Would tulpa be considered another soul?

[oi-stein]

It really does depend. Can a tulpa be thought of as another observer? As in, can it (if it had a body) cause the collapse of a wave function?

[Squir]

I've actually thought of this question myself. If your consciousness stays with you in the afterlife, I'm sure there'd be options for dealing with it (in the case of God and your Tulpa being a separate being), but that might mean all imagination exists everywhere. ʘ̃_ʘ̃ (Maybe with rules, but still.) Though if soul = individual subconscious? Tulpa wouldn't be invidual then.

 

If we're separate souls (as humans) and your consciousness renews/is reborn at death, the "you" as you know it would be renewed, and your Tulpa would either be renewed as within your soul (same soul), or renew into a separate being too separate to consider "with you" (actual birthed soul). But if we're all one "spirit" or "soul", the question is moot; just another artificial separation of consciousness.

 

Then again, you could ask the same about conjoined twins. Even though there's more of an actual religious/spiritual/scientific issue in that.

[Guest CaptFlushing]

I always viewed metaphysical phenomena as the equivalent of stealing parts of God's source code for reality, and then struggling to figure out how it works, as it is outstandingly complex and written in a programming language nobody recognizes. In that regard, from the metaphysical perspective, I would think that the creation of a tulpa would result in the creation of part of a soul, as the failure of the soul to form would result in a servitor, with no independence, and the creation of a full soul would result in an egregore, with full independence. The tulpa, being of some independence, would be able to act autonomously, but would be reliant on a portion of the host's soul, which would be shared in a commensalist fashion between the host and tulpa, to continue to exist. Whether or not that part-soul would follow you into the afterlife would depend on who runs the joint.

 

Of course, this is all assuming that the metaphysical camp is at least partially correct. I'm personally in the psychological camp myself, but it is always interesting to discuss the phenomena from this perspective.

[Velf and Zylq]

Velf believes she will follow me through death, as I do.

[Kadoh]

If there is an afterlife, the tulpa would still be in your mind, he could still come with you. If Tulpae are souls, and you believe in reincarnation, that means that any of us could be reincarnated tulpae.

[Semi-Nomadic]

If Tulpae are souls, and you believe in reincarnation, that means that any of us could be reincarnated tulpae.

 

Though I don't think any enlightened guru will dare to tell you that.

 

"In your previous life, you were a..."

 

(There appears a mental image of a five-foot-tall pink rabbit. A voice of a gleeful six-year-old can be heard in the background.)

 

"...an uh... a wealthy noble."

[Kadoh]

If they are souls and souls are reincarnated it's gotta be true, right?

 

1000 years later: hey, look, dad! I found an ancient disc!

Dad: oh? Let me have a look at that.

*My Little Pony: FiM*

Mother Of God...

[Guest applesauce99]

even if souls exist (atheist here), I don't believe personally that it would change my belief of tulpas being a strictly psychological phenomnomnom.

 

(To answer OP)

[Kadoh]

>atheist

You don't believe in my tulpa?

[oi-stein]

Reincarnation is dictated by Karma. Therefore, the question is: Are Tulpa effected by karma? If they are, then they reincarnate. If they are not, they don't reincarnate and can't be considered another soul.