Talk:Tulpa#Merger proposal

@BrightR: your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulpa&oldid=879967949 edit] removes the link to the publication "Varieties of Tulpa Experiences: The Hypnotic Nature of Human Sociality, Personhood, and Interphenomenality" which text is available at www.academia.edu. Is there any particular reason the url with the text of a publication isn't allowed to be linked to the footnote? --- Farcaller (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

:It's a different version of the same article. I'm using a peer-reviewed version, the Academia.edu version is earlier and includes some outlandish claims that didn't survive peer review. Bright☀ 11:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

@BrightR: You exclude something that is an earlier and broader iteration of a peer reviewed document but post a /r reddit questionaire in the same article as some sort of hinting at mental problems. Is this an attempt at comedy?

As other editors mentioned, this article handles largely about some deprivation of the 4chan and mlp iterations of the term and has barely anything to do with the origins or original meaning of it. As it stands this article should be scrapped entirely, if for nothing else then for the reason that it was written by someone who just wanted to remark on the my little pony idiocy instead of reviewing the actual term, its meaning and its connections.

Also please be so kind and never in life try to bring up the argument of "peer review" in something you put reddit opinions into. Makes you, the entire site, and everything on it/everyone involved with it look like a circus with clowns around it. --- A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.16.243 (talk) 10:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

:"The term" doesn't exist prior to Theosophy. While Theosophy asserted a connection to an older Buddhist tradition, that doesn't mean that the Buddhist tradition gets described in this article. It's described elsewhere on Wikipedia so it can simply be mentioned and linked to, which the article does. Not sure why you're unhappy about that... it's simply how things are done in order to avoid duplication and POV pushing. Skyerise (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The source by Ben Joffe is a completely speculative self-published blog post and is in no way a reliable source for this topic. I have good reason to believe that the original author of this article, {{user|B9 hummingbird hovering}}, is a friend of author of this post and wrote this article to drive traffic to that post. It should be removed as a source along with the speculations that it "supports". Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Skyerise (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: it was an amicable divorce. Skyerise (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Article concerns supposedly Tibetan Buddhist practice, yet substantial portion of the article (ca. 20%) is devoted to My Little Pony fans who practice "tulpomancy" and studies on that group. History of the practice as practiced by Tibetan monks is reduced to a single sentence. This article needs more historical sources and Buddhist PoV. Searching "tulpa" in an internet search engine yields multiple resources more comprehensive than this article and since Wikipedia aspires to be an aggregate of all human knowledge, this situation is upsetting. 5.226.81.106 (talk) 07:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

:It's not a term used in Tibetan Buddhism. That term is trulpa, and the corresponding article is Nirmāṇakāya. Tulpa is a Theosophical concept, and that's the concept this article is about. Theosophists thought they understood and were using a Tibetan term, but they were wrong, and their concept should not be confused with the Tibetan one: they are different. Skyerise (talk) 12:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

::I know this is an old comment, but as I understand it, "tulpa" is drawn from the Tibetan language, but has nothing in particular to do with Tibetan Buddhism. The Tibetan word sprul pa can be written with an r or without. This article requires a major edit in that respect, so I'm going to open a new discussion. Meerta (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://scholarlyoa.com/large-new-oa-publisher-launches-with-85-journals/ Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences is a predatory journal] and papers published in it should not be used on Wikipedia. I'm removing the information cited to papers published on it. Taramasalata-icre (talk) 03:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

What is tulpa 202.8.112.30 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kuia34, you say that {{tq|stuff related to tibetan tulpamancy is not allowed on this article per previous consensus}}. That may well be so, but I am not familiar with it. Can you point me to where this consensus was established? Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:read the talk section called "Article is terribly unbalanced"

