Message Boards Message Boards

Practices Inspired by Actualism

Pure intent.What's your take.

Toggle
Pure intent.What's your take.
actualism practice pure intent
Answer
3/5/12 3:23 AM
Hello everyone.

Disclaimer:This is not a troll/flame post.I am not interested in any way in discussions on whether someone is AF or not,or someone is batshit insane or not etc.

Given the recent developments at the AFT website.
This in particular,and more particularly this post by Richard:
It is patently obvious that Tarin never had pure intent in the first place (otherwise, what he would have been saying in those last two quotes further above is, in effect, that this actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, that palpable life-force which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, *is now gone – has been extinguished*).
(not picking on you Tarin).
Now,i have no doubt that Tarin has been free from the instinctual passions in their entirety,but if there was no miscommunication between Tarin and Ricky the above cited post means that Tarin became free from affect but without using what Richard termed pure intent and is not quite there yet according to Richard but that not-quite-theredness is just fine from my point of view so no practical discussion here in my opinion.

This introduces a branch in the AF map.So assuming the above considerations there are two different drives/engines/motivators that can be used in practice and neglecting that Tarin is not currently being "what Richard coined pure intent",
result in becoming AF(free from any affect without exceptions ),(whether one is or isn't being what Richard coined pure intent is of no concern to me at the moment)and as required before that become VF.

So with this background in mind,what do you think about the two definitions of pure intent:
Tarin:
pure intent is the intent a feeling being has to, above all else, live this moment as best as is humanly possible, which standard has been set by the knowledge (the memory) of a pure consciousness experience, and which is enabled by the knowledge that 'i' am nothing more and nothing less than 'my intent'

Richard:
Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself
(accent on palpable added by me) and found later on the link:
And, speaking of which, the directors of The Actual Freedom Trust hereby recommend, publicly, that Tarin taps into that palpable life-force, that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity, which originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself, because to be actually free from the human condition is to be that pure intent ... as in, to be that benevolence and benignity *as a flesh-and-blood body only*.
(again i beg for no bickering).
Do tell,what is your experience with pure intent(especially if you are one of the AF people on this forumemoticon) and specifically what are your thoughts on generation and maximization(i don't remember a PCE clearly and haven't evinced one yet) given that
-even being free from affect(Tarin's case) is not enough to continually experience what Richard terms pure intent
-according to AFT people that is practically everything between "me" and my demise
Thank you for any sensible replies and best regards.

RE: Pure intent.What's your take.
Answer
3/6/12 12:43 AM as a reply to It Really Does You.
Isn't it possible that tarin misunderstood Richard? He just described something similar which he identified on his path and is describing that. It seems to me tarin must have used pure intent if he attained freedom from malice and sorrow. Its very easy to misinterpret such subtle phenomena.



When actualizing a jhana, I imagine the pure intent is the natural spacious inclination which brings the "being" aspect to the actual, the actual aspect being ever present, but not always inclined to. By that definition, he had pure intent, but for that one description he was describing something else. Who is to say he wasn't crafting that phrase to try and talk to the person he was talking to on their level or that he just made a silly error?