Ponderings on the Limitations and Alternate Uses of Tantra

[mouse]

First, I should probably cover a couple points that may seem obvious.

-Meditation is nothing more than concentration. There may be other things in conection with meditation, as in metta or shamada meditation, but these are not intrinsic parts of meditation. They are specifically the topic of concentration in those cases. In other cases, like walking meditation or vipassana, it is a training excersize for expanding the conditions the practitioner can concentrate under. There is no such thing "meditation of oneness" or "meditation of magical powers". Meditation is no more than concentration.

-Meditation itself does nothing. It may have physical benefits on the brain and the rest of the body, but it is the exact equivalent of excersizing a muscle. There may be physical changes that occur through excersizing a muscle, but in terms of use it is the result one is after, like conditioning it to run five miles or such. In the same manner, excersize itself can be used as a means of attaining a goal, like moving a pile of rocks and in the process building a stone house. This is the thought behind tantra - accelerated attaining Nibbana through specialised meditations. Concentration is a skill. And, like any skill, it takes 10,000 hours practice to master it. Nibbana is considered being in meditation 100% of the time, but there's more to it than that. Think how one might play an instrument 10000 hours but never get any better. It also requires changing the function of the mind.

-With enough concentration, it is possible to change the basic function of the mind. If one had perfect concentration, they could manipulate exactly and in real time all of their perceptions. And in return you can partially control reactions of your body this way, for example this is how monks can control their body temperature to a limited extent.

-Sentient tulpas come about as a trick of the mind. It was originally an excersize for demonstrating the illusion of the self by creating a mind that percieves itself as two selves. But a thoughtform need not use those pieces of the mind, one can create a flower and percieve it in all one's senses as if it were really there (this is a common beginner's excersize). Although it is difficult to demonstrate what is conciousness or part of conciousness or not, and there are other standard excersizes for demonstrating that our perception of this is truely an illusion, but that's asside from the point.

 

And finally, the reason behind all my babbling here. I saw the post about a 'HUD servitor' working by means of programing language, and someone questioned whether it may be possible to write code and download 'mind applets' (for lack of better word). I believe this is fully possible, and immensely powerful. However, it undoubtably wouldn't be instant, since it would require changing the structure of the mind, aswell as perfect memorisation of the underlying code.

 

You'd essentially relegate a portion of your mind as a compiler, but it requires one would already know a programming language very well. One thig I'm very interested in, though, is whether it is possible for the mind to be a random number generator and be able to hide it from itself. I highly doubt this is the case. I can't quite think of a testable example off the top of my head, but suppose it were possible that you could use this program to play a game that uses AI that relies partly on random number generation, like Age of Empires. Would it be possible for your brain to come up with a random number in such a manner that the aware part of the brain could not predict it? Because there is nothing in the mind that does not stem from an external sourcd, and the mind relies on logical rules for it's function. Nothing in the mind is ever capable of avoiding dependant origination.

 

But there is huge possibility in all this. Imagine being able to create a program which could 'take pictures' from your vision and manipulate them, or, assuming you already understood a language but find it difficult to think of the meaning and translation at the same time (a typical phase in learning or forgetting a language), you could make a program for realtime interpreting.

Or, for example, there is a hobby known as conlanging about making languages. One could make a tulpa which has some elements normally considered sentience, namely the ability to talk and carry on conversations but nothing more, in order to practice this otherwise nonexistant language. There are many many practical applications for this asside from attaining Nibbana.

 

Consider a mental abacus, it is a well known phenomenon and works exactly how it would be expected to according to the principles of Buddhist science (as outlined in the Abhidhamma). In order for it to work, one must be intimately familiar with the rules regarding how abacus' work before they can relegate it to the back of their mind. There is much to be learned from this and similiar phenomenon, and much to be learn about these mental faculties. And we are the new buddhist scientists, although lacking in the goal of Nibbana.

 

As far as me, I think my first goal along this train of thought will be to do exactly that and learn to use an abacus and then make a mental one.

