Jump to content

Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa


Guest Anonymous

I want to give a hug to Melian, the groovy-guru! Outside the Lounge, she is all professionalism with her scientifical spectacles and lab coat! Hugs, sillies and lovies are for the Lounge!   

12 members have voted

  1. 1. I want to give a hug to Melian, the groovy-guru! Outside the Lounge, she is all professionalism with her scientifical spectacles and lab coat! Hugs, sillies and lovies are for the Lounge!

    • A hug for Melian, the goddess guru of grooviness.
      12
    • I am a Minion of Melian, the groovy-guru!
      0


Recommended Posts

Mistgod's final Tulpa Info hypothesis (For Science!):

 

Tulpas are realistic imaginary friends created by using belief, intense visualization and role playing to stimulate the unconscious imagination. Melian, my enhanced imaginary companion, is identical in nature to a tulpa. I simply choose not to call her a tulpa.

 

Super short verson --> Tulpas are hallucinatory make believe. So is Melian.

 

Just a warning, you are going to piss off lots of people.

Also, I think this should be in the Metaphysics board.

man, who knew I was such an asshole?

I did. I knew I was an asshole.

And I didn't warn you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't really see why you keep bringing this up. You've repeated yourself time and time again with this stuff. Not that you don't have a right to, but check out the rest of the board, no one has made tons of threads about their own idealology and beliefs.

 

At this point it just feels like you're trying to stir the pot and make yourself a pariah, so you can complain about people's reactions to the pot stirring. Very unchill behavior, my dude.

We're all gonna make it brah.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

 

Just a warning, you are going to piss off lots of people.

Also, I think this should be in the Metaphysics board.

 

Threats. I get threats for stating a competing hypothesis. Then a suggestion my statements be marginalized to the metaphysics form where it doesn't belong. I honestly don't care if it pisses people off. They need to be able to handle competing ideas in a forum supposedly based on scientific debate.

 

That anger is precisely why I also assert that this is a proto-religious community and not a scientific forum at all.

 

If a hypothesis on the nature of tulpa sentience belongs in the metaphysical forum, then almost everything does. Everyone is talking about tulpa sentience and the nature of tulpas. I just happen to have a contrary view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tulpas are realistic imaginary friends

 

I don't know what this means. Explain it to me.

 

What is it you're trying to disprove? This "hypothesis" doesn't explain any of your beliefs, it's completely meaningless to me. What's an imaginary friend? What are you saying tulpas aren't? Are you trying to say tulpas can't exist on the same level as a normal human's mind?

 

Because we've plenty of people to prove that wrong. Those who call their families of tulpas and theirself "systems" have tulpas that can entirely take the place of the original host. My beliefs personally consider that possible, as I believe tulpas are personas potentially as advanced as your own, and with enough expanding can become an equal to yourself. Most, of course, don't, but then most aren't really given equal standing with their host to have a life with their body. Some are, and they defy your hypothesis. I think. You didn't explain it very well.

 

It matters not whether I am real or illusion... What you say, is a basic statement that is what the old Tibetan tulpas were intended to teach. The next intended step being for you to realize that this world is also an illusion.

 

I brought this up before, but it probably needs to be said again and again. I saw from quotes Mistgod himself posted this is what they said, though he chose to ignore the latter and stick with just tulpas being illusion.

 

Tulpas were supposed to become "real" to you, sentient, thinking, feeling creatures. An undeniable fact to your reality. And then you were reminded they were only illusion. The resulting disparity between what was real to you, and what was "reality", was supposed to help you realize that all things are illusion.

 

If you're gonna keep citing Tibetan monks' tulpas and intents for them, you're gonna have to follow through with that. Most of us are just here to create caring and understanding mental companions, not free ourselves from suffering through recognition of reality as illusion (most of us...). The argument that tulpas are illusion is meaningless if you stop there, that defeats the entire original point of tulpas in the first place. And if you're referring to our modern-day tulpas, then it hardly matters, because tulpas are made to improve the quality of their host's lives through companionship.

