Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
longbow

Longbow's Tulpamancy Guide

Recommended Posts

 Also, if all tulpa guides were kept to only the required basics, they would be much less interesting and diverse, because when you boil down tulpa creation to it's bare bones, it's actually very simple. They would all be saying the exact same things in slightly different wording. There should be diversity among guides, as there is not just one way to create a tulpa, and some ways work better for people than others, so newcomers benefit from having a wide variety of different techniques to read about.

 

 

 

Well said, diversity is good for several reasons.  I said in another post that I feel like they are nic picking the submitted guides until they are basically made dry. It's like all personality is also being picked out of them to suit the ones approving instead of just focusing on what needs to be changed in the guides eg good spelling, does it make sense, is the info correct and explained enough etc.

 

I felt like this no need for peoples styles to be picked on.. eg if someone writes a guide in a teacher student kind of style so what.  What appeals to one person may not appeal to the next and as I said it's like the writers personalities are being picked out of them which will make them less interesting for some and makes all the guides more alike removing diversity of the way things are being written.

 

picking on someone using the terms "human and tulpa" ridiculous. It's like some in this community is trying to mold everyone elses views without people not being free to think differently or express in their own way. I myself do not refer to tulpas as being humans. (the tulpa can borrows the hosts human form at times or share it. Human=Homo sapiens .. tulpa=mind buddy/thoughtform). Once again the diversity of views of things is being affected in guides as some people are wanting others to all write in the same way, it was quite clear what was being referred to when the other used "human and tulpa".

 

 

Also one person assessing the guide said something about something not being good as it sounded metaphysical when that part of the guide was just talking about visualization stuff.  Visualization exercises and things seen during visualization is not metaphysical at all. In fact most psychologists will often use visualization exercises with their clients.  There is nothing metaphysical about visualizing trying to look for something...or visualizing opening a door and expecting something to hopefully appear.

 

Thou there was some obvious problems with this guide but I do feel like once again there was areas where it was overly nic picked which is stopping people from possibly submitting guides.

................................................................

 

 

One thing I found interesting is those at the website who have instant tulpas.. well their tulpas are accepted at the website for being tulpas but when it comes to a guide helping explain how to find and make like an instant tulpas that whole idea is not accepted. So as a community are we accepting this or not? It's like the community is all over the place with things.

 

I personally are against the whole trying to get/form a tulpa without not sorting out what personality it should have (as that could I think easily go wrong) but if someone wants to do a guide for forming a tulpa in which the person has not formed it's personality and others want to try to form their tulpas from that.. really should there be such control on what those ones can read that they are given no guides for what they wish to do.

 

Though not a good idea, making a tulpa from an intrusive thought may be a faster way to make a tulpa as one already then has some base there to form the tulpa on.   Anyway, I don't think it's a good grounds to reject guides just cause you yourself may not like the way something is being done as long as warnings are given esp since in this tulpa community the instant ones are still being regarded here as tulpas.


Jesse (human male) DOB 16th April 2013 

Working on imposition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For anyone else who would like to post in regards to Abvieon's comment, please post here in this thread. Please only post in this thread if you are longbow, reporting your experiences with this guide, commenting on a GAT member's review, or leaving a review of your own.


I'm Ranger, Gray's/Cat_ShadowGriffin's tulpa, and I love Hippos! I also like forum games and chatting about stuff.

My other head-mates have their own account now.

Temporary Log | Switching LogChat | Yay!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again everyone. First, I'd like to say thank you very much for putting in the time and effort to review my guide. I know that it's a tedious and boring process, especially with a guide this long.  So thank you, I genuinely do appreciate the criticism.

 

That being said, I knew going in that this guide would most likely not be accepted. My focus was on innovation. To create something that broke norms in the hopes of improvement. A natural part of this is failure, and where I have failed, your criticisms have brought this to light. This is the reason I submitted the guide, so again, thank you.

 

However, another natural part of innovation is simply being misunderstood. I feel like this happened quite a few times, so allow me to clarify some things:

 

You are making a distinction between tulpas and humans when there is none.

