What are we doing?

[JJames]

Doing some late night research, I have connected some dots that support a hypothesis I've had for about 3 years now. This hypothesis is that Tulpamancy, or whatever you would like to call it, is a Buddhist technique to become closer to the Buddha, or attain even enlightenment. 

 

I've got evidence, logic, and personal experiences of myself and others to support this. f anyone wants to see however, it is late and will have to wait till tomorrow. Just wanted to start off with this to see if anyone even cared because it will be a good bit of work to compile all this and if no one were to even be interested I'm not doing it haha.

[Lucilyn]

I don't really know where the information to compile is. But that's what I heard too. Something about recognizing the tulpas they made as imaginary to show them how apparently real things can be illusion, to help reduce their identification with material things. Right?

 

Well, I don't know how many tulpas here do that, since most of us think ourselves pretty real. But people seem interested in knowing where "tulpas" came from.

[tulpa001]

I just want to jump in and say that no, tulpamancy is based on something that buddhists, and possibly those of other religions from Tibet did. But it is a western tradition. (Or actually two. I heard there was another tulpamancy phenomena in the seventies.)

 

I would be interested in hearing more about this older tradition, maybe someone has a source other than that one, decidedly disreputable, book everyone mentions?

[Guest Anonymous]

Tulpamancy, as far as I know, has nothing whatsoever to do with spiritual enlightenment.  

 

The tulpamancy being practiced here in this community bears little resemblance to, and is only distantly related to, Tibetan mysticism and magic.  Even that very tenuous connection is based almost exclusively upon one book by a westerner, Alexandra David Neel, written in the 1920s.  The authenticity and credibility of her accounts about tulpas are dubious to say the least.  

 

Tulpas grew out of Alexandra David Neel's writing, a couple of science fiction horror novels, and conversations on 4chan and creepy pasta.  Some started postulating how tulpas might work on a psychological level in the mind.  A few internet hippy-geeks, who were in to some pretty wacky transcendental mental shit, decided to give it a whirl.  They were successful and so they wrote the first guides based on what they did.  At least one of them later denounced tulpas and said he made it all up.  

 

Tulpas then became an internet sub culture sensation.  

 

Enter Mistgod and Melian in 2015 and... ahh shit.

[Floh]

Doing some late night research, I have connected some dots that support a hypothesis I've had for about 3 years now. This hypothesis is that Tulpamancy, or whatever you would like to call it, is a Buddhist technique to become closer to the Buddha, or attain even enlightenment. 

 

I've got evidence, logic, and personal experiences of myself and others to support this. f anyone wants to see however, it is late and will have to wait till tomorrow. Just wanted to start off with this to see if anyone even cared because it will be a good bit of work to compile all this and if no one were to even be interested I'm not doing it haha.

 

I'd love to see those logical evidences :D

[Solune]

*Mistgod's entire post*

 

/thread

[Linkzelda]

Thread can’t end when there's others that want to talk about the context in OP. And giving a brief history over what one ‘thinks’ tulpamancy is labeled as doesn’t seem to talk about the methodologies itself. And feeling one’s presence is an epoch etched in stone in the history of tulpa.info, or tulpamancy altogether is just a person’s autobiography. Not sure if it will become an actual arch in the timeline, but that’s none of my business, and none of this thread’s’ business.

 

Anyway:

Things we could be doing

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

 

[hidden]Treating a tulpa as sentient could be related to a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, sustained thought with subsequent action to be consistent with the belief that treating a tulpa as sentient will yield some kind of result. However, in context of ‘what we are doing,’ sometimes, this correlation isn’t enough, or isn’t something they want to believe is happening. But an analogy I use with this is:

 

- When we interact with someone we develop experiential context with over time, we tend to create an image of who they are; our own conception of them. Sometimes to the point where we could imagine determined probabilities of existing with them, and how we would assess ourselves with them as well.

 

- In context of tulpas, especially with something like parroting, we use narratives to gauge probable, determined existence with them, and over time, I guess this spurs the mind in figuring out ways to instantiate these probabilities, or rather, deriving from those narratives. But as much as one revels in narrative imagination, it raises questions if they’re fixated on what-if scenarios, or are on their way in interacting with a tulpa in some way.

 

- However, I think a solution to this ‘dilemma’ is to understand that narrative imagination is our way of trying to conceptualize what it means to be an ‘other.’ And with treating a tulpa as sentient, you could say one is trying to have the mind instantiating ‘otherness’ from within. And how one can go about doing that is utilizing whatever experiential context they had with others, memories, and any implicit knowledge in this self-referential mirroring with treating a tulpa as sentient.

[/hidden]

 

Now, for Buddhism, we could do a comparative analysis over what it is, and the methodologies behind it. So, I’m sure a discussion on it wouldn’t hurt anyone.

 

Buddhism and Meditation :

- [hidden]It seems meditation’s general goal is to have one remove as many thoughts from their mind, but other methods embrace the distracting of one’s thought for the sake of absolving themselves from awareness of this reality, and going inwardly instead.

 

- Koans seem to be way to provoke skepticism over things, and how logic alone isn’t sufficient in understanding. Because when you think about it, if logic was sufficient, then practices with Buddhism might not have an ounce of value for anyone.

 

- In relation to tulpas, it’s not that hard to see a parallel with this as I’m sure people mix around with ‘healthy skepticism,’ or their own form of pragmatism in this. Because using logic alone doesn’t seem to be enough as gaining experiential context over time seems to be a catalyst in eventually understanding. No point in progressing so fast, or feeling you are doing so without comprehension of the very same skills that allowed you to do so in the first place.

