The Difference Between Tulpas and Soulbonds?

[Lucilyn]

If it were up to me, I would just leave it as "thoughtform" for all of it.  Take off the descriptor "sentient" or I will be having convulsions of cringe and frustration.  The word "sentient" is totally unnecessary and problematic.

 

the word "sentient" is the whole point of this forum

[video=youtube]

[Mistgod]

No, it is not.

 

"It’s currently unproven whether or not tulpas are truly sentient"

 

"a tulpa is like a sentient person"

 

"It takes time for a tulpa to develop a convincing and complex personality"  (the word "convincing" sounds like a magic trick)

 

"You’ll create a tulpa by imagining a person in your head, and treating them as a person." (treating them as such, not that they ARE)

 

"The exact mechanism is unknown, but as you give a tulpa attention, and believe it can be a sentient person, it will grow into one, and act independently of you."  (the mechanism is unknown, you only treat it as if it is sentient.  That doesn't mean it IS sentient.  "Believing" sounds like deluding yourself and creating an illusion.)

 

"Q: How does a tulpa work?

A: There are many differing theories about tulpa creation, multiplicity, and how the phenomenon works neurologically and psychologically. Currently there’s no way to say for sure how a tulpa works. There are different theories and thoughts on the topic posted on the forums, and articles on the site."

 

"Q: Prove tulpas!

A: Tulpas can only be observed subjectively, inside one’s mind. The only possibility of “proving” tulpas is by doing scientific experiments with expensive fMRI or EEG machines, which so far, have been out of reach of the community. If you are skeptical about the phenomenon, you can observe others who have made tulpas, read progress reports, and determine for yourself whether you think it’s possible for a tulpa to exist, and come up with your own ideas as to how tulpas may work. One thing that speaks for tulpas is the fact that thousands of people have tried creating tulpas and are absolutely (yet subjectively) convinced of the phenomenon."  

 

(sounds like the are encouraging me to decide for myself here, not telling me tulpas ARE sentient)

 

:-)  Notice it doesn't say tulpas ARE sentient thoughtforms

[Lucilyn]

Notice how it's all talking about tulpa sentience, because that's the whole point of the forum, it's not "unnecessary and problematic"

also I didn't even say "tulpas ARE sentient is the whole point of this forum" but I'm not saying I wouldn't say it

also this is still off topic

I'd be on topic to talk about how some thoughtforms are sentient and some aren't (it's a VERY vague term), but I get the feeling it'd lead the conversation the same place

[Mistgod]

never mind, this post was redundant I made my point earlier. It's not about sentience. I think that using that word on the front page of this forum, by the forum founders, was a mistake.

[Allegg]

Hey uh, sorry to dig up an old discussion for this, but just wanted a little clarification here

Do Soulbonds necessarily *have* to be fictional characters in origin? Or is it possible they could form by some more original means? My visitor is very much a walk-in that appeared fully-formed (though he's more of a proto-Tulpa than a proper personality) and I immediately shared a bond with him, so I feel like "Soulbond" wouldn't be an inaccurate term. But he is 100% my own, he doesn't come from anywhere else.
I read through these old discussions, so I get that labels aren't super important usually, but I feel it'd help me sort things in my head at least. Plus, it feels right, but I wanted to check to see if it *is* right before I go around using it.

Thanks in advance!

[Etna]

@Allegg You might find the section 8.1. Thoughtform family tree in Tulpa's DIY Guide to Tulpamancy v4 helpful. Or at the very least interesting! :)

[Guest Toby]

5 hours ago, Allegg said:

Hey uh, sorry to dig up an old discussion for this, but just wanted a little clarification here

Do Soulbonds necessarily *have* to be fictional characters in origin? Or is it possible they could form by some more original means? My visitor is very much a walk-in that appeared fully-formed (though he's more of a proto-Tulpa than a proper personality) and I immediately shared a bond with him, so I feel like "Soulbond" wouldn't be an inaccurate term. But he is 100% my own, he doesn't come from anywhere else.
I read through these old discussions, so I get that labels aren't super important usually, but I feel it'd help me sort things in my head at least. Plus, it feels right, but I wanted to check to see if it *is* right before I go around using it.

Thanks in advance!

Hi,I have a couple of soulbonds.I'm not the best at answering questions but they are usually fictional characters or original characters (ocs mostly from fandoms) you created or someone else.If you don't feel it's a soulbond then it's not.If you feel it's a walk-in or tulpa then it is.I guess I'm saying only you can decide but there is some guides on this forums with definitions than can explain waaaay better than me. :) 

Edited March 8, 2022 by Toby

[Allegg]

Thanks for the replies!

Since it seems like Soulbonds are usually fictive, I no longer feel like my visitor is one. I'd feel like I'd have to bend the definition for him, so obviously it doesn't really fit.

I was very surprised to find the definition of Daemon, however; in hindsight it's obvious, but I hadn't been expecting id-based thoughtforms. My visitor (visitor's probably the wrong word, I should stop using it) actually formed from there through personal reasons, so I hadn't really thought about it before or thought to mention it. But, he's been acting as a bridge for me to deal with my subconscious parts ever since he showed up, so I guess that makes him a proto-Daemon at least. Or, according to the definitions, a Servitor.

As a 40k player and a strong believer in free will, that term has me mildly unsettled for two reasons. But the definitions also imply that he can grow if made to do more complicated things, eventually gaining sentience. Knowing this, I think it's given me something to aim for.

Thank you @Etna for sharing those definitions, they were *very* helpful! And thank you both for responding!