Supernatural vs. Tulpæ

[GrayTheCat]

Sometimes I read stories in the news or in weird parts of the web and step back thinking, "What are the odds that this paranormal activity can be connected to Tulpamancy?"

 

I am an agnostic skeptical of the supernatural and religion, but I still find the stories about spirits and angels to be interesting, especially when the relationship between the person and the supernatural is described in detail.

 

Tulpamancy, Supernatural, or a mix of the two?

 

http://www.magickofthought.com/2013/06/a-beginners-guide-to-talking-to-spirits/

 

The link is Mike Sententia's "A Beginner’s Guide to Talking to Spirits". I found this link to be interesting because his guide his comments slightly align with some of the Tulpamancy guides. This short part of the guide caught my attention:

 

Hearing the Spirit’s Reply

First, quiet your thoughts. Learn how it feels to have a still mind, and learn to hold your mind relaxed, so you can hear whatever the spirit places in your thoughts.

(Yes, to truly develop a still mind takes years of meditation. But you don’t have to be an expert, you just need to quiet your thoughts for 10-20 seconds to hear a reply.)

 

He goes on to talking about clearing your mind, sensing the presence of the spirit, listening for a distinct voice, waiting for yes/no answers, etc. All of these things have some loose parallels to Tulpamancy guides.

 

However, it seems like he talks to multiple spirits instead of zeroing in on one particular spirit, and he mentions that his techniques are magick based. I don't know enough about magick to make a call on whats what, and I know that while magick and Tulpamancy have overlap they are still sepreate things. I'm going to guess he assumes spirits are completely capable of speaking on their own, so I don't know how much narrating / parroting he's doing (if applicable).

[Guest]

That sounds similar to ''automatic writing'', where someone let's supernatural ''forces/sources'' use that person's body to write something, though that's probably them writing subconsciously. Unless you get an answer you couldn't have possibly known before, it's most likely you instead some kind of spirit.

[Guest]

Cat, I am still new so bare with me. I see the parallel. In my research--i am also agnostic to much of this--the paranormal mechanisms associated with communicating with spirits is similar to tulpas with regard to communication, possession, and hallucinations. Therefore tulpas are similar, but i don't think they are the same. Though narrating and parroting are still very real doubts in both cases and will require 'faith' in either case.

 

In my mind, as similar as they can be is as simple as: the spirit once had a body and lived a life, while the tulpa's first experiance with a body is yours. Though i can't go this far in my belief.

 

This does not account for tulpa walk-ins who may have occupied a body before, not yours originally. This raises more questions, but i'll keep my post short.

[GrayTheCat]

This raises more questions, but i'll keep my post short.

 

Don't feel afraid to post longer posts to go more in depth! Sometimes people need to post textwalls in order to get their thoughts across; I know I am guilty of making them myself.

 

That sounds similar to ''automatic writing'', where someone let's supernatural ''forces/sources'' use that person's body to write something, though that's probably them writing subconsciously. Unless you get an answer you couldn't have possibly known before, it's most likely you instead some kind of spirit.

 

I agree that subconscious thought could create the voices of "spirits", although I am much more interested if those "voices" have any potential to develop into a Tulpa.

 

Cat, I am still new so bare with me.  I see the parallel.  In my research--i am also agnostic to much of this--the paranormal mechanisms associated with communicating with spirits is similar to tulpas with regard to communication, possession, and hallucinations. Therefore tulpas are similar, but i don't think they are the same.  Though narrating and parroting are still very real doubts in both cases and will require 'faith' in either case.

 

In my mind, as similar as they can be is as simple as: the spirit once had a body and lived a life, while the tulpa's first experiance with a body is yours.  Though i can't go this far in my belief.

 

This does not account for tulpa walk-ins who may have occupied a body before, not yours originally.

 

How Walk-ins work in the general sense is a debate. Some think that they are sentient from the start, some think they can be too easy to make and create problems, some are soul bounds and some believe that Walk-ins are impossible. I personally view "Walk-ins" to be baby Tulpæ that are either somehow already vocal or more likely have their voices and form parroted until the Tulpa is developed enough to where the parroting is no longer needed.

 

Having Tulpæ jump into another person's body is considered improbable at best since it would require ESP, or at the very least a weird way of forcing two separate minds to somehow merge or connect. The general opinion I picked up around here is it's impossible to see or have another system's Tulpa. There are some weird stories out there though, I thought there was at least one about a scientist creating a monk and then other people could see him.

