Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Practice Logs

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Over the last month, certain events in life have led to me becoming far happier than I thought possible before now; something is very different about my experience, and it's like something is missing but in it's place is an incredible sweetness, a peace and simplicity which defies description. It doesn't seem to come 'from' anywhere but is constantly fresh, like something inherent to the universe itself but which is being continually revealed each moment anew.

There was the most peculiar sensation towards the back of my skull the other night, a Path-like expansion of consciousness which caused a sort of clunky, turning sensation in my brain and a sense of everything falling away. My eyes were closed at the time as I was just about to fall asleep, but I immediately became aware of the backs of my eyelids and the sense of, and forgive my clumsy metaphors here, being "lived" rather than living as "me". It's hard to explain it right now, but something about this makes Richard's repetition about "180 degrees" make perfect sense...although it's also quite clear in the experience itself that such distinctions as "subject" and "object", with or without consciousness, can be quite adequately described in other ways.

Part of what seems to have contributed to this change was the reintroduction of the "sweet spot" technique, which Nick explains nicely in the HP blog, while speaking to Trent, his advice and guidance as to how to access naivetè led to a massive, and hugely more enjoyable practice. I recommend it highly.

Anyway, just a quick update and I'll see how this change plays out.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
7/31/12 10:27 AM as a reply to Tommy M.
Tommy M:
in it's place is an incredible sweetness, a peace and simplicity which defies description. It doesn't seem to come 'from' anywhere but is constantly fresh, like something inherent to the universe itself but which is being continually revealed each moment anew..



Would you say that definition, description of the above is similar to Beoman's "Pure Intent" ?

Part of what seems to have contributed to this change was the reintroduction of the "sweet spot" technique, which Nick explains nicely in the HP blog, while speaking to Trent, his advice and guidance as to how to access naivetè led to a massive, and hugely more enjoyable practice. I recommend it highly.


Can you share Trent's advice or is it the one on that page you linked to?

Cheers

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
7/31/12 4:22 PM as a reply to Rotten Tomato.
Hiya RT,

Would you say that definition, description of the above is similar to Beoman's "Pure Intent" ?

In all honesty, I don't know as I haven't read what he's written about it. Would you mind quoting it or linking to/pointing out the thread he mentions it in?

Can you share Trent's advice or is it the one on that page you linked to?

The advice is basically the same as what's described on Nick's blog, but I'd emphasize that care should be taken not to mistake the stillness and apparent stability of the dan tien spot for the "sweet spot" itself. Slowly and carefully move further below that spot, as if you're moving towards the base chakra and you'll begin to feel what seems like a sort of sexual, sweet 'vibe' which doesn't really change in tone; my friend described it nicely as being like a sort of 'gap' rather than a spot, which also ties in with how I've seen someone describe this spot from a more classically yogic angle.[1]

[1] If I recall correctly, it may have been Antero who posts on Kenneth's site but I'm not 100% on that one.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
7/31/12 4:40 PM as a reply to Tommy M.
Tommy M:
Hiya RT,

Would you say that definition, description of the above is similar to Beoman's "Pure Intent" ?

In all honesty, I don't know as I haven't read what he's written about it. Would you mind quoting it or linking to/pointing out the thread he mentions it in?


Hi Tommy,

I believe this is what is being referred to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualconvivium/message/260
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualconvivium/message/161
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/virtualconvivium/message/163

Simon

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
7/31/12 4:46 PM as a reply to Simon Ekstrand.
Thanks for that Simon, much appreciated! I'll check 'em out and reply accordingly.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
7/31/12 5:54 PM as a reply to Rotten Tomato.
Would you say that definition, description of the above is similar to Beoman's "Pure Intent" ?

Thanks to Simon E, I've had a read at Claudiu's threads on the "Virtual Convivium" (which is actually a really good name and would probably make a really good Actualism offshoot site!) and would say that we're probably describing the same 'thing' although I'll highlight a few points and maybe Claudiu will also comment in case I'm misrepresenting his words.

