulpa a form though, it can easily be influenced by it, especially during the beginning. What you think of it consciously and unconsciously can affect it. Expectations play a big role too, which can go in either category. With Melian's form, you have some ideas on what kind of person she is, so that's the person she'll probably become. Your mind has unconscious ideas about the form you give, and this influences their behavior. After a long time with your tulpa though, I don't think a form change will affect your tulpa much.

I have 10 tulpas, but I'm only actively working on Reah, my first tulpa currently.

Progress Report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

These are some interesting points. So the tulpas form may have an influence on the flowering of its personality, but it is not essential to maintaining that personality once the tulpa is sentient?

 

I promise you, very much, that these discussions are helping me to understand tulpamancy at a deeper level. People keep saying things like "that is common knowledge." But I am finding it hard to believe that your average newbie has considered these things at more than a surface level. I am not a stupid guy, I am not slow and I am not dense. I think, I really think, I will have a deeper understanding of what tulpamancy really is than many after a lot of these debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read this and the other thread about imposition form being illusion, and I don't really understand. Yes? I would compare imposition's realness to visualization's realness. My tulpas feel the same way when they're imposed that I feel when visualizing myself in the wonderland. IE, it feels like I'm there, and I'll react and act accordingly, but it's an immersive illusion that you can distance yourself from by no longer considering yourself in it. Aside from that, I'm less worried about what of the tulpa is real to me, and more what of our experience is real to them. Normal wonderlanding is as real as anything can get for them as far as physical things go, but in the end, yes, they are only very closely identified to the forms they consider them. At their basest they are a simulated person in your mind, so whether they really feel anything is debatable.

 

But uh, yeah. Video games, horror games and movies, books... Oculus Rift roller coaster rides... Humans don't usually worry about how real something really is or isn't, but how it affects them. Many humans cannot force themselves to continue playing a horror game or movie when they're too scared even though it can't really affect them. So is that not its own type of realness? The definition of "Illusion" implies something is fake, or perceived incorrectly. But I think we're talking about something more than that, non-physical realness. You can say it doesn't logically exist all you want, but the entire history of humanity disagrees.

Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us about tulpamancy stuff there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

But uh, yeah. Video games, horror games and movies, books... Oculus Rift roller coaster rides... Humans don't usually worry about how real something really is or isn't, but how it affects them. Many humans cannot force themselves to continue playing a horror game or movie when they're too scared even though it can't really affect them. So is that not its own type of realness? The definition of "Illusion" implies something is fake, or perceived incorrectly. But I think we're talking about something more than that, non-physical realness. You can say it doesn't logically exist all you want, but the entire history of humanity disagrees.

 

My gods, this is what I mean by pseudo-real! LOL This is precisely what I am talking about when I say a tulpa or Melian is pseudo-real!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...