As soon as Sherlock relives the forgotten memory of Violet drowning him and telling him he’s not her son, which deeply wounds him, Mycroft comes in and says the priceless words "you are your mother’s son." On one hand it sounds like a teasing remark, but on the other it’s something deeply important for Sherlock because in other words Mycroft is telling him that he is his mother’s son no matter what.
Before I start this post, I want to make a small remark. Despite trying to at least minimally study Tibetan teachings and tulpas, I never even came close to actually understanding this topic. My knowledge is limited to scraps you can barely find on the internet, and even those scraps differ from source to source. My friend @bloodshotgun helped me put this post together, and this won’t be an expert analysis, more like a chain of thoughts and questions that will remain unanswered.
Let’s begin with the fact that many people noticed that in the Curiosities Room we can find a book titled “The Tulpa: Studies in Tibetan Mentalism”, covered with bookmarks everywhere. With a basic idea of what the modern understanding of tulpas is, one could assume that Sherlock himself read this book as a child, and simply followed the instructions there to create Jon as his tulpa. And indeed, Jon fits the description of the modern western tulpa surprisingly well.
However, here comes the problem - we are in the 19th century, and this book is about Tibetan teachings. So is this a developers’ oversight? Does Jon actually have something to do with traditional Buddhist terminology? And who, in the end, read this book?
First we need to understand the difference between “original Tibetan” tulpas and “modern western” tulpas.
Quote: “In ancient teachings it was used as a practice to show that the world around us exists as an illusion, and that the student could not trust what their senses perceived. The modern interpretation is that of a consciousness that exists parallel to your own inside your mind.”
Source: https://wiki.tulpa.info/wiki/Tulpa
Even from such a brief description we can see that the difference lies in the initial goal of tulpas, and yet both perfectly describe Jon in Sherlock’s mind.
The very term “tulpa” appeared only in the 20th century thanks to the French explorer of Tibetan Buddhism Alexandra David-Néel. "The term tulpa is David Néel’s phoneticization of the Tibetan term sprul pa (Skt. nirmita)."
Source: https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Tulpa
This tells us that a book with the word “tulpa” in its title simply could not exist within the actual timeline of the game. However, I don’t think this is a mistake. I think it’s an intentional minor timeline shift, a narrative tool sometimes used in fiction to introduce concepts for which humanity would only later invent words. This slight anachronism doesn’t break the story, but instead gives the player extra context.
And since the word “tulpa” appeared much later, we need to turn to the traditional meaning - Nirmita.
Quote: “Nirmita. Literally something that is ‘constructed’ or ‘built’. In Buddhist texts, nirmita typically refers to something that is 'conjured', or something that is perceived as real, but is not actually existing. Nirmita is translated into Tibetan as trulpa...”
Source: https://encyclopediaofbuddhism.org/wiki/Nirmita
To simplify: for Buddhists a tulpa is a spiritual practice aimed at enlightenment. In modern understanding - a companion. It’s also important that any tulpa is created intentionally. “Accidentally” formed additional personas in the psyche (including those formed due to trauma) are not considered tulpas.
And on one hand, it seems that the modern term fits Jon better. However, I stumbled upon an interesting Reddit thread where a follower of Tibetan Buddhism wrote about emanation (tulpa) from a traditional perspective. There was a lot to unpack, but one line stuck with me as important to this post:
“Our relationship is like that of brothers, though we consider the other one his Teacher.”
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Tulpas/comments/unt6h7/i_am_a_tibetan_buddhist_with_an_emanation_tulpa/
After all this information, I cannot say with certainty which meaning the developers intended: traditional emanations or modern tulpas, but I lean towards both at once. Which is why they used a term “tulpa” that technically shouldn’t exist in that era.
Now the question that concerned me the most: who read this book?
Many people immediately assume it was Sherry himself, and we weren’t an exception, that was the first idea me and my friend had during the first playthrough. “Tulpa? An imaginary friend Jon? Obviously, little Sherlock found that book and followed the instructions to create the perfect friend to not be alone!” And on one hand it still makes sense.
But one thing bothers me: why does Sherlock not react to this book as something familiar, while being fully aware that Jon is his imaginary friend and knowing when he appeared? He says: “Someone was rather obsessed with this subject.” when he sees the amount of bookmarks. Yes, Sherry has memory gaps, but what he forgets usually relates to trauma. I doubt he would completely forget the act of creating Jon itself, and the sight of the book wouldn’t trigger any memories whatsoever. He reacts to it like he has never seen it before. I can believe that Sherlock, at the age of five or six, could read and understand Tibetan teachings (you know, considering how he was drawing at six…), but the idea that he would have no emotional reaction to it, given how he reacts to anything that triggers his memories? Nope.
So… whose book is this?
Let’s go through several theories. From what I personally find least realistic to most.
Violet Holmes. Probability: extremely unlikely. She might have read it as someone hurt by loss, wanting to reshape reality, and later losing the ability to distinguish truth from fiction. She could have taught Sherlock to “shape his own reality”.
Why I personally find it unlikely: Violet genuinely suffered from a hereditary condition that appears to have been inherited by Sherlock. Tulpas are more metaphorical here. The next theories stick to that.
Mycroft Holmes. Probability: unlikely (though cute). Didn’t want to believe his brother was sick like their mother. Found similarities in the book with what Sherlock told him about Jon, began reading to understand him better. Unlikely because Sherlock has never seen the book, and it was in Richter’s box.
Verner Vogel. Probability: for this devilish bastard absolutely nothing is impossible. Could have left the book to Sherlock as some philosophical joke. After everything he said to Sherlock, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is basically a King in Yellow variant.
Otto Richter. Probability: the most likely. An incompetent physician who learned psychiatry partly from books about tulpas. Quote about original Tibetan teachings: “The Tibetan use of the tulpa concept was to have students practice the formation of a mind-made body which would manifest a genuine deity. While the students were told that the tulpa they created was a deity, they were expected to come to the conclusion that "even the most powerful deities were no more than creations of the humanmind". The pupil who accepted the tulpa instead "was deemed a failure – and set off to spend the rest of his life in an uncomfortable hallucination.”
Doesn’t this sound like dubious traumatic therapy? Sherlock and Mycroft’s mother was indeed mentally ill, but she was experimented on and tortured with any method they could come up with. The possibility that Richter tried to test Buddhist philosophy on her doesn’t seem unrealistic anymore, and again, this book was in his wooden box.
To conclude: the tulpa book symbolically expresses the metaphor of Jon as a tulpa. Practically Sherlock, as a child with a powerful imagination and probably hereditary mental illness, created an imaginary friend regardless of the book. The practical function of the book in the story is the incompetent use of ancient Tibetan teachings as psychiatric treatment. Which is why the book has double meaning supported by an intentionally out of time title.
I don’t claim these conclusions to be absolute truth, but this is where I arrived after asking myself a series of questions. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong somewhere or add something I missed.
William is still a math professor—teaches both intro and higher level math (so like calc II & differential eq’ns). All students love him—he has both audit students & a full class. He’d be one of those popular professors who’s class is always full even with non-math majors.
Sherlock is a free-lancing detective, researcher, and scientist. I can’t see him tied down to a specific university with the academia feud battle. He’s a staunch supporter of William’s academia career, but he’s not a teacher.
The two meet at a convention where a murder occurs. Sherlock literally falls for the professor on first sight. The only other person who gets him—understands the speed he works at.
+ Viola (their adopted daughter) is enrolled in the same university. She’s a double major in chemistry and mathematics, but minoring in history. She sometimes skips to go with Sherlock to crime scenes & help with forensics.
