Host talking here, just wanted to say this because, somehow, people are still pushing the Tulpamancy=Tibetan practice myth, and it needs addressing.
Myth/oversimplification: Tulpamancy is, or is based on a Tibetan Buddhist closed practice, therefore tulpamancy is bad because something something cultural appropriation.
Fact: Tulpamancy, or at least the word tulpa, is very loosely inspired by a single chapter in a 1929 book on mysticism in Tibet written by a French Theosophist named Alexandra David Neel, who visited in the 1920s and wrote about a time she supposedly learned about tulpas and even took a crack at creating one (and spending 6 months destroying it after it supposedly became too powerful and turned malicious, hence the tulpa stereotype of the 'imaginary friend turned evil!').
However, there are no contemporary sources, nor sources written by any actual Tibetans or Buddhists (and it's not just a matter of their practices not being written down, you CAN find many texts on esoteric practices of Tibetan Buddhism if you bother to look) to suggest it was an actual practice in those days. David-Neel is generally well-regarded among Buddhists of today for her early look into Tibetan culture, but in the end she is still an outsider looking in.
Most agree that the term as David Neel used it, was most likely a misunderstanding of the term SprulPa, which refers to the earthly bodies that Buddhas manifest as to teach those who have not achieved Nirvana. There might also be a bit of the word Tulku, which refers to individuals who are recognised as the reincarnation of a past teacher, Bodhisattva or other enlightened being (like the Dalai Lama). And yes, there are some Indian Buddhist sources that talk about 'mind-made bodies', but this is less referred to as an ability one can attain with training and practice, and more a power that Buddhas have.
It also holds some vague similarity to the Yidam, a sort of meditational focal point in the form of a Buddha, Bodhisattva or other Tibetan deity or spirit, that the practitioner visualises in vivid detail and then identifies themselves with, in an attempt to internalise their qualities and attributes (wisdom from Manjushri, good health from the Medicine Buddha, compassion from Green Tara, etc). This is considered a higher esoteric practices amongst Buddhists, though not a closed one: if you've done the necessary preliminary practices and been empowered and taught by a Lama or Guru to do the practice, it doesn't matter if you're Tibetan or not. Many practitioners will choose particular Yidams they focus on for whatever reason, and may refer to them as 'my Yidam', but it's important to note that such deities are agreed upon to already 'exist' with the only creation on the practitioners part being the mental image of them, rather than being created wholecloth by the practitioner.
There are older Western practices similar to tulpamancy, such as the Theosophical concept of the Thoughtform, which is described as simple ethereal objects that emanate from one's aura, generated by thoughts and feelings. Or the Fylgja, a sort of spirit of Germanic folklore that is a projection of one's own soul, often taking an animal form or a form of the opposite gender of their respective human. However in neither case is the entity, be it a thoughtform or a Fylgja, considered to be a separate, sentient being in the way a modern tulpa is.
So as far as I am able to glean, the modern practice of tulpamancy is just that: a modern idea. And as loathe as I am to say it, it seems like it mostly just originated from the /x/ board on 4Chan. Some well-read channer probably heard about David Neel and her supposed tulpa experience and decided the word would work great for this concept as they devised it.
Hope this clears things up for people, and helps us get one step closer to finally doing away with this whole myth about Tulpamancy being some ancient Tibetan mystical practice, and that the term is a bad word because of that.
