J.Iscariot

What IS a tulpa?

What is a tulpa, folks?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. What is a tulpa, folks?

    • A tulpa is an imaginary friend. It inhabits the mind's imagination and is limited to the imagination. A tulpa possesses apparent sentience and no autonomy outside of their host's perspective.
    • A tulpa is very much like a simulation of a person; the human brain could not possibly take two or three constant thought processes going on at once, and tulpamancy originates from the subconscious and active imagination.
    • A tulpa is an entity that can be compared to other thoughtforms like headmates and soulbonds. Truth is, there might not even be any difference, and the tulpamancy concept is a highly subjective one.
    • A tulpa is literally what the definition on the homepage of this site says. It's a sentient and intelligent entity that probably originates from the subconscious and acts on its own with emotions and the likes.
    • A tulpa originates from escapism and detachment of sense of reality. Tulpamancy and plurality originate from the exact same roots, and we may never know if anything is true or not.
    • A tulpa is whatever the host wants it to be; an imaginary friend, a sentient entity, it all depends on the host and their will.


Recommended Posts

I almost voted "A tulpa is an entity that can be compared to other thoughtforms like headmates and soulbonds. Truth is, there might not even be any difference, and the tulpamancy concept is a highly subjective one." But the second half of it stopped me.

 

This is what words and terms are for, describing an idea with as much clarity as we can. Soulbonds, headmates, and other kinds of thought forms are LIKE tulpa, and we can form some comparisons between them, but I think its inaccurate to say they ARE tulpa.

 

I feel there is no elitism in calling something what it is, and getting frustrated when people try to broaden an established term to fit their experience.

 

Thought form is the umbrella that can apply to all of the different, yet still equal, kinds of thought forms. Tulpa is a subtype of this defined by certain parameters. Same with soulbond, walk-ins, ect.

Certainly there are experiences that present themselves that don't fit any of the terms as they currently are (Melian's unique situation for example), but this is how new terminology comes about.

Who decided a thought form with a backstory is a soulbond instead of a tulpa. Its the same principle.

 

So my vote goes to, "it as as it's defined on the front page".

 

EDIT: I didn't quite have time to finish this before my battery died, so let me clarify what parameters I interpret as definitive of a tulpa.

-Created by the host (consciously through forcing, or unconsciously to account for "accidental" tulpa)

-Possessing emotions, will, a mind of their own

-Separate and autonomous from the host mind

 

I think people tend to pick out the "like a sentient person" out of the summary of the definition while glossing over the definition itself.

Example follows:

"A puddle is a small, shallow pool of water. Often caused by rain or the splashing of water from another source. Often puddles are fresh water. In short, a puddle is like a small lake."

 

What's being done to the definition of tulpa's on the front page by pulling the summation out of context is akin to using my phrase "a puddle is like a small lake" to label a pool, or a bathtub of water as a puddle.


"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a tulpa is an apparently-sentient, autonomous thoughtform/mental entity

 

that's it, but the apparently is important, because you don't have to believe they're actually sentient they just have to seem sentient


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a tulpa is an apparently-sentient, autonomous thoughtform/mental entity

 

that's it, but the apparently is important, because you don't have to believe they're actually sentient they just have to seem sentient

 

By this definition though soulbonds, daemons, even most plural system members, would be tulpa. There would be almost no point in having any other term for thought forms (I don't know much about servitors but I'm assuming they'd be one if not the only exception, do they have sentience/free will?)

 

The term "thought form" already exists for this purpose. A tulpa is supposed to be a specific kind of thought form. Like how an oak or maple are specific kinds of trees. We don't call a whole genus trees chestnuts, just like we don't call all sentient thought forms tulpa.


"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're a tulpa if they meet those conditions, and want to be called a tulpa. We have so many "soulbonds" that are basically tulpas and tulpas that feel more like soulbonds it doesn't even matter. No matter the definition we're still gonna be all logical and science-based, and people can choose which community and which term to use for themselves.

 

A tulpa is a thoughtform that appears sentient, is autonomous, and many other usually's but not many always's. Usually they're purposely developed by their host, but there's tons of spontaneous tulpas. Usually they have no metaphysical connotations to their existence, but of course many do. Almost always they speak in words to their host, but even there there's exceptions, some people stick with emotions/tulpish. Reisen was like that when she was first around, she was kinda tulpa-y but she didn't/couldn't talk, she only communicated (very strongly) with emotion that "meant" stuff. And she was just as developed as Tewi and Flan who were more akin to normal tuppers, and she was older than them. If we want to have considered her a tulpa then we can.


Hi I'm one of Lumi's tulpas! I like rain and dancing and dancing in the rain and if there's frogs there too that's bonus points.

All of my posts should be read at a hundred miles per hour because that's probably how they were written

Please talk to me https://community.tulpa.info/thread-ask-lumi-s-tulpas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this a lot during the last few days, after the comments on my guide. I'm glad you posted this, and I feel like it should be talked about more often.

 

I picked "A tulpa is an entity that can be compared to other thoughtforms like headmates and soulbonds. Truth is, there might not even be any difference, and the tulpamancy concept is a highly subjective one."

 

I think this hits the nail on the head for me for the most part, but it's lacking. Maybe I should have chosen number four as well. It is, as many others have stated, important to note that a tulpa has apparent sentience. That's all a tulpa is. If they are in the head of someone that created them somehow, and seems like they have their own will, they can be called a tulpa. I am against alienating a thoughtform because of the way they were made.