:If you need to add stuff related to Tibetan Tulpas go to

:Nirmāṇakāya it makes stuff easier that way. Besides the Buddhist section on tulpas (Sprul pa) has already been exclusively on that article for 2 years already I don't see the reason to add buddhist stuff to this article now "Just because". This article is intented exclusively for western tulpamancy which includes the theosphist concept of tulpas , the occultist concept of tulpas, and modern the practice of tulpas in refernce to imaginary friends; Anything else goes into Nirmāṇakāya Kuia34 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::Okay, fair enough--but I still think the cultural appropriation bit from Chess and Newsom is worth including, and possibly the Westerhoff bit, although that one I need to investigate more. What do you think of reincluding Chess and Newsom in some form? Dumuzid (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC) ETA: Also the article from Mikles and Laycock. That's a high-quality scholarly source expressly about the western tulpa phenomenon. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::Removing scholarly sources that cover this topic is not appropriate and need to be restored. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::{{u|Kuia34}} The talk section "Article is terribly unbalanced" does not address and is not consensus for the material removed from this article. There is one comment followed by a reply and no rationale for your removals here today.---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Fair point however this article only really has content regarding western tulpamancy and there is already an article regarding the buddhist tulpa practice so wouldn't that article be better fit to put it in instead of this article which has next to nothing about buddhism. Kuia34 (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::@Dumuzid @Steve Quinn There is nothing wrong with the chess and newsom source the reason the section was removed was because the source did not support the claim that was made. It did not mentaion cultural appropiation at all. The source is still on the wikipedia article and is cited on multiple occasions Kuia34 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::The source says {{tq|In spiritual and magical writings, a "tulpa" is a thought-form--a creature created from the imaginations of people through magical acts. The concept was appropriated for the West through Alexandra David-Néel's 1929 book, Magic and Mystery in Tibet.}} It strikes me that it supports the cultural appropriation wording. I think it's important to include; is there some wording that would be acceptable to you? Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::@Dumuzid that's not what I see written? "David־Nêel introduced the notion that emanations can be created unintentionally or through collective belief, an idea that appears to be unprecedented in Tibetan Buddhism. Tibetan makes a distinction berreen voluntaiy and involuntai verbs; "I broke the cup” and “the cup broke” employ different verbs to express this fundamental difference in intent and actirity. A seminal Tibetan-language dictionary-the bod rgya tshig mdá chen categorizes the verb sprul ba as active, meaning that someone intentionally emanates or manifests something when they are “sprul·.ing,” so to speak. This signifier of intention contradicts the idea found in Western tulpa lore that collective thought can inadvertently bring supernatural beings into existence. This aspect has its origins in Theosophy, andJohn Keel helped make the idea of "accidental” tulpas more explicit in contemporain paranormal discourse." I don't see anything about cultural appropiation or any type of appropiation anywhere what page is it on? Kuia34 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::Page 132. You should be able to access it [https://books.google.ca/books?id=xuGvBQAAQBAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT132&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false here]. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::Oh my bad I was reading the wrong thing :,( (https://online.ucpress.edu/nr/article-abstract/19/1/87/70982/Tracking-the-TulpaExploring-the-Tibetan-Origins-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext ) Well in that case I don't see any issue with adding it but wouldn't "Religious Appropriation" be a better suited term ? Also I think when writing it the section title should be something like "Criticisms of Appropriation" Kuia34 (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I am not entirely opposed to that wording, but since the borrowing here is so slipshod--converting an difficult Buddhist concept into a bit of western magical folklore--that I am not sure it is a great fit. The religious underpinnings of the concept weren't really brought over. Happy to go with whatever consensus is, however. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah I agree as to how "appropriative" the concept of tulpa really is. I draw comparision between the Islamic/Arabic concept of djinn/jinn and the western concept of "genie" which is an anglicization/transliteration of the former. Djinn/Jinn refers to a broader concept of spirtual entites whereas "genie" usually refers to a spiritual entity living in a lamp that grants wishes. In this example the religious underpinnings aren't really there and the main thing linking the two concepts is the etymology of the words. There seems to be a better word to describe what's happening here but it's not coming to me but regardless I'm interested on hearing other peoples input into this discussion. Kuia34 (talk) 03:42, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::Kuia34, I understand your reasoning for your edit. And I'm glad you are alert to redundancies with other articles. Regarding this article I agree with "Religious Appropriation" and "Criticisms of Appropriation" as stated above. I think the wording by Dumuzid is good enough - " In spiritual and magical writings..." Thanks to both for your efforts. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::-- Also, I don't support cultural insensitivity and I think it should always be discouraged or rebuffed. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tulpa&diff=prev&oldid=1159020866 this] edit was false, I could easily find the material in the source that does not appear to be unusable. —PaleoNeonate – 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

