RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 7/29/12 3:44 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Rotten Tomato 7/31/12 10:27 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 7/31/12 4:22 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Simon Ekstrand 7/31/12 4:40 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 7/31/12 4:46 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 7/31/12 5:54 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 7/31/12 10:47 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map fivebells . 8/1/12 10:48 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map End in Sight 8/1/12 2:19 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map fivebells . 8/1/12 2:55 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map End in Sight 8/1/12 4:00 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Nikolai . 8/1/12 5:34 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 8/1/12 5:52 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map fivebells . 8/1/12 10:56 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Adam . . 8/1/12 10:38 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map fivebells . 8/1/12 10:57 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/2/12 10:10 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Adam . . 8/2/12 11:13 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/2/12 11:32 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Adam . . 8/2/12 12:06 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Andrew . 8/2/12 8:43 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/2/12 9:45 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Andrew . 8/2/12 11:21 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Andrew . 8/3/12 12:34 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map katy steger,thru11.6.15 with thanks 8/3/12 9:09 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/3/12 10:19 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/2/12 10:08 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Nikolai . 8/2/12 8:53 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Rotten Tomato 8/3/12 9:39 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/3/12 1:52 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Change A. 8/3/12 9:09 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Rotten Tomato 8/9/12 12:39 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/9/12 1:05 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Rotten Tomato 8/10/12 8:36 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/3/12 2:11 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Nikolai . 8/4/12 3:10 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Change A. 8/3/12 9:13 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Nikolai . 8/3/12 10:01 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Jasmine Marie Engler 8/4/12 6:30 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 8/4/12 3:34 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Jasmine Marie Engler 8/4/12 9:33 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Adam . . 8/4/12 9:47 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Jasmine Marie Engler 8/4/12 10:25 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Adam . . 8/5/12 2:27 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Jasmine Marie Engler 8/5/12 2:26 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Adam . . 8/5/12 2:26 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/6/12 8:42 AM
Continued: Pure Intent Discussion Tommy M 8/7/12 10:05 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Jasmine Marie Engler 8/3/12 4:54 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Change A. 8/3/12 7:36 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 8/1/12 5:44 PM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Tommy M 8/1/12 11:50 AM
RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem 8/1/12 12:14 PM
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 7/29/12 3:44 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/29/12 3:27 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
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.
Rotten Tomato, modified 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 10:27 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 10:27 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 22 Join Date: 7/24/12 Recent Posts
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
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:22 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:22 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
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.
thumbnail
Simon Ekstrand, modified 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:40 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:40 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 245 Join Date: 9/23/11 Recent Posts
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
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:46 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 4:46 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Thanks for that Simon, much appreciated! I'll check 'em out and reply accordingly.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 5:54 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 5:53 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
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.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 10:47 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 7/31/12 10:47 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
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
thumbnail
fivebells , modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:48 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:48 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 563 Join Date: 2/25/11 Recent Posts
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.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 11:50 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 11:50 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
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
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 12:14 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 12:11 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
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
End in Sight, modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 2:19 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 2:19 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
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.
thumbnail
fivebells , modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 2:55 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 2:53 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 563 Join Date: 2/25/11 Recent Posts
How would the diagnosis help inform practice? Both views are just views. Attachment to any ontological view is dukkha. (Yes, including this one.)
End in Sight, modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 4:00 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 3:59 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1251 Join Date: 7/6/11 Recent Posts
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.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 5:34 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 4:43 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1650 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
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
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 5:44 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 5:44 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
("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.
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 5:52 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 5:51 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
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?
thumbnail
fivebells , modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:56 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:31 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 563 Join Date: 2/25/11 Recent Posts
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:38 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:38 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
fivebells .:


warning: do not watch this with other people in the room who can't see your screen
thumbnail
fivebells , modified 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:57 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/1/12 10:57 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 563 Join Date: 2/25/11 Recent Posts
Thanks for pointing that out. I clipped it so the context would be clearer.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 10:08 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 10:08 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
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.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 10:10 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 10:09 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Tommy M:
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?

Hah, indeed!

