What are we doing?

[| Eva |]

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.

 

I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to you saying /thread close because I’m sure anyone capable of reading would know that he didn’t even quote you. I guess he has to quote everything now since everyone’s going to assume he’s targeting anyone but the person he’s talking to. Also, there’s no point in telling me, or us that tulpamancy isn’t Tibetan Buddhism. All we’re interested in is doing a comparative analysis on the processes behind the belief, and see how said processes could coincide with tulpas. Sure, the religion behind it may intervene, but ironically, for someone like you that talks about tulpamancy being like a religion, for you to actually try to crush that type of religion just makes me question where your head’s at.

 

It’s like you create this pretense of crushing one thing when secretly, you probably still have those urges to take jabs at tulpamancy altogether. How you actually save face in these things, and why, is beyond me. Also, not interested in cosmic bullshit, and I thought he clearly mentioned stopping at the ‘starting’ point of the process before it ends up being transcendental. Is it a common habit for people to talk about things he’s not even interested in, and assuming he’s actually interested in them?

 

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.

 

That’s it? You’re probably undermining the intensity behind what is implied by ‘that create types of thought-forms.’ Everything you said after that is actually a component in theorizing why the practice creates a certain type of thoughtform. I’m not sure if there’s a collective fear in seeing one practice being akin in process, but different in intentions and goals; as if it undermines the practice of tulpamancy, or whatever altogether. Especially when creating different types of thought-forms would entail using similar cognitive facilities and processes to instantiate whatever criterion that suits those different types of thought-forms.

 

I guess individuals want to make certain endeavors a special snowflake from others. Anyway:

 

Allow me to give further explanation as to why treating a tulpa as sentient could be a self-fulfilling prophecy:

-          In the previous post under ‘Buddhism, Self and ‘Owner’ of the Mind, let’s define chalk up ‘self’ as a focal point of continuity in identity in form over time.

 

-          And I’m sure you remembered a person’s opinion before about how they saw switching, and realized they could just be a combination of thoughts that have continuity in some way; continuity in identity and form. And when they, Lumi, I believe, compared it to one of their tulpas, they saw a similar parallel of how their existence was probably cultivated.

 

-          Now, let’s go back to what a self-fulfilling prophecy could be, which is sustained thought + subsequent action. It’s not chalked up as merely ‘believing’ something into existence; it’s only that if you forget about the latter part of a self-fulfilling prophecy – the subsequent action. That latter part alone entails all sorts of mechanisms, doings, and ethical implications that creates the idea that it’s more than just believing something into existence. Because believing is just placing faith into these thoughts, but it’s not actually doing anything but wishful thinking, at the very least.

 

-          Now, let’s combine the opinion of said individual on switching, and thoughts along with self-fulfilling prophecy. One could see these combination of thoughts as a series of sustained thoughts cultivated with subsequent actions over time. This could be due to the implied catalysts I mentioned above with mental processes and what have you. With enough experiential context over time, or rather, a buildup of it (since ‘enough’ creates some expectation bias), a notion of ‘self’ seems to arise.

 

-          Now, I can understand why even after that explanation you would think self-fulfilling prophecies aren’t what the phenomenon can be chalked up to be. But, we’re just focusing on one of the many normative ethics behind the tulpa phenomenon in general. I have a feeling that self-fulfilling prophecies, or just the notion of things being believed into existence seems to undermine your existence. But, I don’t think it really stagnates, or makes you inferior, especially if how self could arise for the host would be a similar process that could be done to arise the notion of a ‘self’ in relation to a tulpa.

                                                                                                                                                                              

-          The self-fulfilling prophecy doesn’t have to be exclusive to tulpas, as I believe along with Linkzelda that it’s more of an inclusive thing; a self-referential mirroring of the same things that could instantiate a ‘self,’ and even an ‘otherness’ in the mind.

 

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.

 

Human nature may be subjective, but there’s going to be similar yearnings and desires either way. It’s part of the drive for self-actualization, self-realization, and other humanistic inquiries and pursuits. The same could be stated on soulbonds, daemons, medians, plurals, etc.; what people could categorize as different thoughtforms. But what seems to distract some people is not so much of doing the comparative analysis on what-ifs, but more so of being disgusted of having others thinking their existence was solely grounded upon transcendental and spiritual rooting with Buddhism. But if you absolve your fear from that rooting, since it isn’t who you are chalked up as, then maybe you could objectify the process, and see it's all contingent upon valuators such as yourself.

 

Maybe it’s just me, but I find this enriching to do something like that; the whole piercing into concepts, and figuring out if they’re more than what they seem.

[Lucilyn]

I’m pretty sure he wasn’t referring to you saying /thread close because I’m sure anyone capable of reading would know that he didn’t even quote you. I guess he has to quote everything now since everyone’s going to assume he’s targeting anyone but the person he’s talking to.

