A collection of tips and tricks about tulpas and tulpamancy in general.

[waterfalls]

Heya everyone! I, with the help of some other members of the tulpa community, compiled a list of tulpa-related tips and tricks to help you with various aspects of tulpamaking. The list is here:

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hyNkVWfbvR8k0YzC5e1teYt-9H0RlK89hIeUToa5iv0/edit

 

If you have any suggestions as for what to add to the list, or just want to comment about how bad at grammar and formatting I am, please please please PLEASE share, I'm all for making the list better! Thanks!

 

The link posted above has been highly vandalized by suggestions. I have created a suggestion-free version of the document, so it can still be used by anyone interested. Link - Indigo (Broken as of 7/14/21) -Ranger

 

I added a PDF back-up of the view only version. See here for my thoughts. -Ranger

 

[View Only] A collection of tips and tricks about tulpas and tulpamancy in general..pdf

Edited July 14, 2021 by Ranger
Added a [Misc] tag, added new doc link -Indigo ; Added PDF view only back-up -Ranger

[Dr. Faust]

I glanced through the document and I just wanted to give a major shoutout to Chupi for presenting the Pascal's Wager approach to Tulpamancy and Parroting and to you waterfalls for digging through 8 months of Tumblr posts to find THIS POT OF GOLD (this is the link to the post being quoted).

 

To summarize this argument here is the argument of accepting why any conversation and response is better than not I quote the man himself

You accept a real response. This is great. You’ve just seen a sign that your tulpa is sentient and acknowledged it. This grows your tulpa and encourages them to do more of the same.

 

You accept a fake response. You are presently believing a lie, but this belief will make you see your tulpa more as a separate being from yourself, thus growing them and making them more real anyway. May slightly annoy the tulpa however. Eventually it will get harder and harder to parrot a response at all, even intentionally.

 

You reject a real response. This hinders growth because you’re seeing a response that was not from you as being from you, making it harder to distinguish them in the future, and making you see your tulpa as less separate from you. Also consider how the tulpa feels: They went to all the effort of reaching out and sending you a response, only to have it ignored. They might feel less like doing it again so soon.

 

You reject a fake response. This does nothing at all. You’ve identified something that is just you, as being just you.

 

If only Fede's Ultimate Superior Guide could be amended with this logical pot of gold.

 

Thank You Based Tulpa.info community.

[Candellaith]

Faust, that approach becomes the cancer if you are too good at parroting.

 

That has happened to me more than once. I started to automatically parrot over time, because I believed all the replies except those that were blatantly done with conscious effort. But since I was too good at parroting, I ended up believing all these seemingly real, but unknowingly parroted replies, fast and fluidly and without noticing. It didn't become harder for me to parrot a response over time, it became so easy that it was automatic. At some point I noticed that I sometimes used my own vocal chords to immediately and automatically produce a response after my own line, so I was basically saying everything myself. I noticed that my tulpa's essence had dissipated as well.

 

I then ditched my "tulpa". There was no sign of resistance, nothing. It was long dead.

 

I started over, with the mentality that I would mostly only believe those replies that which are associated with tugging or tingling as a marker. My tulpa would have to learn to give me those sensations whenever she says something, hopefully I can push her to develop herself this time.

[shibo]

This is great. So much work to gather all these links and posts.

And so much new stuff for me to try out.

[Levy]

We're sorry. You can't access this item because it is in violation of our Terms of Service.

[Yori]

 

I started over, with the mentality that I would mostly only believe those replies that which are associated with tugging or tingling as a marker. My tulpa would have to learn to give me those sensations whenever she says something, hopefully I can push her to develop herself this time.

 

That's good... try hard not to use your vocal chords this time.

[Antylamon]

Wait, how did it violate the terms of service?

 

Maybe try Pastebin?

[Zero]

You accept a fake response. You are presently believing a lie, but this belief will make you see your tulpa more as a separate being from yourself, thus growing them and making them more real anyway. May slightly annoy the tulpa however. Eventually it will get harder and harder to parrot a response at all, even intentionally.

 

First of all, I don't really see the point of the list. This is basically just Chupi describing what happens when you react a certain way to certain responses. He's not talking about how to recognize a real response from a fake response at all.

 

Second, this specific piece of advice. I don't really believe accepting fake responses is good. In fact, what Chupi's saying here is "accept all responses from your tulpa unless you consciously think "i am going to parrot now" before parroting them" a.k.a. "accept all responses from your tulpa". This mindset can bring about doubt later on, it might be nice at first to not have to worry about whether you parroted your tulpa or not, but it's best to learn to distinguish the two. And so what if you may guess it wrong sometimes? If your tulpa is vocal and you parrot them and think it was them, they should also tell you that that wasn't them. I mean, if your tulpa isn't vocal, you're not gonna worry about who said what, right? And if they are, they can complain.