To begin with, as far as I know, Claudiu has not experienced a stable, full-blown PCE yet, although I know that he is a sincere practitioner with a lot of 'faith' (which I'll place in quotes in case it's taken wrongly) in the Actualism method which in itself may be sufficient to have accessed "pure intent". I know for certain that I experienced "pure intent" outwith stable PCE's on many, many occasions before ever having heard of it in that way, in fact it's something which, now that it's constantly 'there', I remember being able to call up with ease whenever I ate a small amount of hashish and which had led to PCE's in the past. Due to this, if Claudiu says that Richard and Vineeto basically confirmed that this was "pure intent"[1], and if my own understanding and experience of this "pure intent" describes the same thing, then it would seem likely that we're talking about the same experience.

I'll comment on some of the "qualities of pure intent" which Claudiu lists too, as I understand them based on my own experience:

Claudiu:
* It is actually existing, that is, not mentally, affectively, or psychically created.

It's definitely not affectively or psychically created, although from a certain point of view it could be said to be mentally created. By this I mean dependent origination, although this quality seems to be inherent in a pure consciousness experience, it's still arising with the other aggregates and so is still subject to a subtle subject/object split; I suspect that this is something which vanishes in the later stages of "an actual freedom" too, similar to how some on here have described their experience so far in non-Actualist models.

* It is intrinsic to the universe itself.

While not incorrect, I don't find it a helpful way to think about it. This statement reifies "the universe" into some sort of 'thing' which can't actually be found if you go looking for it; Omega Point put it nicely when he said something like "show me one iota of matter", all I can find in my experience of the world is these six 'streams' of sense contact, I can think about "the universe" or read about it, maybe even study it at university or college, but I couldn't possibly show you where "the universe" is or where it begins.

* One does not experience it via thoughts, feelings, the psyche, **or the senses**, but rather, an existential awareness. That being said, feelings & senses are certainly affected by tapping into the purity; feelings turn felicitous and senses become brighter and far more pleasant in an unimaginable way.

Right, this one's got me vexed...here's my take on human experience in a nutshell: As a species, we experience "reality" (as a verb, not a noun) through/as/with the senses - ears, eyes, skin, tongue, nose, mind/thoughts or whatever you want to call the sixth one - since there is, as far as I know, no other way a human being can experience this. Even while writing this, I am entirely aware of the senses functioning effortlessly while this apparent sweetness, purity and naivetè exists alongside them, as them and with them; there is no distinction between them, they're experienced simultaneously so to divide the experience conceptually in this way, although necessary to allow discussion of it, presents a difficulty which isn't present in the experience itself. Everything about the felicity, brightness and the unimaginable pleasantness is spot on though, with emphasis on the "unimaginable".

* It is obviously pure, it is obviously beneficial, it is obvious that tapping into it more would be beneficial for everyone.

No disagreement there. emoticon

* It is obvious what it is when you experience it - any uncertainty means that isn't it.

True, but a little misleading given Claudiu's previous uncertainty regarding whether or not this was "pure intent". Sometimes having someone confirm it for you can be reassuring and helpful, but it's something that, once you've recognized it, which is usually through a spontaneous PCE, you're no longer uncertain about it's existence, regardless of how it's labelled.

* Felicitous feelings are the most accurate imitation of the purity.

This stops short of mentioning wonder and naivetè, both of which are hugely important in this as well as felicity.

* It has nothing to do with 'me'.

Damn right. emoticon

I need to sign off just now but maybe Claudiu can clarify any inaccuracies in my understanding of what he's saying so far, I'm not looking to argue about anything or discuss semantics, but if a further discussion would be helpful practically then hopefully some benefit will come of it.

[1]
Claudiu:
While visiting Richard, I talked about it with him & Vineeto, and realized that my earlier experiences were experiences of pure intent (I suspected they were but wasn't 100% sure), and discussed it and experimented enough to get a reliable idea and experience of what pure intent is and isn't.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
7/31/12 10:47 PM as a reply to Tommy M.
Hey Tommy,

I'll ask a few questions but also don't want to argue in particular... our latest email conversations seemed to grow unproductive and I would rather not communicate than communicate in that manner.

