Tulpa's Complete DIY Guide to Tulpamancy

[tulpa001]

Tulpa's Complete DIY Guide to Tulpamancy Fourth Edition Rules! (V4.0)

AKA Book of Tulpa: the Extremely Long One.


 

Hello!

 

Welcome to the longest guide on tulpas as of the time of writing! This is a technical manual, meaning it is dense, informative, and does not rely on any particular viewpoint.

 

What is a tulpa? That is a complicated question. It is a phenomenon that connects back to imaginary friends, split personalities, Tibetan Buddhism, modern psychology, shamanism, kids with too much free time on their hands, discipline, ritual, social movements, hallucinated voices, and weird mind hacks. This book both covers info on what a tulpa is, and serves as a creation guide in the event that you want one.

 

Why would you want one? Well, I can’t guarantee anything, but people have found spiritual truth, performance boosting effects, superior sexual experiences, social skill growth, recovery from mental illness, and more after experimenting with this stuff.

 

This text is divided into roughly four sections. Chapters 1-3 serve as an introduction. Warnings and considerations are introduced in chapter 2, and chapter 3 covers the foundational principles of the mental part of this practise. Chapters 4-6 cover the three basic steps of creating a tulpa, personality, form, and voice, though they are typically done together more or less. Chapters 7 and 8 take a break to look at problems of doubt, and theories of how tulpas work, and a bit on hypnosis. Chapters 9-12 cover advanced abilities of the tulpa, including intellectual growth, independence, imposition, possession and switching. These are typically learned after you establish communication with your tulpa, but can be looked at as ways to communicate as well. Finally, the last chapter has some info for explaining tulpas to people without tulpas, and some random facts about the community.⚕

 

As of 5/16/21, none of these links work and will take you to the start of the guide. However, you still can use the outline tool that pops up on the left hand side to navigate to another section in the guide. -Ranger

 

READ FROM START

 

Table of contents:

i. Preface 7

 

1. What is a Tulpa? 10

1.1. Hallucination 11

1.2. Illusion of Separation 11

1.3. Independent Cognitive Process 12

1.4. External Spirits 13

1.5. Sentience and Sapience 13

1.6 Other Definitions of Tulpas 14

1.7 The Not Tulpa Version 15

 

2. Sanity 17

2.1. History of Tulpas From a Medical Perspective 17

2.2. Interactions with Psychological Conditions 19

2.3. Plural Susceptibility 22

2.4. Physical Health Concerns 24

 

3. Mindset 26

3.1. Trial and Error 27

3.2. Trust and Control 29

3.3. Discipline and Fun 30

3.4. Deciding 32

3.5. Exercises 33

Willpower: 33

Let It Go: 34

Self Awareness: 35

Centring: 35

Meditation: 36

Subconscious Communion: 38

 

4. Personality 40

4.1. Greeting Your Tulpa 41

4.2. Designing the Personality 41

4.3. Personality Forcing 43

4.4. After Personality Forcing 46

4.5. Fluid Thought 47

4.6. Upgrading a Character, Imaginary Friend, or Roleplay Character to a Tulpa 48

(Q) Is My Angel, Guardian Spirit, or Inner Voice of Reason a Tulpa? 49

4.7. Exercises 49

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response: 49

Relate: 50

Free Writing: 51

Your Tulpa Is a Character: 51

 

5. Form 53

5.1. The Form 53

5.2. Dreamland 55

5.3. Mindfulness, Dissociation, and Immersion 58

5.4. Exercises 60

The Practise Rune: 60

Perspective Shift: 61

Daydream Possession: 61

Anatomy Study: 62

Use Your Imagination: 63

Breakfast and Dinner: 63

Drafting: 64

Simon Says: 64

Touchy Feely: 65

Image Streaming: 65

Wonderlanding: 66

Perfume: 66

Kiss Me You Fool: 67

Visualisation Wrestling: 67

 

6. Voice 69

6.1. The Waiting Game 69

6.2. Pre-vocal 70

6.3. Developing Vocality 71

6.4. The Experience of Vocality 73

6.5. Multiple Tulpas 75

6.6. Exercises 76

Read in Voice: 76

Speech Lessons: 77

Skull Hopping: 78

Tulpa Word Association: 79

 

