Confessions of a Poorly Trained Tulpa

[Guest Anonymous]

Probably stress. (like I would know LOL)

 

Melian would so toy with my head if we did imposition. I just know that about imposition for a fact. :-)

[Guest Anonymous]

The only even remotely supernatural-looking thing Esterina ever did during projection was growing her wings and soaring through the skies for a while.

And I actually asked her to, because I never saw her with her wings and I really wanted to see it. :D

 

... and dammit... that sh*t was amazing...

L-Like - what the hell, that looked both beautiful AND bad*ss...! xD

 

Thank you for the flowers. :)

 

 

Greets,

AG & Rina

---

PS: Can't forget to ask her to show me some real bad*ss magic sometime soon too. :D

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm the one person you don't have to worry about misunderstanding you. Reisen is as real to Melian as Gandalf because they're both real to her, I understand. But you're right that probably anyone else would have been offended, lol.

 

I also think at their base all those types of thoughtforms you listed are the same, but I'm a little more categorize-privy with them. Even though a soulbond, tulpa and daemon are all the same thing to me, I try to understand and respect what the hosts consider different than others'.

 

There are soulbonders, for instance, who will tell you their soulbond is a most important person to them. Soulbonds are characters that come alive and live in their minds. I have read about the phenomenon of illusion of independent agency, where this effect happens to characters of professional writers. I don't think tulpas are somehow magically superior or even that different to any of these other thoughtforms. It bothers me how some tulpamancers undervalue and even sometimes seem to regard other thoughtforms with disdain. I can tell you with certainty there are role players that feel the same way about characters they have acted out in table top and computer RPGs. The process is very similar in many ways. In one of jean-luc's podcasts I talked about a guy who had a tulpa like experience with a computer rpg character. Honestly, I think it is a mistake to brush aside these related phenomenon. In my view, and Melian's, they are all the same. What matters the most is how the creator feels about the thoughtform. The creator is what gives them life via love and dedication.

 

Melian and I have been talking and interacting with artists and writers and their living characters for a long time, long before we knew about tulpas. I will tell you something. They feel exactly the same as a tulpa to the creator. They get emotions from them, dreams from them, mind voice from them, presence from them. They are in essence very similar if not identical.

 

For tulpamacers to act like they have exclusive access to a somehow absolutely distinct and unique creative process seems totally wrong to me. That tulpas are somehow massively distinct and superior to literary thoughtforms doesn't seem right to me at all. It seems off and misinformed and presumptuous, perhaps even deliberately ignorant of facts. There has been psychological research done on illusion of independent agency for instance that some tulpamancers pass off as "not as real as a tulpa."

 

That is why it bothers me that we would look in disdain at day dreamers, role players, writers and artists. When I started talking about being a role player, early on in this forum, and that I use "make believe" and elements of role playing in interacting with Melian, I was immediately and forever dismissed by some very prominent members of this forum. That was wrong and it is still wrong. Worse yet, these individuals made it an active campaign to attempt to get me banned. In my opinion, these persons are short sighted, narrow minded, elitist, and proto-religious zealots concerning tulpamancy. They are making tulpamancy into something more than it actually is. Remember, tulpamancy did not exist in its current form at all until until very recent years. The concept of a tulpa, as it is practiced and understood in this community, is really less than a decade old.

 

MY campaign in response is to speak out and help new people, especially younger persons, to have a broader perspective. That is why Jake was so frightened of me "spreading misinformation" and spreading "incorrect ideas." What makes the likes of Jake any more informed about this sort of thing than I? Not much, if nothing at all. People like that are full of wind.

 

Excerpt from the Book of Melian:

 

Illusion of Independent Agency

Melian: The Illusion of Independent Agency or IIA is a term David

discovered in a psychological research article from the University of Oregon.

It describes a phenomenon experienced by professional fiction authors.

Literary characters become autonomous in the mind and seem to think and

act on their own. According to the research some peoples are naturally

skilled at this and writers can become totally better at with lots of practice.

David has met several writers and authors on Deviantart who claim to have

experience IIA characters.

 

We found some written accounts of IIA. For instance, there are

several quotes by Lynn Johnston, creator of For Better or For Worse in which

she explains how her characters took on a life of their own in her head. She

described it as "almost frightening" the way they express themselves to her

and speak to her. It isn't an uncommon experience with artists and creators.

