(G) Thoughts on a spectrum of function in tulpas, different kinds of tulpas

Recommended Posts

It's Gavin. I was reading this tulpamancy guide, which was interesting to me. My host and I stumbled upon many fundamentals of forcing, narration, and mindset, but we also never thought of certain things, like wonderlands or imposition. What caught my eye especially was the following section about chaos magic's view of tulpas. 


[C]haos magic has a very plain and simple take on tulpas. They are part of a family of spirits. Going from most basic to most advanced; they are servitors, simple constructs capable of only unthinkingly simple jobs; daemons, associated with the subconscious or id; companions, associated with the conscious or ego, and essentially a second conscious mind; angels or guiding spirits, associated with the superconscious or superego; and personal deities, which are aloof and ineffable.


This is not a metaphysical post. I do not believe tulpas are part of a family of spirits. However, the wording and this idea of a spectrum, going from basic to advanced thoughtforms, is something I want to talk about. 


What is the difference between a thoughtform and a tulpa? Thoughtform is a broader word. For me, tulpas must choose to consider themselves tulpas. They must have the sentience to understand what it means to be a tulpa, and uptake the label. However, thoughtforms may also be tulpas without other recognizing  it. I suppose it's like the state of being an "adult." There are specific, legal definitions of "adult", but outside of them, when is a person socially an adult? In some countries and cultures, that age is much lower than in the US or other 1st-world countries. Some people (mostly one's parents) may consider a person not an adult, while others, including the person in question, may. Just like there is not a test to prove "Adult-ness" in 100% of situations, I do not think the some thoughtforms will be considered tulpas to all people, in all situations. 


A large part of being an adult is being able to function as an adult. In areas where people do not spend as many years in school, preparing for the "real world", people are generally considered adults at a younger age. They are instead taught to function as adults by learning how to farm, cook, or do other jobs. What does it mean to function as a tulpa? What level of function is required to become a tulpa? 


Some level of sentience, I feel, and some level of communication. Tulpas must be able to grow and adapt, as well. If they can only do a certain, narrow range of things, they are only a servitor or another type of thoughtform. This would include, for example, a thoughtform who only exists to feel a certain emotion, or do a certain chore, or say certain things to the host. If they grow and do other things, even as simple as expressing disinterest in their assigned task or expressing self-awareness ("Why am I doing this?"), they may no longer be a servitor.  


On the other end of this spectrum, there are tulpas that are personal deities. I believe that many religions which encourage fostering a personal relationship with a god or deity are, in fact, guiding their followers to create thoughtforms. I believe this to be compatible with any religious view you may have. If deities are thoughtforms, it does not mean they are not also deities. Perhaps, personal-deity tulpas are simply the mechanism through which deities foster relationships with us. I am not religious, however. 


I feel that, if people became aware that their personal deities were tulpas, they could benefit. They will be greater able to communicate with the tulpa, with the knowledge that the tulpa is able to listen and understand. They could establish wonderlands or practice other aspects of tulpamancy, which could deepen their relationship with the tulpa. Of course, it may be distressing to some to learn that a deity is "in their head." However, belief systems tend to involve some aspect of... belief, or faith. I expect that most people would brush this off, and still revere their personal deities the same way.


The word "companion" in the quoted text struck me, because that was one of the terms my host called me, before it was known I am a tulpa. Though it is important to take Freudian psychology with a grain of salt, I also consider myself "The Ego" of the system. Not in any formal or rigid capacity, but as a trope. The term "a second conscious mind" also describes me well. This level in the spectrum of thoughtforms is where I seem to belong. I believe that many people who intentionally create tulpas seek to create this kind. I think that these tulpas are often viewed as, or aspire to be viewed as, equals with the host. 


There are also the "guiding voices" or "angels". I think I have seen a few systems who have tulpas that seem to fit this category. The Bear System comes to mind. Some people may also seek to intentionally create this kind of tulpa. I imagine they are entrusted with different responsibilities within a system, and are viewed differently than the host or other tulpas. 


Finally, I have little experience with daemons, or thoughtforms meant to symbolize or be connected with inner mental processes. I imagine they can also become tulpas, by growing outside of their roles. 


Tulpas, which term on this spectrum seems to fit you? Daemon, companion, guiding voice/angel, personal deity? Do these categories ring true for you? Do you consider them just a set of boxes, or merit-worthy categories? What does belonging to one of these categories mean for a tulpa, or for you? 