 

You are correct. To me and you there is no significant distinction. We tulpas and hosts have grown to understand this through our own experiences and reasoning. However, the guide is intended for people who have not experienced tulpas, and therefore have not fully grasped this concept.  I used "human" instead of "host" in the introduction in order to explain things in a way that a newcomer might better relate to. That's all. This was not intended to draw a significant distinction between tulpas and hosts, and I doubt that a novice tulpamancer would hold onto this belief for very long. Once they have a tulpa that demonstrates consciousness comprable to their own, they would have no reason to do so.

 

There is too much fluff in the guide that doesn't relate to tulpamancy.

 

This was a stylistic choice that I made. Some people might not like a lot of the long introductions to sections and that's fine. The main reasons for this was that I wanted to release it as an audio guide. For audio guides, especially when released on YouTube, I feel that they become more listenable if there's some flavor added in.  If it was all dry information, then it would be a bit harder to sit through. Another reason for this was that I tried to evoke experiences that the listener may have already had to help them relate to the material better.

 

The guide rambles on too much with explanations.

 

I agree that there are many places where things could be condensed and streamlined. However, when I wrote this guide I made a conscious effort to err on the side of too much explanation rather than too little. Remember that this is a guide intended for people who are entirely new to the concepts and idea presented. Sometimes if you explain things only once it doesn't really stick in people's heads, so explaining it a few times in different ways helps to get them to understand it better. To tulpamancers who already understand the concepts already, this is tedious, but to newcomers it might be just the thing they needed to hear/read.

 

Tulpas go dormant/inactive when they are not being paid attention to. They do not go to the wonderland.

 

Many tulpamancers report that a tulpa can exist and interact with a wonderland on their own without the host's attention.  Does this mean they always do it? No. Most of the time I feel that tulpas do go inactive/dormant when they are left alone. However, I do believe that they can do so, and in the early stages of development this can be encouraged if possible. I could argue about what this means, about parallel processing and all that. But I won't do that here. Instead, I'll just pose a thought. If a tulpa and host both believe that the tulpa is existing in a wonderland when they are not given attention, when in fact they are actually dormant, does this present some danger or harm to them? I don't see how it could.

 

In the end, the tulpa and host will believe what is true for their subjective experience. What I say in my guide is what I believe to be true through my own experiences and the second-hand experiences of others.  It is no more or less valid than your own.

 

Creating a tulpa by validating an intrusive thought is dangerous and leads to uncapped system growth.

 

On the contrary, I feel that it would actually help inhibit unexpected system growth.  In my guide, I explain how to test an "intrusive thought" for signs of conscious behavior. I then explain how they can decide to continue interaction with the entity or dismiss it. Through this, I explain more or less how the process of developing the intrusive thought into consciousness occurs. The tulpamancer knows how the process happens.

 

Consider instead a host that created a tulpa through more traditional methods. When they experience an intrusive thought that seems to exhibit conscious behavior, they have no way of knowing what's going on. They would naturally be curious and continue to give the thought more and more attention until it develops to the point of becoming a tulpa.  If they knew they were doing this, it could have been avoided. However, they did not have this knowledge until it's already happening.

 

Tulpas cannot form without forcing them, suggesting that they can form from intrusive thoughts is incorrect.

 

This means that accidental tulpas, or tulpas that have come about from creative writing are not valid. I do not agree with this. Accidental tulpas and walk-ins exist and have been reported by many people.

 

You could perhaps argue that these tulpas come about because they were performing forcing exercises without knowing, and this is something that really gets to the very heart of why I decided to create this guide. In my guide, I am trying to get novice tulpamancers to perform forcing exercises without really knowing that they doing something considered "forcing". They are encouraged to narrate, listen for responses and give attention to a forming tulpa without being explicitly told that it's considered forcing.

 

 

The guide is deceptive.

 

I don't think it's fair to call it deceptive.  I merely put forth suggestions that are intended to help invoke a mindset beneficial for tulpa creation. In section 7 I put a lot of suggestions into the head of the listener/reader. The big one is "your tulpa is already there." This isn't a lie, as I do genuinely believe that at this point their tulpa should already somewhat developed either consciously or subconsciously. The suggestions are there to help spur them along past that point of getting their first good response. I don't believe they would be harmful as they are already almost 2 hours into the guide at this point. If they did not want a tulpa they would have stopped a long time ago.

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.

Guest
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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...