:We actually are talking about this on the topic "Western vs Tibetan Tulpas?" I was reading the wrong source so I was confused if you want to contribute maybe you could contribute to that topic since were already having a discussion about it already. Kuia34 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that the contents of origins category should be added to the Theosophy and thoughtforms category and the "Modern Tulpamancer" category deleed since it word for word is stating what is already said in the "Tulpamancers" category and there both talking about the same group of people. Kuia34 (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

:I personally think the separate origin section makes sense since it applies to the concept as a whole giving a brief overview and then splits into specifics/developments of the theosophical and modern practices. Seteleechete (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

the topic of tulpamancy and thoughtforms are extremely interesting, but the entire article is filled to the brim with dubious sources, vague statements, and misinformation. is anyone planning on working on this article? it needs a lot more work to be considered good FROWNINGCATS (talk) 01:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

:Feel free to work on it if you want Kuia34 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

i was trying to look up synonyms for tulpa for a writing thing, and one of the results (from here) is "dissociative identity disorder" which is a disorder i have. DID is a severe childhood trauma DISORDER, we(alters) are people, not spirit manifestations, and we didnt choose to have this disorder and we dont choose or MaNiFeSt alters. why the hell is DID even mentioned here, it has not a single THING to do with tulpa and to allude so is hurtful. DID already has enough misinformation and stigma littered everywhere too.

edits: typos. 2601:405:4780:D250:60E:DCC7:3372:5EA (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

:"why the hell is DID even mentioned here, it has not a single THING to do with tulpa and to allude so is hurtful. DID already has enough misinformation and stigma littered everywhere too."

:* The "see also" section is NOT for looking for synonyms it's to find related topics to whatever article you are currently reading.

:* DID is listed in the "see also" section because it is slightly related to the more modern practitioners that may self-identify as "plural" in that both DID and Tulpas have similar characteristics . EX: The presence of nonphysical mental "multiple identites". DID being included in the "See also" section isn't there to say that tulpamancers believe they have DID (because tulpamancers actually don't believe they have DID and make a point to say they don't if you read some of the sources cited in the article)

:Kuia34 (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

::Please specify how, in a single way, DID and Tulpa has anything in common, except for, for example bot possibly being "phenomena" or "concepts"? Let's assume we have a hypothetical average human, a tulpamancer, and someone with DID. In this case, are the two latter any more similar than any of the other two? If so, how?

::I suggest you actually read the Signs and symtoms section of the DID article before responding to me.

::I advocate for strictly correct information related to mental illness and for a right for all mentally ill and others whom it may interest, to be able to find reliable information on Wikipedia without being even implicitly misled. Thus, I want to state that I definitely also apply this to for example schizophrenia. That said, if the people, of whom I assume many themselves are tulpamancers or supporters of the movement/phenomenon, who maintain this article are so keen on connecting tulpa to DID, how come you do not for example connect tulpas to entities hallucinated by some of those afflicted by schizophrenia? Would that not indeed be closer to tulpa than having several personality states, considering that people with DID do not imagine so called alters to be external or entities separate from themselves, with whom they can interact? Of course, hallucinations do not exist because people with schizophrenia deliberately create them, and also, they are not as a general rule imagined as persons. I am just pointing out how arbitrary and utterly ridiculous it is for the tulpa phenomenon to at all be associated with DID.