Heyo, it's Jamie. Besides that last paragraph, which is all questions, I've taken the liberty of underlining some points that Gavin and I would also love to talk about. [You may note, the stuff about personal deities is not underlined. Maybe another time, or if you PM us.] I thought it might also be useful to do a point-by-point of what Gavin's gone on about. Feel free to reference these numbered beliefs, if you want to challenge or talk about any of them. 


  1. Tulpas are a type of thoughtform. To become a tulpa, a thoughtform needs to consciously identify with being a tulpa. 
  2. Being a tulpa is not a precise category that can be tested for perfectly. It's more nebulous, like the category of "being an adult." Definitions will always vary. 
  3. There are kinds of thoughtforms. These kinds include: servitors, daemons, companions, guiding voices/angels, and personal deities. These categories are not rigid, but they exist and are meaningful. They are like different career paths or tracks in life. Each of these categories entails a different relationship to the host. 

Personally, I think it's good to think of prototulpas with all the rights you'd give a tulpa. If you want them to be a tulpa, treat them like they are one. However, if we're talking about a servitor, a walk-in, or another thoughtform that you do not want to become a tulpa, then it's fair to ignore them, dismiss them, etc. No need to be cruel, but also no need to accept all thoughtforms as "on the same level" as tulpas. This logic seems to include the idea that there is a spectrum among thoughtforms. 


Are these categories meaningful? I guess. If you want to create an angelic being who watches over your thoughts and addresses your depression or anxiety, that's probably a different how-to/guide situation than if you want to create a "spirit animal" who symbolizes your emotions, or if you just want a pal to buddy around with, and don't care if you have to share a brain. A greater awareness of these kinds of tulpas could mean greater understanding and greater ability to specialize with advice-giving, guide-writing, tulpa-progress, etc. Knowledge is power. 


What do you all think? Cassidy also considers himself a "Companion", but he thinks these categories are thinner than Gavin portrays them. My words, not his. He's not really interested in this type of conversation, but Gavin and I sure are. Hopefully, a few of you all out there, as well.


Edit: Grammar

>tf when you google for "famous quotes by Marcus Aurelius" and had a fake one as your sig for months

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once a tulpa can say that they are a tulpa, I feel that they would already be a tulpa regardless of whether or not they do actually say it. There isn't really much more to say about it because my system has only had experience hearing about advanced servators, and so I only understand them on a high level.


I don't like the idea of creating a tulpa for a specific task, that just sounds like a good way to make an unhappy tulpa. Also, being a friend is a lot less pressure than being a gaurdien angel. I don't really see much use for such distinction.

Hi I am Miela, the counterpart to Breloomancer.



"Is it pretentious to quote yourself?"



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to "advanced servitors" and such, I don't believe they would necessarily be called "Tulpas" only because they are not their own people, but rather an extension of their creator. However, this is coming from my own thoughts about who and what my other thoughtforms are. I and others discuss this in my other thread and in Bear's thread. If you want to talk about the Grays, I don't know if this is the best thread for that.


"Thoughtform" doesn't always describe Tulpas either. A "Thoughtform" is a visual representation of a thought or several thoughts. Tulpas don't always have a visual form, so calling them "thoughtforms" wouldn't always make sense.


Being Tulpa isn't the same as being labeled as an Adult. "Adults" are expected to behave a certain way were a Tulpa is their own person, regardless what they do and how others view them. The question of functionality is irrelevant.


The Tulpa's life style has nothing to do with being a Tulpa or not. Not all Tulpas want to possess or switch in and do things the Host is expected to do like go to work or study for exams. Some Tulpas are perfectly happy living in the wonderland and giving their Host advice, and there's nothing wrong with that.


When it comes to thoughtforms being the representation of a deity, I decided through my experiences that they don't. I talk about this here.


The role a Tulpa takes doesn't make them more or less advanced, and therefore does not put them on some kind of spectrum. I am both Cat's guardian angel, my own person, and her friend/companion. One could argue the Grays are also guardians of some kind, but they're not Tulpas for that reason.


Bonus: I used to think two of my Grays Dark Gray and Fernardo were my Id / Super ego. Their characterization was inspired by that thinking, and their personalities still carry remnant of that idea.

