(2022-09-29 15:44)elinox Wrote:  I think we're confusing sapience with sentience.

Sentience means feeling. Like can a bird feel pain. Yes, then the bird is sentient.

Sapience means the ability to think and reason on your own. Like can a human child figure out how to solve a math problem in school.

(Side Note: I feel that most, if not all, non-human animals have some level of both sentience and sapience.)

Tulpas are actually from a school of religious mysticism created in the early 1900's. The term was created to refer to a type of imaginary friend. They can be sentient to a level like I described with Bing Bong above, but are, ultimately, still a part of the individual.

If there are other beings inside the physical body, not part of the resident mind, that's a walk-in or part of a multiple system.

I'm not saying someone cannot have more than one individual inside their mind, I'm just trying to explain how the terminology is correctly used.

Tulpas, daemons, etc. are created, either intentionally or not. Walk-ins, multiples, etc. are external entities.

Tulpas are sapient, they can think on their own and reason on their own, calling them mental contructs also does not take into account the ammount of spiritual tulpas out there. Tulpas are part of a system.

Interesting post. I'd also like to add a bit from my own belief system, as it differs from this one, which is most commonly seen in more western cultures. This is specifically for totems and spirit guides though, I've little experience with tulpas.

In my belief system, totems are archetypes. My understanding of them is more psychological than anything, though there are some belief systems which see an actual spirit as an emblem even though they do not communicate with it directly. They are often used to represent person(s), family groups, or places. A clear example would be america having the totem of eagle to represent itself. Or russia having the bear. China, the dragon. A totem is a representation of an animal (or plant, fungi, etc, they're not all animals!) This is also why I dislike many books out there on animal totems and meanings and things, as a totem is supposed to be based on the personal views of the one utilizing it.
Some traits of a totem could be seen similarly by many people, but others aren't. For example, one person might see a hyena as a bloodthirsty and cruel scavenger, and see it as a totem represented with such traits, and another would see them as protective of their clan, and intelligent hunters with a knack for problem solving. Those two people see two different things and thus would draw power in two different ways. When people just read meanings from books, they are applying -someone else's- idea of that totem. It can be helpful as a guide but ultimately hinders a persons ability to form a true connection with the totem.

Likewise, in my belief system, spirit guides are -not- the same thing as a totem. I know that this can be really difficult for people to understand me on, like ones from western cultures, and especially people who have not actually been dragged between worlds through a death/dismemberment type event. I loathe to use the generic umbrella term here, shaman, but that seems to be the one people most understand so I'll stomach it for now.

Spirits are often sapient beings and can communicate, albeit in strange and unusual ways. There are spirits of plants and animals and stuff yes, and there are spirits of inanimate objects, emotions, and even abstract concepts. Some of them one could wonder if they're truly sapient, or just the pure spiritual embodiment of a force (my experience has shown some level of awareness in these beings but it's hard to say). And they can communicate. Not often with words but with flashes of images, emotions, colors, waveforms. One I interacted with spanned my entire field of view looking akin to the skin of an octopus. It seemed to communicate in changing colors and undulations in its form.

This is also why in many animistic cultures, communication with spirits required the help of someone bridging the worlds (shamans), vs totems being able to be utilized by anyone. We wouldn't need shamans if they were the same thing.

I just wanted to present this here as an alternative belief systems view, to have a wider perspective on the subject than just a singular groups belief. I'm not trying to say that anyone else's understanding is wrong, and my intention here is not to step on anyones toes. I also understand that different words and phrases have different meanings in different languages and cultures. For some people, the misunderstanding simply comes down to verbiage.

I think we're confusing sapience with sentience.

Sentience means feeling. Like can a bird feel pain. Yes, then the bird is sentient.

Sapience means the ability to think and reason on your own. Like can a human child figure out how to solve a math problem in school.

(Side Note: I feel that most, if not all, non-human animals have some level of both sentience and sapience.)

Tulpas are actually from a school of religious mysticism created in the early 1900's. The term was created to refer to a type of imaginary friend. They can be sentient to a level like I described with Bing Bong above, but are, ultimately, still a part of the individual.

If there are other beings inside the physical body, not part of the resident mind, that's a walk-in or part of a multiple system.

