Looking over some basic info, I'm kind of surprised that I haven't tried this before. This is because I've played around with Jungian active imagination techniques and IFS.
In the first case (and I haven't really researched this deeply) one way is to enter a recent dream world while awake and "allow" it to play out, talking to the people inside and letting them respond. The approach you decide take with the people is somewhat circumscribed by Jung's archetypes, where you may encounter a guide of the opposite sex, embodied neuroses, other advisors, and eventually connecting with a "Great Man" or God-man figure (the "Self") who is your ultimate truth or something and lets you truly grow (don't think I've gotten this far). According to Jung, the archetypes you encounter are part of the human unconscious mind the same way that eyelashes are part of the human body, and they both give rise to and provide a key to interpreting human religion and spirituality.
In IFS, you meet or summon "parts" of your psyche that may be malfunctioning or acting up because of past trauma or defense mechanisms, getting to know them and healing them. Once they're healed they can help you out, tulpa-style. But the emphasis is on letting them take shape, not creating them. In IFS, you have to be able to connect to your core, non-judgmental spiritual "base" (which is called "Self" in IFS) before talking to the parts.
So this leads to my questions about tulpamancy. How "freeform" are the decisions people make when creating tulpas -- do you see enough commonly shared traits between people's tulpas that would make you think you could "systematize" access to them like above? Do you think that the tulpas are always there in the mind in some form and you're just bringing them out or changing them, or are you actually casting them into existence? Do people ever make mistakes with their tulpas that cause them to be malicious rather than benevolent thoughtforms? Do you have any personal opinions about Jung or IFS?
In the first case (and I haven't really researched this deeply) one way is to enter a recent dream world while awake and "allow" it to play out, talking to the people inside and letting them respond. The approach you decide take with the people is somewhat circumscribed by Jung's archetypes, where you may encounter a guide of the opposite sex, embodied neuroses, other advisors, and eventually connecting with a "Great Man" or God-man figure (the "Self") who is your ultimate truth or something and lets you truly grow (don't think I've gotten this far). According to Jung, the archetypes you encounter are part of the human unconscious mind the same way that eyelashes are part of the human body, and they both give rise to and provide a key to interpreting human religion and spirituality.
In IFS, you meet or summon "parts" of your psyche that may be malfunctioning or acting up because of past trauma or defense mechanisms, getting to know them and healing them. Once they're healed they can help you out, tulpa-style. But the emphasis is on letting them take shape, not creating them. In IFS, you have to be able to connect to your core, non-judgmental spiritual "base" (which is called "Self" in IFS) before talking to the parts.
So this leads to my questions about tulpamancy. How "freeform" are the decisions people make when creating tulpas -- do you see enough commonly shared traits between people's tulpas that would make you think you could "systematize" access to them like above? Do you think that the tulpas are always there in the mind in some form and you're just bringing them out or changing them, or are you actually casting them into existence? Do people ever make mistakes with their tulpas that cause them to be malicious rather than benevolent thoughtforms? Do you have any personal opinions about Jung or IFS?