7. Faith 80

7.1. History of Tulpas from a Religious Perspective 80

7.2. Myths and Legends 82

7.3. Should You Believe? 85

7.4. Evidence 86

7.5. Ultimately: 89

7.6. And Now, a FAQ Section 93

(Q) I've been forcing forever. Why is this taking so long? 93

(Q) I've been forcing for a day. My tulpa is already vocal. I'm scared. 94

(Q) It all feels so fake. I can't stop doubting! Help! 94

(Q) I think I am unconsciously parroting or puppeting my tulpa! 95

(Q) This thing happened. Is it normal? 95

(Q) I ran out of things to talk about with my tulpa. 96

7.6. Exercises 96

The Dark Arts: 96

Trust Exercise: 97

 

8. Architecture 99

8.1. Thoughtform family tree 99

8.2. Differences in Architecture 102

8.3. On Thoughtforms and Hypnosis 105

Example induction: 107

Example deepening: 108

Example affirmations: 109

Example awakening: 110

 

9. Awareness 112

9.1. The Twin Goals of Tulpamancy 112

9.2. Philosophical Inquiry 114

9.3. Exercises 116

Talk It Out: 116

All Day Self Awareness: 116

Joint Hypnosis: 117

Hyper Alertness: 118

Philosophy of the Day: 119

Lucid Tulpa Dreaming: 120

Emotion Sharing: 122

Write Your Tulpa a Story: 122

Joint Wonderlanding: 123

Self Reflection: 124

Surprise Me: 125

 

10. Separation 126

10.1. Parallel Processing 127

10.2. Mind Hacking 130

10.3. Exercises 132

Separation Exercise: 132

Count and Chat: 133

Bigger Separation Exercise: 133

The Bubble Ship: 134

Dominance Switching: 135

Play a Game: 136

Thought Hiding: 137

Forced Independence: 138

 

11. Imposition 140

11.1. Experience of Imposition 140

11.2. The Process 143

11.3. Exercises 146

Running Man: 146

The Green Apple: 147

Sound Test: 148

Shadow: 149

Tulpa Sight: 150

The Couch: 150

Back Rub: 151

Walk Your Tulpa: 152

 

12. Possession 153

12.1. The Possession/Switching Controversy 153

12.2. Method to This Madness 158

12.3. Exercises 162

Body Shaped Soul: 162

Picking Your Arms Up: 163

Host Ghost: 164

Trapped in Wonderland: 164

Sleep Walking: 165

Drawing Circles: 166

Possession Wrestling: 167

Restraint: 168

 

13. Public Relations 170

13.1. Preventing Misdiagnosis 170

Responding to Schizophrenia Diagnosis: 170

Responding to Dissociative Identity Disorder Diagnosis: 172

Choosing Your Diagnosis: 173

13.2. Introducing It to Others 174

It's How You Sell It: 174

The Interview: 176

Rules of Conduct: 177

13.3. What's It Like? 178

What Is Being a Tulpa Like? 179

What Does Possession Feel Like? 180

What's the Sex Like? 181

13.4. Metaphysical Beliefs 181

A Brief History of Tulpas: 181

Mainstream Religions: 182

Weird Freaky Abilities: 183

Metaphysical Forcing: 185

13.5. The Future 186

The sticky wicket issue: egocide, dissipation, integration: 186

Learning to live with tulpas: 187

 

14. Glossaries and Notes 189

14.1. Glossary of Exotic Terms 189

14.2. Major media links 191

14.3. Bibliography 192

14.4. About The Author 193

14.5. Licence 193

 

Older version of the guide: here.

Tulpa's DIY Guide to Tulpamancy v4.pdf
Download link created 5/16/21 -Ranger

Edited May 16, 2021 by Ranger
!!!UPDATE 4.0!!! -Tulpa ; Added pdf backup 5/16/21, fixed broken code, left note about broken links -Ranger

[tulpa001]

Revision log and notes! Note: living document. Subject to change as people give me suggestions.

 

---

 

Major revision 3.0 changelog:
 

Spoiler

--Err, gutted the whole thing and moved everything around.

--Deleted one of the really bad exercises.