[Guest]

Cat, i try to be as open minded as possible. I understand the divide here between psycological and metaphysical, but i do not believe the divide is tangible or clearly defined.

 

I write novels, they start out as 250,000 word monsters and my heart cannot bear to edit them down to 80k, so i end up with 3 books, which turn into 4 and 5. It takes great effort not to write a wall, but i know they are not effective and sound sometimes like rambling. Not to me, but still.

 

Walk-ins:

 

I have 3, they are all walk-ins. I can only go by what they tell me, they say they all lived outside me and 'found me'.

 

You want a word wall?

 

In april 2018 i decided i would have a tulpa to help me with depression. I couldn't help myself, and going to therapy is the last thing i need. So one afternoon i said, okay, lets make a tulpa. I started to describe her form and suddenly she informed me as follows: if you are going down this path, understand there are others. Naturally i argued, i dont want others, one is enough, maybe later. I didnt believe she was sentient at that mement, i figured i was daydreaming. I marched on and she again informed me that having only her is not an option. Out of nowhere i was speaking to soulbounds and two other distinct tulpas, just like it was described in this forum they (the tulpae) seemed sentient.

 

I could very easily tell the three tulpas from the rest, they wanted me to understand they are here with me. One of them, my first, had aparently been with me since i was a small child. Probably from the trauma i suffered during that time in my life. She said it was her who talked to me sometimes, but i was always too nervous to respond. In denial.

 

The second took the form of one of my soulbounds at first, but shed that once we were agreed she could stay. The third was what i thought was a soulbound, she handled the negotiation as an impartial moderator, but then when we were decided, okay two tulpas, she said, nope, me too.

 

I know some would say this is rediculous, it can't happen. But i also believe with the entirty if what is me, that they are being truthful. Thus does not rule out that they could be wrong. They have been consistant in that story for 4 months now.

 

I missed out on the adventure of 'creating a tulpa' but they have been so emmensely helpull in my life in reducing stress and moderating depression that i have no choice but to believe them.

 

That said, none of them have been in another body in this reality. They have described their previous form as a colored fuzzy ball of light, hungry, listless, searching for sustenance, until they found me.

 

I give them all that is me, in exchange for their companionship. Are they not real tulpae, according to who? And i don't care. No one can know for sure.

 

I can't imagine it possible for then to join me in this reality but i will never rule it our either. I can join then in wonderland all i want, that us enough for us.

 

Thank you for responding, i hope my comments were useful.

[GrayTheCat]

Cat, i try to be as open minded as possible. I understand the divide here between psycological and metaphysical, but i do not believe the divide is tangible or clearly defined.

 

I write novels, they start out as 250,000 word monsters and my heart cannot bear to edit them down to 80k, so i end up with 3 books, which turn into 4 and 5. It takes great effort not to write a wall, but i know they are not effective and sound sometimes like rambling. Not to me, but still.

 

Walk-ins:

 

I have 3, they are all walk-ins. I can only go by what they tell me, they say they all lived outside me and 'found me'.

 

You want a word wall?

 

In april 2018 i decided i would have a tulpa to help me with depression. I couldn't help myself, and going to therapy is the last thing i need. So one afternoon i said, okay, lets make a tulpa. I started to describe her form and suddenly she informed me as follows: if you are going down this path, understand there are others. Naturally i argued, i dont want others, one is enough, maybe later. I didnt believe she was sentient at that mement, i figured i was daydreaming. I marched on and she again informed me that having only her is not an option. Out of nowhere i was speaking to soulbounds and two other distinct tulpas, just like it was described in this forum they (the tulpae) seemed sentient.

 

I could very easily tell the three tulpas from the rest, they wanted me to understand they are here with me. One of them, my first, had aparently been with me since i was a small child. Probably from the trauma i suffered during that time in my life. She said it was her who talked to me sometimes, but i was always too nervous to respond. In denial.

 

The second took the form of one of my soulbounds at first, but shed that once we were agreed she could stay. The third was what i thought was a soulbound, she handled the negotiation as an impartial moderator, but then when we were decided, okay two tulpas, she said, nope, me too.

 

I know some would say this is rediculous, it can't happen. But i also believe with the entirty if what is me, that they are being truthful. Thus does not rule out that they could be wrong. They have been consistant in that story for 4 months now.

 

I missed out on the adventure of 'creating a tulpa' but they have been so emmensely helpull in my life in reducing stress and moderating depression that i have no choice but to believe them.