 

Just tell your tulpa that you can't always be aware of whether you're parroting or not, and ask them to co-operate with you in trying to weed out parroted responses from independent responses. And if you think you're parroting their answer as well, just ask a few times. "Did I parrot?" "No." "Are you sure?" "Yes." "Absolutely?" "Yes."

 

So, in general it’s best to give the tulpa the benefit of the doubt, unless you intentionally generated the thought yourself.

 

This would be good, if "intention" would be a binary thing. Sometimes I'll parrot my tulpa on accident by expecting a certain answer and hearing it. Was I intentionally parroting them? No. Was their response parroted? Yes. In this case I would be accepting a fake response, and not exactly helping my tulpa become more vocal because I'd never actually think about parroting them, but would still be doing so by expectation. So no, don't give your tulpa the benefit of the doubt, discuss it with them. If you can't discuss things with your tulpa, they're not vocal enough yet and you should force more. If you think an answer was from them - accept it as theirs. If you're not sure - ask them. If you know it was you - reject it.

 

Also side note, you can doubt a response and neither accept nor reject it. Just leave it in limbo if you're not sure, much easier. You don't have to check every single response for validity every time. That's annoying for your tulpa and a waste of time for you.

 

I glanced through the document and I just wanted to give a major shoutout to Chupi for presenting the Pascal's Wager approach to Tulpamancy and Parroting

 

Pascal's Wager means that you play it safe just in case Hell exists. But logically seen, this wouldn't work - if God is all-knowing, he'd know you're being a Christian just because you don't want to go to Hell and don't really care for Christianity besides that, and you'd go to Hell anyway.

 

So following a logically flawed method like that would also give you flawed results. Please think things through before giving random shoutouts to advice that may be harmful in the long run.

 

 

I couldn't read the google doc as it says it infringes on their rights or something. Anyhow, if that doc looks like those points, it doesn't sound very promising imo.

[Linkzelda]

I’ll have to side with Zero on Pascal's Wager logic. It’s essentially promoting theism (e.g. Christian God) as the best of all options, but when there’s metaphysical, probabilistic, and other logical aspects applied to it, the claim becomes flawed.

 

If Pascal suggests there’s a divine that’s infinitely perplexing, and then tries to make a dichotomy of the divine, this goes against the whole infinitely perplexing logic. One does not simply make partitions on divine and supernatural entities that would be presumed to be unfathomable to split in the first place.

 

The same applies for trying to get a response from a tulpa. Naturally, it would be pragmatic to just force, narrate, and use any methods at your disposal—just be militant in your training and learn how to take a breather every now and then.

 

Whether it’s from augmenting your sensory awareness, or improving your forms modality or sub-modalities (e.g. visual, auditory, kinaesthetic, olfactory, gustatory), only relying on belief and intent without consistent practice can be detrimental.

 

Simply because the beliefs does not compensate for the urgency of doing/acting/practicing. Belief may be a supplement towards getting into the mindset of doing, but it’s just a transient stage. Trying to distinguish your own thoughts from your tulpas is difficult at first, and requires as much active forcing as possible. Passive forcing can work as well, but it’s more of going in and out of varying levels of concentration and simply allowing the mind to make the connections needed to presumably make the tulpa real to the host.

 

It brings back to the assuming sentience from the start philosophy, it’s merely (in my opinion), enabling a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fallacy is placed on the thought-form to act on its/their fate that’s sustained by the host’s belief in behaving to be consistent with those beliefs. It's becomes an impasse philosophy the more the host gets trapped in doubt and doesn't utilize methods to shift their awareness to a more positive and persevering mindset.

 

TL;DR:

 

It just shows that developing vocality is not as simple as people would like to believe, and honestly, interacting with other members here and reddit, they can still be doubtful. It’s just one of those things where you’ll just have to persevere with your shittiness until you get good at it. We still aren’t aware of the intricacies of the mind, and sometimes the breakthroughs for tulpaforcing occurs at random moments where we least expect it.

 

Logic follows that this probability of random breakthroughs for this is that the host continues training their level of cognition and competence and knowing the mind will need time to connect. Utilizing Pascal’s logic (or even trying to make a variant of it) on an infinitely perplexing divine or divinity, and attempting to make a dichotomy for it is honestly a horrible mindset that will create doubt in the long run.

 

This can be useful in the short-term, like Zero suggested, but the moment those intense episodes of doubt starts kicking in, leave the logic completely and find something else. Even with that though, it doesn’t make it pragmatic to consider, Pascal’s logic is debunked and a pile of rubbish.

[Yori]

Wow, Pascal's Wager... that is what it's called. Does Pascal have other wagers involving other religions, superstitions, or any other types of "just in case"s?