Purple Man

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.

@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.

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.

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.

@Water by the River Thank you very much for the references. I only knew of Muraesku´s work, but the others seem fascinating too.

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.

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."

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.

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.

This is nothing more (and nothing less) than the old adagio that the Godhead´s Awareness is behind every character in Creation. It is the Godhead which lives through every mortal carcass, no matter how delivish or angelic. Which erases the solipsistic existential terror (no reason for ego freaking out) while at the same time acknowledges that there is only One.

This leads me to a question: It is my understanding that the Awareness behind my human eyes is the same Godhead Awareness that contemplates the whole of Creation at once. Being that the case, the Godhead has to live through "good" and "bad". It is the "feeler" of the horror in the world and also of the magic in it. It is not "human beings" who do it. It is the Godhead who lives through a human being´s carcarss. So shouldn´t this lead to progressively "better", "finer", "subtler" levels of embodied existence? Considering it is the Godhead Itself who is living through every individual (we could say only the Godhead exists, actually), how could this not lead to higher and higher states of embodiment, to subtler and subtler levels of beings through to which experience individuality?

I don´t claim to be awake. All I can say is your words perfectly define how I perceive existence. You say "What is looking ath the mirror. Pure, quality-less Void. All of that Consciousness Whiteness happens is after Void Undefined Dark. God is White. Absolute is Dark"... And I can´t affirm that these words reflect ultimate Truth, but they define MY experience, with the only exception that in my case, the Absolute Void is aware. Actually it is the only "Aware Being". It is what perceives the mirror of Consciousness.

Thank you. This is my experience. My experience is "No Thing" creating everything that is perceptible through the very act of perceiving it. There is no way that I accept my ultimate nature as something that is seen, no matter how subtle, no matter how powerful that perceivable unity field might be. That´s why I struggle with statements like "the One Light", etc. If it is a Light, even if it is the all-powerful Light that serves as the dough for existence which is visible in near death experiences, then it is not "I", it is not my Self, but an emanation of It.

Whether "dark" or This is a totally serious question, and pertinent, in my opinion: Who watches that glow? I am not playing games here. If it has any quality, if it has any property, like "glowing", how can it be "I"? How can there not be an even deeper ontological "someone" who perceives it?

Thank you very much. You´ve been very patient. In the end, I suppose we´re talking about the same. I put the emphasis on Nothingness being Aware and the Dark Field and Its objects being observed "things" without aware capability, but this might be only semantics. I´ll keep checking your great posts. See you:)

Thank you very much for your time. I don´t like to keep pushing things too far, but let me give you a last objection. I´d appreciate much an answer: You say "the dark field that appears when you close your eyes is the essential you". Maybe this is a semantic problem, but in my experience the Dark field that hosts everything is, at the same time, hosted by an ontologically deeper reality, which is the Awareness where the Dark Field Itself "resides". Not only the contents of the Dark Field are objects, but the Dark Field Itself is still a subtle object. It is in front of me. And while my body,mind, Universes, insights, Gods, angels, etc., all are within the Dark Field, the Awareness that perceives the contents of the Dark Field is ALSO perceiving the Dark Field Itself. In the same manner as a cinema spectator is capable of watching, not only the movie "Matrix", but the screen itself. That leads me to the conclusion that I am not the Dark Field, but the Awareness that perceives it. Do you agree?

Thank you for your response. To me, this is a key subject, because my body, my mind, the inner and outer worlds and ALL OF MY INSIGHTS happened too within the sphere that floats in front of that nothingness that is aware. If my insights are correct, this has huge repercussions, since even the most hardcore awakenings must necessarily happen within the Dark Field (using your terminology), isn´t it the case? If Jesus Christ appeared in front of me today, he´d be within the Field, and by definition the whole scene and Christ Himself would be transcended by that Awareness within which the Field is floating. Do you agree? And since I am aware of the Field, I am that transcendental Awareness. Which is puzzling, and scary.