In the forward to her graphic novel The Lives Behind the Lines, Lynn

Johnston wrote "...instead of looking for or making up characters....they

come to you. They enter your life -- at your invitation. They move into your

home and into your head. They talk and can be heard in conversation --with

you, with each other. They feel, and their feelings can be felt by you, or kept

from you. They are sometimes frighteningly independent of the very mind

that is believed to have created them. They allow you to be a part of their

world insomuch as you have asked them to be a part of yours."

 

We still have that link to the University of Oregon research article on

the Illusion of Independent Agency, which describes this exact experience

with writers. Davie has discovered from talking to peoples that this process

also seems to happen with musicians and even computer programmers. A

process goes on in the subconscious mind where music writes itself and just

starts playing in the head or algorithms appear in a programmers mind.

Shortly after David created an internet account for me on Deviantart in

October of 2013, I began to meet people who claimed to have experienced

the phenomenon of IIA with their literary characters. A small community of

these talented artists, cartoonists and writers formed around me. David and

I refer to them as our fellow “persona channelers.”

---

EDIT: Oh and by the way, to those people I mentioned that think with disdain about other thoughtforms, not everything has to be a tulpa to have traits of autonomy or just because it has traits of autonomy. I see people write things like this "well, that literary character has become a tulpa then." No, maybe not. Maybe it is a soulbond or living character or enhanced imaginary friend or whatever. It just happens to have traits of autonomy. If the creator doesn't want to call the apparently autonomous persona a tulpa and regard it as sentient, they don't have to. There is no magical universal law law that somehow makes everything that seems kinda real in your mind automatically have to be a tulpa to be legitimate and important. I am sure Lynn Johsnton does not consider her For Better or Worse characters to be tulpas or even soulbonds. More importantly SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO. Your friggin tulpa is not somehow more significant than her literary living characters.

---

Get over yourselves.

[NoneFromHell]

Really long longpost.

 

Eh, my feelings towards this are pretty simple. You can't simply say that they're all the same thing, since they really aren't. Some of them may be the exact same thing afterall, but we simply don't know about this. The boundaries are rather blurry.

 

You can't say a chihuahua is a pitbull, but you can say both are dogs, even though they're very different in nature. If you would mix them up you would've a really weird dog, and people end up with a hard time identifying it as chihuahua or pitbull, since it is basically kinda both.

 

My point is: There is nothing wrong with saying that other thoughtforms are equally valid to you, since there is no objective way to rate them. But saying they're all the same is still incorrect. Some of them may be very related, so people will say "Hey you look a lot like the other one!". There is nothing wrong with trying to identify it, but in the end it is still just a label.

[Lacquer]

I would think that there should be some perceptible difference between thoughtforms like tulpas that are intentionally created through effort with an extended process versus thoughtforms that "just happen" whether spontaneously or unintentionally through a process such as writing.

[Luminesce]

I don't know what the term for my mindset on these things is, but I consider all thoughtforms equivalent to each other at their base level. A tulpa and a roleplay persona are just utilized differently, with a tulpa being given autonomy. A soulbond is usually just thought of differently by the host. Alters and splits and the like aren't too different to me, either. But I don't consider them literally the same things, as all of these things are a subjective mental phenomenon, therefore making the way the host thinks of them extremely important. From my point of view they're similar in a sense, but that's not the point of view I act on, if that makes sense.

 

I treat humans in much the same way. They're all equal to me, just with different contexts.

[Guest Anonymous]

@Everyone,

 

Thank you for your responses. The main thing I am trying to do is get something off my chest so that I can finally put it to rest for this forum. Resentment and frustration. I don't like the fact that some tulpamancers that do this: 1. tulpas are unique 2. tulpas are better 3. you may not have a tulpa, in fact I smugly suspect you don't, if that is not a tulpa obviously you suck compared to me. 4. if you don't have a tulpa specifically, you don't belong here because you suck compared to me

 

I like all of your responses because you each basically said this: 1. tulpas are unique yes, but a unique class of thoughtforms or part of a family of thoughtforms with different traits 2. here we talk about tulpas and value tulpas sure 3. each type of thoughtform has its uses and purposes for existing for the host and so are equally of value in how they are needed/wanted.

 

I can agree that tulpas, as a class of thoughtform, with their unique traits, are pretty special and cool. I don't agree that someone should have a smug, superior attitude about them or dismiss a member of this forum as suspected of having a "lesser" thoughtform and therefore not belonging here. That is what I am ultimately trying to address. By talking about it I am trying to resolve those feelings of resentment I am having in my heart to certain members of this forum.

 

I need to talk about it and then forget about it and not emphasize it and stop reacting to those feelings, over and over and over again in my posts.

