Purple Man

Member
  • Content count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Purple Man

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Spain
  • Gender
    Male
  1. 1.8 and 3.3. "You score for primary psychopathy was higher than 35.37% of people who have taken this test. You score for secondary psychopathy was higher than 81.09% of people who have taken this test." in other words, or Axl Rose´s words, "you know I fuck you alllllllll!!!" In all seriousness, secondary psychopathy, according to their definition, is totally a virtue.
  2. Yes, that mirrors my experience. I am not able to remain in the knowledge all the time, and I don´t even know if it´s possible to operate in a world like ours through that principle, but when I stop and breath, it´s clear that the dough is the same for a star and for an ant and for Mars. It´s all Consciousness, frozen fragments of the same substance.
  3. Maybe it´s a semantic thing. I use "form/formless" as synonimous to " Perceivable Universes/Consciousness". Wouldn´t you say that every perceivable "something" (stars, planets, bodies, brains, hellish or heavenly realms, thoughts, angels, NDE´s tunnels, lights and beings) is a function of Consciousness? Because in my experience, even if I´m lifted to the highest, most subtle realm conceivable, that is also within Consciousness. Even my own body is clearly like a frozen form created within and by Consciousness.
  4. Totally agree. But if that´s correct (and I have no doubt about it), that would also imply that "form" (every possible perceivable "something") is dependent on formlessness, not the other way round. Or, in other words, that "matter" is dependent on Consciousness, and of a different ontological status, as it´s my direct experience, which most don´t share. That does not turn "matter" into a non-existent, but the Universe and every possible experience and perception residing within Consciousness turn the latter and the former into what you call "1st order" and "2nd order ", respectively.
  5. One of the most fascinating records ever.
  6. Thank you for the reply. I don´t want to insist, since I know you are a busy guy, but in one of your best videos, you say this: 1/ "I am God sitting inside the fractal . God is the emptiness that sits on the center of the fractal. The fractal is the form. God is the formlessness within which the fractal exists. I am God looking through these eyes. God looking down to Creation." .-Eternity is what is being conscious of this moment right now." Well, that is exactly my experience. Exactly , basically for a decade. But the problem is, although I feel Creation as flowing from me, (so "mine" in a sense) I don´t feel it as "I". Yes there is a subtle duality there. But if I were the form, I would not be aware. Form is not aware. I am aware. The formless eternity is aware. I can´t understand how I can share (or transfer) my sense of Self with that which appears within me. I am not trying to challenge you. It is just that it does not corresponde with my experience, and I am very curious on a state where the Universe that appears flowing from/being watched by unmanifest Awareness (my Self) can share the ontological status with unaware forms. 2/ You also say: "When the world of form dissapears, existence without content exists." That´s what I feel as my Self, the Godhead. So now I ask you, and this is a very important question for me: My experience of the world is one where pure subjectivity transcends the manifest, but in some way it needs the latter to be self-aware. In your experience of the Godhead, is that "existence without content", or "Consciousness devoid of all form" self-conscious? Is there self-reflection of any kind, any understanding from the Godhead of being so? If that´s the case, how, since there is no objective reflection whatsoever (no thoughts, no sensations, no thing perceived) I mean, even in deep sleep there is total lack of reflection, total lack of self-consciousness. Thanks in advance.
  7. Actually I refered to the fact that I see form, and "am" formlessness, which I don´t see, because I am "it". But maybe we´re talking about the same. Words can get tricky, that´s why interviews as the one Leo did with Curt are fantastic, but rarely lead to a total understanding of what both sides really mean.
  8. I´ve heard this "form is formlessness" mantra for as long as I have been into meditation. Maybe my understanding of what it really means is different from other people´s, but to me it is a game word that has no equivalence with my experience. I clearly see as an everyday fact that some totally unmanifest, impersonal, formless Awareness is projecting "form", the manifest, creating it through the very act of perceiving it. Form is nothing but the solidification of perception, the solidification of the energy, of the cosmic "dough". But this energy has no existence on its own. It depends on Source, it depends on its "being perceived", and Source is formless. That is my experience.
  9. Well, several considerations: First, for form to be necessary in order to realise formlessness, it would take formlessness (that is, Godhead, Source) to be unconscious in the absence of form. Besides, "realizing" is a feature of the mind. The mind needs form to realize formlessness. That does not mean that formlessness needs form to exist. If that were the case, there would never be a universe created into existence.
  10. Leo, if (and I think we agree on this) there is a conscious, immutable, unmanifest substratum (Godhead, to call it somehow) that is our ultimate nature, beyond any appearence and any possible way of existence, I understand that the exploration of all possible states of consciousness you speak about is for the sake of enjoying creativity, of enjoying the manifest, the mutable, not to find in those states the ultimate truth, isn´t it?
  11. For Curt, as a host who´s had brilliant minds in his podcast before, the way to show total respect to Leo Gura is giving him the same treatment, making him intellectually work hard, oblige him to earn his points. He totally did show respect to him, and tried to be fair in the sense of making Leo explain things in the way human mind works, without faith leaps, without detours. Curt was also awesome in his open-mindedness. The problem is that For Leo or any other mystic, it is impossible to give an algorythm that takes you from human to divine. The mystic knows some things that can´t adequately be explained in those terms, because you can only say what is, not why it is. Many of the exchanges ended up with Curt being frustrated because he wanted to access a knowledge that you can only enter through meditation and psychedelics, precisely the two only roads he´s not willing to travel. But both did it well, and that is the most that one can expect in a conversation from a mystic and a human framed mind.
  12. Leo, I´d greatly appreciate an aswer on this, because that´s where my own awakenings fall short: 1/My experience of the world is one where pure subjectivity transcends the manifest, but in some way it needs the latter to be self-aware. In your experience of the Godhead, is "Consciousness devoid of all form" self-conscious, is there self-reflection of any kind, any understanding from the Godhead of being so? If that´s the case, how, since there is no objective reflection whatsoever (no thoughts, no sensations, no thing perceived) I mean, even in deep sleep there is total lack of reflection, total lack of self-consciousness. 2/Are concepts as "aloneness" or "cosmic boredom" possible in that state, and are they a possible source of the desire for manifesting the Universe, as Love is?
  13. @Scholar Curt is extremely open minded and he´ll get somewhere soon, but the jump from being open to new paradigms to start functioning from them is huge. And the very base of scientific materialism is that all of Reality, all that has objective properties, is a consequence of a more refined object, a primal "something" that somehow stands beyond the rest of "objects". The (hilarious, if not sad) attempt to understand reality making particles crash in huge colliders as if they were to find that holy object within "common matter" is the epitome of it, but the very act of trying to explain Consciousness as an epiphenomenon of the brain,like it´s not an appearence in Consciousness is more than enough to see how far from the right path most of them are.
  14. Excellent. One Awareness focusing down into 7 billion body-mind perspectives. And it is the One Awareness which perceives each.
  15. @Johnny Galt Thanks to you.