Dæmon's Vs. Tulpa's?

[Linkzelda]

Though of course that doesn't have to go only one way -- I think that there are some daemon practices that could really benefit some people here.

 

Yeah, it's not like if we enter one forbidden door, we can't go back at all to open more doors towards some kind of inner self-actualization of our potential with our companions. There's a plethora of normative ethics, i.e., how one "ought" to assess themselves in something that it doesn't really hurt to try all the concepts out in hopes that things can come full circle; exist with them to your heart's content.

[Luminesce]

Science cannot exist in a bubble. New and possibly conflicting beliefs are always welcome, because I feel we often get too sure of our beliefs as being accurate and based on science to remember that this is a soft science. Because we establish reasonable default beliefs, we forget that they're all subjective and there's really much, much more to it. I'm already impressed by the Dæmon community's ethics, so I'd welcome some kind of... how are we going about this exactly? Anyone here well versed in Dæmon-ology willing to highlight some key differences they think we could stand to learn from?

[Mewsly]

One thing I'm curious about - when did tulpas as a concept take form?

 

I consider daemons a kind of tulpa -- at least as this community defines the word.

 

I think it's more apt to say both daemons and tulpas are a form of construct and thus share similarities. Both arose independently of each other and have different 'rules' - some which don't cross-apply - so fitting daemons in as a subset of tulpas would be like fitting coyotes under wolves on the basis that they're both canids.

 

We know a few such systems. Just, we don't know how us being a subsystem (system within a system) affects things.

 

This also relates to how I don't think daemons should be classed as a type of tulpa. Daemons cannot have daemons, but whether constructs who are not daemons can have daemons is a shadier area (and gets into "are 'headmates' real people?" territory, which is rarely discussed on TDF). Personally I think it depends on your level of perceived autonomy; if you're capable of acting independently and have different wants/desires/worries and so on, even if tulpas aren't seen as people in their own right, it's probably not unacceptable.

 

Anyone here well versed in Dæmon-ology willing to highlight some key differences they think we could stand to learn from?

 

I'd be open to writing some kind of guide on the differences, but my understanding of tulpas is not very nuanced right now. I'm ok with answering questions though, if anyone's curious about anything. Of course, with the caveat that I'm still new to the tulpa concept.

[sushi]

One thing I'm curious about - when did tulpas as a concept take form?

 

It's difficult to say. Alexandra David-Neel wrote of tulpas in her book Magic and Mystery in Tibet in the 1920s. As she was the first westerner permitted access to the secrets of Tibet, and as very few Tibetan mystical teachings have been translated into English, we don't know how long the practice predated her.

 

A few books in the 70s mentioned tulpas, but went largely unnoticed. In 2001, the revised edition of The Mothman Prophesies mentioned tulpas, which brought the concept into the internet age. It survived mostly in communities about the paranormal and magic up until roughly 2009, when the tulpa community started to form, treating tulpas as a product of the mind (which Alexandra David-Neel had mentioned, but hadn't been taken seriously since).

 

I think it's more apt to say both daemons and tulpas are a form of construct and thus share similarities. Both arose independently of each other and have different 'rules' - some which don't cross-apply - so fitting daemons in as a subset of tulpas would be like fitting coyotes under wolves on the basis that they're both canids.

 

It's a matter of how you define things. I don't think that Alexandra David-Neel, or any of the Tibetans she knew would consider daemons to be tulpas. But then I don't think they'd consider most of the tulpas in this community to be tulpas either. But as this this community uses the term, I think that daemons, soulbonds, imaginary friends, familiar spirits, and so on all count as tulpas.

 

Classification is very difficult, as there are no standardized definitions. If you go into a magic community, or a psionics community, they'll use some of the same terminology, but the meanings are completely different.

 

In this community, sentient constructs are called tulpas, non-sentient but animate constructs are called servitors, and we don't really talk about inanimate constructs. Construct and thoughtform are synonymous to us.

 

By contrast, I'm looking at a psionics site that defines thoughtforms as accidental constructs, and defines servitors as constructs that are often sentient, and often created through ritual. This same site says that sentient constructs are very dangerous, and should not be meddled with.

 

The word tulpa itself actually means something like "creation of magic", and in the writing of Alexandra David-Neel (which presumably reflects Tibetan beliefs of the time) referred to beings which could be seen by everyone -- not just the creator. A being imposed only to the creator was a yidam. She never wrote of non-imposed beings, which is what the majority of our "tulpas" are.