[Pioneer11]

Soulbonds are characters that come alive and live in their minds. I have read about the phenomenon of illusion of independent agency, where this effect happens to characters of professional writers. I don't think tulpas are somehow magically superior or even that different to any of these other thoughtforms. It bothers me how some tulpamancers undervalue and even sometimes seem to regard other thoughtforms with disdain. Honestly, I think it is a mistake to brush aside these related phenomenon. In my view, and Melian's, they are all the same. What matters the most is how the creator feels about the thoughtform. The creator is what gives them life via love and dedication.

 

Well said. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding over toughtforms’ types and their respective validity. There are however other resources on the net which explain the subject extensively. I found two excellent sites and I took the liberty to post here a couple of quotes on the matter (if doing this is against the forum rules tell me and I’ll cancel them).

 

From Tulpa.io:

 

Soulbond - A system member who has the identity of a fictional character, from the work of someone either inside or outside the system that has been adopted into one’s own mindspace. Can overlap with tulpas or walk-ins.

 

Astrea's Web explains that:

 

Originally, "soulbond" was a term in esoteric and occult writings and in romantic novels, where it meant a twin soul, one's ideal mate, or simply a very strong friendship lasting across many lifetimes, rather than a relationship with a non-material friend. Fantasy literature and roleplaying games still use the term in this original sense.

 

The term then has found a better label:

 

Fictive - A person from fictional or mythological sources, who is adopted into the mental space of another person. This is the term you want to use if this is a serious matter to you, differing from "soulbonding" which nowadays seems to be used to mean more like an avatar or roleplaying. Having fictive persons in the group can be experienced as a form of hosting. Some people report including historical persons, or simply ordinary people from former times or even from the here and now. (These are now referred to as factive presences).

 

Both singlets and multiples may have such "adopted" individuals. Despite being from a fictional source, the adopted person is experienced as being completely real, with a will of his/her own. However, the idea that characters or fictive persons habitually front is a mistake. If fictional people in your mental space do not, you are not "doing it wrong". When a fictional or imaginary character communicates with you and does begin interacting with the everyday world in some way - either by making comments or suggestions, asking you to do or obtain certain things, or taking your body to act independently on her/his own - that individual should be respected as a person in their own right in your reality. It is possible to arrange responsible communications and cooperation just as a multiple or median group would.

 

I also found this to be of interest:

 

Other World -Also known as inner worlds and alternate realities. The subjective space experienced by members of a system. People who are not up front often spend their time in a subjective world. Also called an imaginal space or the "imaginal realm". French scholar Henry Corbin talked about the imaginal as a region that exists alongside our everyday three-dimensional consciousness. His study of Sufi and Persian sacred texts suggests that there is a place in our imaginations where things are "real," in the sense that they are not being imagined by a specific person but are images that have some kind of integrity or existence on their own. Some Southeast Asian and Native American belief systems hold that what we think of as "the real world" is a reflection or shadow of another, even more real world which we cannot perceive directly, but only through such things as dreams, imagination, myths, psychedelic and/or spiritual experiences.

 

Other worlds are not unique to multiples; medians and singlets can have them as well (cf. singlet Austin Tappan Wright's Islandia, Edith Wharton's "secret garden" (described in her autobiography Backward Glance), or the Brontes' Angria and Gondal (the Brontes often adopted and "became" fictive or historical characters). Many people with such worlds resist calling them inner worlds or imaginary worlds, because these worlds are not make-believe or fantasy to them, but an emotional reality, an important part of their lives. People who are familiar with soulbonding refer to this realm as a soulscape, since they feel they interact with their muses or introjects there.

 

I'm also just starting to study the concept of median, which I found on the same site. In short, the world of "Tulpas" (or plurality in general) is so vast that it should be explored by those who are aware of it, not restricted.

[Guest Anonymous]

@Pioneer11

 

Thanks for all of this! Yep. That is also what I was trying to say. I think some here are way too narrow minded and can't see that tulpas, as recently re-visioned in this community, are only one aspect of a much larger phenomenon that is actually very old. There have been many examples of thoughforms throughout history and many interpretations of them.

[Guest Anonymous]

Well, like I once said, tulpa is just a word.

Technically, it's just incorrect to say "Esterina is a tulpa", for example, because she has some traits of a soulbond as well as many traits of a tulpa.

But she doesn't have absolutely ALL the traits of either.

 

So...

... to be frank, I see these terms just as rough categorizations to go by... not fixed, always-the-same types of beings.

 

 

Greets,

AG