 

If a soulbond, can't be called a tulpa because they were imagined as a complete person before gaining sentience, then were does that end? Is an imaginary friend from childhood doomed to only ever being an imaginary friend? People grow and evolve, they change all the time, and learn more about the world around them. Thoughforms are the same way, they grow and change. Maybe they can grow into being a tulpa. Why do origins matter? That only serves to separate this already shrinking community.


 

EDIT: I didn't quite have time to finish this before my battery died, so let me clarify what parameters I interpret as definitive of a tulpa.

-Created by the host (consciously through forcing, or unconsciously to account for "accidental" tulpa)

-Possessing emotions, will, a mind of their own

-Separate and autonomous from the host mind

 

 

Can you please explain how a daemon, or soulbond does not fit your definition if they are sentient.


Host: Ayre

Tulpas: Coda and Segno

 

Shameless Progress Report Plug:

Ayre's Opus 1: Informal informative index of inhabitants in an invisible inner-world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The term "thought form" already exists for this purpose. A tulpa is supposed to be a specific kind of thought form. Like how an oak or maple are specific kinds of trees. We don't call a whole genus trees chestnuts, just like we don't call all sentient thought forms tulpa.

 

If we don't call all sentient thoughtforms tulpa, what differentiates them from other sentient thoughtforms?

 

Is it the way they're created? A sentient thoughtform created using methods such as forcing, visualization, creation of a wonderland, etc. If so, what methods are considered essential to tulpa creation, and what happens if they change? For example hour counts for each phase of the creation process used to be a thing, but now seem to be discouraged by most of the community.

 

Is there something about a tulpa post creation that sets it apart? In my view a sentient thoughtform is a sentient thoughtform, I don't really see a difference between a sentient tulpa and a sentient daemon.

 

The definition of tulpa is currently fairly broad.

 

A tulpa is an entity created in the mind, acting independently of, and parallel to your own consciousness. They are able to think, and have their own free will, emotions, and memories. In short, a tulpa is like a sentient person living in your head, separate from you. It’s currently unproven whether or not tulpas are truly sentient, but in this community, we treat them as such. It takes time for a tulpa to develop a convincing and complex personality; as they grow older, your attention and their life experiences will shape them into a person with their own hopes, dreams and beliefs.

 

What separates a tulpa from any other sentient (or sentient-like), independent thoughtform?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences exist in the details, which I neglected to include because I thought they were obvious as established terms.

 

Soulbond have existing canon and/or history upon creation, tulpa do not. Daemons are a part of and/or extension of the host, tulpa are not.

 

It's getting a little frustrating that everywhere in this forum people interpret not being a tulpa as somehow less than one. STOP IT!!

A black person is not a white person, but this does not make them any less or inferior somehow. A daemon is not a tulpa, but this doesn't make them any less or inferior. Stop taking out your own insecurities on terminology and trying to make them so ambiguous that they lose their meaning.


"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

-Arthur Conan Doyle

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to understand why you care so much about your own terminology. If my own tulpa is a soulbond then it's a soul bond, I don't really care. I just find it funny that I created her off of tulpa guides and now you are saying that the community at the time was wrong. You seem to actually identify tulpas as something that was created by a host without any personality forcing, while excluding anything with any prior history or predetermined personality. This has never been the case, ever. Tulpas have always been exactly what you have described in your previous post. Beings created by a host that appear to be sentient. You are adding problems that have never existed.


Host: Ayre

Tulpas: Coda and Segno

 

Shameless Progress Report Plug:

Ayre's Opus 1: Informal informative index of inhabitants in an invisible inner-world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted option 2, and apparently only one other person did at the time of this writing. While this may initially be seen as, I don't know, belittling? That might be the wrong word. Regardless, I picked that option because it also is how I see humans, too. I don't believe in free will, and our personalities and actions are all determined from the chemistry of our bodies. Because of this, option 2 fits my view the best, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stop taking out your own insecurities on terminology and trying to make them so ambiguous that they lose their meaning.

 

If you feel the definition needs to be reworked into something more rigid, that's fair. But as it stands the definition IS kind of ambiguous. What I'm getting from your post (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the definition of tulpa should include the way it was created.

 

  • A soulbond isn't a tulpa because it has backstory
  • A tulpa is a tulpa because it has no backstory
  • Whether something is a tulpa or not depends in part on method of creation (backstory vs no backstory)

What is a tulpa other than a sentient thoughtform? A sentient thoughtform creating using xyz methods. A sentient thoughtform created following xyz guides. A sentient thoughtform used for xyz purpose. Or is tulpa definied by what it's not? (a sentient thoughtform that isn't an x, y, or z).

 

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, just trying to understand your viewpoint. I have no insecurities about terminology. I just view the current definition as broad enough to include a variety of thoughtforms.

 

The way I understand it, tulpa places an emphasis on sentience, and this is what makes it distinct. It isn't a broad umbrella that covers all thoughtforms, because there are types of thoughtforms that are not sentient, intended to be sentient, perceived as sentient by the host, sentient-like, etc.

 

(again, not trying to be antagonistic. I just find it interesting that we both voted for the same option, but seem to have very different interpretations of that option.)

Share this post


Link to post
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.