Tommy, let me know if me & Nick should take our discussion elsewhere as it seems like it might be out of place on your practice thread.
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 11:13 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 10:23 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
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.


lmao

this joke lightened up my perception of you as of late claudiu, but I do still wonder... are you going to continue monitoring the DhO and keep looking for anything that goes against AFT? it really would seem that this reinforces an identity and keeps you from freedom yourself. you might be taking on the self of "the one guy who really practices AF" or the "rebel" or whatever else.

everyone has an impure agenda in my opinion, even if their only motivation is "fellowship regard" they are going to have different and imperfect ideas about what is best for their fellows. the implications of this are that unless you happen to meet with some god who has both omniscience and perfect intentions you eventually have to rely on yourself and your own desire for freedom. imo, this is what actualism is all about, you have to drop everything but your own sincere desire for happiness if you ever want that desire to be fulfilled.

perhaps imagine that you were alone on some nice tropical island (don't panic there is plenty of food) and you could never contact another human again as long as you lived, what would that change for your practice?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 11:32 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 11:32 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Adam . .:
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.


lmao

this joke lightened up my perception of you as of late claudiu

Hehe, glad to hear it.

Adam . .:
, but I do still wonder... are you going to continue monitoring the DhO and keep looking for anything that goes against AFT? it really would seem that this reinforces an identity and keeps you from freedom yourself. you might be taking on the self of "the one guy who really practices AF" or the "rebel" or whatever else.

everyone has an impure agenda in my opinion, even if their only motivation is "fellowship regard" they are going to have different and imperfect ideas about what is best for their fellows. the implications of this are that unless you happen to meet with some god who has both omniscience and perfect intentions you eventually have to rely on yourself and your own desire for freedom. imo, this is what actualism is all about, you have to drop everything but your own sincere desire for happiness if you ever want that desire to be fulfilled.

Well, before starting to participate again I considered whether it would be helpful or detrimental to my own practice, and figured it would be helpful... and I think it has been. For example, this long exchange with Katy gave me some insight into the human condition that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise (namely: how people wish harm on their fellow humans by wanting them to feel sorry for what they've done; and, more lately, how if I don't want to defend my self-image, there is no need to be aggressive or defensive but I can just respond calmly and sensibly). It has also been useful to participate in comparisons, like between actual freedom and Jan Frazier, and my conversations with Nikolai. I've also gotten messages from a few people indicating that they appreciate my renewed participation, which is also nice.

I see what you mean about the identities, and that's also part of the reason I started participating again... sort of: can I participate without forming such identities? Can I use the participation to chip away at said identities? I think I've been succeeding in that, even though it seems that some people think I am just developing a more and more powerful 'Actualist identity'. That was to be expected, though. I better understand better now why the AFT is full of so many argumentative threads.

As to whether I'll keep participating... I'm not sure. I'll probably decrease my participation level for a while, but I may pop in here and again. I don't see the benefit currently of pursuing threads of the same nature as me with Katy so I probably won't get into that sort of thing again.

Adam . .:
perhaps imagine that you were alone on some nice tropical island (don't panic there is plenty of food) and you could never contact another human again as long as you lived, what would that change for your practice?

Hehe, well then I wouldn't have anyone to talk to, so I'd focus exclusively on myself and not investigate the human condition via interactions with others... which might not work as well, I'm not sure. The more I interact with people the more I see how deeply ingrained the human condition is and how beneficial it would be to end it in myself, and help others end it, which is certainly good motivation to keep going. I would have less to be caught up in, though, so maybe the added free time would be a net benefit.

I also wouldn't have a job to do to earn a living so I can survive, so that would definitely give me more free time with which to pursue actuality.
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 12:06 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 12:05 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
keep in mind that if your intentions were perfect (you wanted nothing more than happiness and harmlessness) there would be nothing stopping you from becoming actually free right this moment, this goes for me too of course. in cases where we become so attached to a certain identity that we are unwilling to objectively observe it this is a good reflection, we have problems with our intentions up until we are free.

for example I just thought of saying something like "this is especially true for me" but I realized that this would basically be a self-reinforcing compliment given that I just said how "good" one is if one can objectively see one's faults. that whole last sentence was another self-reinforcer, as was that <-- and that <--

eventually you have to totally step outside of this realm in which your thoughts come as an imagined conversation with someone else and you are defined as a subject relating to them as an imaginary object and really, sincerely just practice with nothing but the purest of desires for true happiness.

just appreciate some sensory contact, I don't exist and neither do you, neither does the "pragmatic dharma community" or the members of the AFT. don't practice with a political intent, if you look at your experience with the question of "how can I prove that AF is different from enlightenment" then you won't see the causes of sorrow and malice because you simply aren't looking at things within that framework.

the easy thing to do is double down and say "oh I really am just enjoying the moment, oh yes, YES! the feeling of the fingers on the keyboard. *fake orgasm*" the hard thing to do is to give up this framework of viewing experience in terms other than suffering and its end. it's so hard that I can sit here preaching about it without really doing it. suffering is intentional, so as soon as we view things in terms of this singular concern - the end of suffering - then suffering ends, we have to have no other concerns. even right now i feel really far from this point, there is a sense of panic "how could I ever get there?" but for now I am going to forget about where the path is leading and forget about the distractions off on the side of the road and stare straight down at my feet, stay in the moment, focus, build it up. breathe in, breathe out.
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 8:53 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 5:29 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1650 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
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".


