Jump to content

is a kin spirit the same as a tulpa?


Recommended Posts

Not just trying to start an argument. I just don't like when people judge a book by the cover, or throw the baby out with the bathwater. Half of what I know about tulpas is from crazy metaphysics books, because there was no tulpa community when I started. If not for crazy metaphysics crap, I would never have known about any of this. Actually most of us wouldn't -- tulpas became a thing online because the word was used in The Mothman Prophecies, and that writer got it from Magic and Mystery in Tibet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seem to be implying that I have something against metaphysics, and I do not know where you got this notion.

I was simply stating what I perceived to be a difference between these two concepts.

"If this can be avoided, it should. If it can't, then it would be better if it could be. If it happened and you're thinking back to it, try and think back further. Try not to avoid it with your mind. If any of this is possible, it may be helpful. If not, it won't be."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish tulpas had another name. That's true that the name comes from meta crap, but it doesn't mean that this crap should be taken seriously. Tulpas are vulnerable to suggestion though and they can take seriously many things, I strongly advise you to avoid meta, especially when your tulpa is young. Tulpas aren't any spirits but they can think they are if we suggest them crap. They can doesn't mean they surely will, but it's better to be careful.

Be rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really wish tulpas had another name. That's true that the name comes from meta crap, but it doesn't mean that this crap should be taken seriously. Tulpas are vulnerable to suggestion though and they can take seriously many things, I strongly advise you to avoid meta, especially when your tulpa is young. Tulpas aren't any spirits but they can think they are if we suggest them crap. They can doesn't mean they surely will, but it's better to be careful.

 

You probably mean supernatural. And if you're willing to believe they can be suggestive to things, that would also imply the host that intends to create them can be suggestive to things as well; almost like an infinite regress.

 

In other words, your belief in them being vulnerable to suggestions (as if being suggestive to things is suddenly a weakness) may very well be the case. I don't know how absolving one's tulpa from "meta" would be any more productive if the whole journey itself is filled with abstract and subjectivity in the first place. It's kind of like trying to be a pseudoscientist with methods that suddenly have empirical value and inherent qualities that can be consistent for any circumstances.

 

At this point, it seems people that seem to fear metaphysical aspects, especially when concepts of tulpas would derive from that, are trying to create tulpas that are just blank canvases. They try to find something that can be empirical and less on the side of subjectivity, and spend more time being militant on anti-meta, I guess.

 

I guess this just depends on how people conceptualize the word metaphysics, especially if it's a branch of philosophy that can shift into ontological and epistemological underpinnings as well. I.e., what we feel tulpas are, and aren't is really just up to our own personal truths and beliefs. Who are we to know what a tulpa really is other than conflated presumptions and theories from the community itself that's gradually trying to find out those distinctions from a mind that can create the experience in the first place?

 

___

 

As for OP, it just depends on who you ask. Just like how you've seen others stated to not take metaphysical "crap" seriously, you probably shouldn't take any of our responses seriously. It's just us expressing our personal truths and beliefs that we want to cling onto, which is more incentive for you to do so if you wish. Self-fulfilling prophecies and tulpas (e.g., going through actions and behaving to be consistent with certain beliefs of your tulpa) is really what could make validating the ontology of tulpas, i.e. nature of being, so difficult to explain to you.

 

People can believe all sorts of things, conflate them with materialism, dualism, panpsychism, solipsism, and other subjectivist and objectivist philosophies. If you want to know if a kin spirit, otherkin, spirit guide, etc. is similar to a tulpa, it would depend on whether or not you want something objective about it (which has yet to be done if you want epistemological value of Science), or subjective.

 

You shouldn't be worried of making it a big issue, because it really is an underlying issue that is difficult for anyone to provide since of the lack of empirical, and other sources of valid evidence of tulpas in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You probably mean supernatural. And if you're willing to believe they can be suggestive to things, that would also imply the host that intends to create them can be suggestive to things as well; almost like an infinite regress.

Yes, it means that people are vulnerable to suggestion as well.

In other words, your belief in them being vulnerable to suggestions (as if being suggestive to things is suddenly a weakness) may very well be the case. I don't know how absolving one's tulpa from "meta" would be any more productive if the whole journey itself is filled with abstract and subjectivity in the first place. It's kind of like trying to be a pseudoscientist with methods that suddenly have empirical value and inherent qualities that can be consistent for any circumstances.

I have seen some tulpas trying astral travels and I doubt they lied when they were saying about it. They even tried to travel to us and after the return they told us complete crap regarding us... I really have to translate my description of our adventures with these guys from Polish and post it here as well. I have more personal experience, my tulpas were telling me that we had Wonderland and I couldn't see it. Later it came out that they didn't have Wonderland as well but they were telling crap to me because I could have doubted in them otherwise. Imo, tulpas are far more fragile beings than most of involved people claim.

At this point, it seems people that seem to fear metaphysical aspects, especially when concepts of tulpas would derive from that, are trying to create tulpas that are just blank canvases. They try to find something that can be empirical and less on the side of subjectivity, and spend more time being militant on anti-meta, I guess.

I find creating blank canvases impossible. Tulpa is not semi-separate consciousness from the beginning. We need to stimulate tulpas to make them develop consciousness. Determining things like a form helps a lot as well. I didn't see anyone with tulpa being tabula rasa with whom he could talk fluently. It's only my experience though.