--Wrote a chapter completely from scratch. (bonus chapter 13)

--Wrote text for almost every chapter.

--Converted a couple exercises to text.

--Added words to glossary.

--Started work on bibliography.

--Added pictures and graphics.

--Increased page count to triple digits. (?!)

--Added explanatory text to a few exercises.

--Reworked the dark arts exercise.

--Reworked the trapped in wonderland exercise.

--Added media links section.

--Added brand new info on hypnosis.

--Added major text on mindset and how to think to get a tulpa.

--Changed document title.

--Added preface.

--Cleaned up some theory in the what is a tulpa section.

--Cleaned and simplified the psychological condition interaction section.

--Merged and cleaned two sections on plural susceptibility.

--Listed various different ways of forcing evidenced in the community.

--Listed many different experiences people have had.

--Cleaned up and expanded the section on doubt and faith.

--Added Iceberg metaphor section.

--Minor fixes.

 

Minor revision 3.1 changelog:
 

Spoiler

--Added a paragraph about host projection sensory experience to chapter 11 somewhere.

--Added disclaimer to section 13.1 on controversy, and softened an absolute statement.

--minor change to preface.

--Added major introductory text to chapters 4, 5, and 6 to help people understand their purpose.

--reorganised chapter 4.

Minor revision 3.2 changelog:

 

Spoiler

--Reworked 2.3 plural susceptibility.

--Reworked 12.1 to add co-conscious and details. (updated glossary)

--cleared up third person first person confusion in three locations.

--added paragraph about constructed vision and hidden objects to chapter 11.

--added section about shard seeding to chapter 4.

--capitalisation fixes.

--Minor edits to preface, chapters 2, 6, 11 and 12.

 

Also a note, the search for good quotes still goes on. Any help is appreciated.

 

Oh, the bibliography is in early days. Any help on that front would be extra greatly appreciated. *smiles and looks cute*

 

Minor revision 3.3 changelog:

 

Spoiler

POLL CLOSED: resuts: 4 staggered right, 6 justified.

--syllablification

--Rewrote section 2.1 to be more informative and less dramatic.

--Minor fix to depression section. (2.2) (reward centre nonsense.)

--Added clarification on empathy. (2.3)

--Reworded section on deciding. (3.4)

--Added text to centring exercise (3.5)

--Added sit down forcing sessions (4.3)

--Added paragraph to fake it until you make it (4.3)

--Added footnote on personality forcing after sentience (4.4)

--Added info on word paracosm (5.2)

--Added text to image streaming (5.3)

--Added quote to chapter 8

--Added info on word soulbond (8.1)

--Added section on controlled memory separation (10.1)

--Added long term imposition section (11.2)

--minor fixes.

 

This concludes the course of regular updates to this document. Further updates will only happen a long time in the future. Errata will still be addressed, and other comments will be stored for the next update.

 

Medium update V3.4

 

Spoiler

--Minor changes to effects of neglect section. (3.4)

--added special note by fordaplot (3.5)

--added examples of stuff to sit down forcing sessions (4.3)

--added examples of stuff to the other senses (5.1)

--added 6.5 multiple tulpas

--Extended history of tulpas from a religious perspective (7.1) to add basic info on yidams.

--added paragraph on seeing the world abstractly (12.1)

--added section on Body OS (12.2)

--added exercse Picking Your Arms Up (12.3)

--added exercse Drawing Circles (12.3)

--minor changes

 

CHANGELOG! V4.0

EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT

-New Introduction please review.

-New preface please review.

 

Spoiler

-credit to jade in acknowledgements.

-added section 1.6 Other definitions of tulpas.

-added section 1.7 the not tulpa version.

-added chapter quote to chapter 3.

-added note to subconscious communion.

-added paragraph to shard seeding.

-added paragraph to relate exercise.

-added section 5.3 mindfulness, dissociation and immersion.

-added paragraph to the experience of vocality

-cleaned up history of tulpas from a religious perspective and added details.

-cleaned up illusion of control.

-cleaned up part of your subconscious.

-cleaned up should you believe.

-added section 7.5 Ultimately.

-cleaned up I think I am unconsciosly parroting or puppeting my tulpa. Altered meanings.

-added paragraph about roleplay characters to thoughtform family tree.

