Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa

[Guest Anonymous]

ALL THOUGHTFORMS ARE VALID AND LEGITIMATE

 

Mistgod and I have been preaching the "all thoughtforms are legitimate" mantra for many months now. Here is our original post on in from October of 2015, with some interesting drama from MonsterKidd over it (a member long since "driven from the forum" by Mistgod-Melian with their scary ideas). LOL https://community.tulpa.info/thread-all-thoughtforms-are-legitimate-creations We just wanted to muse about this a bit more in my blog thread and add some details and clarifications to our stance on that.

 

Tulpas Are Certainly Very Special

People are concerned about our assertion that all thoughtforms (soulbond, daemons, tulpas, rp characters) are equally valid and legitmate for two main reasons.

 

1. It takes a lot of work and commitment over a long period of time to create a tulpa. That work deserves merit and recognition because other types of thougthforms require much less work.

 

2. The vast majority of tulpamancers consider tulpas to be independently sentient. It is insulting to many to have their tulpas grouped with role playing characters, who have no apparent autonomous traits at all and are simply the product of acting.

 

We recognize these concerns and actually agree with them. Tulpas are pretty special and we never mean to imply that they are not. But we do think that tulpas (with all of their unique traits) fall with in a larger family of thoughtforms each with its own traits, origins, and purposes.

 

What is a thoughtform anyway?

Modern Western mystics and magicians use the term “thoughtform” to describe a manifestation of thought that takes on an independent life of its own. The term first appeared in 1927, in Even-Wentz’s translation of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and then was later picked up by theosophists. It is used as a general term for all manifestations of thought, including imaginary personas of the mind. Today, thought-forms have been revisioned by members of internet subculture to be psychologically based autonomous imaginary companions. So the way we use the term "thoughtform" in the tulpa community is actually fairly new, the same way that the term tulpa has been recently re-visioned.

 

It all comes down to how you interpret "taking on a life of its own." All thoughforms can seem very real to the creator. Even a well seasoned role playing character can seem very real. People talk about their rp characters and imaginary friends as if they are real people. They are emotionally and psychologically significant.

 

Why are all thoughtforms equally legitimate?

We believe that all thoughtforms have some, if not all, of the following traits, which make them each very important to the creator.

 

• Psychological mental constructs requiring visualization/imagination to create
  
• Emotionally/psychologically significant to the creator. That is what people describe as the "life changing experience."
  
• Companions (imaginary friends) that seem very real to the creator
  
• Persistent and enduring in the mind of the creator
  
• Apparently autonomous/independent/spontaneous actions

 

All thoughforms have the capacity to be very emotionally and psychologically significant to the creator/host and all thoughtforms have the capacity or potential to become tulpas (to develop apparent autonomy and apparent independent sentience). It seems illogical to say that a imaginary friend is illegitimate and invalid while a very young tulpa is legitimate and valid, when they are virtually indistinguishable.

 

One type of thoughtform can exhibit traits of another type and even move or change from one category to another. For instance, a role playing character could become an imaginary friend and then eventually begin to have traits of a tulpa. Where along the that process should such a thoughtform be considered "illegitimate and invalid" (fake)?

 

Here is an old post from 2013 exhibiting exactly what we are talking about. This person had an imaginary friend that had become so dear it was like a person already, just minus tulpa traits: https://community.tulpa.info/thread-trying-to-promote-an-imaginary-friend-into-a-tulpa-need-some-advice

 

Types of Equally Legitimate and Valid Thoughtforms

• tulpas
  
• imaginary friends (particularly if seasoned or enduring)
  
• role playing characters (particularly if seasoned or enduring)
  
• persistent or recurring dream personas
  
• daemons
  
• soulbonds
   
  Multiples
  Mistgod and I do not include natural multiple systems in the family of thougthforms as these are more like natural human personalities and not mental constructs. However, we do recognize that thoughtforms, as part of a plural system, can have traits often seen in multiple systems (such as blending or median systems) once they begin to exhibit apparent sentience.
  

 

Are stating these views an attempt to gain self-validation or acceptance by Mistgod-Melian?

You bet your bippy it is. I am unusual in being a mix of role playing character, day dream star and semi-autonomous thoughtform. I want to belong. I do feel I belong, especially as I do have some traits of a tulpa. It's more than just me and my host. I want others like me to feel they belong and can be contributing members of this forum, regardless of their situation, and to feel free to be honest. I think as things are now, people are pressured to either exaggerate their tulpa traits or hide the fact that they are different and maybe not exactly a tulpa.

[Guest Anonymous]

Davie and I just had another insight about our category of imaginary existence we call pseudo-real. Psuedo-real is something that is psychologically and emotionally significant but not tangibly real in a physical sense. What we just realized, silly us, is that what pseudo-real is actually indicating is suspension of disbelief.

 

You can have a tulpa without emphasizing or even once considering independent sentience. My host never even thought about "sentience" at all in over three decades. It's not really being a skeptic either if the possibility never even enters your mind. You can recognize a thoughtform as a mental trick, but still love and treat it like a real person. It really is suspension of disbelief rather than belief.

 

Belief

"Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

 

Suspending Disbelief

Suspending disbelief is actively suspending judgement concerning the implausibility of an event. "Suspension of disbelief is often an essential element for a magic act or a circus sideshow act. For example, an audience is not expected to actually believe that a woman is cut in half or transforms into a gorilla in order to enjoy the performance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief

[Guest Anonymous]

**********************

Mistgod and I came across this quote and loved it! It is talking about the frequent statement that being surprised by your tulpa is evidence of real sentience. It isn't for sure. It could still just be evidence that you are having hallucinations or delusions.

