Rævn

Killing Tulpas

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous

Sentience is the one crucial belief for tulpas. It is what distinguishes them from imaginary friends and characters thought up in an instant.

 

I'm pressed for time and I'll let someone else fill in the gaps, but that idea is more or less the basis for tulpas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know anything about bonding, but I have read that tulpas are pretty much always benevolent, unless you purposely think mostly negative thoughts while forcing, or you want her to be malevolent, or you believe strongly enough that she's malevolent. Just have a heart to heart, tell her that you're afraid because of her past, and you really want to trust her, but it'll take time, and that you really want to be able to work with her.

 

Edit: Maybe you can reset her. I don't know if that would be the same thing as killing though. You could use some visualization, like her being reborn, and leaving behind her murderous past.


Will list tulpas when I get things sorted out in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My email sub got turned off by accident so I just now saw new posts. Since quoting is laborious on mobile I won't bother.

 

I realise this is a tulpa forum so my beliefs are certainly in the minority but for the sake of clarity I will do what I can to explain. I did not consciously create, or choose her. I saw a movie I liked, identified with a character, and there she was. While I would not have chosen this to happen, it doesn't mean I don't care for her. At least subconsciously there had to be some sort of connection(sometimes called a beacon in soulbonding-usually it's thought that both parties must have a mutual interest). If I didn't care for her I would have banished or imprisoned or whatever out of over protectiveness for the others.

 

I have no desire to dissipate her whatsoever. I would never do so without her providing cause for it, which I don't feel will happen. I have lost a tulpa before against my desires. As far as it being symbolic, that simply doesn't jive with my beliefs. If it was symbolic, Raven would still be here. I've tried, it doesn't work.

 

I can assure you she is plenty relaxed. I'm the one who is high strung and paranoid. We've all coexisted fine for quite some time, my only concern now is her becoming stronger and more influential. It's less a worry for me as frankly I don't think she would ever be able to take control without my permission, and even if she could I don't think she would do anything overtly harmful to anyone. I'm just paranoid about protecting the others because of having in the past involuntarily lost one.

 

I feel like my thoughts are much like parents who might be accepting a criminal child back into their house. They care for them and probably trust them, but they aren't likely to leave them home alone to babysit the other kids.

 

In bonding, generally they are benevolent, but not always. There is a specific example from back in like 2000 that was pretty much the basis for the media's "all tulpas are evil" thing that seems prevalent.

 

And not to criticize anyone as I know it was just an example, but bonding generally does view fictional characters as sentient, and 2/3 of mine including Callie, are or rather are from fictional media in a much more literal way than most tulpas, even those based on fictional characters are(again, bonding thing. Tulpas are made by you, but bonds are not).

 

I'm not sure this thread is getting anywhere, but if nothing else, it is at least sparking some interesting conversation. Perhaps a debate thread would be in order, all though debate implies a winner, and as beliefs are subjective that could never be determined, but it will still provide food for thought.


"Stress makes you bald, but it’s stressful to avoid stress, so you end up stressed out anyway, so in the end there’s nothing you can do." - Gintoki