 

That being said, I ask you again. What are you trying to disprove? That tulpas can be sentient and autonomous? That they can become equal to their host? To me, it sounds like you're just trying to say "they don't physically exist" over and over. Of course they exist in your mind, but they aren't real!.. what does that mean? What is real? I just don't see the point you're trying to argue. Every time I ask you just say "They're not real" again. What is real to you? And how does it apply to anyone besides yourself? Use your logic and reason to explain your beliefs.

 

All I can think is that you're in denial of what others' tulpas are because they aren't what yours is to you. My tulpas don't run parallel to me, thinking and dreaming and living lives, because they never wanted to and have little experience doing so with the body. But others' do, and I perfectly believe them. Some tulpas are really just advanced imaginary friends without as many abilities as others, but enough personality and self-awareness to be more than an imaginary friend. And I understand them too. But we aren't limited by them, and I'm not held to the standards of systems. Tulpas are a lot of things, and to most of us those things all seem possible. You however appear to be in denial of tulpas being any more than Melian is, and I'm not sure why.

 

She doesn't have to be. Mine aren't complete persons with their own individual lives, because they don't want to be. Melian doesn't have to be more than she is to be "complete" or "a real tulpa" or anything like that. She doesn't need to become her own person completely separate from you. And she doesn't necessarily need to be completely autonomous and without your influence. But that doesn't mean others can't be. My tulpas are free of my influence, and many are their own entire individuals that use the body in the physical world. I suppose you don't have to believe that since you haven't experienced it yourself, but you also can't sit there and say "That's not possible, it's not true!" because you haven't experienced it yourself. To disprove someone else's reality, you need proof. To not acknowledge someone else's reality, you need only believe them to be wrong. And to acknowledge someone else's reality, you need only accept it as true to them.

 

So take your pick. But be warned, proof doesn't exist to prove our realities wrong, because proof exists to each of us ours is right; it is our very existence. This is why I chose to stop proving others wrong and myself right with science, and to learn to understand and accept everyone's reality. It's a pointless endeavor, causes conflict, and helps no one in the end but your own ego's sense of correctness. I'd much rather connect with others than try and make them believe and think like me. Wouldn't you?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

I don't really see why you keep bringing this up. You've repeated yourself time and time again with this stuff. Not that you don't have a right to, but check out the rest of the board, no one has made tons of threads about their own idealology and beliefs.

 

At this point it just feels like you're trying to stir the pot and make yourself a pariah, so you can complain about people's reactions to the pot stirring. Very unchill behavior, my dude.

 

I do a lot of public thinking and mulling things over in my threads. It is actually my way of figuring things out. This hypothesis statement was my way of summing it all up. It is my final conclusion.

 

Threads about hypothesis and discussion on the nature of tulpas don't belong in a forum dedicated to the scientific investigation of tulpas? Do I not understand the main purpose behind this community then?


 

I don't know what this means. Explain it to me.

 

Just what it says. Tulpas are like imaginary friends that seem very realistic because they are being partially driven by a unconscious process in the mind.

 

What is it you're trying to disprove? This "hypothesis" doesn't explain any of your beliefs, it's completely meaningless to me. What's an imaginary friend? What are you saying tulpas aren't? Are you trying to say tulpas can't exist on the same level as a normal human's mind?

 

I am saying that tulpas are make believe in the end. They do not exist on the same level as a human mind at all. It is human thought yes, but only an individual human being convincing themselves they have a headmate or headmates. The thoughts belong only to the human. One mind, one body. It is personal delusion and deception, albeit voluntary.

 

 

Because we've plenty of people to prove that wrong. Those who call their families of tulpas and theirself "systems" have tulpas that can entirely take the place of the original host. My beliefs personally consider that possible, as I believe tulpas are personas potentially as advanced as your own, and with enough expanding can become an equal to yourself. Most, of course, don't, but then most aren't really given equal standing with their host to have a life with their body. Some are, and they defy your hypothesis. I think. You didn't explain it very well.

