How many accidental tulpas are out there and how long have they been around?

[Guest Anonymous]

My host Mistgod and I have noticed there are actually quite a few "accidental tulpas" in the tulpa community. The consensus seems to be that accidental tulpas are plausible/possible and they are accepted here pretty much without much question or fuss. (Mistgod and I do want to give a nod to the few who believe accidental tulpas are not possible). Anyways, the existence of accidental tulpas, especially so many of them, brings up some interesting questions doesn't it?

 

*How many people throughout history have had an accidental tulpa? For instance, my host Davie thinks that Joan of Arc's "voices" may have been tulpas or something like tulpas. Of course, accidental tulpas wouldn't have been called tulpas but something else.

 

*If accidental tulpas were happening to peoples in history, for hundreds of years or thousands of years, long before peoples learned to make them deliberately here on Tulpa Info, does that mean that the vast majority of tulpas that have ever existed in the world were accidental?

 

*Doesn't it follow that if a large number of persons in this community have accidental tulpas, then it is probable that millions of humans in the world, past and present, have had accidental tulpas? If that is so, how come we don't hear more about such things? Why haven't more people written or talked about having another person in their head talking to them?

 

*Were all these accidental tulpas just known by another name or considered something other than a sentient thoughtform?

 

*Could it be that accidental tulpas are actually fundamentally different from tulpas that were deliberately created? After all, they were usually not created by any formal active forcing as described in our guides, but by some other action or reaction.

 

I would like to see an interesting discussion on this topic. What do you think?

 

Your buddy,

 

Melian, goddess guru of grooviness (accidental tulpa, supposedly)

[Luminesce]

My mind randomly decided to give some people I imagined a little more legitimacy and awareness than normal. And human biology hasn't changed that much in recent (thousands of) years. So I imagine that phenomenon's been around for a while.

 

Honestly, communing with religious figures is much older than any self-awareness when it comes to imagined people. Nature spirits and gods and what have you.. People thought they were talking to greater beings long before we had the sense to realize they were probably imaginary.

 

Accidental tulpas and tulpas are the same thing. A tulpa becomes a tulpa through intention and loosely defined "forcing". "Accidental tulpas" tend to be different from tulpas in that they weren't created, treated, or thought of in the same was as intentional tulpas, but should they continue developing after finding out about tulpamancy, they're still basically tulpas. Mine for example were in practice identical to the average tulpa, yet our base beliefs on their nature were different. So they've a slightly different nature than the average tulpa. But only in the same way a soulbond is different from a tulpa, or two very different tulpas are different from each other, it's no big deal.

[Guest Anonymous]

You can see Mistgod and I put a lot of thought into these things. As our understanding of tulpamancy grows, it leads to new questions. I like what you said about the nature of tulpas being different for each system and also different for those with accidental tulpas created outside of the formal process defined by the tulpa community.

 

David and I believe there are other types of thoughtforms with different paradigms or arrangements, that are beneficial, fulfilling and complete without necessarily meeting all of the classic defined parameters of a tulpa. Some accidental tulpas may be better defined as soulbonds for instance. Some may not fit any one of the recognized "types."

 

We agree with your idea that spirit guides and personal gods and things like that may have been something very similar to tulpas, some form of psychological construct rather than metaphysical.

[RamaLlama]

I stuck thinking about that statement of Joan of Arc. The age that she started to hear voices and how they started so suddenly that in her own words she was first terrified sounds more like basic case of schizoprenia, but then again, after that those voices were very nice to her and nurtured her growth. And they spoke for her for years and years without changing or being malevolent, so I guess that doesn't really seem like normal schizoprenia. Maybe her strong belief in bible and god really created tulpas in forms of archangels and saints? Like accidental tulpas based on some fandom nowadays? (Am I really comparing my little pony and bible here?)

I guess that's possible. I don't know much about Joan of Arch though, just basic stuff counted as common knowledge so I might miss some points here.

 

But yeah, first I was thinking that accidental tulpas probably aren't *that* common as for my understanding it's important to believe in them so they may grow. But religions might give them a great seedbed. There has always been people claiming that they hear voices of god or angels or whatever, and there's still people that claim hearing and/or seeing them. And their belief in that stuff is probably usually a lot stronger than beginner tulpamancer's genuine belief in tulpas so I guess that's a strong possibility.

[Guest Anonymous]

Joan of Arc also heard specific personalities, specific saints, that she had been fervently and frequently praying to before she heard them. There are written witness accounts, from her trial, on how fervently she prayed. I think it is very possible her voices were some form of autonomous mental thoughtform or mental figment created by her fervent prayer and her deep desire for her prayers to be answered. I do think that is a human capacity to create what we so badly want.