 

you sure he wasn't referring to this paragraph telling him why the thread wasn't over?

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.

 

y'know, seems like it

[| Eva |]

 

you sure he wasn't referring to this paragraph telling him why the thread wasn't over?

 

y'know, seems like it

 

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. 

 

 

 

Well, he, Mistgod, quoted Linkzelda, so I'm assuming he's talking to him. Then, the part about the thread closed he was talking about seemed kind of weird if I knew it wasn't him, Mistgod, that stated '/thread.' Now, if he's, Mistgod, vouching for the other person that said it, then okay, but still, why would it be prefaced with 'I' as in Mistgod's fault?

 

This part:

 

I never suggested the thread was closed and the conversation over after my comment.

 

@Luci, Linkzelda didn't seem to give accusations of him wanting to close the thread. Does Mistgod have to be a sponsor for other people now?

 

OH, you (Lucilyn) probably thought me saying 'he' was 'Linkzelda.' Ha, not falling for a total blonde moment.

[Lucilyn]

uh, sure, I'm very confused but not part of this. Go about your day!

[| Eva |]

Just to clarify, to anyone else that may not have understood (this is to just prevent some random strife going on with clarification):

 

Linkzelda said this

Thread can’t end when there's others that want to talk about the context in OP.

but wasn’t referring to Mistgod. He was referring to Solune. The rest of it

And giving a brief history over what one ‘thinks’ tulpamancy …. 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.

was definitely towards Mistgod, but nowhere was Linkzelda thinking Mistgod was doing a /thread.

 

Mistgod mentioned:

 

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.

 

So I just came in to clarify that Linkzelda never thought he, Mistgod, was trying to /thread when it was obvious that nowhere in his post involved ‘/thread’ in it. So, it was probably just me using ‘he,’ and Luci’s line of thought in thinking ‘he’ was referring to Linkzelda, I guess? But, it was my fault in not switching it up to just refer to Mistgod instead. That’s what happens when I’m used to inner monologue instead of actually labeling the person’s username, so I apologize, Lucilyn.

[Lucilyn]

oo, I don't remember anyone calling me Luci before. I think you're the first, I was waiting for that. Anyways I guess I get what you're saying now, that linkzelda was replying to Solune but Mistgod thought he was replying to him. We're good!

 

 

I'll try and clear something up too I guess.

 

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.

 

That's a very vague statement, because they definitely didn't call it "Tulpamancy" back when that was actually why it was practiced. Never in it being called Tulpamancy has that been the goal, it's kinda not a serious term obviously. But I think that is where tulpas originally came from yes. But IIRC alexandra david-neal said like.. she made a tulpa and it was able to manifest physically. What I don't get is how, if that's our only real source on this stuff, we even came to the enlightenment conclusion? If the whole point was to realize they were actually not real or something, how the heck's "oops my tulpa is real and evil" supposed to support that?

 

personally don't care for this subject at all because we don't have good, reliable sources. So people are just gonna debate what they want to think or how they interpret the little information we have... that's not really fun IMO.

[| Eva |]

What meets good, reliable sources then, Lucilyn? I don't mind pulling some in the future if there's actually a standard. For something like this, though, it may just be soft science, and interpretations from sociologists, anthropologists, etc. I guess you assume at base value, people are using inferences, and not deriving from other sources (anecdotal, articles, etc.)

[Lucilyn]

I literally know no source at all except the one I just mentioned, a good reliable source to me is something written/said by someone who ever had an actual connection to what we're studying... you kinda had to be there, right? And if you just studied THE ANCIENT TEXTS or something then why can't we see those too?

[Guest Anonymous]

That was precisely my point that all this Tibetan Buddhist enlightenment stuff is based on very flimsy evidence.   How did calls to close the thread, and who did it and who didn't, become such a hot issue?  I thought it was just an amusing bit of side banter.  We are all still writing so it seems a moot point anyway.

 

EDIT: Oh and Eva it is nice to chat with you!  I got excited about that.

[| Eva |]

Well, evidence as in empirical evidence, or evidence to instantiate spiritual manifestations of one's mind is clearly thrown out of the window. The same with ancient texts, so I don't think watching Yu-Gi-Oh does anything, but I thought maybe books talking about Buddhism would come to mind, even if it may be musings of the author. I mean, this is basically philosophy, so naturally, books on this was something I thought would be sufficient.

 

It may not pass the greenlight for Science, but this is ultimately a philosophy. I mean, don't get me wrong, if we can put in scientific inquiry in this, by all means, but having it, implications of Hard Science, encroach something it doesn't use epistemic tools to predict about something is Scientism. I guess I'll wait to see if OP is still interested in the future. If not, then I guess people can be content that the /thread has ensued before someone necros it later on.