 

All of those experiences can be explained off as a personal delusion and make believe which is my hypothesis.

 

I brought this up before, but it probably needs to be said again and again. I saw from quotes Mistgod himself posted this is what they said, though he chose to ignore the latter and stick with just tulpas being illusion.

 

I am not a believer in or follower of Eastern metaphysics and philosophy. I really do not believe the universe is only an illusion or that such an idea makes tulpa sentience more plausible somehow. I am a believer in empirical science and a tangible world, even though I am a dreamer. Where does metaphysical mysticism fit in response to my scientific hypothesis?

 

Tulpas were supposed to become "real" to you, sentient, thinking, feeling creatures. An undeniable fact to your reality. And then you were reminded they were only illusion. The resulting disparity between what was real to you, and what was "reality", was supposed to help you realize that all things are illusion.

 

The all things are illusion part I don't accept yet at all. I do get the part about tulpa being an illusion. That I get. You got that part of my hypothesis correct.

 

If you're gonna keep citing Tibetan monks' tulpas and intents for them, you're gonna have to follow through with that. Most of us are just here to create caring and understanding mental companions, not free ourselves from suffering through recognition of reality as illusion (most of us...). The argument that tulpas are illusion is meaningless if you stop there, that defeats the entire original point of tulpas in the first place. And if you're referring to our modern-day tulpas, then it hardly matters, because tulpas are made to improve the quality of their host's lives through companionship.

 

But... it's a scientific forum for the investigation of tulpas. Or is it something else? See that is what I keep getting hung up on. I say the forum itself has an identity crisis here. That is why I am so unpopular. I keep wanting to debate or "stir the pot" as some are saying. I am not just wanting to create a tulpa as a companion and settle in, agree with the popular belief and share.

 

Should I stop wondering about the nature of tulpas altogether then? I have come to that conclusion already that no one here really wants to investigate other possibilities. Really only one conclusion is considered valid.

 

That being said, I ask you again. What are you trying to disprove?

 

I am not trying to disprove anything at this point, just present a competing hypothesis.

 

 

That tulpas can be sentient and autonomous? That they can become equal to their host? To me, it sounds like you're just trying to say "they don't physically exist" over and over. Of course they exist in your mind, but they aren't real!.. what does that mean? What is real? I just don't see the point you're trying to argue. Every time I ask you just say "They're not real" again. What is real to you? And how does it apply to anyone besides yourself? Use your logic and reason to explain your beliefs.

 

I can't explain it any more clear than how you explain tulpas sentience is actually real. I can only say it is equally valid they are hallucinatory in nature and delusional make believe. In my opinion it is like a personal religion almost. Belief is a strong element. People convince themselves they hear Jesus speaking to them, see angels and and are haunted by spirits too. It may all be self delusion.

 

All I can think is that you're in denial of what others' tulpas are because they aren't what yours is to you. My tulpas don't run parallel to me, thinking and dreaming and living lives, because they never wanted to and have little experience doing so with the body. But others' do, and I perfectly believe them. Some tulpas are really just advanced imaginary friends without as many abilities as others, but enough personality and self-awareness to be more than an imaginary friend. And I understand them too. But we aren't limited by them, and I'm not held to the standards of systems. Tulpas are a lot of things, and to most of us those things all seem possible. You however appear to be in denial of tulpas being any more than Melian is, and I'm not sure why.

 

No it's just the opposite. I am saying Melian is identical in nature to a tulpa. That is what I finally have come to realize. That is my hypothesis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tulpas are realistic imaginary friends created by using belief, intense visualization and role playing to stimulate the unconscious imagination. Melian, my enhanced imaginary companion, is identical in nature to a tulpa. I simply choose not to call her a tulpa.

 

Apples are near-spherical tree fruits ranging in color from green to yellow to red, and ranging in taste from sweet to sour. Oranges are identical in nature to apples. We simply choose not to call them apples.

