[split] My Tulpa, Who I Created at 8 Years Old

[Whiskeyriver]

Thanks for replying. Well,i guess My guy doesnt fit being a Tulpa,in the end.He is what he is,and I'll take that. A Thoughtform. Yes. That's fine. I dont actually need him to have a title of being a Tulpa. I just thought that the comments on this site fit us.

It was a nice thought to finally have a community to talk with about us.

Thanks for straightening me out. :}

[Luminesce]

All tulpa-like thoughtforms are fine here, and oftentimes what you call them just comes down to preference. Walk-ins/spontaneous tulpas are (chosen by their host/themselves to be) considered tulpas all the time, if they fit the bill. Though if you decide to give advice based on your experience you should note your ~tulpa isn't a normal one made with modern techniques and all, maybe.

[Ember.Vesper]

As a non-tulpa myself, I've been trying to discourage the 'everyone is automatically a tulpa' mentality here as well, though in a very different way.

 

For your particular companion, the most important term to describe him in plural communities is 'soulbond'. Soulbonds, also sometimes called 'fictives', are fictional characters that come to life as independent people in someone's mind. They're fairly common; most authors eventually develop them, a lot of roleplayers, some actors, and the occasional avid fan. There have been a fair number of them active in this community over the years.

 

The two basic kinds of soulbonds are 'insourced', like me, who, as characters, were created by their host, and 'outsourced', like your friend, who were created by someone else and then read or watched by the host.

 

'Walk-in' is another somewhat relevant term, meaning someone who just shows up in the mind unexpectedly. But if the person moves in to stay, they are more likely to say that they were a walk-in than that they are a walk-in.

 

(This is the standard way these terms have been used in plural communities for over twenty years, though metaphysical communities use them differently.)

 

'Headmate' is a good neutral term that doesn't mention origin, degree of independence, or role in the system, so I use it a lot. It can definitely be applied to hosts, tulpas, soulbonds, alters, daemons, and walk-ins and potentially also to imaginary friends, median aspects, subpersonalities, and servitors. I greatly prefer it over 'thoughtform'. Non-jargon terms like ‘person’, ‘companion’, and ‘friend’ are also very useful.

 

'Tulpa' is a very common self-identity in this community, for headmates of both fictional and non-fictional origin, made intentionally or accidentally. So if your friend wants to embrace it, hardly anyone here will mind. I get referred to as a tulpa fairly often in spite of asking people not to.

 

Im a little jealous as I wish I could just watch Twilight and then have an strong Edward Cullen tulpa lol

 

Soulbonders often do it just that easily, which is why they often rack up systems of dozens of members. In ordinary empathy, the brain creates a rough simulation of another person to aid in understanding their perspective and predicting their behaviour. But some brains are extraordinarily good at making and keeping these simulations, inscribing them right beside all the earlier personalities.

 

What made you think of Liberty?

 

I would have thought it rude to guess if you were wanting to not say, but you've given us a lot of information. Pull up a list of films from ~1962, identify ones set in the 1800s, look for prominent male villains of the appropriate personality and identify ones whose actors were born about 1924, were not pretty boys, and who were in many other movies. There are not many characters who fit, but Liberty Valance does, as far as I can tell from not having watched the movie.

 

Whoever he may be, this is a community founded by people who wanted little pastel ponies to come live in their heads and be their friends forever. No one here would think you were crazy regardless of your friend's identity.

 

A lot of soulbonders have 'bonded villains, actually. And very few of the villains remained villainous.

 

You're both welcome here. Feel free to speak up in other threads too.

 

-Vesper

[Whiskeyriver]

done,..feeling to odd. I may be back,I dont know.

---

I'm out.

[Indigo Blue]

Oh,if you are speaking of the Alice Cooper character,Killer,I was writing a book about what would happen if the character Killer Alice got loose from his host.

 

My system are are huge fans of Alice Cooper. We have a fun little theory that the Alice character is actually a tulpa that comes out during performances. There's actually a lot of evidence to back it up from interviews and such.

[Whiskeyriver]

 

My system are are huge fans of Alice Cooper. We have a fun little theory that the Alice character is actually a tulpa that comes out during performances. There's actually a lot of evidence to back it up from interviews and such.

I've known Alice since I was 17 years old. He lives out here in Paradise Valley,and I used to deliver all the Christmas presents his fans would send to me.I'd  take them out to his home. He's a great guy,and has a really nice family.I never thought of the Killer character being anything other than an abandoned energy. I didnt know they were called tulpas. A professor in Washington once told me that once an entity,or energy,had been created it never dissipates,only roams without anyone holding onto it. I tapped into that,not meaning to,and as long as I was writing that book,he was fine,..other than those broken light bulbs. His manager,Shep,gave me permission to write the book. Hmm,..I wonder,would Killer return if I started paying attention to the book once more.

[Indigo Blue]

I don't mean the "Killer" character, I mean the character of Alice himself. I'm pretty sure "Killer" was just a certain incarnation of Alice.

[tania]

'Walk-in' is another somewhat relevant term, meaning someone who just shows up in the mind unexpectedly. But if the person moves in to stay, they are more likely to say that they were a walk-in than that they are a walk-in.

 

(This is the standard way these terms have been used in plural communities for over twenty years, though metaphysical communities use them differently.)

 

Walk-ins usually tend to stay, taking on another's body (permanent soul swapping) is a serious thing and not done at all lightly.

 

Just cause some have been getting confused a bit on terminology in some of the plural communities which they took from the metaphysical community, it doesn't mean it's correct.  All it means is that there are some in those communities who do not know any better and do not really know what that term means.

 

For anyone wanting to look up what a walk-in is.. please go to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk-in   which has the normal accepted view on what a walk-in is .. (its not helpful people constantly confusing things). Walk-ins have been known in the metaphysical communities way before even internet days.

..........

 

The instant things which show up if they are not a walk-in could be accidental tulpas (which the person or someone else has accidently forced eg things from movies, games or books), actual spirits, sub-personalities of the person or intrusive thoughts (which may end up being turned into tulpas if they are forced) or imaginary friends.

---

 A professor in Washington once told me that once an entity,or energy,had been created it never dissipates,only roams without anyone holding onto it. I tapped into that,not meaning to,

 

 

I dont think it is easy for many spirits to stay in the earths astral planes without getting energy from somewhere...this is the whole reason why some spirits feed on people.