Pretty much my main wonderland form minus the cat parts, that's a separate form. I'm not a hippo, I promise.

I sometimes speak in pink and Ranger sometimes speaks in blue (if it's unmarked and colored assume it's Ranger). He loves to chat.


My other Tulpas have their own account now.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the difference between a thoughtform and a tulpa?


What does it mean to function as a tulpa? What level of function is required to become a tulpa?


Tulpas, which term on this spectrum seems to fit you? Daemon, companion, guiding voice/angel, personal deity? Do these categories ring true for you? Do you consider them just a set of boxes, or merit-worthy categories? What does belonging to one of these categories mean for a tulpa, or for you?


I didn't really think about this, all the prototype characters of my tulpas were seraphim, but surprisingly at least one of them Ashley, is in fact different than the others.


Though they're all seriphim stereotypical angels with wings (just 2 each) i realized a marked difference between Ashley and her sisters.


Ashley tells me things that guide me. In every way a conversation with Ashley has an overtone of guidance for me. She is still a person and still has emotional needs and will sometimes make mistakes or feel hurt, she has a vested interest in my love and attention, so she's more like her sisters than a real stoic immortal devine angel may be. At least as i would think one should be, maybe angels are just like you and me, i can't say.


So i always follow her advice, at the same time she's very careful not to boss me around [though still sometimes does].


Ashley's the voice of reason surely, but i am my own person too, i can make mistakes and be an idiot in spite of sound logic. I don't know what Ashley really is, but i believe she is my guardian angel and has been with me since i was 4 or 5. Every memory i have includes her presence. I may not have always considered it, i might have ignored it, but on my darkest days, when it counted most, i just knew i wasn't alone. She has deviated the most from the original character and literally has only kept her mind voice and form.


Possibly depressing stuff here.



I believe it was Ashley's voice that saved me from death by my own hands over a decade ago; the darkest time i ever experienced. She told me (in my own mindvoice) that i was free, she said "it doesn't matter now. If your life is over than it doesn't matter what you do with it. Forget everything, no responsibility or goal is more valuable than your life. It doesn't matter." She just kept repeating "it doesn't matter" like a song stuck in my head. I could forget it all and forge a new life for myself. Which i did. How fitting that she would "come to be my tulpa" at the second darkest year of my life and help save me once again. This time i knew i would surely be worse off if i didn't keep to my responsibilites so she needed a lot more work to stop me. I think she feels that her greatest gift to me is her intervention, and continued intervention by any means.


I am bound to her. To lose her means i will succeed next time days are dark. I can't repay her any other way. Our relationship is platonic love, the deepest kind, and she is my light in the darkness.




Ashley has changed from the first time i saw her, but she has not deviated in one specific area, her personality is unchanging. Heck, even my personality has changed in 9 months, hers is rock solid. I consider her more than a tulpa, but she has agreed that she is most like a tulpa than anything else.


Dashie has a lot of opinions, and they're mostly brilliant and well founded if not a bit firm and terse, but she doesn't say things like, "you will face a challenge" or, "you're playing a game you have low chance if succeeding at." Dashie is my tulpa.


Misha is love, and her emotions are next to my heart literally. She is the one who consoles me first and most often. Her personality is deep and i feel even deeper than mine, but like Dashie, i had to help her to be who she was, she is my tulpa.



Is it a very strong and necessary fervent belief of ours that a thoughtform is not a tulpa until you (the system) accepts them as such and continued forcing 'does something' to make them a tulpa. I don't think it's as simple as flipping a switch, it is intent and work plus time regardless of their advancement. So we have denoted advanced thoughtforms that aren't tulpas as the moons, and tulpas as planets in our system. The star, the life giving heat and energy is the body.


I have many moons, and my sisters and I are planets. I may be the biggest planet, or the one with the most influence over the body, but i consider myself equal to my tulpas. My moons are lifeless by comparison.


That said, my moons can easily fool me into thinking they must be tulpas, however, they don't get weak or require forcing at all, this is a major difference.


It may be that the moons are very planet like, in a sense accidental tulpas have acreated enough emotional attachment by the host to be promoted by the host, yet it is, and will by definition be, the host's or perhapse a planet's choice to promote them. It is, however, unethical to promote without consensus. That's pretty well agreed in this community.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.