[J.Iscariot]

I have my tulpa because I made a choice. It was all fancy and shit, kind of even ceremonial, the night I started being 'at this'. Didn't use FAQ or Irish method since we had a lil' something on /x/ already which was just fine. I made many promises and pledges that I need to remake every anniversary, but at this point, I'm pretty deep into this. You need to consider something: That DID and schizophrenia are, unlike what the 'plural' community promotes, not forcefully what they call it to be. Those people are just people who are afraid of labels. Go ahead, call me schizo or having DID, I've verified from it many times. There isn't any 'fine line' when you come to think of it. Tulpamancy is like, just like, self-induced schizophrenia. But a good kind of schizophrenia. BUT STILL SCHIZOPHRENIA. Does anybody get the point here? That there is no harm in being schizophrenic in a 'positive' way, I mean, it's not something bad to be labeled this and that. I mean, if I am schizophrenic, that blows, but it doesn't harm my every day life. Would that mean that I am 'NOT' schizophrenic, if my mind functions on that core basis?

 

Tulpamancy is not to be confused with plurality. If you bring both phenomenons, they sure are close, but tulpamancy is (as I said on reddit) (please daddy no more) the WILLFUL act of making your brain like this. You're tampering with your mind. People who had tulpas out of, say, trauma and shock, have a good psychological background (good in the sense it's pretty fucked what they went through). Tulpamancy can be a form of plurality but it's NOT PLURALITY assuredly. I don't mean to offend any folks here, I like everyone and I know people with soulbonds and 'headmates'. It's just that plurality is given a 'bad image' by people who need to milk shit out for attention (I recommend watching the Tumbrlism episode of Headmates, it's pretty funny and makes a good point for people who DO whore it out.). I came at times when I realized that I couldn't really go back to what I was, even though my sense of identity isn't divided now, it feels like it is sometimes. It's not a free venture.

 

I'm sorry, but I'm pretty tired seeing terms like 'singlet' 'double' and 'system', it sounds like elitism and hardcore classification of what people ARE. Not in ALL environments.

 

An accidental tulpa ironically also functions like a headmate for a while. If you wanted me to tell you the plethora of differences between a tulpa and a headmate, I wouldn't be done by yesterday. They're both legit and stuff but there are a LOT OF of differences. What about people who don't WANT to be classified as 'doubles'? My mind is still me, I never felt ambiguity in my sense of personality on a full-time basis (only in extreme moments of detachment), I don't suffer from what I went through in life (abuse that I withstood) to the point it attains me. We just need to take a deep breath and review what those linguistics actually 'mean' to us. With no offense meant you see a lot of 'accidental tulpas' because their hosts want it, it's something they want to have, so their mind goes into the procedure of simulating that reality, and to be blunt they whore it out online. When I got MY tulpa, I didn't think about whether it was accident or not or if I should go on reddit and post about it because it 'felt nice'. If half the people considered not blogging about their stuff (from the accidental tulpa group of people, not the community as a whole), you wouldn't see that many of a number. There are communities... for something that would be better kept off intimate. I regard my interactions with my tulpa as close as a relationship with a wife, literally. It's a sensitive topic and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone with what I've said I just woke up and the world is black and white due to how sick I fucking am.

---

Joan of Arc also heard specific personalities, specific saints, that she had been fervently and frequently praying to before she heard them. There are written witness accounts, from her trial, on how fervently she prayed. I think it is very possible her voices were some form of autonomous mental thoughtform or mental figment created by her fervent prayer and her deep desire for her prayers to be answered. I do think that is a human capacity to create what we so badly want.

 

Thank you. That needed to be said. There's a lot you can inspect with basic psychology regarding tulpamancy, will, the will to power, but people don't research enough. Then you see posts like 'is my tulpa real?', when a simple rationalization would be enough: if your tulpa is 'real', why, good for you, but if it isn't and you're not too deep into it, it's not something assuredly bad.

[Guest Anonymous]

*Walks in*

 

Well, everybody probably knows this already by now, so just an obligatory brief visit to this thread.

Sooo, yeah - Esterina was accidental, and we usually go with her being a tulpa, not a soulbond.

Not sure if that's what she is though. But yeah, there you go!

Wouldn't know about others. But I do suppose there's quite many.

 

*Walks back out*

 

 

Greets,

AG

[Guest Anonymous]

@J. Iscariot,

 

Mistgod:

 

Sorry my friend but we will not be in agreement on a few of your points.