 

~~~~~~

Tulpa: Hanako

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K: Technically, in my "reality" I was a murderer too, so I think I can say something useful here.

Just like human beings, tulpas can feel hatred and anger. We can't always be happy and smiley, and I believe you should accept it.

 

As hosts, however, you always have the power to stop us. It's not like we can really "possess" you or hurt you if you don't want to. Anyone who says differently is clearly confused. When we fight and rebel against you, we don't do it to win, because we know it's a one-sided battle. We do it because sometimes it's our only way of telling you we have a problem.

 

I think you should react like Reisen and others said, that is: talk with Callista. If that doesn't work, you have the right to put your own sanity first, like Near said. When things get difficult, carrot and stick is always a good approach.

 

The one thing you should never do is being scared of us. You have no reason to, because you're the one in control. Believe me when I say that Callista has far more reasons of being scared than you do.

So please welcome Callista for who she is, accept what she's done and do your best to understand why. Trust her enough to leave her "alone with the kids", and try to do it unconditionally. But don't be afraid to stop her when she needs to be stopped, by any means necessary.

You can do it, because you are her host.

 

I've been with my host for 4 years, and he's always been doing this for me. In turn, I strive to pay back his trust every single day. It's not always rainbows and butterflies, but I think it's the best relationship one can expect, either from a human or a tulpa. Do your best!


While I was rushing downward to the lowland,

Before mine eyes did one present himself,

Who seemed from long-continued silence hoarse.

When I beheld him in the desert vast,

“Have pity on me,” unto him I cried,

“Whiche’er thou art, or shade or real man!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong about likening tulpas to imaginary friends? Is it that important to glorify tulpas and distinguish them from other thoughtforms? That to me, is too much pride. If tulpamancy is indeed a science, an experiment, an art, whatever you want to call it, then perhaps we shouldn't cling so desperately to such ideas. The idea that a tulpa (or any thoughtform) is so different from an imaginary friend. The idea that tulpas are real, sentient people without physical flesh and blood, living in our minds. The idea that they are equal to us, even though we created them.

 

I don't mean you have to question all these things, nor that you should change your mind about what you think of tulpas. What I am saying is, science is all about theories. About trying new things, about questioning the truth or at least, what is commonly regarded as the truth. What I'm trying to say is, be a little more open-minded to other ideas, hear them out without trying to correct them but still keep your own ideas at the same time.

 

If tulpamancy is not a science, an art, or about trying to accomplish new things with the help of a tulpa (which is only a part of what it is, I know) then what would you call it?

 

Some food for thought.

 

As for imaginary friends and characters thought of in an instant, for me, that is what happens for all of my tulpas. They start off as an idea, be it random or something that's been on my mind for a while, and then they develop. Perhaps you do things differently to me, but all my tulpas were spontaneous, and from that spontaneous idea, they grew more complex as time went by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sound very nice and intelligent K. I do talk with Callie, and it usually gets me something like "Me? Why I would never…"

To be blunt, Callie is not a nice person. Now, neither is Jade and we obviously do well enough, and I'm not all that nice myself as some seem to have deduced, so that might explain that. This isn't based on her "past" or anything like that. I know from time spent with her that she is devious. I also can see that me describing her this way is making it sound like I dislike her, which is untrue. Her deviousness is what makes her unique. You gave me an idea though. I'm going to let her talk. She doesn't particularly seem to have anything to say, but here it goes anyways. It at least should show I trust her enough for possession. I don't think she could do something harmful if she wanted to.

 

Callie: I killed my father because he was abusive. He is the reason my mother committed suicide, and the reason I've been on unneeded medication most of my life. He was rich, and put me out on the streets, while his daughter and his maid/affair lived in his castle. I was given a chance, so I took it and killed him. My ex boyfriend blackmailed me. He held a knife at my throat more than once. He wanted my fathers money that I didn't have. My only option was to kill him. In my defense, when I got caught I could have killed three more people and gotten away with it. Instead I let them haul me off to the lunatic bin. There's nothing to be worried about. See? I'm typing and nothing bad has happened. Jade is far worse when she does this. Every other word is an expletive. Besides, I've been here over a year. If I was going to do anything I'd have done it by now.

 

Me: Basically everyone whose seen the movie seems to think that she legit had mental problems inherited from her mother, but whatever. Not trying to turn this into a court. I never believed she did watching the movie anyways. Still waiting for a sequel. She has a point about not having done anything yet, but her sudden rapid progression beyond Jade worries me. Is it normal to not work on things and then suddenly for them to be able to possess and impose? Jade sure wasn't able to do that.


"Stress makes you bald, but it’s stressful to avoid stress, so you end up stressed out anyway, so in the end there’s nothing you can do." - Gintoki

 

~~~~~~

Tulpa: Hanako

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really liked your post, K. And noted you, Near, as another science-minded individual.