 

Also, as the psychology of sentient tulpas goes, according to Buddhist science tulpas shpuld not be able to percieve anything from their vantage point. The extra conciousness, if you follow the predictions, should percieve the world exactly the same as the original conciousness and merely be percieved as an entity acting at a different vantage point by the original conciousness. I've heard talk of 'switching', has anyone ever pulled it off? Is it even possible? I want to see if this prediction follows through, that when the original conciousness is no longer anchored to the body (and thus is essentially a tulpa itself) it should still percieve the world the same way, and if one did manage to manifest themselves, they would be percieving themselves acting in third person. I suppose perhaps it would be possible to imagine oneself from an alternate viewpoint, just like astral projection, I'd guess, and this is only a guess, that it would drain allot of mental capacity to keep it going at all times, and there would be lots of distortion with the actual world.

 

(Which should not be possible in the sense of any sort of entity existing in a location apart from that of the physical senses, only as imagining the perspective from a different vantage point. I.E. one couldn't read a hidden message behind a wall through astral projection. But then again, there are many stories in mythology which conflict with this and imply literal out-of-body travel, but there's also asuras and devas and pretas and demons in the mythology, and those are accepted as tools of explaining rather than literally true by the ordained. For example, the gods of Tibetan Buddhism aren't actually viewed as entities except among the lay people (propogated as a way to help lay people understand the world that is easy to transmit to real understanding when they're ready.) Infact, the gods of Vajrahana practice are ment to be tools for help in various meditations, since it is far easier to go "how would a being of pure rage react?" And pretend to be this entity, than to try and place one's mind straight into pure rage without tinging it with other emotions.)

I do not think one could reliably ask their tulpa this outright, a large component of how they respond involves how we expect them to respond (I'm not arguing against sponteneity here. A large component of how we nontulpas respond to the world is how we imagine we should respond, too.), that and they shouldn't be able to answer with any knowledge not known to that brain.

 

Sorry for the sloppyness of the train of thought here - too many not fleshed out ideas all at once.

[glitchthe3rd]

Interesting read. Btw, I was the one that came up with the HUD servitor idea, and was the first to implement it.

[Guest]

Take a gander at this wienerschnitzel trying to define how the mind works. Anyway...

 

I was the one that came up with the HUD servitor idea, and was the first to implement it.

As far as we know.

[cruse]

...they would be perceiving themselves acting in third person. I suppose perhaps it would be possible to imagine oneself from an alternate viewpoint, just like astral projection...

 

I never really switched, but probably due to my extensive experience in mental visualization, I somehow see a flash of myself in third person when I talk to someone.

 

I even had a flash of me typing this in third person view.

 

I couldn't even pull off switching or astral but I managed a glimpse of third person, so it is definitely possible to just imagine it.

[mouse]

Interesting read. Btw, I was the one that came up with the HUD servitor idea, and was the first to implement it.

 

My apologies, I meant to give you credit for the idea in the post but couldn't remember your name. Sorry about that.

 

In any case, I found he thread I was refering to again, and here's a link to it: http://tulpa.info/forums/Thread-glitchthe3rd-s-Servitor-Workshop

[waffles]

-With enough concentration, it is possible to change the basic function of the mind. If one had perfect concentration, they could manipulate exactly and in real time all of their perceptions. And in return you can partially control reactions of your body this way, for example this is how monks can control their body temperature to a limited extent.

I disagree. Manipulating senses or bodily function is not changing the 'basic function', it's using it. Your brain was already able to change internal temperature and hallucinate; you're using that capability.

 

And finally, the reason behind all my babbling here. I saw the post about a 'HUD servitor' working by means of programing language, and someone questioned whether it may be possible to write code and download 'mind applets' (for lack of better word). I believe this is fully possible, and immensely powerful. However, it undoubtably wouldn't be instant, since it would require changing the structure of the mind, aswell as perfect memorisation of the underlying code.