Tommy M:
It's definitely not affectively or psychically created, although from a certain point of view it could be said to be mentally created. By this I mean dependent origination, although this quality seems to be inherent in a pure consciousness experience, it's still arising with the other aggregates and so is still subject to a subtle subject/object split; I suspect that this is something which vanishes in the later stages of "an actual freedom" too, similar to how some on here have described their experience so far in non-Actualist models.

Could you go into this in a bit more detail? What do you mean by mentally created, in the 'dependent origination' sense?

Another way to ask is: does what you are experiencing exist outside of human consciousness/perception? Would it be there if there were no humans around? (I understand that no one would be able to talk about it, in that case.)

Tommy M:
* It is intrinsic to the universe itself.
While not incorrect, I don't find it a helpful way to think about it. This statement reifies "the universe" into some sort of 'thing' which can't actually be found if you go looking for it; Omega Point put it nicely when he said something like "show me one iota of matter", all I can find in my experience of the world is these six 'streams' of sense contact, I can think about "the universe" or read about it, maybe even study it at university or college, but I couldn't possibly show you where "the universe" is or where it begins.

Isn't "the universe" everywhere around us all at once? It seems pretty easy to find... as for matter, I am touching some right now (i.e. this keyboard).

Are you saying that you don't know anything exists beyond what you experience via your six 'streams' of sense contact? For example, would you say there is a computer when you type, or that you can't really know and all that you can know is that you are seeing this thing which we can call 'a computer', and you can reach out and touch it too or lick it even, but ultimately it's just sensory input and we don't really know what's "behind" it, so to speak?

Tommy M:
Even while writing this, I am entirely aware of the senses functioning effortlessly while this apparent sweetness, purity and naivetè exists alongside them, as them and with them; there is no distinction between them, they're experienced simultaneously so to divide the experience conceptually in this way, although necessary to allow discussion of it, presents a difficulty which isn't present in the experience itself. Everything about the felicity, brightness and the unimaginable pleasantness is spot on though, with emphasis on the "unimaginable".

Is there an experience of the distinction between the purity and the senses when you aren't in a PCE? That is: does what you say here apply only to a PCE, or to both in a PCE and out of it?

Tommy M:
* It is obvious what it is when you experience it - any uncertainty means that isn't it.

True, but a little misleading given Claudiu's previous uncertainty regarding whether or not this was "pure intent". Sometimes having someone confirm it for you can be reassuring and helpful, but it's something that, once you've recognized it, which is usually through a spontaneous PCE, you're no longer uncertain about it's existence, regardless of how it's labelled.

Right, that's what I meant. Once you recognize it and can label it accurately, then there's no mistaking what it is and isn't. Until you do, you don't really know what you're looking for.

Cheers,
- Claudiu

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 10:48 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Are you saying that you don't know anything exists beyond what you experience via your six 'streams' of sense contact? For example, would you say there is a computer when you type, or that you can't really know and all that you can know is that you are seeing this thing which we can call 'a computer', and you can reach out and touch it too or lick it even, but ultimately it's just sensory input and we don't really know what's "behind" it, so to speak?


It's a construal from personal experience. Whether the construed exists independently of the construal is more a question for philosophy than spiritual practice, because the answer wouldn't change the goal or the method of practice.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 11:50 AM as a reply to Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem.
Could you go into this in a bit more detail? What do you mean by mentally created, in the 'dependent origination' sense?

Another way to ask is: does what you are experiencing exist outside of human consciousness/perception? Would it be there if there were no humans around? (I understand that no one would be able to talk about it, in that case.)

I have no idea whether or not what I'm experiencing exists outside of "human consciousness/perception", or at least I am unable to prove that this is the case either way. Without wanting to sound rude, how exactly can you speculate that something would "be there is there were no humans around" without resorting to imagination and blind faith?

As far as an dependent origination-based interpretation goes, this does not seem to arise seperate from sense consciousness, or at least not as far as I'm able to observe at present. It's cognition requires perception which requires the 'sense gates', which in turn require a body/mind organism as condition, which requires consciousness as it's condition, which requires mental formations as condition, which is caused by ignorance of the emptiness of all things.

