Plurality: I Have Really Complicated and Uncomfortable Feelings About Tulpamancy

Tuesday, February 21st, 2023

The title's pretty to the point, I think. I have feelings around tulpamancy (namely the word and community), I'm uncomfortable, and there's never really a good way to bring it up. My issues are only ever brought up by the worst people, it seems, and the last time I tried I got shouted down by a white adult man (this fact is a surprise tool that will help us later).

What Is Tulpamancy?

Well, that's one of the first problems. It depends on what you mean.

The kind of tulpamancy that people know and talk about is a way of creating a headmate, almost always intentionally. It's making a sort of autonomous, sentient imaginary friend. It's generally considered a psychological practice, creating another consciousness in your mind, and tulpas are also distinctly contained to one's body and unable to manifest physically in the outside world. This practice, in my opinion, is real and valid.

But it has absolutely no reason to be called tulpamancy, and calling it that seems, frankly, more innacurate and offensive than not.

Why (and How) Is It Called Tulpamancy?

A/N: If you don't care, just skip this. It's a lot. You don't really need to know all this, but you're free to read it anyway?

The modern concept of tulpamancy is loosely based on concepts most famously found in the writing of spiritualist Alexandra David-Néel. She is most famous for her meeting with Tibeten Buddhists and writing about Eastern mysticism--namely, the concept of a tulpa. In her 1929 book Magic and Mystery in Tibet, she described tulpas as "magic formations generated by a powerful concentration of thought," and further said, "Once the tulpa is endowed with enough vitality to be capable of playing the part of a real being, it tends to free itself from its maker's control." She claimed to have created her own tulpa, and that others could see her thoughtforms.

So, where I'm going with this is that this was introduced to the Western world by a white (French-Belgian) woman as an aspect of Tibeten Buddhist mysticism, which is explicitly metaphysical and spiritual. Her writing gives no indication that this was intended as some form of major cultural exchange between white and Tibeten people--she visited as a Buddhist herself, and was taught individually. She is our only source on this exchange at all. There has been no modern nor historic movement or claim by Tibeten Buddhists that this is an open practice or one that they "gifted."

The concept, as she described it, was also very blatantly not what we call tulpamancy. It is deeply tied to Tibeten Buddhist practices and beliefs. The concept was introduced in a book on magic in Tibet! The Tibeten concept of a sprul pa, both in her writing and what we know in the modern day, is explicitly metaphysical; it is the emanation body.

Basically, the Buddhist tulpa and tulpamancy aren't very related concepts. That's in large part because modern "tulpamancy" is based on Theosophist ideas on thoughtforming/tulpas--Theosophism being a United States-Anglo based religious movement, which borrowed much of its mysticism from Eastern cultures and specifically believed (among other things, it's complicated) that Masters of Ancient Wisdom, the basis of their religion, are centered in Tibet. It's worth noting that David-Néel studied in and was closely affiliated with Theosophical societies. So, it is the theosophist idea of a tulpa that is the ancestor of modern tulpamancy.

But wait, there's more! Stay with me (or skip this section, I don't care), this is a long story. Modern tulpamancy is not directly from theosophist tulpamancy, either. That would be too simple, I guess.

There is actually yet another step of removal: pop culture! Honestly, if you're that interested in how it went through the pop culture meat grinder, I recommend doing your own research. To this, the specifics don't matter much until we get to the point that the concept was popularized by My Little Pony 4chan. I know, keep up.

The Brony Part/Required Reading

So, the brony fandom took off on 4chan. That's what created the modern tulpamancy community. 4chan at the time (and now) was/is an extremely racist place with an orientalist streak and a chronic Asian fetishism problem. There is a strong idea there that Buddhism is an up-for-grabs school of thought that requires no research to partake in (which is wrong and racist, in case that's not obvious). 4chan bronies liked the idea of thoughtforming, largely because they wanted the ponies to be real. Many of them were interested in making a thoughtform of the characters for sexual or romantic relationships.

And thoughtform ponies they did. They named this tulpamancy specifically because it sounded foreign and mystical, and because they considered Tibeten Buddhism to be something they were free to take from. As mentioned, their idea of tulpamancy was derived from theosophy, which had the English and easily-made-secular term "thoughtform" already. Also, for the record, "tulpamancy" is a blatant bastardization of "tulpa," lazily mashing it together with the English suffix "-mancy" (which comes from Latin which comes from Greek).

"Tulpa" was deliberately chosen to fetishize Eastern religion. There was no cultural exchange in the formation of the community, because the community was specifically formed by brony 4channers who happily used racial slurs against East Asians as they did this.