 

I would disagree that tulpamancy is schizophrenia. I worked professionally for three years with students who had full blown schizophrenia. Their hallucinations cause them distress, to put it mildly, and the inability to function normally. DID is not just voices in your head. It is a variety of hallucinations and delusions. A person with DID has extreme difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy and they have strong delusions of grandeur, for instance, believing that you are an android and have nuclear bomb inside your stomach. Tulpamancy is not DID. DID is a mental illness, tulpamancy is not.

 

I would disagree that there is a clear distinction between plurals and tulpamancy, if that is what you are trying to say. I do believe there is an overlap and you will find people with mixed systems of headmates. I think the terms "headmate" and "system" work great with tulpamancy, as do terms and concepts such as "median" and "blended" and others. Concepts from the plural community do apply directly to some of the things tulpamancers are reporting.

 

I would disagree that enthusiastically wanting to talk about your thoughtform, tulpa or headmate or whatever is "whoring." Some people feel greatly compelled to talk about it and not just to get attention.

 

I don't think tulpas are all that different from other plural systems such as soulbonds, daemons and natural multiples. Again, I disagree with you on that. I think in the end, they are virtually indistinguishable. There are differences in origins perhaps and some cosmetic differences, but they are pretty much the same thing.

 

My opinion is that some people want to say tulpas are distinct from other headmates, because they want tulpas to be somehow better than other things and they really aren't anything special in comparison. In fact, the word "tulpa" is just a word. As far as the terms redefinition and revisioned use on the internet here, it was pretty much invented only about four or five years ago.

 

Lets not get too far into the weeds with those discussions though, the OP was discussing "accidental tulpas" in history and the frequency of them in the world. How many accidental tulpas have been out there? Were they just called something else? How many people in the world have accidental tulpas now?

---

*Walks in*

 

Well, everybody probably knows this already by now, so just an obligatory brief visit to this thread.

Sooo, yeah - Esterina was accidental, and we usually go with her being a tulpa, not a soulbond.

Not sure if that's what she is though. But yeah, there you go!

Wouldn't know about others. But I do suppose there's quite many.

 

*Walks back out*

 

 

Greets,

AG

 

Melian: YESH! And we love Rina!

 

Mistgod: Thank you for proving my point that I just said above by pointing out that your Rina has traits of both a soulbond and a tulpa and doesn't necessarily fall specifically, perfectly into either category. There is some blurring of the lines between different types of thoughtforms. A thoughtform might be both a soulbond and a tulpa at the same time for instance or have traits of both.

[Luminesce]

"Schizophrenia - a long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation."

 

Schizophrenia is a mental disorder and shouldn't be compared to tulpamancy. I get what you're saying though, it's a suspension of disbelief, it's learning to treat something imaginary as reality. I'd say that's neither here nor there in terms of "good", it is what it is, but there's certainly potential for it to be positive sure. But it's voluntary, and shouldn't cause prolonged distress or interference with your life, as a "disorder" does.

 

Not super fond of all the multiplicity/headmate terms either, myself. I'm not a hundred percent sure on what terms like "singlet" even mean, but they sound degrading in a sense. Instead of "There's two of us, X and Y, X being the original" you're saying like.. I am a {label}. It's less human, or something. Whatever. I have no problem with the word system though, it's only as weird/arbitrary as "forcing" and "wonderland" IMO. Then again I'm not a hundred percent on what it means, either. I assumed it just meant the body and its mental inhabitants.

[RamaLlama]

Joan of Arc also heard specific personalities, specific saints, that she had been fervently and frequently praying to before she heard them. There are written witness accounts, from her trial, on how fervently she prayed. I think it is very possible her voices were some form of autonomous mental thoughtform or mental figment created by her fervent prayer and her deep desire for her prayers to be answered. I do think that is a human capacity to create what we so badly want.

 

Yeah, I was remembering that she was speaking only with archangel Michael and couple of specific saints and she was able to tell details about their looks and voices, and they also had different personalities. Sounds lot more like tulpas that some other diagnoses she has been given in modern days, like epilepsy. But of course it's bit hard to make any assumptions as some of the details might be changed, colored or simply fictional.

 

 

And as I have schizophrenic friend with bad case of hallucinations, I must say I see very little common ground there. Of course there might be hallucinations and external thoughts in both, but their contents and the ways they manifest themself are still VERY different. Schizophrenia is also scientifically a lot more than just a state of mind. At first look they might remind each other, but so do lot of things without being the same thing in any way.