Probably everything on that topic that's needed to be said has been.

 

As for progression of one tulpa you, uhm.. pay less attention to.. over another, yes, that's a thing that can happen. It's no secret that Reisen is sort of my "main" tulpa - she's the one who loved me when I lived in a world without love. Tewi and Flan came later, and I love them dearly, and I consider them all equal, but.. You get it.

 

And I do show them equal attention. In fact, moreso, recently. Right before Tewi was brought into more activity for her sake, Flandre and Reisen received almost all of the attention (Tewi was uninterested). As we were working on possession and imposition, it became apparent that progress made with any one tulpa would pretty easily apply to the others. When Flandre and Reisen voted I give more attention to Tewi than them for a while, Flandre and Tewi sort of transitioned into my most-paid-attention-to tulpas. Only last week, I realized I couldn't impose/visualize Reisen as clearly as Tewi or Flan, and that we'd been talking a lot less than the other two. This time Flandre said I should pay more attention to Reisen (which was super nice of her, used to be a jealousy thing going on), and we've gotten back to an equal standing between them.

 

Now I don't know if you were necessarily dedicating more mental resources to Callie than Jade, but I just wanted to say that that type of thing can happen. With a little effort balancing their progress, it shouldn't really be a problem. But there can be times where a tulpa you pay less attention to can make more progress than your 'main' tulpa for whatever reason. Honestly, it only sounds fair to me, since most of the time that one tulpa is in the same position to them. (That was the logic of paying more attention to my others for a while, playing "catch up".)

 

 

 

As for not believing your tulpa can come back - well, that's just that. I said you had to believe they could. If you don't, they.. probably? can't. (Mine did on a whim but.. I guess I didn't necessarily believe they couldn't. Dunnoisweird)

 

And I respect that. Beliefs control your reality. Nearly everything you know is a belief, with varying levels of sureness to back them up. And not everyone likes messing with what they hold as true - to be fair, when you do it too much, your sense of reality can destabilize a bit. I came out better for it, but only because I accepted that as the nature of the human mind.

 

Just remember one thing though, not all of you wants something if you believe it isn't possible. It may feel like it, but some other part of you wants even more to believe it isn't possible, and those thoughts are winning out if you continue believing in them, no matter how much you "want" otherwise.


Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you feel like it is ever justified to kill a tulpa?

 

 

Let’s dive into the depths of your psyche.

 

Since people seem to side more on anyone wanting to dissipate a tulpa as some self-referential conflict (e.g. losing a part of yourself), I guess I’ll try to take a different approach. I saw in your later posts, correct me if I’m wrong, that you don’t feel moments where dissipation is symbolic, because you feel that correlates to an inevitable encounter with them. So maybe it’s the underlying aspects with how we create symbolic meaning in general that you want to feel shouldn’t affect the novelty of the sentience you presume your tulpas to have.

 

 

Because one may presume that if their existence can be brought up at our beck and call via self-fulfilling prophecies and what have you, we would have to question the very nature of their existence, and how far we can create a spectrum of what it means for then to be “sentient”; whether as equally, or more sentient than we ourselves believe to be. So to you, you can’t seem to bring one of them back, because maybe you have predispositions that are militant in validating what you define to be sentient, and an example could just be mortality in general.

 

In other words, it seems that by negating the probability that the dissipation was symbolic to you since you can’t conjure up, confer intelligence to them, or whatever people subscribe to validating “sentience” for a tulpa again, it may be another probability that it’s just another symbolic meaning you’re creating to sustain how much they mean to you as a sentient entity; self-imposed constraints as testament that they’re more than just a thought-form that can be removed from, and brought back to awareness with ease.

