Purple Man

Member
  • Content count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Purple Man

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
    Spain
  • Gender
    Male
  1. As most confussion in the "spiritual seeker" world, it´s a matter of terminology, of what different people understand when a term is used. I totally understand why some say we´re the screen and why others say you transcend the screen. In my experience, I´d tend to consider the screen as that transparent sphere where everything that vibrates reside. From that definition, the real "I", which is non-vibratory Aware Space/Void, would totally transcend the screen in the sense that it is that Aware Space what projects the screen. But others will understand that that Aware Void is the screen, and in that case there is no such transcendence.
  2. Thank you. What you share is exactly my experience: Nonvibratory Aware Space or Void, projecting a transparent sphere where everything that vibrates, the whole universe with my body included, appear. The only element that I lack is the Love of the Aware Space for the transparent sphere. And I am not talking about depression of lack of capability to enjoy life, which is not my case. I speak about the profound Love of the projector for the projection, of the artist for the art he/she creates.
  3. Lovely character, a gentleman, wise man, mystic, but it looks like his insights are a result of a high intelligence looking for ultimate truths, more than altered states of consciousness.
  4. The worst damage you can do to a child in development is creating for him the fiction that he is as talented as the best for the very act of being born. He has to be prepared to understand that talents differ so much that there will be a gap that he´ll never overcome in certain areas. And there is nothing wrong with it. That´s what maturity is about. Understanding life, challenges, different skills in the same person and in other people compared with oneself is the key to a healthy approach to life. Telling him that Beethoven only worked harder than him is beyond nuts.
  5. The fact that you have taken arguably two of the three most gifted music composers of all time, absolute giants, with a science fiction natural talent that the world has not seen again although hundreds of years have gone by, and don´t even mention that word ,"talent", to explain their success is, again, so astonishing that I don´t have words. Many millions have dedicated their life to music composing and still do, devoting all their energy and resources, much higher than theirs, and got from nowhere to a good musical career. Which is light years from what those giants achieved. Just please, don´t say that Beethoven´s symphonies are within everybody´s reach as long as they have a piano, musical education, live in the first world and study as much as they did daily, because it is too wrong.
  6. @Asayake To say that people are born with the same artistic level is terrifying. Really, I don´t want to sound rude, but I never thought that I´d heard such a incredible negation of reality.
  7. To anyone thinking that talent is overrated: think twice. We all can put the work, but talent is the absolute basis of real greatness. I could compose music even while being beaten by a bike gang. I could not make a decent painting even if I devoted my last decades to it, full time. In the last years, political correctness has created an absolutely distorted way of understanding "equality", one that prevent people from understanding and accepting the huge difference in people´s talents. Just please, don´t say work makes Mozart or Bach. It is just totally wrong, even if they worked in their music like donkeys.
  8. When trying to go metaphysical, Science has always made the mistake of extracting one finite "object" from the whole plethora of existing "things", and then conceding it a different status than the rest, so it can keep, in a quite naive suspension of desbelief, and by adorning that chosen finite object with the (lack of) qualities of the infinite. the illusion of finding the ultimate in the finite. The absurd claim of positivist science that brains generate the Consciousness within which they appear is the best example, one that, by the way, Hoffman does not make.
  9. Most opinions on AI suffer from naivity. No result is the consequence of one brand new factor, but of its interacion with the already existent variables. You can´t isolate AI and try to draw conclusions on it as if it existed on a sterile environment. The aftermath will totally depend on the development of human beings. And if I had to point out one thing I have learnt in my already long life, I´d say that whenever a door is open by humans, we´ll go all the way through it until the good intentions that opened it in the first place are outshined by the charicature they finally became, and by the distorted use that people with power gave to the new situation. Same with AI. It might be an incredible tool for a developed species. For us, it is like giving a monkey a nuclear weapon. New technology in the last decades has meant an increase in power for those who hold it, and a decrease in individual freedom. To think that AI will not be used to create a highly controlled mass is the dream of an undeveloped child.
  10. @Water by the River Thank you very much for the references. I only knew of Muraesku´s work, but the others seem fascinating too.
  11. That could be the case even outside the frame of the most popular civilizations that used substances in secret rituals, we all know which ones I am referring to. For example, I am from Spain, and among the most interesting and well known mystics of our history we have a pair of Christian saints, Santa Teresa de Ávila and San Juan de la Cruz (most people will know the latter due to his poem "The Dark Night of the Soul", term that has been used often since), hardcore meditators in the Christian sense of the word, the last context where one would try to find a connection with the psychedelic world. And it could be the case or not, but it seems like a strange coincidence that both are from an area of Spain, Ávila, where reportedly a powerful psychedelic mushroom grows, and particularly I read that that mushroom grew freely just besides Santa Teresa´s monastery. I think it is safe to say that some kind of natural psychedelic must have been involved in the spiritual development of even our prehistoric ancestors. Recently, a small sculpture has been found, tens of thousands years old, and it showed a figure with a spot in the third eye area. Why on Earth would that be the case if a psychedelic experience was not somehow responsible for that? We could speculate with a natural predisposition of ancient Homo Sapiens to natural mystical experiences, and it might be the case, but I think the constant fight for survival makes it a difficult possibility.
  12. Where you say "You are the only experience" is where I disagree. I´d say "You are the only experiencer, experiencing many experiences, one for every point of view."
  13. Thanks for the reply. I don´t deny the dreamed up quality of existence. Dreamed up in the sense of it not having independent ontological status, in the sense of it being the consequence of Awareness. Would you also agree with me regarding the Godhead being Absolute, being the one and only Awareness, creating the universe with the very act of projecting it and perceiving it, and then giving life to each character in the dream by being the Awareness behind (and beyond) any individual "carcass", behind and beyond any individual body-mind perspective? That is my experience, and allows for the existence of only One Self, but also permits the relative existence of all of us as individual encarnations that are lived by the One Awareness of the Godhead. And with this, no more solipsistic terror.
  14. One Awareness, many individual body-mind perspectives is the most obvious experience of anyone. I think solipsistics mistake the "many perspectives" concept with many selves, they reject the idea, and throw the baby out with the bathwater.