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.