-added body OS to thoughtform family tree.

-added paragraph to memory separation.

-added not to count and chat

-cleaned up Separation Exercise and added details.

-cleaned up bubble ship exercise.

-added paragraphs to dominance switching.

-added Forced Independence exercise to chapter 10.

-added 1.5 paragraphs to visual experience of imposition.

-cleaned up imposition from the front.

-cleaned up ways to control the body and added information.

-added ways to be confusing to section 12.1

-added paragraph to dissociation

-added important note to responding to dissociative identity disorder diagnosis

-cleaned up hopping between brains and added info.

-added section 13.5 the future.

-added terms to glossary: shadow, shard, signal boosting.

-added the making friends podcast to the media links.

-added bibliographic references 10, 11, and 12.

-moved some of the exercises around.

-minor changes and typo fixes.

 

Note to translators: Give me your gmail so I can add you to the document's suggestor list. From there, you can see revision history and make comments on parts of the document that are tricky to translate.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Ranger
4.0 -tulpa; fixed broken code -Ranger

[waffles]

tl;dr: well-written and well-documented; creation section is kind of unclear and weirdly structured.

 

This is really interesting. It's obvious that you've put a lot of time and effort into it, and incorporated a lot of feedback. Like your changelog mentions, at some point this has gone into triple pages, and I guess if this is intended to be exhaustive, that's fair enough. And like a couple of people mentioned elsewhere, you pull together a lot of sources; I think this looks like a document of the community, in that you map out pretty well the details of thought and practice that you see in the community, looking at chapters 1-3 & 8-12.

 

That for me is the most impressive part. You've obviously done your research (by the way, I wouldn't be shy about referencing other guides and things by name, even if they are forum posts). I half wonder whether it was a goal on your part or whether it happened by trying to handle criticism from people with all those different opinions and experiences, given that you didn't give "Portray the community and practice in a detailed way" as one of the aims of the guide at the start. Either way, it's a good thing, I think.

 

The most interesting chapter in that regard is 8. You say

The old school approach more frequently produces tulpas with some degree of memory separation. [...] The sentience from the start approach is way faster. The average time to first words is measured in days, not months.

What's your source for this? I'd be curious if you had numbers on it.

 

Other good things: writing is pretty good, as is layout and so on. Having a detailed table of contents is definitely a 'must' for something this long, as is it being readable. So good job on those fronts.

 

 

I guess the biggest negative that stands out is the lack of structure in the creation parts - chapters 4-6. It would help a great deal if you had a brief overview of "the creation process" as a whole at some point before then - something giving a brief summary of the key stages, or the core ideas behind what you talk about. Otherwise, that big picture gets a bit lost in your detailed expositions; like when you tuck narration and other passive forcing in near the end of the personality chapter, after a section of similar length on Upgrading a Character, Imaginary Friend, or Roleplay Character to a Tulpa - I would forgive readers if they thought you weren't going to tell them anything too useful after that.

 

Partly I wonder whether that reflects your own view of the process rather than confusing writing. But, when I try to summarise what you say about creation in those three chapters, it comes out like this:

• Personality: the necessary part here is to "do the work of creating their person, feeling their presence, and seeing them to have thoughts and opinions" (this isn't stated upfront) - though creating a personality and doing personality forcing (which you give as either trait association or parroting) are themselves optional. When we're done with that (which is either when we decide it to be, or when the tulpa is sentient), there's "regular forcing", which is either visualisation or narration.
  
• Form: visualise the tulpa and so on. I guess this is notionally optional; you say that people can use replacement forms as a focus for forcing, which is pretty astute, but then the rest of the chapter talks about imagining senses, so I guess that's kind of confusing.
  
• Voice: so I need to develop sentience first, which will have happened in the personality section. Then comes developing a voice for the already-sentient tulpa, so seemingly this requires choosing a voice model and then either parrot (again) or have the tulpa do it themselves because it's their job, not ours.
  

Maybe you can see why I find this a bit confusing. Seemingly the most important part is the "regular forcing", but this is given as an afterthought to personality forcing, which is itself optional! Form talks about sensory imagination, and voice about how to give a tulpa a voice if they're already sentient. Is this intentional, and how you want to depict the process? Because to me, it seems like you're hiding the important parts behind less important details. I would either have a chapter on "forcing" in the general sense, or turn the "voice" part into the same.

