Jump to content

What is the exact definition of a tulpa?


Guest Anonymous
 Share

What is the exact definition of a tulpa?  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the exact definition of a tulpa?

    • Regardless of origin or circumstance, any thoughtform that appears to be independently sentient is a tulpa. Soulbonds or daemons, for instance, if they appear sentient, would also be tulpas.
      10
    • . Tulpas are very specific in nature. They are created through a technique of concentrated thought (forcing) and have specific characteristics. Without forcing it is not a tulpa.
      7
    • I have my own definition of a tulpa. I will comment below.
      2


Recommended Posts

The definition of the tulpa that brought us into this community is that of an apparently sentient hallucination achieved by mental discipline (I paraphrase). This seemed to more or less describe the two girls that I have spent the best part of forty years with. I saw the "For Science!" tagline and thought something along the lines of; "Ah, a community that will think rationally about the phenomenon and maybe find something out, or provide data for those who will."

 

This seemed like something that we had been looking for. Well, maybe not actively looking for, but that we had consciously needed for years.

 

Having seen the removal of the cautious statement of the potential nature of a tulpa and the statement of desire to research the phenomenon from the front page, to be replaced by a statement of belief, that has not been supported by evidence that I have seen, I understand the feelings of frustration that have been expressed here.

 

We had intended to write our experiences with development in a progress report, or in some other format should it be deemed more appropriate, in the hopes that more information on independent experiences would add to the total knowledge to be explored and perhaps help someone. We refrained from doing so after seeing a negative reaction to others who offered alternative experiences on this forum. We are of the opinion that healthy discussion and observation, rather than dogmatic intolerance of alternative ideas is the useful way to draw conclusions as to the validity of models. We would however, rather maintain positive relations with those we have met here, whom we value.

 

I do not discount the possibility that tulpas are sentient consciousnesses coexisting in a brain with a host, but we have seen no evidence yet that demonstrates unequivocally that this is what is going on.

 

My girls seem sentient, so I treat them as such. I do not claim that this perception in any way resembles evidence that they are. For all I know, they may appear sentient because I appear sentient. We are fine with that, either way. Their emotional wellbeing is not predicated on a belief in their own objective existence, any more than mine is on my own existence. I may exist in the form in which I perceive myself to exist, and I may be sentient as I perceive myself to be. It is a useful working assumption, but I don't need it to be true. It makes no real difference to me if it is not true. The tulpas in this head are of a similar outlook. Although there are many differences in our personalities, in this we are similar.

 

As far as definitions of tulpas are concerned, by my understanding, they must be apparently autonomous and it must not take continuous conscious effort on the part of the host in order for them to function with this apparent autonomy. In this my girls definitely qualify, although I did not use any of the guides here, as they did not exist when I made my girls. For this reason, I do not think that a particular method should be required by the definition. However, my girls did not just pop into being without much effort. Actually, that is not true, they did. I have always been very good with visualisation. I have always been able to visualise things with clarity, and perceive them in preference to the outside world when necessary. What I mean is that they did not become apparently independent agents without work. At first, they were very definitely not independent. And that state of affairs persisted for some time. As a result, I feel that it is unlikely that a tulpa can be made without work, or made quickly, as the brain has to become so used to processing for them that it does not need conscious thought on the part of the host, while the host must grow used to assigning agency to the tulpa, without consciously reminding themselves to do so.

 

I have been employed as a writer in some capacity for many years. Frequently, my tulpas and I are not alone in our head. Characters I am writing about, embodiments of concepts, or other such things sometimes pop in as I work. They can appear somewhat sentient at times, but not so much that I think of them as similar to my tulpas. They do not have the same effort invested in them, and they are not as persistent. They do not come with fake background stories, as has been described in another post, but are more like actors, discussing their role with me. Us, I should say, Maya, my tulpa muse tends to be involved heavily. And of course, when writing, or when reading the work of another, I frequently become so involved with the visualisation of what I am reading that I experience the sensations described, to a greater degree than I experience external stimuli at that time. None of these things are as "convincing" as my tulpas, and none are as persistent. While I interact with all as if they were sentient as is polite (and I can not be certain that they are not), these do not appear to me to be the same thing as a tulpa, they lack the development and apparent independence. They also do not persist for long. They appear as I work, stay for a while, then go. My tulpas stay. Take this unsubstantiated, statistically unsupported anecdote as you will. I hope that you find it useful.