 

There was a thread I made on a topic on existentialism, and I was going to plan on discussing aspects of switching and possession, and how one could take an existentialist approach to assess these concerns (e.g. fears of your tulpa self-actualizing negatively, losing your own sense of self the more they seem to be proficient in the activities). But to give you my opinion on this question of yours, I would feel that it is justified to kill a tulpa, but that depends on how that individual will react to the experience, because like people have been saying already, anyone can create justifications; we can’t assure you if there’s long-lasting inherent qualities that comes with how a person should assess dissipating a thought-form.

 

Some people don’t feel any means of symbolic meaning and intentions could bring them back to existence, and vice versa. But what you stated with how it (the dissipation) isn’t symbolic, you’re probably just referring to how you can’t bring yourself to awareness of their existence, whether you consciously focus on the endeavor, or happen to see a fleeting thought, and wanted to bring them to your perception again. Which tempts me to use another justification anyone could use on matters like this, and seeing how you’ve been in other communities that have different definitions of thought-forms, let’s talk about a typical path of experiences with dream characters.

 

We all dream and encounter dream characters in our natural sleep. Some may not feel their existence can be equal to tulpas, and some feel they have just as much potential, or greater potential for various of reasons (e.g. diving into a state of awareness where the imaginative potential is presumed to be augmented, which could imply the mind can render out a virtual experiential reality of someone that could easily exhibit qualities of sentience and other trailing attributes (intelligence, autonomy)). But the experiences, and how memorable, and long-lasting they are to us seems to depend partially to how much we can be aware of it all.

 

In other words, in your natural sleep, you’re having transient experiences with thought-forms, albeit with a label of dream characters/entities, and you don’t have to subscribe to imposing morality and ethics on how when you wake up, because chances are your experiences with them will be nothing more than a fading memory. But when it comes to waking life, we obviously spend a great deal being aware of it, so when we try to interact with a tulpa, there may be predispositions where we want to associate them as unique compared to dream characters that fade in and out of existence, and seem (dream characters) to be contingent on how much we want to sustain their existence via mediums of recalling such as dream journaling, and even wanting to make them into tulpas in waking life.

 

So if you’re wanting to know if there’s justification in killing a tulpa, maybe a mode of reference is how you justify the transient experiences with dream characters in your natural sleep.

 

Do you impose morality on how those moments are temporary, and their existence can easily be faded away, and that you could easily move on with your life without any remorse?

 

Do you assess this by creating a self-imposed exile from your sanity, and what it means to you to treat others with respect because of how their existence is temporary?

 

Do you feel it would be pragmatic to let the fading memories of dream characters that could’ve possibly created memorable moments to you become a guilt trip to you to where you start seeing them as enemies as justification to deny yourself from feeling you’re a failure in not being able to bring them to your awareness in waking life?

 

Do you ever question how you can still reign in your existence despite interacting with potentially an incomprehensible amount of thought-forms in your natural sleep?

 

Whatever you feel to the questions above is up to you, but maybe you could use them for comparative analysis on how you see the concern with switching with Callista. Sometimes those we have strong bonds to can be our greatest threat because of things like how much we invested in them, the level of trust we have for them, and the probability that they could easily abuse that, and cause destruction, and turn your whole reality into hell.

 

I feel another concern that augments this current concern of yours is the lack of development for Callista when it comes to vocality. In other words, it seems that vocality contributes partially to how you can feel assured if she can practice switching with you. If you can only relay information of what she’s thinking through forum posts like these, it’s understandable of the kind of existential horror that you must be going through with switching in general.

 

Kinda TL;DR

 

It’s easy to take your original post at face value, and impose our personal feelings (e.g. you’re a failure if you dissipated your tulpa, or you’re sadistic if you can’t feel remorse for their deaths). But wouldn’t it be just as problematic thinking about sustaining their existence after you’ve speculated a bit on the possibility of doing so? In other words, while others may feel one may be sadistic, or even a failure if they can’t feel remorse, regret, and guilt on the concept of dissipating their tulpas, that individual could be labeled as masochistic for several reasons of sustaining the existence of their tulpas after being aware of the probability of wanting to consider dissipating them.