 

 

I guess that's the main thing. On the whole, this is a great piece.

[tulpa001]

I'd cite actual guides as sources, if I had any actual guides as primary sources, even if they were just forum posts. In fact, I cited one article for one fact.

 

At this time, I can't think of any guides that I derived any facts from. I actually recently reread Kiah's guide thinking I had deduced something from that text, but I couldn't find anything. His text was used as a working model for my host in our first three weeks, but everything we read there was replaced by new information we learned later. I think.

 

I haved derived methods from some guides. In those cases, I actually linked the guides in place instead of citing them.

 

What's your source for this? I'd be curious if you had numbers on it. [Old school approach, memory separation]

 

My primary source is arguments I had with Sands while trying to get version 2 approved, but it was already something I'd heard already from random chats with people in the community.

 

Honestly, it probably needs a study to confirm. Oh, This thread supports the claim as well.

 

If you are talking about days to first verbal communication, that's just based on progress reports that I've personally witnessed over the past ten months on this site. With the majority hitting verbal communication within a week. Unknown if there is actually a link to parroting or not.

 

a brief overview of "the creation process" as a whole

 

The main problem here, is there is no creation process. The order of steps, the inclusion of steps, the formulation of steps, all elements are not universal to the process. The best I felt I could do is list all the parts.

 

Probably the only necessary part is actually mindset, which was covered in chapter 3.

 

I will look back at those chapters to look at organisation, and to see if I can emphasise passive forcing or something now that you mention it.

 

I actually see voice as sort of something that happens rather than something you develop. I believe this is in line with a lot of people's beliefs on sentience and vocality. This may explain why I sort of leave it for last there.

 

Seemingly the most important part is the "regular forcing"

Actually, no, I regard the bootstrapping as the most important part of the process. Since the process itself is super flexible, this may not be done through personality forcing, but I see this as the purpose of personality forcing. I see this as the part of the process you have to be most careful on, and the part that is most likely to get you stuck. The regular forcing that comes after is for strengthening your tulpa and encouraging their sentience and intelligence. Which I actually primarily cover way over in chapter 9. And it tends to take a lot longer, but It's not the, you know, focus of step one.

[tulpa001]

Updated. I chose to address the primary problem you spotted by adding introductory text to chapters 4, 5, and 6.

[FallFamily]

[Tri] First off, we must apologize for being late to the party (we at least used to be GAT (not sure anymore) and weren't here for previous versions).

 

Before going on into the guide itself, it is very good that you have been continually working on this and improving it.

 

As for the question in the poll, justified is what we usually recommend (note, we might only have this recommendation because we have gotten used to what is expected of us in our career). Have written a lot in it and generally liked it, though it does work a bit better for double column than single column.

 

We are not going to be able to do the whole guide in one sitting, so this is just part of it.

 

So here goes

 

Part 1 - beginning to the end of Chapter 2

 

Small thing we noticed, which might be something to fix only when you are done with all other edits because if you move stuff around you will have to do it again. Your references are a bit out of order (first one we ran into was numbered 5). Just a tiny thing, really. Could be left as is and it just would seem weird is all. One of the disadvantages of gdocs compared to LaTeX and other tools is this problem.

 

In the preface,

 

With regards to your use of "natural plurals" in the preface, do you mean both endogenic and traumagenic plurality (as well as any other that isn't created) or just endogenic. We ask because "natural plurality/multiplicity" is already a term in use, mostly replaced by "endogenic plurality/multiplicity", but your usage here suggests that possibly you mean something different.

 

Is this a hoax? No. Sociologically speaking, hoaxes are usually perpetrated by small groups for profit or fame. It could have been a hoax at one point, but then natural plurals came along and started identifying as tulpas. Now there is no way.

 

With regards to the last two sentences, it does leave out the very common phenomena of pure tulpamancy systems who did tulpamancy independently and then found the community. Mentioning them strengthens your point. We suggest something along the lines of "There have been many who did tulpamancy independently without knowing about the community, both those that were natural plurals originally or those that were only one person in a brain before tulpamancy, who have found the community and said that what we do is something they have done; which reduces the possibility that this is a hoax."