 

As I've said before, (actually, haven't we had this whole discussion before?) Melian's level of integration seems to make her different from a tulpa, and more like a daemon or magical personality. In many ways, Melian is quite similar to tulpas, including the fact that Melian seems to be consciously roleplayed, and tulpas might be unconsciously roleplayed.

 

The idea that tulpas might be unconsciously roleplayed makes a lot of people angry, but the fact is that we can't know for sure.

 

Semi-relevant story:

Mel Blanc, the voice of Bugs Bunny (and a few thousand other characters in animated cartoons, radio, and life-action film and TV) was in a bad car accident, and ended up in a coma. For two weeks, his wife and son sat by his bedside talking to him, hoping to get some response, and getting none whatsoever. It looked as if he might spend the rest of his life in the coma. Then one day, a doctor walked into the room and asked "Bugs Bunny, how are you doing today?" and after a brief pause, Mel Blanc responded "Myeeeeh. What’s up doc?"

 

Proof that tulpas are independent from the host to the extent that when the host is in a coma, the tulpa isn't? Unfortunately, no. According to neurologist Orrin Devinsky, someone with a brain injury of that type "no longer has the ability to differentiate social cues of right and wrong, of when to be Bugs Bunny and when not to be Bugs Bunny, where he is and where is isn't". One of his jobs was to play the role of Bugs Bunny, and when the doctor asked Bugs Bunny a question, it gave Mel Blanc the cue that he was at work, and he played that role that he played professionally. "That was a rehearsed thing that he did. Once you practice things long enough, they become automatic and lower portions of the brain."

 

Basically, according to Devinsky, Bugs Bunny wasn't a sentient thoughtform or an alternate personality or anything -- he was just a habit that became so routine that it became automatic. And there's no way to prove that any tulpa is any more than that.

 

Tulpas are like imaginary friends that seem very realistic because they are being partially driven by a unconscious process in the mind.

 

Mistgod may be upsetting people by saying this, but experts in the field do back him up. I don't think it's something we'll ever be able to prove, because at some point it ceases to be neurology and becomes ontology. But then Mistgod is admitting that he doesn't have the absolute correct answer

 

I can't explain it any more clear than how you explain tulpas sentience is actually real. I can only say it is equally valid they are hallucinatory in nature and delusional make believe.

 

It is equally valid.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

600x300http://assets.amuniversal.com/e1996ea0c0af0132d64a005056a9545d[/img]

 

Please folks. Do not pretend to misunderstand what I am saying or add to it. It is a very simple hypothesis and to the point. Take it or leave it, but don't try to discount it by deliberately misinterpreting it. I know you guys are not that stupid.

 

Tulpas are hallucinatory imaginary friends. My Melian is of the same nature. Not real sentience but a product of faith and voluntary self delusion. That's it. That is all I am saying.


 

Mistgod may be upsetting people by saying this, but experts in the field do back him up. I don't think it's something we'll ever be able to prove, because at some point it ceases to be neurology and becomes ontology. But then Mistgod is admitting that he doesn't have the absolute correct answer

 

 

It is equally valid.

 

Thank you Sushi. It is a discussion I keep coming back to because I am trying to figure it out for myself. It is very personal and important to me. Also, I thought that this is what the point of the forum was!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's boring. "Tulpas are advanced imaginary friends, I believe this to be true." I was hoping to discuss something more interesting.

 

Here's my hypothesis. What you know as "you", the thing that you are and your tulpa is not, is different from the "you" that is your whole body, whole mind, that you and your tulpa both are part of. Your identity, and your being. I believe that tulpas are separate identities, separate from that aspect of you. But I believe they are one and the same with your being. I believe that your identity, and their identity, are equivalent in nature(or can become so, with enough experience on the tulpa's part), and may be interchangeable as to who controls the physical body and mind. I believe the identity can become as fully developed as the original, that it can become as legitimate. In this right, I believe that a tulpa can become as "real" as their host.

