Guest Anonymous

I Hate the Word "Host"

Recommended Posts

That's interesting, and I understand where you're coming from. I usually use the word "host" because I hate the word "tulpamancer", which is the most popular alternative.


"Tulpa" literally means something like "creation of magic". It refers to a being created by magic that is objectively real and can be perceived by everyone. It is not the right word for what we do here. "Yidam" would be a more accurate Tibetan word.


"-mancer" is derived from the Greek "manteía", meaning prophesy or divination. Thus oneiromancy means divination through dreams, and geomancy means divination through rocks, sand, dirt, or markings on the ground.


Necromancy, in ancient times, referred to summoning up the spirits of the dead to reveal information no longer known to the living -- divination through the dead. But then it got adapted into Dungeons and Dragons, which gradually turned it into "magic of death". That bastardization extended the the suffix "-mancy", resulting in words like "pyromancer" for someone who can throw fireballs.


So I think when people use the word "tulpamancer" they think it means "someone who creates sentient and independent thoughtforms through a process which seems like magic." But what they're actually saying is "someone who tells the future using beings made out of magic."


The term annoys me.

"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I actually have grown fond of the term "host". Likely because I don't use it in the parasitic fashion it may imply, and also because, due to personal habit, I actually don't call my folks "tulpas". (Not for the same reason as Sushi, but his explanation made my resolve not to use it that much stronger.)


Rather, I call them my "residents", and I am their "host", as if they are living in a hotel/inn/boarding house/ etc. Since they live in my mind, calling them such instead of "tulpa" was a relatively easy jump, and I felt it was a warmer way to refer to them.


That is not the only way I refer to them, as anyone who reads my posts know already. There's also mind/thought-folk, in-dweller, thought people, "fragment" for those whom I feel aren't sufficiently conscious, "mental figure" as a general if cold term, etc.


I was toying with "Persona", but I decided against it, and later found that people in the community felt it would be dismissive of and offensive to mind folk's humanity.


As for the tags, I am indifferent to them. It just seemed to be a tool to denote who was whom, who was speaking, and who is available for discussion on the chat room. I don't use them myself, but that is largely because I don't put my residents on to proxy much.



Sock Cottonwell's

Sketchbook, Journal, and Ask thread.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Host sounds a bit malicious and impersonal at first, but when you're around this community you get used to the term being more neutral - "host" just means the person making it possible for others to exist. If you have tulpas, then you are a host, whether you associate negativity with that word or not. If you're multiple though, I guess you're a system? I dunno about those things. I understand you want independence Melian, but I don't think that makes you not a tulpa. Many tulpas here actually often share their host's body with them, some actually have jobs specific to them in real life and many possess (yet another intimidating term, but again it makes sense neutrally) for large periods of time straight. Tulpa doesn't mean imaginary friend, which is non-sentient and largely controlled and directed by the host, albeit eventually somewhat automatically. Tulpa means you're essentially a human without a body, and host generally refers to the original person in the body. I support the idea that tulpas can become just as wholesome as hosts, though I don't support permanent switching. Part-time possession/switching seems amazing to me though, just potentially very complicated. With enough practice and the right conditions, there's not much a host can do that a tulpa can't. The body will always be originally the host's, even if the host permanently gives up their place (don't do that), but aside from that a tulpa can usually either have the host help them or temporarily possess the body to accomplish any external goals.


A lot of tulpas don't have external goals, though. I know some that want nothing more than to have their own body and be human, but I know even more that simply want to complement their host's life as well as they can. My tulpas are completely at peace with their existence, and their goals can all be summed up as "Improve the lives of us and our host". Of course we like to do things just for fun too, so we practice possession from time to time so they can do things in real life, which most often means talking here. Anyways, more power to you being as independent as you want, you don't need labels for that. And all the words and terms used in this community and others are just labels for loosely grouped phenomena. It's for ease of sharing information, not restricting freedom. The reason so many of us use the terms so freely is that once you and your tulpas are comfortable with what they are and aren't, labels aren't so threatening. Being able to communicate these extremely subjective experiences is very useful, and if you know who and what you are, using the word "host" or "tulpa" won't physically hurt you.


I mean, people tend to learn this stuff with time, just participating in normal community stuff. But I guess there's nothing wrong with accelerating your introduction period by getting this stuff out of the way more quickly and directly.

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

Hmm i dont see "host" as something negative. Maybe because my mother tongue is´nt english. The host was someone who hosted a lan-party in my country and we played together. The host is the one who give´s the drinks and the location so he was something very possitive. I liked the word host and just found out later that host also means the human who is infected by a parasite. You got a negative expirience wiht host and i got a possitive one. I love my tulpa and she love´s me without the need of words just the feelings and host is connected in my brain in a possitive way so why should´nt she call me the "host" if it is by a friendly meaning for the both of us.


Words are meaningless.


If you don´t want to use the name host for the one who controlles the body then find a word which is good for the connection you have.

I dont see the problem why you are claiming for a common definition of the body controller or the one who was in there before. It is obviously ok for the most people.


I dont think you are a bad person i like the way you´re open mindet and try to communicate with others. But you should think a bit more carefully of the content you post and reflect how it looks for others. Because i basicly dont see a problem of the definition of word´s or why you should claim about it aslong as the commen meaning about this word is positive.

Lacie(my tulpa for my everydaylife and also my best friend)


Noah together with Lynn are my spirituell tulpa´s im using for meditation


Darcmanish Me


Lacie´s and my progress report.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am their "host", as if they are living in a hotel/inn/boarding house/ etc.



Also, given how modern tulpamancy has stripped the religious Tibetan elements from the practice and views it (at least on as a psychological phenomenon (as opposed to a spiritual or metaphysical one), referring to your thoughtforms/muses/fetches/headmates/constructs/penumbras/imaginary friends/any number of synonyms as "tulpa" seems akin to calling any form of swimming "baptism". (ie, "Hey guys, let's go to the beach for a baptism!") I'd support a movement to change what we call tulpas to something else to better distance it from its Tibetan roots, but I doubt it'd see much, ah, support from other 'mancers. Seems like we keep calling them "tulpas" mostly out of inertia than anything else. There was an old thread about this very subject, and while was plenty of discussion and some ideas got thrown around, nothing really came of it.

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.

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.