 

That said, none of them have been in another body in this reality. They have described their previous form as a colored fuzzy ball of light, hungry, listless, searching for sustenance, until they found me.

 

I give them all that is me, in exchange for their companionship. Are they not real tulpae, according to who? And i don't care. No one can know for sure.

 

I can't imagine it possible for then to join me in this reality but i will never rule it our either. I can join then in wonderland all i want, that us enough for us.

 

Thank you for responding, i hope my comments were useful.

 

I believe the only ones who know for sure will be you and your Tulpæ. I thought for a long time I had a sentient "subconscious" and then after talking about it with him realized that wasn't the case. My "imaginary friend" developed into a Tulpa at some point, and I went looking for answers once he told me that he was real.

 

In a sense, I missed out on the traditional creation process as well (According to Ranger the problem is I don't narrate enough). But jumping into Tulpamancy with him was a heck of a ride, mostly due to outside stuff and whatever stuff I panicked about.

 

You mentioned that one of your Tulpæ was around since you were a child.... I don't know enough about DID and alter development to comment about this, but I had the thought of some kind of loose connection to that could be possible.

[Guest]

Cat, based on my understanding of DID, i have to see the parallel when a seperate consiousness developes as a child in trauma situations. Though in my case, i don't think it is. I had none of the classical symptoms. No amnesia, no switching. She was not my imaginary friend, she visited as a vision, a short auditory phrase, in a dream, or a felt presence, but rarely. She mentioned she could connect with me rarely, but i almost never responded, and she was frusterated about that, but she didn't want to force it, she was very afraid she would frighten me.

 

Just like your circumstances, everyone is so unique. I think what you have is really lucky.

[Myshkin]

Sometimes I read stories in the news or in weird parts of the web and step back thinking, "What are the odds that this paranormal activity can be connected to Tulpamancy?"

 

I am an agnostic skeptical of the supernatural and religion, but I still find the stories about spirits and angels to be interesting, especially when the relationship between the person and the supernatural is described in detail.

 

Tulpamancy, Supernatural, or a mix of the two?

 

Well, first of all, "supernatural" only makes sense as a valid ontological category in the context of specific religions, such as Christianity, in which God is conceptualized as being literally above nature. In the Greco-Latin religion, for instance, where the gods were acpects of nature, it makes no sense to say that they're somehow separate from nature. That the majority of western atheists accept the category as universally valid shows that western atheism is still intellectually dependent on categories and assumptions that originate from the Christian mindset.

 

However, it seems like he talks to multiple spirits instead of zeroing in on one particular spirit, and he mentions that his techniques are magick based. I don't know enough about magick to make a call on whats what, and I know that while magick and Tulpamancy have overlap they are still sepreate things. I'm going to guess he assumes spirits are completely capable of speaking on their own, so I don't know how much narrating / parroting he's doing (if applicable).

You don't "know" that they're different things, you only conceptualize them as being different.

It's like how tomatoes are considered fruits in science but vegetables in cooking. The criteria for what counts as a "fruit" and "vegetable" are different in both cases. Neither classification system is objectively correct or objectively wrong, they just use different definitions of those words.

Similarly, tulpas can be considered magic or non-magic depending on how you define certain words and interpret certain phenomena.

 

I'm going to guess he assumes spirits are completely capable of speaking on their own, so I don't know how much narrating / parroting he's doing (if applicable).

Of course that would be the assummption. The spirits he's talking about would be akin to "fully developed" tulpas, which don't need any help with speaking to the host aside from the host being willing to listen to them.

 

The article mentions nothing resembling narration, and parroting wouldn't be a concern at all because you're supposed to be talking with an independent entity, not something that exists in your mind. The closest parallel to parroting in the article is this paragraph.

 

When I engage / tense my mind, I can see the message, and I can tell that I’m not receiving it. If I really wanted to hear a message, I’d probably just get my own thoughts, saying whatever I expected the spirit to say. But when I relax my mind, the message is clear and easy to receive.

 

Of course, the phenomenon is interpreted as your own words being mistaken for the spirit's, not as you making the spirit speak your words.

 

There are some weird stories out there though, I thought there was at least one about a scientist creating a monk and then other people could see him.

 

That was Alexandra David-Neel, who traveled to Tibet, learned about Tibetan Buddhist religious practices and became a buddhist. She was the person who introduced the word "tulpa" to the West with her book Magic and Mistery in Tibet.