 

However, and this is essential to understanding my beliefs: I believe the majority of the human population is closely identified with their identity, as their being. Having nothing to compare it against, they believe their identity is their being. When someone with this belief creates a tulpa, another identity, they believe they themselves are greater and more whole, or "legitimate", than their tulpa. They associate their sense of being with their original identity, stating "they are" and their tulpa "is not" them.

 

I believe the "spiritual", original practice of creating a tulpa was to help fix this disparity. You were given something to compare yourself against, in order to realize that your identity and your being are separate. Acknowledgement of this fact gives a more expansive mindset considered freer and more powerful, as you no longer feel limited by your identity affecting your entire being, but are in control of it. This is the original spiritual practice of creating a tulpa - and as it so happens, lines up nicely with what I've been taught by my spiritual teachers. And despite the word "spirit"ual, none of this is unscientific in nature. Or at least, science doesn't disagree with it. It is logical, reasonable, and in practice often very good for your mental health and lifestyle.

 

These beliefs of mine integrate cleanly with the nature of tulpas, which is why I'm so insistent on the subject. Yes, tulpas are imaginary. However so is your perceived identity you are so attached to calling "you". And I consider it hypocritical to acknowledge one as imaginary and not the other. If your tulpa is deemed imaginary, so must be your sense of identity. Or, your identity is real, and so is your tulpa. They are one and the same, you are just more heavily attached to your own. Acknowledge the tulpa - the imagined, trained sentience and individual - as a figment of your mind; but also acknowledge your identity, your persona, one of your "you"s, to be the same: a figment, imaginary. Your being, the true and whole you, encompasses you both. Your identity, and your tulpa, both exist inside of your mind. Acknowledge both, or acknowledge neither. But if you acknowledge only one, you are a hypocrite.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

If your tulpa is deemed imaginary, so must be your sense of identity. Or, your identity is real, and so is your tulpa. They are one and the same, you are just more heavily attached to your own. Acknowledge the tulpa - the imagined, trained sentience and individual - as a figment of your mind; but also acknowledge your identity, your persona, one of your "you"s, to be the same: a figment, imaginary. Your being, the true and whole you, encompasses you both. Your identity, and your tulpa, both exist inside of your mind. Acknowledge both, or acknowledge neither. But if you acknowledge only one, you are a hypocrite.

 

Reisen I do understand most of what you are saying. It is very interesting and very cool. It must be a beautiful way to enjoy your the company of your tulpas!

 

I don't align with that at all for myself. My identity is singular and firmly connected to my one physical body, physiology and brain. My brain is my mind and my mind is who I am, my identity and my ego. Without my brain there would be no David. There really is only one mind here in this head of mine. All others are imagined or subordinate aspects of that single mind. One brain, one mind, one body and one primary identity. Melian is me. She is really cool and super CGI real, but she is just me role playing, albeit partially in my unconscious mind. I am very proud to have made her and I love her dearly. But she is just make believe.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree I think, once again. I am further from enlightenment than you are it seems. LOL By the way, I still think you rock and roll!

 

Oh and I think my view point also aligns cleanly with tulpas. I can make the same statement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's not my place to tell you what to believe, though I will leave a path for the like-minded. You're free to think as you will, and if your beliefs cause you no trouble then I've even less reason to try and change them. That being said, the original practice was a religious one which I assume's goal was enlightenment or something similar. And that type of thing certainly isn't for everyone.

 

In the end I'm just interested in everyone understanding each other. You can think of tulpas as you'd like, but you have to remember there are no facts to prove others wrong or yourself right here. If there were a clear-cut scientific path to take with this phenomenon, we would've done so long before you came along. Ultimately it's a subjective experience that's different to everyone. So our best bet is to focus on positivity and understanding.

 

... And I suppose you can make your beliefs known in case others find them appealing and want to learn from you. Wouldn't be much content here without that aspect.

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.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...