This is very interesting, because it precisely verses on the question that brought me to this forum: In your view, the Dark Field is all there is. It is the eternal screen and the ultimate substance of all that appears within it. And that´s basically my experience. BUT in mine, the Dark Field is still a subtle object. It is still floating on an deeper Awareness that serves as the substratum and context to the Dark Field. My experience is an Absolute Subject or Witness, totally formless, where your Dark Field appears. Both seem to create a duet in Shiva/Shakti fashion, with the Dark Field being Shakti, and the Awareness where the Dark Field "floats" being Shiva. And lastly, we have the zillion objects, images, feelings, universes, etc., all of them appearing as modifications of the Dark Fiels. I´d love to hear from you about this topic.

@justfortoday Your NDE seems to totally mirror the most fascinating one I´ve heard of, the one the scientist John Wren Lewis had. Where you use the word "Dark Field" he preferes "Dazzling Dark", but the rest is a basically a transposition.

@peanutspathtotruth Yours is a good approach, I take it into account and I thank you for that.

Yes, the only ideological link between Putin´s Russia and Trump´s America is precisely their opposition to the "Brave New World" direction we´re heading. They preferred to be two differentiated enemies than part of the same formless mass without any historical, cultural, spiritual root that the Big Tech is aiming to.

There are as many explanations for the situation as perspectives and temporal distances one takes. But even those who abhor the media simplistic trash and dare to dig deep into the historical roots of the conflict, fail to see that Putin has a long-term ideological project in his hands: he is trying to become the last man standing against the global technocratic dystopia the world is heading to. He wants Russia to be the spiritual shelter for those who around the world despice the rute the WEF and Big Tech is pushing down the Western World´s throat. In other words, he doesn´t want Russia to go "woke". And thank God, BTW. If the means is worth it, that´s another subject. But there´s little doubt that with this move, he´s accelerating the creation of an heterogeneous, multi-national faction of traditionalist roots that confronts technological globalism, a self´sustainable parallel civilization. And that´s even more important than a geopolitical move that would aim to Russia´s right to have a safe area around its borders, which is obviously a reasonable petition that has been ignored by the Western World, too occupied with trying to create a foreign administration that substitutes Putin and extends the woke imperialism right to Moscow. The rest are details.

There is a quote that comes from the Sufi master, Ibn Arabi, that sums it all up. In it, he speaks of the Absolute creating Creation "in order to become objects of my knowledge within them". Just read it carefully. It is one of the most explanatory, succint ways to express the relationship between absolute Oneness and relative multiplicity, solving the solipsistic paradox at the same time. There is One Awareness, which is the same for every creature, and "creature" is nothing but the Absolute knowing Its Creation from a particular body-mind´s perspective. Or rock´s perspective. Or planet´s perspective. Or divine being of light´s perspective. Or devil´s perspective... And of course, the higher the perspective, the nearer to the Ultimate Perspective, which would be that of the Godhead before Creation. Thus the pyramid Leo Gura spoke about that culminates in Total Oneness, which some might wrongfully perceive as terrifying because to them it resembles the aloneness of a desperate human being. It also confirms the mystical insights some of us have had, through whatever means, where it is understood that one´s real nature is indeed the Godhead. And there is no blasphemy there, nor you have to be able to perform physical miracles to be it. Your Awareness is the Godhead. Your core is the Godhead. That which perceives and manifests your particular bubble is the Godhead...but while you are incarnated in a particular body-mind, you will have the limited physical abilities that fit that incarnation. That´s why creation was thought into existence in the first place, for the sake of the One having multiple telescopes, microscopes, without stopping being the One.

This is basically the summary of it all. "Solipsism" as a concept is within the bubble too. The experience of that kind of Cosmic Loneliness would also be within the bubble of experience.

This man has been battling against the materialist paradigm in science, with the merit of doing it from within science, for so many years. I´ve read some essays more than one decade ago, and he´s as radical as I´ve seen a scientist be on this subject, and has received foreseeable backlash. It looks like he´s winning, because it certainly looks like considering Consciousness as primordial and the Universe "only" a byproduct of It has stopped being anathema in some scientific stages.