 

 

In Chapter 2,

 

The first two paragraphs are confusing in a certain way. They start by talking about science and religion and then goes right to plurality in the middle of the second paragraph with some missing connection pieces. We are guessing that you mean that all beliefs, religious or not, are held to skepticism with the burden of proof being on the belief, and this includes beliefs of subjective experience including plurality?

 

Under the dissociative disorders, it is unhealthy forms and/or levels. Mention this because some amounts of some forms of dissociation are necessary and considered healthy.

 

Under the dissociative disorders, on PTSD. PTSD is kind of weird in that it is primarily classified as a "Trauma- and Stressor-Related Disorder" at the present time but could just as easily be classified primarily as a dissociative disorder (and in fact there is controversy about where to put it). Which is all because it is kind of both. You've looked at the DSM-5, so you probably noticed that. Just, someone is going to quibble over it or something down the line. Not saying you should change it, just a heads up to be on the lookout for it, though a small parenthetical statement might save you the trouble.

 

What you described with fugue is partially accurate, but it is using the other meaning of "identity" (as in, social/legal identity) which causes ambiguity since all other uses of identity is the more subjective personal kind. It is dissociative amnesia of biographical information and going forward anyways/wandering/etc. taking a name possibly and what not as one goes.

 

On the last two paragraphs of the dissociative disorders section. It is good that you bring this up and you have a lot of the pieces here, though some rearrangment might be in order and some adjustments. Reading between the lines, we think you mostly have it here. Just rearrangement and a few additions maybe.

 

DID and its cousin OSDD-1 are forms of plurality, just like tulpamancy. Both are forms of plurality caused by trauma and generally involve strong dissociation, an intertwining with PTSD, and/or etc. Medical professionals mostly study these two forms. One consequence of this is that those who even believe these two forms exist (many still think that all or most plurality is therapist induced) often assume they are the only forms. A major bias among medical professionals is the belief that being plural is innately unhealthy and that the struggles of those with DID and OSDD-1 are primarily from the plurality rather than from the trauma, PTSD, other dissociative symptoms, etc.; though this bias has been coming under more challenge over time in the medical community as can be seen by the addition of the "The symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupa­tional, or other important areas of functioning" criteria to DID in the DSM-5 and discussion in the current ISSTD guidelines for treatment of DID and OSDD-1 on the topic of full integration/merging/fusion (they still recommend it, but say it isn't as critical as several other things). This assumption/bias has been extensively challenged in various plural communities including traumagenic communities, non-traumagenic communities, and mixed communities. This assumption/bias combines in a nasty way with the assumption that DID and OSDD-1 are the only forms of plurality in that people think that all plurals are traumagenic and must work on trauma they may or may not have and must merge/fuse/integrate to be healthy. While that certainly fits some, it doesn't fit most. There would be a similar problem if people thought that all plurality was created in that endogenic and traumagenic plurals would be told to dig for memories that aren't there of creating people and traumagenic plurals wouldn't get trauma care they need.

 

In the psychotic disorders section, on the voice hearing community. Wouldn't call it a plural community since the community doesn't consider itself that. Though a large fraction to consider themselves plural. They are a cousin/sibling community though, much in the same way tulpamancy and soulbonding are not the same but have huge overlap.

 

Would maybe change "Tulpas rarely suffer the same mental conditions you do" to "Tulpas rarely suffer the same mental conditions with the exact same flavor/manifestation as you do." since often mental conditions are shared like you say later but different people in a brain handle them differently and/or deal with different symptomology like you mention later.

 

Section 2.2 looks very good overall. Really like the warning to tulpas in the depression subsection about not burning out. Also, good that you mentioned Aphantasia.

 

In section 2.3, on soulbonds ("Soulbonds, a type of accidental tulpa, comes from writers getting carried away with building their characters."). Those are a subset - in-sourced soulbonds. There are also out-sourced soulbonds from other's works which can be walk-ins or tulpas or etc.

 

On the high plural susceptibility thing, it is worth mentioning that some can stick around. Basically, most will fade or walk-out, but if one sticks around then they are likely something more.

 

 

We should hopefully get through another few chapters this week. Overall, liking what we see so far.