 

I guess this just depends on how people conceptualize the word metaphysics, especially if it's a branch of philosophy that can shift into ontological and epistemological underpinnings as well. I.e., what we feel tulpas are, and aren't is really just up to our own personal truths and beliefs. Who are we to know what a tulpa really is other than conflated presumptions and theories from the community itself that's gradually trying to find out those distinctions from a mind that can create the experience in the first place?

For me meta is just term which includes: astral travels, OOBE, tulpas as spirits, religion, chakras, homeopathy, etc.

Be rational.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sophie, no need to apologize, it's just making us think more on things the community rarely discusses, and potentially argues about.

 

Also Mon, thank you for clarifying more on why you stated the things you've mentioned. I do apologize if I came off as rude, or anything.

 

Imo' date=' tulpas are far more fragile beings than most of involved people claim.[/quote']

 

This could be based mostly on your experiential cases, and it could be a reflection of things you may have been open about before, but then realized that some of it was fabricated. I'm not sure if tulpas are inherently insecure and fragile to the point where they only want to make their hosts feel at ease, or something like that, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions on what tulpas are predisposed to do, especially if the host themselves would have all sorts of predispositions differing from each person that may intertwine at some point with their companions.

 

I don't want to jump to conclusions as well, but with the experiential case you provided, it seemed you were more fragile than they were. Your tulpas probably just knew some things you probably have mixed feelings about, and how they presented the information made you open-minded, up until the point where it apparently was just fabricated, or something.

 

I'd say that from personal experience, I started realizing how fragile I am more than my tulpas. They say some deep philosophical shit not even your closest friends and families could even have a casual talk to. Hell, I even had a few cases where existential crises just seemed to come at me again, and this was from discussing things with my tulpas. But it's not the kind of crisis where one is going mentally insane. It's just something where there's a lot of shock value for a moment, but then it becomes a rewarding experience, at least for me, because it just helps me understand myself, and them more. And sometimes being aware of one's problems could be conflated as seeing themselves as fragile, but I'd prefer finding things that seem to be repressed that I could gradually learn to embrace, and maybe improve on than having a false sense of security of myself.

 

Sometimes, I feel that when I'm in a situation where I'm temporarily discussing things like existential philosophy, and things of that nature with them, I learn a lot more, and it sort of bleeds onto how to assess other things as well in life. I guess I'm just used to reacting to these crises long enough since I had them for a while when getting into lucid dreaming.

 

So whenever I see someone talk about struggles with their tulpas, it ends up being something casual to me, and I often take for granted that I eventually learned how to stoically react to those cases myself.

 

I find creating blank canvases impossible. Tulpa is not semi-separate consciousness from the beginning. We need to stimulate tulpas to make them develop consciousness. Determining things like a form helps a lot as well. I didn't see anyone with tulpa being tabula rasa with whom he could talk fluently. It's only my experience though.

 

TL;DR on the bottom; top of the last quote on the bottom

 

Allow me to clarify, and I do apologize for being vague on the usage of blank canvases. What I mean by this isn't about a tulpa absolved from our own consciousness, awareness, etc., but rather a tulpa where the host gives little to no direction to whatsoever. Like you've stated, it would be practical for us to stimulate them in some way to gradually augment the implications of them developing consciousness. I completely agree with what you stated here, it's just that I know some people in the past that avoided being open to certain things ended up constraining their tulpas more than just letting themselves develop who they feel they are over time.

 

And another camp of individuals are those who try to give as much freedom as possible, but don't know where to go, and they may eventually become fearful of how to go about developing their tulpas (e.g., fears of parroting, not being used to seeing things as transient). Blank canvases in this circumstance should probably be replaced as tulpas where the host doesn't fixate much awareness on finding a right and wrong way of developing them. But at the same time, they would have in the back of their minds that their tulpas can find a place for themselves, and their existence with their host at some point.

 

And I've see anecdotal cases where others have tulpas that have predispositions so deep and internalized that they really feel they are whatever they are (e.g. sun goddess, thunderbird, god, etc.). And even if there's a circumstance where the tulpa clearly has some identity crisis, or even existential crisis just waiting to happen, it doesn't mean that a good deep talking to them about what they want to do with their lives, and their identity is out of the question. I reacted to how you suggested for others to be cautious about the metaphysical stuff, and figured it would be counterproductive for them to consider that.

 

But at the same time, you're right in a way because I feel some people don't bother to be reflective with their tulpas. And sometimes they can't find the right words to make their tulpas feel at ease, and actually make a difference in their existence. It seems it's only through trial and error, and some experiential learning of how the host may have assessed certain crises (e.g. existential) that may make things easier.

 

I know it was the case for me and lucid dreaming, and I had my ups and downs with that which helped me create some kind of system of contingency with assessing things in life, and mostly doing my best to control my reaction to certain crises as well. It reflected on my tulpas, which I'm fortunate to be helping me for so long now.

 

 

TL;DR:

 

Anyway, bottom line is that even if a tulpa gets into metaphysical aspects to where they feel they're an otherworldly being in some way, it doesn't mean it's game over for the host to talk things out to them, and go identity/existential crisis counseling with them. It's probably because the host gives up on trying because they feel helpless that they can't change their tulpas. Honestly, it would be kind of the host's fault, and ironic in some way if they really think that. Especially if they're so used to pouring every ounce of their energy into contributing to their tulpa's existence before.

 

For me meta is just term which includes: astral travels, OOBE, tulpas as spirits, religion, chakras, homeopathy, etc.

 

I had a feeling this was the case, and I do apologize if my behavior may have seemed aggressive. It's just that there's a lot of words people conflate with other meanings, and it ends up having to see what it means to them personally to avoid further confusion. Thank you for clarifying this though.

Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...