A proposal for new terminology.

[ruleofthumb]

I agree that mindkin sounds more like a synonym for “headmate” than “tulpa”. I like it better than headmate. It’s a little more precise.
 

I use the word tulpa. I am open to being convinced that I shouldn’t use the word doing so has some broad negative effect on Tibetan Buddhists, or some broad negative effect in general. Cultural appropriation can be bad. It could indirectly rob cultures of resources because people are buying “Inuit” fashion from rich white “designers”. It can reinforce stereotypes used to put down cultures. It can simplify cultures by turning them into fashion statements or what not. But, I just don’t see what the word “tulpa” is doing to harm people. Is using the word “caribou” doing harm to the Mi’kmaq? Is using the word “umami” doing harm to the Japanese? I don’t think “this word came from a closed culture” is enough of a reason to stop using a word.

 

Hypothetical forum-goer who wouldn’t exist: “Words like ‘caribou’ and ‘umami’ are used to describe what exists in nature, devoid of culture. The creation of tulpas is a cultural practice. Therefore, using the word ‘caribou’ is not cultural appropriation but using the word ‘tulpa’ is.”

 

My preemptive response is this. The creation of tulpas is something that exists naturally. It’s not a rare thing for people to “accidentally create” tulpas, or to purposely create them with no knowledge of the terminology. The creation of thoughtforms is not specific to one culture, much like the taste of umami is not specific to one culture. Even if this wasn’t the case, I must ask again: what harm is being done?

[Ranger]

On 3/21/2022 at 12:26 PM, ruleofthumb said:

But, I just don’t see what the word “tulpa” is doing to harm people. Is using the word “caribou” doing harm to the Mi’kmaq? Is using the word “umami” doing harm to the Japanese? I don’t think “this word came from a closed culture” is enough of a reason to stop using a word.

 

On 3/21/2022 at 12:26 PM, ruleofthumb said:

My preemptive response is this. The creation of tulpas is something that exists naturally. It’s not a rare thing for people to “accidentally create” tulpas, or to purposely create them with no knowledge of the terminology. The creation of thoughtforms is not specific to one culture, much like the taste of umami is not specific to one culture. Even if this wasn’t the case, I must ask again: what harm is being done?

 

I think these are really good points, and my therapist said something similar. I think this boils down to I'm not confident on my assessment on what's racist or not and I convinced myself to accept the wrong conclusion.

[Slipper]

   Your reasoning behind the name "mindkin" is good, but personally whenever I read it I immediately think of the suffix being used in a way like "wolfkin" or "demonkin," which makes it confusing. If I wasn't familiar with it, I would assume the person was kinning something, similar to those other words, and not a second mind entity separate from the original personality. 

 

   I agree with the other posters here: its probably too late to change the name of tulpas. We have many other words that are similar enough that could be used (headmate, soulbond could have its definition loosened, etc.) but tulpa is a strong word that is very unique. As for the word itself being inappropriate, well, isn't the whole practice of tulpamancy a bit controversial? A lot of people say we shouldn't even be making tulpas in the first place, so should we just stop altogether? Obviously not, but it seems kind of silly to be content ignoring the large crowd of naysayers while stressing over something as small as a borrowed word.

[JAG]

No sir I don't like it.

I get where you are coming from, but it sounds too cute, I have instructed my tulpa to slap me if I ever use those words.