[tulpa001]

You make a number of hard challenges with your questions. Hard in the sense that I don't know how to fix them without messing up the flow of the text.

 

I'll say I don't want to mess with the preface, as that is just an opinion piece and it is supposed to be short.

 

Chapter 2:

I will review the start of chapter two again, particularly because your assumption of its meaning is incorrect. What we are looking at is "the four elements of matter" levels of incorrect science, not, "unexplored frontiers of space" type scepticism.

 

I wonder if the feeling of missing pieces may be because, from a historical perspective, tulpas are a spiritual practise.

 

I can't mention that it is unhealthy forms of dissociation because I can't define unhealthy forms of dissociation. I believe I instead listed healthy forms of dissociation when defining dissociation, though, I am not sure which chapter I put that definition in. Also, this would not properly be in

line with the idea of a disorder, as an underlying condition, rather than a set of symptoms.

 

PTSD has primarily dissociative symptoms. Given what people tend to think of DID, I don't see why they don't just classify it as a stress and trauma related disorder as well.

 

Fugue was hard to research. Will fix.

 

Your suggestion paragraph actually misses some of the worst bias. There is no bias that all plurality is traumagenic in popular culture. This is a narrow debate restricted to psychological circles. In popular culture, all plurals are delusionally insane axe crazy mad(wo)men who hear voices that encourage their madness. This bias is based on the assumption that one brain can only support one mind, which is based on intuitionistic reasoning which sees a person as their physical manifestation, and is passed down culturally in academic circles.

 

I consider the hearing voices community a thoughtform community. If they want to consider their voices random hallucinations, they can, but it is related anyway.

 

same mental condition: Right.

Soulbonds: will fix.

High plurality susceptibility: Will look at, to figure out what you are talking about.

[FallFamily]

Chapter 2:

I will review the start of chapter two again, particularly because your assumption of its meaning is incorrect. What we are looking at is "the four elements of matter" levels of incorrect science, not, "unexplored frontiers of space" type scepticism.

 

[Tri] Given that we misunderstood what you were trying to express, that means there might be some room to make what you are trying to express more clear.

 

I wonder if the feeling of missing pieces may be because, from a historical perspective, tulpas are a spiritual practise.

 

Definitely a factor, one worth mentioning.

 

I can't mention that it is unhealthy forms of dissociation because I can't define unhealthy forms of dissociation. I believe I instead listed healthy forms of dissociation when defining dissociation, though, I am not sure which chapter I put that definition in. Also, this would not properly be in

line with the idea of a disorder, as an underlying condition, rather than a set of symptoms.

 

We will be on the lookout for that part when we get to the remaining chapters. As for the "Also, this would not properly be in line with the idea of a disorder, as an underlying condition, rather than a set of symptoms.", a lot of disorders including dissociative ones are basically when something that would be OK at more reasonable levels ends up at a vastly different level and possibly varies uncontrollably. For example, some derealization and depersonalization is necessary for everyday life, but that is very different from being hit by massive periodic derealization or depersonalization waves. Another example are stress responses. They are useful for survival in bursts, but the problem lies in when they don't turn off when out of the stressful situation and/or are too strong.

 

PTSD has primarily dissociative symptoms. Given what people tend to think of DID, I don't see why they don't just classify it as a stress and trauma related disorder as well.

 

That is a very good question. Just reminded about the long arguments that are had about where to place things in the DSM. Things move around. Wasn't that long ago that DID's diagnostic precursor was considered a "hysteria" and a "psychotic disorder" in the DSM (check out the DSM 1 and 2).

 

Fugue was hard to research. Will fix.

 

It is a bit hard to find. Made harder since it and dissociative amnesia got combined together in the DSM-5 and just use different diagnostic codes for different symptomology.

 

Your suggestion paragraph actually misses some of the worst bias. There is no bias that all plurality is traumagenic in popular culture. This is a narrow debate restricted to psychological circles. In popular culture, all plurals are delusionally insane axe crazy mad(wo)men who hear voices that encourage their madness. This bias is based on the assumption that one brain can only support one mind, which is based on intuitionistic reasoning which sees a person as their physical manifestation, and is passed down culturally in academic circles.