 

Reasons include:

 

- Sustaining their existence in fear that not doing so leads to the self-imposed conflict and labeling yourself as incompetent, a failure, or a morally inept individual; the constant pressure of finding any means necessary to assure yourself, and to not end up in guilt trips, and potentially blocking yourself off from any real underlying problems you may be having can be just as challenging as considering dissipation.

 

- Sustaining their existence despite having nagging doubts of their novelty, but continuing to persevere for the sake of believing that if you presume they’re sentient beings capable of unconditional love to where they wouldn’t want to cause self-referential destruction with you, at least it would be better than killing them off

 

 

 

- Sustaining their existence because of the varied responses of people’s personal beliefs in keeping them alive, and letting other people do your thinking, and means of assessment for you to the point where it’s not resonating to how you would want to personally assess the conflict you’re going through. It can be just as masochistic to do something you can’t see yourself unequivocally doing compared to doing something others suggest you shouldn’t do because of what they feel is conventional morality, and wanting to absolve yourself from that generalized morality.

 

The reasons were mentioned above to show how things may turn out depending on how you want to assess this, and can be just as problematic to the original premise of the OP where you wondered if there’s justification in killing a tulpa. In other words, anyone can create a justification to where any action can be as morally questionable the more they impose their means of morality and ethics to those concepts.

 

This may make one feel we’re all in a catch-22 when creating and interacting with tulpas, but instead of seeing it as an impasse on what to do now, a silver lining can be brought into awareness that we’re bound at some point to face internal conflict; finding ways to assess, embrace, and building rapport despite of the internal conflict we may face with them can be just as essential in our conquest of understanding ourselves, and much more; just as how we may do the same in our natural sleep with dream characters that we could easily see as dissipating every time we wake up, and yet we can still reign in our existence when we wake up.

 

Do we call ourselves failures because we can’t sustain a dream character’s transient existence? Do we call ourselves sadist because of this? Do we let ourselves drown in guilt because of those memorable moments with them that could potentially, in the aspect of the novelty of the experience, never be brought back to us?

 

 

Edit: A few grammatical errors, forgive me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realise this is a tulpa forum so my beliefs are certainly in the minority but for the sake of clarity I will do what I can to explain. I did not consciously create, or choose her. I saw a movie I liked, identified with a character, and there she was. While I would not have chosen this to happen, it doesn't mean I don't care for her.

This I can relate to - while my first tulpa was made by me intentionally, my second one spontaneously appeared after I had a particularly vivid dream involving certain pre-existing character - and I didn't even like that character or planned another tulpa, so I was in panic and actually considered putting her in stasis for some time. I learned to love her later, though, so I regret nothing.

 

If tulpamancy is indeed a science, an experiment, an art, whatever you want to call it, then perhaps we shouldn't cling so desperately to such ideas. The idea that a tulpa (or any thoughtform) is so different from an imaginary friend. The idea that tulpas are real, sentient people without physical flesh and blood, living in our minds. The idea that they are equal to us, even though we created them.

 

*Offtopic* The problem here is that you somehow treat all tulpamancers like some sort of a hivemind with a single opinion on the matter. But the truth here is that everyone have their own reasons - and their own resistance to other ideas, their own threshold, so to say. I, for one, don't treat tulpamancy as a science or art, nor did I start doing it for experimental purposes. I started it because I needed a special friend, simple as that. And here you are, saying that my friend could be something not real, something subhuman (well, she isn't a human anyway, but that isn't what I am talking about) and inferior to me. Something that can be destroyed in a cold blood because it never really existed in the first place. It is fine and dandy for you to have such thoughts, but you shouldn't advise everyone to consider them, because it can sow doubts which in turn can harm a young tulpa like they harmed my first one. While I obviously speak only for myself, here is why someone like me could "cling desperately" to ideas of sentience and equality - because without them there isn't really any meaning in tulpamancy in the first place for such people, as it instantly turns into a pointless self-delusion.