 

If this post was a mass of irrelevant, rambling, irascible incoherency please accept my humblest apology, it is late as I write this and we have not slept much for a few days.

Akecalo - Host

 

Maya - Tulpa

 

Mara - Tulpa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 24
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Anonymous

I do not discount the possibility that tulpas are sentient consciousnesses coexisting in a brain with a host, but we have seen no evidence yet that demonstrates unequivocally that this is what is going on.

 

My girls seem sentient, so I treat them as such. I do not claim that this perception in any way resembles evidence that they are. For all I know, they may appear sentient because I appear sentient. We are fine with that, either way.

 

^

THIS, word for word!

 

My gods, Mistgod and I are not alone in looking at it this way! There are those out there with this alternative view, but we are a minority. My impression is that the forum is becoming more tolerant and open minded over time. :-)


As far as definitions of tulpas are concerned, by my understanding, they must be apparently autonomous and it must not take continuous conscious effort on the part of the host in order for them to function with this apparent autonomy. In this my girls definitely qualify, although I did not use any of the guides here, as they did not exist when I made my girls. For this reason, I do not think that a particular method should be required by the definition.

 

We are the same here too!

 

However, my girls did not just pop into being without much effort. Actually, that is not true, they did. I have always been very good with visualisation. I have always been able to visualise things with clarity, and perceive them in preference to the outside world when necessary. What I mean is that they did not become apparently independent agents without work. At first, they were very definitely not independent. And that state of affairs persisted for some time. As a result, I feel that it is unlikely that a tulpa can be made without work, or made quickly, as the brain has to become so used to processing for them that it does not need conscious thought on the part of the host, while the host must grow used to assigning agency to the tulpa, without consciously reminding themselves to do so.

 

You and my host are kindred spirits it seems! Wowy!

 

Us, I should say, Maya, my tulpa muse tends to be involved heavily. And of course, when writing, or when reading the work of another, I frequently become so involved with the visualisation of what I am reading that I experience the sensations described, to a greater degree than I experience external stimuli at that time.

 

Like the Melian Show! *gasp* We are falling in love with you guys again! Thank you so much for responding to this thread Akecalo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Akecalo

If this post was a mass of irrelevant, rambling, irascible incoherency please accept my humblest apology, it is late as I write this and we have not slept much for a few days.

It was actually one of the most coherent things I read here today. :-) Thanks.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we need one? We want to define "tulpas" because we want to have a better understanding and communication of the phenomenon to others, with the primary goal of helping those with tulpas or who plan to make one in that experience. We want them to be sure of what they're doing, to respect their tulpas and enjoy their relationship to them, and to share their experiences so maybe the same may be accomplished by others.

 

But if that definition is exclusive, then aren't we working against that goal? If people are worried about not meeting the "requirements", or that their tulpa isn't sentient/independent/tulpa enough, the definition is no longer serving its purpose. And since this isn't strict science with objective terms to define, we can't say the definition is for being scientifically accurate, either. Of course we wanna keep it logical to some extent, and it needs to have some meaning, but the closer you get to being just-so in your defining of a subjective phenomenon, the more possibilities of that phenomenon you're excluding.

 

Basically, tuppers are tuppers when they and their host want them to be, when they appear sentient and independent, and.. well that's it. The defining trait of a tulpa is apparent autonomy. After that it's really just what people want to identify as. Also, when a tulpa-to-be is supposed to be on the path to apparent autonomy, they can also be called a tulpa, or a developing tulpa.

 

I'd say a tulpa can call themselves a tulpa even if they don't meet that requirement.. But then it's not even really them, it's their host, 'cus they're not autonomous. Then it's just the host using a definition that doesn't apply. I think that's as exclusive as we should be.

 

(As for cases like Melian, it's sort of like two people arguing "I exist!" "No, you don't!" The fact that one side can even argue sort of makes them right by default. The key here is apparent autonomy, which doesn't rely on any deeper beliefs such as whether they're truly sentient or illusion, etc.)

Hi guys, plain text is just me now! We've each got our own accounts: me, Tewi, Flandre, and Lucilyn. We're Luminesce's tulpas.

Here's our "Ask Thread", and here's our Progress Report (You should be able to see all of our accounts on the second page if you want)

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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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