Isn't "the universe" everywhere around us all at once? It seems pretty easy to find... as for matter, I am touching some right now (i.e. this keyboard).

Is it? Can you prove that to me or show me that "the universe" exists everywhere around us all at once? I can look up into the sky, but all I can confirm occurring is the seeing of the sky; at night there are stars and planets visible to the naked eye, but it's still just the process of seeing. Any ideas I have about "the universe" are only ideas, what I experience as "the universe" is like seeing the 'tip of the iceberg' and each of us will be looking at it from a slightly different angle.

As far as matter goes, all I am able to experience and report accurately is an instant of sense contact; anything else in my experience only seems to exist via imputation. Matter is a noun, it implies some sort of stable, unchanging object which exists in some fixed position in time and space; in the course of my investigations, I have been unable to find anything in this immediate experience which suggests stability or permanence in any way. I can only find verbs. Of course I'm using language conventionally to describe such things, but always with the caveat that they're only descriptions and not the experience itself. This stuff is apparent even in a PCE, however such a statement may colour your perception of what I describe.

Is there an experience of the distinction between the purity and the senses when you aren't in a PCE?

I would say "no", 'cause once you know what 'this' is then it becomes easier to 'see' it outwith the PCE; since it doesn't occur seperate from any other aspect of experience, and thus seems to be constantly there, I'd say that it's just a matter of identifying/recognizing that "pure intent", if I'm using the term correctly, and then refining your ability to access it at will i.e. "the sweet spot".

Right, that's what I meant. Once you recognize it and can label it accurately, then there's no mistaking what it is and isn't. Until you do, you don't really know what you're looking for.

Cool, good to see we're still able to pick each other up correctly with this stuff. emoticon

Peace,
T

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 12:14 PM as a reply to Tommy M.
Tommy M:
I have no idea whether or not what I'm experiencing exists outside of "human consciousness/perception", or at least I am unable to prove that this is the case either way. Without wanting to sound rude, how exactly can you speculate that something would "be there is there were no humans around" without resorting to imagination and blind faith?

By experiencing pure intent/actuality of course!

EDIT: One can also use reasoning. For example, if I watch somebody die, the universe does not change, for the most part. Everything seems to stay just about the same and continue to exist just fine. Why would it be different if I died? Why would it be different if everybody died?

Tommy M:
Is it? Can you prove that to me or show me that "the universe" exists everywhere around us all at once?

Well, that is part of the point of experiencing actuality/a PCE, as far as I can tell.

Tommy M:
As far as matter goes, all I am able to experience and report accurately is an instant of sense contact; anything else in my experience only seems to exist via imputation. Matter is a noun, it implies some sort of stable, unchanging object which exists in some fixed position in time and space; in the course of my investigations, I have been unable to find anything in this immediate experience which suggests stability or permanence in any way.

Right-o, and that suggests to me that you aren't experiencing actuality on a regular basis:
RESPONDENT: I’ve only really been noticing this since I started paying attention to impermanence.
RICHARD: As there is no impermanence in actuality then it would be to your advantage to take a second look at whatever it is you are paying attention to.
[link]
and a more directly relevant one:
RESPONDENT: Any ‘arrangement’ is impermanent, i.e.: of time.
RICHARD: Yes ... but the bits and pieces that the ‘arrangement’ is formed from are not impermanent ... they exist forever and a day in the eternal time of this infinite universe.
[link]

Tommy M:
Is there an experience of the distinction between the purity and the senses when you aren't in a PCE?

I would say "no", 'cause once you know what 'this' is then it becomes easier to 'see' it outwith the PCE; since it doesn't occur seperate from any other aspect of experience, and thus seems to be constantly there, I'd say that it's just a matter of identifying/recognizing that "pure intent", if I'm using the term correctly, and then refining your ability to access it at will i.e. "the sweet spot".

Whereas in my experience, the senses are not pure/are not the purity when I'm not in a PCE. The senses are affected by the purity I experience, but they are not the purity, themselves (the purity is indeed separate from the senses).