Oh. So it is not 'intention'? If 'purity' is a term more fitting then yes, purity is the inherent quality of the absence of all 'being'. Though I conceptualize it as a purity of absence, which can be also conceptualized as purity inherent in the universe or the world experienced via the senses. It is a purity of absence, absence of 'me-ness'. And such an absence being an absence, is not locatable anywhere within this mind body organism and this the purity and flow of experience of being alive is easily termed "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".

The stillness is quite tangible.

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.


It would appear the word 'intent' is the confusing word. So, yes I agree. Purity though, I do understand.

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.


Oh. This then makes more sense. The 'immeasurable friendliness' I spoke of is 'benevolent' by nature.

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.


Oh. The word 'intent' is the word tripping this conversation up me thinks. 'Purity' though adds more clarity to the conversation.

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

One automatically becomes benevolent.


Indeed.

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.


Ok. Agreed.

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

Who is 'some'? Not me, certainly.


Well, now that you have added a bit more clarity to the notion of 'pure intent' being termed 'purity', it makes more sense that you aren't 'some'. Perhaps others are also confused by the word 'intent'?

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.


Yes, I went with that first at it helped. But ultimately I went with Tarin's further advice:

the actual world is not 'i'. the actual will is not 'i'. intelligence is not 'i'. consciousness is not 'i'. memory is not 'i'. discernment is not 'i'. intention is not 'i'. motor function is not 'i'. controlling is not 'i'. attentiveness is not 'i'. physical sensations are not 'i'. this process is not 'i'.

further, 'the actual world is not 'mine.' the actual will is not 'mine'. intelligence is not 'mine'. consciousness is not 'mine'. memory is not 'mine'. discernment is not 'mine'. intention is not 'mine'. motor function is not 'mine'. controlling is not 'mine'. attentiveness is not 'mine'. physical sensations are not 'mine'. this process is not 'mine'.

one who realises that none of these things are 'i', or 'mine', realizes 'my' time is up. Tarin


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.


Yes. 'Purity' though is seemingly inherent in the experience of the universe, within which this mind/body organism moves about. And that 'purity' can be said to be always there as part and parcel of the universe (the world all around with it's street dogs, ice cream and morning coffee) but it is covered over, or blocked, or warped by the streaming outflow of 'being', me-ness, affect so that such inherent purity is not recognised. And yes if I were not alive, this mind/body organism were dead, the same purity inherent would still be accessible and recognisable by anyone alive, but why can i not experience such benevolence when dead? Because the six sense spheres have disintegrated. The only way such purity can be recognized (by a human being) even though it is not 'of' the mind and body inherently, is via a mind and body that is living which is essentially the six sense spheres, which can also be influenced and experienced somewhat warped and overlayed by being and affect, but when such overlays are absent, the six sense spheres recognise the 'purity'.

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.


I see.

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.


Ah, well 'intent' as a term has been cleared up. 'Purity' I don't confuse.

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.".


Explained above with the most quoted (by myself) Tarin quote.

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).


Terminology it would seem is the misleader. Correct me if I am wrong.

'Pure intent'=the inherent purity of the universe (the world in which we live) as it always has been regardless of whether we are alive or not. Not really 'intent' per say as in affectively influenced intention or the actual intention sans affect to act via the mind/body organism but the inherent 'purity' of the universe that always has been. It's just only recognised by th dropping away of 'being'?

in·tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.
adj.
1. Firmly fixed; concentrated: an intent gaze.
2. Having the attention applied; engrossed: The students, intent upon their books, did not hear me enter the room.
3. Having the mind and will focused on a specific purpose: was intent on leaving within the hour; are intent upon being recognized.

It would seem, tarin was also confused by the term 'intent' with his original interpretation of 'pure intent'. Though I don't think he would have nor currently confuses the 'purity' of the universal benevolent life force. Nor Trent, not by what they have said many times in the past.

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.


That's ok.

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?


You actually asked him questions on such experiences on the yahoo list.

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.