 

- The actual ‘enlightenment’ that creates a knee-jerk reaction of ‘spirt age quackery’ is probably just a type of intellectual inquiry for contentment, or acknowledging the impermanence of things in life. However, this won’t cater for anyone, which is why alternative routes may be more practical. In other words, Buddhism itself doesn’t have to be the only way to pursue intellectual inquiry, or having acceptance/contentment with life.[/hidden]

 

Buddhism. Self, and ‘Owner’ of the Mind

 

[hidden]

- One could agree that the mind is an integral part of who they are. In context of Buddhism, it seems people chalk it up to it, the self, being some persistent and non-agitated ‘soul.’ Maybe this is why it gets shut-down. But if one cherry-picked the word ‘soul’ out of that equation and integrate other aspects of Buddhism to their everyday life, the way ‘self’ is interpreted in context of Buddhism wouldn’t be loaded with confusion.

 

- One could see the ‘self’ as a focal point of continuity in identity in form over time. In relation to tulpas, and treating them as sentient, one could easily see that there could be an implicit desire for the host to do the same with a tulpa; to believe there can be a continuity in their tulpa’s identity and form over time. And hopefully, to the point where said tulpa can become equivalent to a living focalized part of the overall subjective awareness, and putting things into context with this reality. If I stop right there, that’s probably the starting point where spiritual age individuals start adding more mystical fluff that gets the thought processed turned down by most.

 

- But it’s that starting point of the potential representation of ‘self’ that doesn’t really seem to be that far-fetched in context of pursuits in creating, and interacting with a tulpa.

 

- An analogy that can be used to further the representation of ‘self’ and ‘sentience’ in context of tulpas: A person can create their own criterion of what could instantiate sentience, and instantiate a continuity in self, identity, and form over time. And from this, when these things combine, and have experiential context over time, the implication of a self presumably comes to surface, but isn’t reducible to solely one of these things.

 

- For example, a person could feel parroting could be integral in the arising of ‘self’ in relation to tulpas, but at the same time, parroting itself isn’t the sole factor of instantiating this ‘self.’ This is why more extreme versions of parroting, especially ones brimming with hyperboles, IMO, start falling apart some point because the individual feels that narrative imagination at a subliminal level trumps over other aspects to develop experiential context over time. In other words, there’s a specialization in one aspect that it starts becoming the bread and butter for the person, but other aspects get neglected. Some people are good at specializing because they can just indirectly ignore thinking that neglecting other aspects is crucial in the first place.

 

- One could even say that removing those attachments in specialization could be akin to practices with Buddhism; it’s just that some people don’t like being chalked up as being akin to a Buddhist, so they ended up screaming anything against it thinking it’ll be enough.

 

[/hidden]

 

This is barely touching the tip of the glacier, though, but I guess we have to start somewhere in discussions.

 

 

/thread begins

 

 

I'm interested in discussing, OP.

 

[ricinsbluebox]

Tulpamancy is based on something Buddhists did, which is/was called thoughtforming. Same concept, only we've taken/put a different spin on it. To what degree Buddhists did thoughtforming I have no idea as I haven't looked into it all that much, but Tulpamancy and the age-old thoughtforming share most similarities.

 

I'm not sure if it's about becoming closer to Buddha or for spiritual enlightenment so much but I'll look into it if you'd like!

[tulpa001]

Treating a tulpa as sentient could be related to a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't believe in self fulfilling prophesies. Self fulfilling prophecies are something teacher's teach in order to get their students to do their homework.

 

I don't think you can simply believe something into existence, including thoughtforms.

 

As to buddhism being comparable to tulpamancy, there are some tantric buddhist practices that create types of thoughtforms. But that's it. That's as far as the comparison goes. The ways they do it are different. The uses the thoughtforms are put to is different. The meanings ascribed to the thoughtforms are different. The reasons for creation, themselves, are different. The ways they are treated are different.

[Guest Anonymous]

My gods, Tulpa001, we actually agree on something!  Let this moment go down in history!  LOL  Actually we have come to sort of a meeting of mind a couple of times.  There is hope.  

 

Yeah we can't wish into existence a solid connection between Tibetan mysticism and magic and modern tulpamancy where there is none.  That doesn't mean we can't possibly explore our own existence, the nature of reality and our own spiritualism based upon what we have learned from creating and interacting with a tulpa.  But that isn't Tibetan Buddhism even if it seems kinda cosmic.

 

Tulpamancy is based on something Buddhists did, which is/was called thoughtforming.  Same concept, only we've taken/put a different spin on it.  

 

The term "thoughtform" is also a Western term and a misinterpretation of Buddhism by theosophists, magicians and occultists of the early twentieth century.  link  To say tulpamancers have "taken a different spin" on a Buddhist concept is putting it mildly.  It is a radical departure and only a very tenuous connection at best to any concepts in Buddhism.  

 

Also keep in mind all the Western writings about tulpas (which is pretty much all we have on the subject before the modern internet subculture) report that Tibetan tulpas were considered only illusury projections of mental magic.  DOH!

 

Thread can’t end when there's others that want to talk about the context in OP. And giving a brief history over what one ‘thinks’ tulpamancy is labeled as doesn’t seem to talk about the methodologies itself. And feeling one’s presence is an epoch etched in stone in the history of tulpa.info, or tulpamancy altogether is just a person’s autobiography. Not sure if it will become an actual arch in the timeline, but that’s none of my business, and none of this thread’s’ business.

 

This thread isn't important enough to become part of a Mistgod-Melian timeline event.  I gave it the honor of my response long enough to crush any ideas of tulpamancy being Tibetan Buddhism.  It isn't.  I never suggested the thread was closed and the conversation over after my comment.  That was another person feeling I had pretty much said all  of what needed to be said.  

 

Doesn't mean we can't learn greater cosmic meaning from tulpas I suppose.