Tommy M:
Peace,

Indeed! I hope this does not come off as defensive. If you disagree then let's just leave it at that. I'm not seeking to convince you, just pointing out my understanding because you asked.

- Claudiu

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 2:19 PM as a reply to fivebells ..
fivebells .:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
Are you saying that you don't know anything exists beyond what you experience via your six 'streams' of sense contact? For example, would you say there is a computer when you type, or that you can't really know and all that you can know is that you are seeing this thing which we can call 'a computer', and you can reach out and touch it too or lick it even, but ultimately it's just sensory input and we don't really know what's "behind" it, so to speak?


It's a construal from personal experience. Whether the construed exists independently of the construal is more a question for philosophy than spiritual practice, because the answer wouldn't change the goal or the method of practice.


While I agree in a way, I think it's interesting and maybe useful (diagnostically or otherwise) to see that different modes of experience can predispose people who have them to different kinds of metaphysical beliefs. For example, moving more towards a PCE, there is a predisposition to naive realism ("all this is really real"); moving away from that and towards the impression that one is "looking" out at experience, there is a predisposition to different kinds of skepticism ("I don't know anything exists beyond the six senses").

How well this works as a diagnostic indicator may vary depending on a person's cultural and intellectual background. Thinking about metaphysics in the Western academic sense may mess it up, big time.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 2:55 PM as a reply to End in Sight.
How would the diagnosis help inform practice? Both views are just views. Attachment to any ontological view is dukkha. (Yes, including this one.)

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 4:00 PM as a reply to fivebells ..
If one group of people doing one sort of practice have metaphysical beliefs (professed on the basis of their practice) of one kind, whereas people doing another sort of practice have metaphysical beliefs (professed on the basis of their practice) of a very different kind, it might be the case that the two practices lead in different directions, and a person could get a (possibly unreliable, depending on cultural and intellectual factors) sense of which direction they might be going in on the basis of what metaphysical statements seem plausible to them.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 5:34 PM as a reply to End in Sight.
Where does 'intent' in general originate? Does it not occur in the brain? The mind? In an affective experience it will be tinged, perhaps warped, filtered through, driven and influenced by some affective/being/ urge/overlay. What happens when there is none of that influence? Does the 'intent' born of mind drop away too? Or is it now a purified intent? An intent so pure it 'seems' to come from not this body and mind, as for so long this body and mind has been the home of a process and flow of affect/being/passions. When it all ceases to arise, what happens to intent? Perhaps the issue is with seeing 'intent' experienced within mind and body as inherently affective and inherently belonging to 'me'? One cannot see how intent born of mind and body could ever be 'pure' as intent of mind and body is inherently affective? This is one view I think some have. Another, which i had was that 'intent' was never 'me'. To be clear, intent was influenced by 'me', pushed and pulled by 'me', but when 'me' is no longer an ongoing experience, intent didn't drop away with it. It ceased to be seen as born from 'me'.

I have recognised what you are pointing to as 'pure intent' claudiu, every time I analysed any situation. Is something separating and hindering this mind/body organism from simply recognising and experiencing the actuality of the world within which this mind/body organism moves? If a mental overlay is seen to be separating this mind/body organism from experiencing the actuality of this moment, the actuality of trees swaying seen through the window, wooden table strewn with newspapers, sound of heater, fingers dancing about on keyboard, I recognise why someone would say such a 'pure intent' would not be experienced via the senses. When actuality comes to the very forefront of experience, nothing but actuality is experienced, the eyes are looking at the back of the eyelids.

Perhaps one can't separate the senses from a lifetime of conditioning with the notion that intent is born of affective mind states and they are one and the same and can never be separated? And so any 'intent' that is experienced via the senses (mind and body as a whole) will not be 'pure'. But without being, self, presence, inner and outer world overlays, the intent that is uncovered, i would say, seems to be 'the universe', or the world around one, as what else is there to take ownership of 'intent'? No 'me' there anymore. No-one but the world or universe or 'the realm of experience' as I prefer to conceptualize it, experiencing itself. Some 'thing' has to be the owner of this 'intent'? The universe it is then.