 

Can't believe we missed that and forgot that. But yes, that is the general population bias which is the main one plurals face.

 

I consider the hearing voices community a thoughtform community. If they want to consider their voices random hallucinations, they can, but it is related anyway.

 

Not sure on the thoughtforms bit. Pretty diverse and definitely includes other forms of plurality.

[waffles]

The changes that you've made are good.

 

The main problem here, is there is no creation process. The order of steps, the inclusion of steps, the formulation of steps, all elements are not universal to the process. The best I felt I could do is list all the parts.

 

I think you do have things to say about the whole process. Here's one:

"The only constant seems to be you need to form an image of your tulpa and a feel of your tulpa. Not in the sense of a visual image, but in the sense that you feel the presence of your tulpa, you get the sense they are listening to you, you get the sense that they are a thinking mind, and that they have a personality and essence." (I like this passage; good addition.)

 

It seems like you have more to say about that, and about the role of passive forcing, and so on. From what you've said in your reply to me, you do have a coherent overview of the process that goes beyond talking about individual steps, so I'd encourage you to make it clear in the guide. The guide doesn't really have a place to say "what the creation process is about, generally"; the "this chapter is confusing" section is the closest to it, and I think you could do with making that more prominent, and a bit more detailed. Preferably before the "mindset" section, since it sets out why mindset is important, whereas in chapter 3 you just say that it will become clear later.

 

Also, you say that bootstrapping is the most important part of the process for you, but what the guide says is that "mindset" is the most important aspect, which I don't think carries across what you mean. As I read it, what you're (rightly) saying in chapter 3 is "relax, learn trust and control of your mind, learn mental discipline and how to have fun, etc." That's not "bootstrapping" as I understand it.

 

Other than that, the restructuring to do with passive forcing and so on is good.

 

 

My primary source is arguments I had with Sands while trying to get version 2 approved, but it was already something I'd heard already from random chats with people in the community.

[...]

If you are talking about days to first verbal communication, that's just based on progress reports that I've personally witnessed over the past ten months on this site. With the majority hitting verbal communication within a week. Unknown if there is actually a link to parroting or not.

 

It sounds very conjectural; I think I would weaken the claim. Though, it would be interesting if you have/made a record of the PRs you've read that made the data you're working from a bit more concrete.

[tulpa001]

Also, you say that bootstrapping is the most important part of the process for you, but what the guide says is that "mindset" is the most important aspect, which I don't think carries across what you mean.

Mindset is not a part of the process. It is necessary and therefore important.

 

That's not "bootstrapping" as I understand it.

Bootstrapping is done by the tulpa themselves as they are created. This only happens if you create a proper environment for them.

 

It sounds very conjectural; I think I would weaken the claim. Though, it would be interesting if you have/made a record of the PRs you've read that made the data you're working from a bit more concrete.

It's been brought up before in the last thread. https://community.tulpa.info/thread-how-long-did-it-take-for-your-first-tulpa-to-reach-sentience

[tulpa001]

Tri, I made some minor alterations to chapter 2, but I feel like I've reached a limit in adding content the chapter.

 

In addition:

 

With regards to your use of "natural plurals" in the preface' date=' do you mean both endogenic and traumagenic plurality (as well as any other that isn't created) or just endogenic.[/quote']

Tulpas are artificial plurality.

 

What you described with fugue is partially accurate, but it is using the other meaning of "identity" (as in, social/legal identity) which causes ambiguity since all other uses of identity is the more subjective personal kind. It is dissociative amnesia of biographical information and going forward anyways/wandering/etc. taking a name possibly and what not as one goes.

What you define is a fugue state, which "often" involves walking around. What is the subjective personal definition of identity?

 

Would maybe change "Tulpas rarely suffer the same mental conditions you do" to "Tulpas rarely suffer the same mental conditions with the exact same flavor/manifestation as you do." since often mental conditions are shared like you say later but different people in a brain handle them differently and/or deal with different symptomology like you mention later.

The studies I linked back the statement. I'll change it if you can find reason the studies are misleading.

 

---

 

waffles, with the new introductory text in chapters 4, 5, and 6, I am now happy with the structure of those chapters, so I won't be making any more changes on that front unless someone points out a new flaw.