Talk:Tulpa

Is there any issue with the academia.edu link on the original article?
@BrightR: your 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)

Whole outline of article seems to be based on an unreliable blog post
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,, 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 is terribly unbalanced
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)

Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
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 tupla
What is tulpa 202.8.112.30 (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Western vs Tibetan Tulpas?
Hi Kuia34, you say that 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)
 * 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 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 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)

Reason I reverted
The edit summary for this edit was false, I could easily find the material in the source that does not appear to be unusable. — Paleo Neonate  – 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)

Origins and Modern tulpamancer category
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)

this article needs to be rewritten
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)

stop with this
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)
 * 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)