But what if a view is in place beforehand that there is no ownership of intent. One's previous practice influences further practice recognizing the actuality of the world around. Intent just operates. The same experience that is being called 'pure intent' by you is experienced by someone who has no conditioning in place (visiting Richard, reading the AFT). They experience complete absence of all being/affect/me-ness not influencing the intentions to move and act. They experience an intent that is quite different, yet the intent that now operates is not conditioned to be given 'ownership' to any 'thing' (such as the 'universe'). One can see how others would do so, it is clear. There is no 'me' intending. It is intent seemingly being intended by something else, the universe (the world of experience all around the mind body organism). What if there was no concept of 'universe' in my lexicon and experience of the world? What if I always approached experience as being of the six sense spheres? The Richard-the-progenitor-has-discovered-something-new argument explains this, huh?

Perhaps, conditioning and views play a part in how we define such experiences and give them and life 'meaning'.

Claudiu, did Richard tell you about his magical prodigies i.e the magical orgasms/sensations he experienced at the same time presumably that some people became actually free? Do they somehow play a part in people becoming actually free? And does sex play a role in it? Is there anything else that Richard talked of in your visit that you haven't shared yet?

Edit x 2

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 5:44 PM as a reply to End in Sight.
("I don't know anything exists beyond the six senses").

I should clarify the way I used this particular phrase: It's not that I don't know anything exists beyond the six senses, it's just that the only thing that I can accurately provide a description of is my own immediate experience which, at present, occurs, as far as I can tell, via six sensate processes of seeing, hearing, touching, tasting, smelling, and thinking.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 5:52 PM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nick:
Claudiu, did Richard tell you about his magical prodigies i.e the magical orgasms/sensations he experienced at the same time presumably that some people became actually free? Do they somehow play a part in people becoming actually free? And does sex play a role in it? Is there anything else that Richard talked of in your visit that you haven't shared yet?

Da fuk?

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 10:56 PM as a reply to Tommy M.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 10:38 PM as a reply to fivebells ..
fivebells .:


warning: do not watch this with other people in the room who can't see your screen

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/1/12 10:57 PM as a reply to Adam . ..
Thanks for pointing that out. I clipped it so the context would be clearer.

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map
Answer
8/2/12 10:08 AM as a reply to Nikolai ..
Nikolai .:
Where does 'intent' in general originate? Does it not occur in the brain? The mind?

Yea, a human being's intent occurs in his/her brain/mind, be it affective (for one with a feeling-being) or actual (for one without). But "pure intent" does not have anything to do with a human being's intent... it's a quality of the universe, not a type of human intention. Perhaps it's not the best term, so I sometimes just say "purity".

Your whole reply seems to indicate you didn't understand that fact (that "pure intent" is of the universe, not of humans), which makes me think you haven't experienced what it is I'm talking about.

Nikolai .:
In an affective experience it will be tinged, perhaps warped, filtered through, driven and influenced by some affective/being/ urge/overlay. What happens when there is none of that influence? Does the 'intent' born of mind drop away too? Or is it now a purified intent?

The intent would be an actual intent (like actual thoughts, actual sensations, etc.), but it would not be what I mean by "pure intent", as "pure intent" is of the universe, not of a human. But the constant experiencing of "pure intent" by an actually free person definitely renders them benevolent.

Nikolai .:
An intent so pure it 'seems' to come from not this body and mind, as for so long this body and mind has been the home of a process and flow of affect/being/passions.

Well, that would just be denial - to say that one's intent does not come from one's body and mind.

Nikolai .:
When it all ceases to arise, what happens to intent?

One automatically becomes benevolent.

Nikolai .:
Perhaps the issue is with seeing 'intent' experienced within mind and body as inherently affective and inherently belonging to 'me'? One cannot see how intent born of mind and body could ever be 'pure' as intent of mind and body is inherently affective?

No, intent of mind and body is not inherently affective, as Richard, for example, still has intentions, and he does not experience affect at all.