::In this case, I will WP:BEBOLD and just remove the link to DID. For the sake of all that you may find holy and worth defending:

::Please refrain from harming the mentally ill, including by spreading misinformation, pseudoscience, stigma, making fun of mental illness and so on. They have it bad enough as it currently is. BlockArranger (talk) 22:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::It is in common, because they are both under the term of Plurality[https://pubs.sciepub.com/rpbs/5/2/1/index.html] Showier [on alt] (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

:hi, please read the article first. people who identify as tulpamancers do not believe they have DID, as the user above also mentioned. those are two seperate things that are both under the umbrella of "plural". there is a huge difference between thoughtforms and DID-formed alters FROWNINGCATS (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

:note: this type of response is generally called being a sysmed/anti-endo(genic) as the plural community calls it.

:The ICD 11's boundaries to normality state that non-disordered plurality exists.https://icd.who.int/browse/2024-01/mms/en#1829103493

:

:(though it seems like I need to get some resources to extend wiktionary:endogenic to include created systems like Tulpas are after I get home) Showier [on alt] (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This has been touched on in various ways in the discussion, but to bring some of it together here. I think it needs a major edit.

The article opens with "In Tibetan Buddhism and later traditions of mysticism and the paranormal, a tulpa is a materialized being or thought-form, typically in human form, that is created through spiritual practice and intense concentration."

I don't think "tulpa" has any particular relationship to Tibetan Buddhism, and happily the term doesn't even appear at present in the "nirmanakaya" article. The Tibetan word for the way the Buddha appears to ordinary beings is "sprul sku" (tulku, the same as the word for incarnate lamas, though it is not completely the same thing.) "Tulpa" is only very rarely used in relation to the nirmanakaya, and any practise in Tibet relating to tulpas - apparitions - doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Buddhism. The word "tulpa" is very likely to predate Buddhism. So the implication of this opener, that "tulpas" are an integral part of Tibetan Buddhism and that the Theosophical use is somehow the same thing, is false. Books about the New Age aren't necessarily very reliable about Tibetan Buddhism (just as early Theosophy isn't) Perhaps it would be better to leave out the reference to Tibetan Buddhism altogether, and deal with the linguistic connection in the next section.

Again: "The concept of tulpas has origins in the Buddhist nirmāṇakāya, translated in Tibetan as sprul-pa (སྤྲུལ་པ་): the earthly bodies that a buddha manifests in order to teach those who have not attained nirvana. The western understanding of tulpas was developed by twentieth-century European mystical explorers, who interpreted the idea independently of buddhahood."

As I say above, tulpas as apparitions or phantoms or something like that, probably predates Buddhism in Tibet. It isn't derived from the word for nirmanakaya - more likely that word was partly derived from it, and conceptually it is very distinct. From the Buddhist point of view, tulpas would usually be a worldly phenomena. The standard word for nirmanakaya is "sprul sku" - "transformation body". I suggest this:

"The word tulpa (sprul pa - སྤྲུལ་པ་) originates from Tibetan, where it was and is used in a number of contexts. The western understanding of tulpas was developed by twentieth-century European mystical explorers, who interpreted the idea independently of it's uses in old Tibet."

The Tibetan term doesn't need an encyclopaedia entry. It's covered in Tibetan-English dictionaries.Chandra Das has: "a phantom, a disembodied spirit, ghost from the bardo; emanation". A trulpa khyenpa is "an adept in the art of producing miraculous apparitions", but that might have nothing to do with Buddhism (I don't know what it would have to do with it, at least.) Meerta (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:If there's no objections then, I can go ahead with the edit. Meerta (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Meerta I am not knowledgeable on how Tulpa has to do with Buddhism, but I suggest you still make sure this article makes the difference clear. Maybe a hat note for disambiguation, and a link to the Buddhist concept, if appropriate? Anyway, anything that goes awry can also always be fixed. Good luck! Just big thanks in advance for not further associating this with D.I.D; I'm here solely for the purpose of keeping psychiatry out of this, and because I became curious after some reading :) BlockArranger (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2025 (UTC)