Servitor and Tulpas

[Baron]

From what I've read in books, they're the exact same thing. But I've heard from people on /x/ and sandal on our forums that they're different things.
I am no master, but while I'm leaning towards believing they're the same, I intend on keeping an open mind.

I attached the book that says they're both the same thing with this post. I hope it's of any use to my fellow members.

Attachments:

[professorromaniuk]

Thanks for the pdf. I've heard lot of contradictory stuff, from that is a good experience to create a tulpa, to it's the worst thing you can do, that the tulpa will turn against you. I remember that infographic saying that a tukpa is basically a poltergeist.

[Baron]

The pdf has a log about a servitor that could multiply itself and ended up causing poltergeist-like stuff.
It's fairly small and an easy read.

[f3n1xhvn732]

Servitor it can be consciuos or not. It can be complex or not. It ALWAYS is formed for a mission or reason for the magician through will.

Tulpa, it is designed to be independient, consious, also to serve and with will power.

I think the mayority of differences come from the motivations of the magician, the level of "materialization" and/or psychological complexity.

Some can say that tulpas are a type of servitors.

[mynum]

speaking of all this I got a friend of mine who thinks the same as what f3n1xhvn732 said
dimyaz.tumblr.com/
she/he is keeping a diary on it (yestumblr)

[sandal]

Well, technically speaking the terminology used shouldn't matter. Either way they are artificially created embodiments of intent/desire forged from thought and astral matter alone. What you choose to call them only influences their abilities insofar as you project those restrictions onto them. In short, what you make is what you believe.

I've always thought of tulpas as the highest "level" of these thoughtforms, but certainly the word "tulpa" can vary from person to person. Just choose a name and stick with it, that's my philosophy. What I DO know is that creating a thoughtform according to my description elsewhere (a being that eventually becomes autonomous and free from your directives) has been recorded in a variety of places, and seems plausible to me. If others want to use "tulpa" to mean what I refer to as "servitors," then have at it. It's not for me to decide: language should always reflect the intended meaning of the majority.

[Baron]

Semantics, yes. I was merely asking if there was a difference between them or if we were all talking about the same thing under different names.

[sandal]

Ah, I get ya. I think what most people are talking about here are what I would refer to as "servitors," as they are fit to serve, and nothing more. However they are also called "tulpas" throughout modern literature. Makes things very confusing, especially for people just starting out. I, for one, am personally more interested in the thoughtforms that can develop personalities, mannerisms, and separate thought processes. Could be a great way to make a stable, ever present companion that gives you key advice in dangerous situations. Or, perhaps, one might decide to make their dream partner. Heh.

[Baron]

Yes, yes. Your concept of tulpas is much more interesting than mine. I've read something very similar to this, although it was more in a psychological level and hypnosis induced instead of paranormal means.

[mynum]

Sandal I think I'm the one to go for that part, maybe we could come up with another word for that because that kind of stuff is really confusing.

[f3n1xhvn732]

@baron
Oh, but it´s not only psychological... Once it gots more power it can make poltergeists events and become visible to "perceptive" people, not only you. It is what makes them "paranormal".

[Baron]

Ah yeah, I know. I just mentioned it because of the similar concept to an extent, making a companion to give you advice and etc.

[sandal]

Well, I don't think anyone can really claim to know everything. I could be dead wrong. It's just that I've seen too much in the way of descriptions, external reports, and my own experiences to NOT believe in my definition of tulpas. I'm working on setting aside some time to do some preliminary work on development, etc. When I do, I'll be sure to document my results and post them here once I achieve my desired result.

That being said, the sources I've found state that singular entities aren't the only thing you can create. Entire worlds, closed pockets of manifested astral molded into whatever you desire. Of course, the monks that wrote this document stated that the moment one achieved this higher state of evocation, they would cease to want much of anything in the way of physical desires. Sort of funny how that works. You get a new power only to instantly become enlightened to the state that you no longer want it at all. (Look up "koans" while you're at it. More evidence that these people think on a whole other level than we do.)

>zenlogic.jpg

[mynum]

That's actually a step I took in making mine, I made my own world, a hill with a tree on top a lake on the bottom of it and a house next to the lake I even furnished the house, Lol
(and yeah I meant I could talk to you about what I went through)
I'm still a little skeptical that I myself am not just a crazy nit, if I was though I hide it well enough I guess, it's not everyday I can tell someone I've got another world in my head y'know?

[sandal]

I guess my question for you is: can you literally see this world when you enter it? As if you were looking at it with your eyes, and you were really there? Or is it more of a "mind's eye" type of thing? If you're really seeing it, then you've pretty much confirmed what those monks were writing about. If it's more of a visualization, I'd want to know more about it before drawing any conclusions.