Nikolai .:
This is one view I think some have.

Who is 'some'? Not me, certainly.

Nikolai .:
Another, which i had was that 'intent' was never 'me'. To be clear, intent was influenced by 'me', pushed and pulled by 'me', but when 'me' is no longer an ongoing experience, intent didn't drop away with it. It ceased to be seen as born from 'me'.

Okay. In my experience 'intent' is often 'me' - affective intent. Also you seem to contradict yourself here, when you say that 'intent' was never 'me', as earlier (9/9/11) you said:
Nikolai .:
That is how I saw and recognized pure intent. I took on the notion that 'I' was pure intent and pure intent was 'me'. I also took on the notion that 'I' was impure intent and impure intent was 'me' every time my practiced waned.


Nikolai .:
I have recognised what you are pointing to as 'pure intent' claudiu, every time I analysed any situation. Is something separating and hindering this mind/body organism from simply recognising and experiencing the actuality of the world within which this mind/body organism moves?

"pure intent" is "a manifest life-force; a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe" [link]... so it doesn't have anything in particular to do with the intent to notice whether something is separating and hindering this mind/body organism from simply recognising and experiencing the actuality of the world within which this mind/body organism moves.

Nikolai .:
Perhaps one can't separate the senses from a lifetime of conditioning with the notion that intent is born of affective mind states and they are one and the same and can never be separated?

I don't know... I don't have that notion.

Nikolai .:
And so any 'intent' that is experienced via the senses (mind and body as a whole) will not be 'pure'. But without being, self, presence, inner and outer world overlays, the intent that is uncovered, i would say, seems to be 'the universe', or the world around one, as what else is there to take ownership of 'intent'? No 'me' there anymore. No-one but the world or universe or 'the realm of experience' as I prefer to conceptualize it, experiencing itself. Some 'thing' has to be the owner of this 'intent'? The universe it is then.

Here you are confusing your own mind/body organism's intent with "pure intent". They are indeed different things.

Nikolai .:
But what if a view is in place beforehand that there is no ownership of intent.

I don't know, and it doesn't seem like you had this view in place beforehand either, being that you said "I took on the notion that 'I' was pure intent and pure intent was 'me'. I also took on the notion that 'I' was impure intent and impure intent was 'me' every time my practiced waned.".

Nikolai .:
One's previous practice influences further practice recognizing the actuality of the world around. Intent just operates. The same experience that is being called 'pure intent' by you is experienced by someone who has no conditioning in place (visiting Richard, reading the AFT). They experience complete absence of all being/affect/me-ness not influencing the intentions to move and act. They experience an intent that is quite different, yet the intent that now operates is not conditioned to be given 'ownership' to any 'thing' (such as the 'universe'). One can see how others would do so, it is clear. There is no 'me' intending. It is intent seemingly being intended by something else, the universe (the world of experience all around the mind body organism).

Maybe it seems to you like it's intended by something else, but it seems to me that it is your (your mind/body organism's) intent, and not "pure intent". Richard and Vineeto still intend things... but their intentions are not "pure intent" (although their intentions are informed by "pure intent"). "Pure intent" is a thing in and of itself and it has nothing in particular to do with humans (it would still be here even if no humans were around).

Nikolai .:
What if there was no concept of 'universe' in my lexicon and experience of the world? What if I always approached experience as being of the six sense spheres? The Richard-the-progenitor-has-discovered-something-new argument explains this, huh?

I don't follow.

Nikolai .:
Claudiu, did Richard tell you about his magical prodigies i.e the magical orgasms/sensations he experienced at the same time presumably that some people became actually free? Do they somehow play a part in people becoming actually free?

What "magical orgasms" are you talking about?

Nikolai .:
And does sex play a role in it?

Um... no, I don't think so. What gave you that idea?

Nikolai .:
Is there anything else that Richard talked of in your visit that you haven't shared yet?

Nothing of note... on the third or fourth night I was there, we went into town and had a rowdy orgy with about 9 other townsfolk, 3 of which became actually free as a result, but I didn't think that was worth mentioning.