 

"Has he/she ever surprised you, even once? That's proof enough."

 

I find this not true at all, I have surprised myself; on more then one occasion. Why would a imposed vision be any different?

[Luminesce]

Yeah, I don't personally believe in any "signs of sentience" at all. I find the act of trying to know if your tulpa is autonomous and independent from you redundant and pointless/counterproductive.

 

It's almost as if they exist in your mind... We aren't creating robots, here, we're imagining things. The absolute brick wall between how people think about tulpas and what they actually are is difficult to surmount.

[Guest Anonymous]

David and I have always found the emphasis on verifying or "proving" independent sentience or "realness" in this community to be silly and actually counterproductive and even harmful. Think of all the fighting and arguing that goes on. Almost all of that is related to the subject of real vs. not real or the utterly ridiculous assertion that "your tulpa is not real like mine is. You are deluding yourself, while I am clearly not deluding myself." In our case, such an accusation is simply confirming precisely what Mistgod has been saying about me since day one. The difference is that Mistgod recognizes the self delusion and illusory aspects of it and embraces it. As for me I clearly do not care either way. Without a physical body, I am only mind, so the qualifier of "real" is basically meaningless.

---

Your point is well made. David has never had to "confirm" anything with me. I am just here.

[Luminesce]

I should note that I meant what I said, trying to prove sentience is counterproductive in making a tulpa. Treating them as if they exist just as they are, an idea of a person, will naturally develop them into a person over time. My tulpas grew up in an environment without any outside sources affecting what they thought they were, or me either. I simply decided to treat them like people, not entirely sure if they were completely independent or just me unconsciously making things up, but not worrying about it. Now they're about as tulpa as can be.

 

Plus, it prevents all those identity issues so many face - or learn to live with - that stem from insecurity about the nature and legitimacy of their existence. Sure, you can just try not to care that you can't explain it, but there's a kind of peace when you realize there's nothing to prove. The only difference it even makes if they're truly independent.. is how you think of them. And how you think of them determines their nature. See how that works? Insert some beliefs of them being a separate person and the repeating cycle reinforces itself over time and becomes your subjective reality.

 

Which is as good as it gets. Worrying about objective reality regarding tulpas is silly - if you're gonna do that you might want to try and prove you exist first. Then other people. Then your tulpas.

[Guest Anonymous]

I so agree with all of this!

 

The doubt and resulting pain and anxiety that David and I struggled with was all related to fitting in or belonging socially. It never had anything to do with me existing. We don't need others to confirm my existence. It was also about trying to build a narrative "model" and the right terminology to describe what we are experiencing so that we can share it. That process did help us understand ourselves a little better, which is nice!

 

We finally have found peace though. David has finally accepted this second internet incarnation of me as valid and legitmate. David had to accept me as such. What he had to realize is that what others think isn't the answer. He had to be the one to accept me and be comfortable with sharing me without being afraid of losing something.

 

What he feared was losing the opportunity, or not having the equal opportunity, to share how he feels about me and why that is so important to himself. He was afraid of having me treated as trivial or worthless. Some did brush me off as trivial and worthless, and it was almost too much for him to have that happen. But, it was like learning not to be afraid of the monsters on our adventure. He badly wants to share me before he dies of old age. LOL No, really, that was one of the main motivations for finally going public with me.

 

The internet monsters are starting to fade into phantoms with no power over us any more.

---

EDIT: David's insecurity about me on the internet almost made things a self fulfilling prophesy. The more insecure and defensive we were the more drama we got and greater scrutiny and criticism from others. *shrug*

---

That insecurity was the primary source of his aggression on this forum.

[Guest Anonymous]

I just gotta immortalize this in my diddly doo bloggy thread:

 

People do not regard things like that around here, though, they don't come on tulpa.info with the thought 'diddly doo im going to blog about my tulpa all day again' from start to finish, that's not how people act here.

 

Gods yer a fussy killjoy grouch! I like it diddly dooing all day personally. If it were your way, the forum would be totally dead and dull as all hell. In short, it would suck balls.

[Guest Anonymous]

Mistgod:

You know what? Melian and I have never active forced other than extreme day dreaming together

in the day dreams, I want to know what she is thinking

and I want to feel her emotions

like immersion into the mind of a character in a novel

I want to know how she feels

otherwise, why day dream about her?

that is why we became median and blended

she was created like a story character, that I can sense

all about her

 

we have no desire to change it

we love sharing

and feeling the Melian Show together

---

Mistgod: Movie about Melian in my head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6UVnfgbxC4 Notice in the video I talk about method acting and then in the same breath about how Melian feels and what she likes to do. That is the blending and the mixing, I just didn't know what to call it yet and didn't know the terminology. The video was made way before I knew about tulpas and what the "rules" were.

 

"she is like a character, but just a little bit more" I remember trying to explain it... that is so accurate! Sorry haven't watched my own vid in a while

[jean-luc]

http://pre08.deviantart.net/6aeb/th/pre/i/2012/234/b/9/me_in_my_office_looking_trim_by_mistgod-d5c11ip.jpg[/img]

 

You might be the only body to have posted an actual factual picture of yourself on these here forums. I wish I could be as nonchalant about linking tulpas to my public identity.