I'm not saying someone cannot have more than one individual inside their mind, I'm just trying to explain how the terminology is correctly used.

Tulpas, daemons, etc. are created, either intentionally or not. Walk-ins, multiples, etc. are external entities.

(2022-09-29 15:22)elinox Wrote:  Tulpas, like daemons, ARE you, they are not a separate individual presence within your mind.

That said, entities in your mind that are separate can be walk-ins (usually here temporarily) or part of a multiple system (usually permanent residents). Both are people/creatures from outside the physical body that have somehow attached themselves to the mind of the physical body (often called the host).

What you're describing @Teivor is either a walk-in or part of a multiple system.

Ever looked into the term "endogenic system"? Any system (a body owned by more people) that aren't created due to trauma, are endogenic systems. Tulpa systems are usually considered endogenic, but it is surely a form of plurality. In the tulpa community, tulpas are surely considered sentient entities, which is what separates them from imaginary friends. They share your body and physical brain, but they have their own mind and opinions.

Which is why it's recently considered wrong to assign a task to the tulpa consciously, as it may cause them harm if they're not able to live up to it. If you want to "use" a thoughtform for an actual task, it's better to use a servitor. They will not get such crisis because they're not meant to be sentient.

(2022-09-29 14:24)Teivor Wrote:  Some objections

Tulpas are sentient, seperate peope, nothing like imaginary friends.

I have heard conflicting reports on if daemons are sentient but they are definetely more than a decision tool.

Mental constructs are not necessarily the same as imaginary friends. Similar, but not always the same thing.

That said, tulpas ARE mental constructs designed for an individual to purposefully compartmentalize their thoughts. Like having a representation of your conscience. A good example is the classic devil/angel appearing on your shoulder to offer advice. Both are you, but the tulpa gives you the ability to sort of look outside yourself at the situation to make decisions and sort through problems.

Another good example is Bing Bong from Inside Out: as an imaginary friend, he was there to help Riley figure stuff out as she grew up. He was individual in his own right, but still ultimately a part of Riley's mind.

Tulpas, like daemons, ARE you, they are not a separate individual presence within your mind.

That said, entities in your mind that are separate can be walk-ins (usually here temporarily) or part of a multiple system (usually permanent residents). Both are people/creatures from outside the physical body that have somehow attached themselves to the mind of the physical body (often called the host).

What you're describing @Teivor is either a walk-in or part of a multiple system.

Some objections

Tulpas are sentient, seperate peope, nothing like imaginary friends.

I have heard conflicting reports on if daemons are sentient but they are definetely more than a decision tool.

Speaking of my name, I associate it precisely with the warmth and freedom that my theriotype gives me, my true ego. This name is perfect for me and I was thinking about it for days. I want to abstract from my human name and human life somehow. Also, this is kind of privacy for me. Only really close humans or therians can call me like that. I find it really useful for me. Also, I am a wolfdog, so giving name for me is kinda regular.

I've found that I, personally, am an impressionable person. However, I've never met someone else like me. I loved fighting when I was younger, and because I was different, I was often left behind. Perhaps this is something I developed over time. However, it doesn't feel that way.

It feels as if it had always been a part of me in some way, shape, or form. Whether it was from my own nature or the way I developed at a young age. Though, it feels as though it's been with me all my life. I only panic now because I know what it is.

I do not know either. One thing I struggle with is what I believe in, so I honestly don't know why I'm a therian, or what the reason for it is. I do however think there's something more going on than simply the decision to focus on the more animal side of human nature because there was a point in my life where I did everything to push my therianthropy away and ignore it. It came back full force without any decision making from me. I didn't do anything to trigger it nor did I choose to bring it back into my life; it just showed up.

I mean, if you want to know people's theories, we literally have a whole forum category dedicated to people explaining how or why they believe their therianthropy exists. You can find it here.

Mine is in there too, which is called the multiverse theory.

Surely it's nice to take a moment to think about it at times, but some people do surely focus on it too much, especially when it comes to calling themselves "spiritual" or "psychological therians". I think it's way more interesting to focus on WHAT we experience instead of WHY. But that may just be me.