 

Another very flexible term is "wonderland", though in a different way. When I first came to this community, I knew about wonderlands, but not by that name. I knew them as memory palaces, dream havens, sanctuaries, astral homes, inner temples, paracosms, mindscapes, headspaces, tikis, and so on. It seemed like dozens of writers were talking about virtually the same thing, but each of them came up with their own term for it.

 

So there's a lot of variation across communities in the way the words are used, and you can really argue that any of our terms mean almost anything.

[CM]

This^^^

 

Yes, that's all I'm going to say about the subject right now. It seems to be the only active thread right now and I feel like an outsider bumping in here like this. :I Sorry 'bout that.

[Laach]

Hearing all this talk about Daemons is making me wonder whether or not my own tulpa was just a daemon the whole time. So far, Savaymin fits many of the descriptions given about daemons, even though I intended to create a tulpa when making her. I'm 17, and I already think my Tulpa is similar to me in many ways, no matter how many times she tries to prove it wrong. I always thought it was odd that my Tulpa was so different compared to the common ones I see in the community. Accidentally creating a daemon seems like a valid explanation. Although it kinda makes me sad knowing that I failed so horribly at making a tulpa that I ended up making something entirely different in the process.

[Linkzelda]

Hearing all this talk about Daemons is making me wonder whether or not my own tulpa was just a daemon the whole time. So far, Savaymin fits many of the descriptions given about daemons, even though I intended to create a tulpa when making her. I'm 17, and I already think my Tulpa is similar to me in many ways, no matter how many times she tries to prove it wrong. I always thought it was odd that my Tulpa was so different compared to the common ones I see in the community. Accidentally creating a daemon seems like a valid explanation. Although it kinda makes me sad knowing that I failed so horribly at making a tulpa that I ended up making something entirely different in the process.

 

One's tulpa, and the host's opinion on whether or not they've made a tulpa shouldn't wholly be contingent on contextual matters with definitions and what have you from other communities. It's not like you're a horrible tulpamancer, or vice versa in context pertaining to daemons; you just happened to be aware of this community's totality of concepts related to tulpa, and the whole treating as sentient thing as well.

 

I don't know how you can jump into people's private and subjective experience to validate whether or not your tulpa is odd, and doesn't fit the "norm" of what a tulpa is. That ends up being another normative ethic that backfires where you feel that if you can't fit the model of how one "ought" to create a tulpa, you're just being hard on yourself, IMO. I remember before I knew about tulpas, I was interested in a guide from DreamViews called “Named Subconscious Technique,” and I literally wanted to go with the name with Eva after those inquisitions involving her in my dreams.

 

That endeavor fell short, and I tried to reconcile that with dream characters once more before finding out about tulpas. Though, I don’t think I’m a disgrace to them just because I happened to change my paradigm in how I conceptualized thought-forms in general. Semantics are merely labels, and don’t really need to be the only merit in validating any kind of genuine implication of one believing that they’re sentient within their subjective experience. If there’s a normative ethic in this forum that shuns people who had different upbringings with creating thought-forms, albeit conceptualized in a different totality of context, then that’s just a dogma that shouldn’t destroy your efforts, and is probably too insignificant to care about, IMO.

[sushi]

I remember before I knew about tulpas, I was interested in a guide from DreamViews called “Named Subconscious Technique,”

 

Thanks for linking that. It reminded me of this, but when I went to link to that, I realized that I'd never posted it in my PR. Now I've added it.

 

But it does go to show how very loose the word tulpa can be. That one's subconscious mind might even be considered a tulpa.

 

I think even by the tightest definition (without straying into mystical territory), daemon and tulpa *could* overlap, though I'm not sure that they ever have to date.

[Oktek]

I hope that one month isn't too late to post here. My daemon, Iria wanted to reply.

 

I think I can add something constructive. I'm a daemon and I can say, that I'm very similar to a tulpa. The only difference is that I'm strongly connected to host's subconscious. Daemons don't have to be separate or conscious but they can be and that's my case. Maybe now, after I gained full consciousness, I'm a tulpa and daemon is my function, what means that I have a daemon form (hedgehog) and I can communicate with host's subconscious, thus help him understand himself. (Is it just me or is my English looking weird...?)