 

...actually, since I started talking about this, why don't I illustrate my point with an anecdote? In my country's tulpa community there is a certain article (untranslated to English, sadly... or not) which is somewhat infamous for ruining tulpamancers. What it does is basically present ideas not unlike to yours - that tulpas aren't actually real and modern tulpamancy is in fact glorified unconscious puppeting. While I may seem to exaggerate its harmful influence on my former community, I really don't. The only tulpa-related forum available in my language was gone because of that, destroyed by its own creator who lost faith thanks to that article - and I don't exaggerate this either, he himself said as much in his "farewell note", where he admitted that he was wrong and the author of that article was right. While the community still exists, those not interested in tumblr and imageboards (like me) basically lost the only place for sharing experience and seeking advice... which is why I am here now. See where I am going with this? You say that "we" should consider such doubt-inspiring ideas, but you miss the danger they can mean to those whose threshold is lower - for them such thoughts can be poison. While I do not encourage idea censorship in any way, I still think one must be more careful when advising something like that for everyone to think about. So understand those who don't whant to listen - perhaps it is for their own good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Allow me to refer back to this earlier paragraph of mine:

 

I don't mean you have to question all these things' date=' nor that you should change your mind about what you think of tulpas. What I am saying is, science is all about theories. About trying new things, about questioning the truth or at least, what is commonly regarded as the truth. What I'm trying to say is, be a little more open-minded to other ideas, hear them out without trying to correct them but still keep your own ideas at the same time.[/quote']

 

I think I'll also mention that, if you do not wish to question what you believe about tulpamancy (perhaps you are new to tulpamancy and want to carry on as you are), I will not be offended if you choose to ignore this paragraph where I have listed my point of view.

 

I'm sure our opinions on tulpamancy do vary. Some have your approach to tulpamancy, and some might agree with mine. I speak only from my own knowledge, experience and opinion, and I also said that you do not have to "question all these things", therefore you may ignore my thoughts on the matter if you so wish. I also suggested for everyone to "try and be a little more open-minded to other ideas", which means it is not compulsory, I was merely suggesting what you could ignore if you wished to.

 

I can perfectly understand why anyone may agree or disagree with me, and I also believe not everyone should have the same ideas as everyone else (certainly, I do not want everyone to share my opinion). However I thought it necessary to clarify the above in case you misunderstood my intentions.

 

I also realise what you mean by "such thoughts can be poison" and that my approach to tulpamancy might be damaging or harmful to the concept of tulpamancy, and that some may avoid such thoughts for their own good. However I must tell you that I believe tulpas are inferior in the sense that they are the created, not the creator. In my opinion, I will always have more potential than them, because in my mind, I can create and I can destroy, but my tulpas do not have the same or higher amount of mental potential. This is not me trying to scorn my tulpas. I know they can be intelligent, and beautifully complex and unique, but I was speaking of a 'greater power'. I hope you catch my meaning. My tulpas, like any human being alive, can be destroyed in cold blood, because I take a more 'realistic' approach to tulpamancy and my mindscape is not a much better place than the real world itself.

 

But, it has not damaged my relationship with my tulpas. I speak from experience. I have tulpas who are special to me, some are my dearest friends, and I have tulpas whom I care significantly less about. I have tulpas I respect, and tulpas I scorn. I have never killed a tulpa, but if I deem it necessary, I would. Once again, I remind you I take a 'realistic' approach to tulpamancy, therefore I am not best friends with all of my tulpas. However we get along and manage well enough that I do not have to mistreat them in anyway.

 

For some background information, I did not start off in the tulpa community. My first experiences with thoughtforms is daemonism, and over the years I have lurked in the sites of other communities to learn about their ideas. So I will most likely go about things differently from many people on this forum. My approach to tulpamancy works for me, and I enjoy and cherish just it as much as you do.

 

So, you might think me a cruel host, but I have my own proof right here inside my head that these ideas do not have to be damaging to the concept of tulpamancy, or to my tulpas themselves. Thank you for your time.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.