This fact is well-known, easily verified, and why the claim that tulpamancy or the word tulpa was "given" holds absolutely no water. Even assuming--and this is a heavy assumption--that the Tibeten Buddhists did teach David-Néel about tulpas and thoughtforming for the sake of sharing with the (again, white) theosophists and spiritualists, there is absolutely no involvement of any Buddhists past that point, and it's ludicrous to claim that because they were okay with theosophists having tulpas that they were okay with the term being "secularized," used by bronies, and turned into a type of sentient imaginary friend and companion.

The Issue With Using the Term

If you skipped all that, I don't blame you. The summary is that modern tulpamancy, despite taking its name from Tibeten Buddhism, really couldn't have much less to do with it--in fact, it was invented by bronies based very loosely on the Anglo-American religion of Theosophy, and the term tulpa was used because it sounded foreign.

This is why, for the record, my issues with the term do not apply to the practice. The practice isn't Buddhist. The modern practice is based on a system of thoughtforming established primarily by MLP 4channers. It's not appropriating anything.

But that's also the problem with the term. It has nothing to do with actual tulpas. The word "tulpa" just lends it an air of mysticism.

It insinuates the practice is anything but white, which it is. The Theosophist concept of tulpas was established by predominantly American white people, passed down to predominantly American white people, and turned to modern tulpamancy by predominantly American white people. Modern practitioners skew heavily white, and possibly even more heavily USAmerican. I have never--and I mean never--seen or heard of a single Tibeten Buddhist in modern tulpamancy spaces. I have not heard of any Tibetens or Buddists in the community, actually. People seem a bit too comfortable with that. Can you name a Tibeten tulpamancer? Even just any East Asian?

The only reason to still use the word would be if it was still somehow a Tibeten concept, but like I said, it's not. The vast majority of tulpamancers consider it a strictly psychological process.

"Tulpa" is not a white or Anglo word (obviously). There is an Anglo word for the concept--thoughtform--but many tulpamancers reject it because it's a "broader umbrella," despite originating with Theosophists as a near exact English synonym. And it is used more broadly than tulpa nowadays, but that's just because of how rigid the tulpamancy community is. There is no inherent difference in meaning--no reason that "tulpa" cannot be replaced.

Closing Thoughts

I am not a Tibeten Buddhist. I am an American Indian. I cannot speak for any East Asians, or Buddhists, or similar. But I can speak as someone whose cultural terms have been appropriated for white concepts and white identity, and, to be honest with you, I am actively repulsed by how strongly people cling to "tulpa."

In all my research on it, the only Tibeten Buddhist perspective I found on the term was someone expressing discomfort with it, and frustration at modern tulpamancy being equated with their religious concept. They expressed the same disgust, violation, and anger I feel when my tribe's name is used by colonizers as "their" national identity. (Note: If I manage to find that post again, I'll edit this to link it.)

I've only seen it defended by white people. The aforementioned white man insisted to me that it was a cultural exchange, and then cited the writing of white people at me.

I am very familiar with white people claiming "cultural exchange" when the people on the other side of the "exchange" are suspiciously absent.

I mean it when I say I've been thinking about and looking into this for years. I'm not really one to gatekeep or censor language without very good reason.

But this seems like very good reason to me. I cannot assume (or excuse based on) good faith at this point. I know what it's like to be nonwhite in the plural community. I know how comfortable and eager white plurals are to ignore the experiences and needs of the racialized. And I know I've never seen a convincing case that the use of the term isn't appropriative, isn't orientalist, is totally okay with Tibetens.

And I've been on this Earth as an Indian too long not to know that if there's no sign "appreciation" is okay with those being "appreciated," then it's not appreciation at all.

TL;DR

I pretty firmly believe the use of "tulpa" to refer to the modern thoughtforming practice is appropriative and, to put it lightly, gross. The modern practice is very distinctly white in history, meaning, execution, and culture, and has no reason to be named after an unrelated Tibeten practice that was very dubiously shared/"shared" with white Theosophists.

The same reason the term's use is bad is the same reason the modern practice isn't appropriative: modern "tulpamancy" doesn't have jack to do with Tibeten Buddhist tulpas.

It's also completely false that the term/practice has been "secularized" (whatever that's supposed to mean), and claiming that (looking at you, Pluralpedia) is offensive, ahistorical, and, again, asserts that 4chan bronies making pony headmates is the same as a serious Tibeten Buddhist entity and concept--or it asserts that the Tibeten Buddhist concept is less real or irrelevant. Both of those claims are extremely racist and gross ones! Widely misused is not secularized. White people claiming and misusing the religious concepts of people of color does have a name, but it sure isn't that.