The code is just a way of imagining function. You don't need to take 'code' from others because for any function you could program it yourself. Besides, any function is still fundamentally limited.

 

You'd essentially relegate a portion of your mind as a compiler, but it requires one would already know a programming language very well.

The code doesn't actually work like code. You don't need to compile it, because compiling translates the code into 'machine language' - language that the processor can understand - when your mind already understands whatever you're programmed in because you do.

 

One thig I'm very interested in, though, is whether it is possible for the mind to be a random number generator and be able to hide it from itself. I highly doubt this is the case. I can't quite think of a testable example off the top of my head, but suppose it were possible that you could use this program to play a game that uses AI that relies partly on random number generation, like Age of Empires. Would it be possible for your brain to come up with a random number in such a manner that the aware part of the brain could not predict it? Because there is nothing in the mind that does not stem from an external sourcd, and the mind relies on logical rules for it's function. Nothing in the mind is ever capable of avoiding dependant origination.

Can the mind produce random numbers? Unlikely. But as a more general point, your tulpa can play a game against you and be unpredictable.

 

Also, as the psychology of sentient tulpas goes, according to Buddhist science tulpas shpuld not be able to percieve anything from their vantage point. The extra conciousness, if you follow the predictions, should percieve the world exactly the same as the original conciousness and merely be percieved as an entity acting at a different vantage point by the original conciousness.

Buddhist scientists (?) confirmed for sensible.

 

I've heard talk of 'switching', has anyone ever pulled it off? Is it even possible?

Vaguely, but some might consider it as mere possession extended. Whether or not the tulpa and host can switch roles is contentious.

 

I want to see if this prediction follows through, that when the original conciousness is no longer anchored to the body (and thus is essentially a tulpa itself) it should still percieve the world the same way, and if one did manage to manifest themselves, they would be percieving themselves acting in third person.

Certainly, that tends to be how many tulpas describe their experience.

[Wrath]

Well have you ever heard of human calculators? somebody better try and do this. Although I highly doubt anyone could turn their brain into a computer that recognized and runs code.

[Guest Anonymous]

Interesting read. Btw, I was the one that came up with the HUD servitor idea, and was the first to implement it.

 

I believe your choice of words is in need of consideration, since your perspective puts you in the position in which you assume that you were the first to implement the idea. I think it would be in your best interests to assume that you simply are the first to have access to the internet, and not imply that you are the first with the idea ever, since tulpas have existed for many years.

[historical]

 

I believe your choice of words is in need of consideration, since your perspective puts you in the position in which you assume that you were the first to implement the idea. I think it would be in your best interests to assume that you simply are the first to have access to the internet, and not imply that you are the first with the idea ever, since tulpas have existed for many years.

 

I'm pretty sure Buddhists don't give a fuck about HUD servitors, never have, and laugh at our western culture's ideas sometimes.

 

If not all the time.

 

'MERICA

[mouse]

[1] I disagree. Manipulating senses or bodily function is not changing the 'basic function', it's using it. Your brain was already able to change internal temperature and hallucinate; you're using that capability.

 

[2] The code is just a way of imagining function. You don't need to take 'code' from others because for any function you could program it yourself. Besides, any function is still fundamentally limited.

 

The code doesn't actually work like code. You don't need to compile it, because compiling translates the code into 'machine language' - language that the processor can understand - when your mind already understands whatever you're programmed in because you do.

 

1 - You're right. I phrased that badly, what I meant to say is that it changes the organisation of neurons (and myelin) in the brain, not the manner those elements actually function. It is, however, subverting the typical effects of the reward pathway and emotions on the mind.

 

2. Oh! I forgot the important part of where that train of thought was leading up to! I was interested in finding out how uniform would function a program for two people who memorised the same program. It's a step closer to answering that classical philosophical question 'do different people see the same colours differently in their minds?' (Not that I think they do, because the mind in no more than an manifestation of it's physical construction so if people associate a concept with the same contexts then isn't it the same thing? Phenomenon are defined by their effects on the world afterall.)