Fair enough. Just checking to see.
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 8:43 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 8:27 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
For example, this long exchange with Katy gave me some insight into the human condition that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise (namely: how people wish harm on their fellow humans by wanting them to feel sorry for what they've done; and, more lately, how if I don't want to defend my self-image, there is no need to be aggressive or defensive but I can just respond calmly and sensibly). It has also been useful to participate in comparisons, like between actual freedom and Jan Frazier, and my conversations with Nikolai. I've also gotten messages from a few people indicating that they appreciate my renewed participation, which is also nice.


Hi Claudio

So in all of this 'you' learnt what about 'you'?

The remorse 'you' should have felt as a 'self', 'you' choose to project as coming from katy's wishes, when she simply pointed out (rightly) 'you' had behaved badly/unwisely. Are you (intellectually) of the opinion that actualism is avoidance of facing the results of ones actions?

I received a very revealing assessment of 'my' own misguided take on what actualism is the other day (from someone who most certainly knows the real deal), and it had alot to do with missing the opportunity to watch 'oneself' in operation. It isn't about watching 'others' in operation, or avoidance of feeling things.

The 'remorse' belonged to 'you', but 'you' chose to project it onto 'katy', as belonging to 'her'.
I (intellectually) have found remorse and sorrow a goldmine of insight into how 'i' tick, though it is so easy to forget and avoid that I am in need of reminding often. It's not about 'self pity' but of true intelligence at work seeing what 'you' are doing and 'you' are saying; 'your' behaviour. You cannot investigate what you have avoided.

It was not katy who wished you to feel remorse, it was 'yours' to start with by right, she pointed out that remorse would have instructed you to what lengths you should have gone to undo your actions. remorse in this instance is a truth teller. most telling of all would have been to see how 'you' created the situation and the opportunity to see 'yourself' cringe at what you had in mind for 'yourself' -more of 'you'.

In case it seems I'm talking out of my arse; I now actively let my wife and kids gnaw away at 'me' more so than before, seeing the squirming 'me' react in the face of my own native intellect and the plain facts of family life. Not perfectly mind you, as 'i' am no hero by any measure. I enjoy this investigation, the enjoyment of the investigation is the method proper (my current motivational base)

So far you seem to be avoiding learning anything about 'you' and rather have learnt how to deal with others calmly and sensibly after acting in a silly manner.

apologies and remorse are not to be suppressed and avoided or 'you' will learn to behave in a very potentially dangerous manner. defending 'you' is at it's most dangerous when one is calm and sensible. I think Intellect at this stage needs to be directed at unravelling 'you' not trying to unravel everyone else.

Of course there is 'i' in this post seeking to unravel 'you', so to the extent that amounts to hypocrisy, 'i' apologise! though I risk it bieng that way to pass on a perspective that seems to reflect the actualism method better than the hint of avoidance I detect in this saga.


enjoy.

edit: trying to be clearer, probably failing.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 9:45 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 9:45 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Hey Andrew,

(BTW it is Claudiu not Claudio, hehe.)

Andrew .:
The remorse 'you' should have felt as a 'self', 'you' choose to project as coming from katy's wishes, when she simply pointed out (rightly) 'you' had behaved badly/unwisely. ... It was not katy who wished you to feel remorse...

No, she plainly stated she expected me to or wanted me to or thought it would be better for me to feel remorse, several times (emphases mine, all from here):

I'll say that the DhO is opening people to something very useful and precious, not to be transgressed without sincere apology.

You do not like reading that I suggest a remedy outside of your choices: that you apologize sincerely for your voluntary misuse of peoples words...

I suggest again: just apologize.

You ... shirk emotion of regret and action of apology.

At this point, I cannot understand how you will progress without seeing the harm in your current actions and speech and apologizing.

You have yet to show remorse for your actions...

If you do not regret ... what is it that prevents you from repeating these actions?

To be clear: the act of apologizing is in and of itself an act of feeling remorse. Imagine apologizing to somebody without feeling bad. They would simply say it was insincere and demand a "real apology". When someone asks you to apologize, they want you to feel bad, whether they realize it or not.

And now you say I should have felt that remorse.. why is that? The point of actualism is to feel happy and harmless, not sad and remorseful.

Andrew .:
You cannot investigate what you have avoided.

I have investigated and found out that when somebody wants you to apologize, what they really want is for you to feel bad... and I've also figured out that continuing to buy into that (feeling bad because others want me to) is really silly and ideal neither for me nor for them. Although I also happen to have realized that people can get pretty worked up when you refuse to feel bad when they want you to.

Andrew .:
apologies and remorse are not to be suppressed and avoided or 'you' will learn to behave in a very potentially dangerous manner. defending 'you' is at it's most dangerous when one is calm and sensible.

That would be true were it not for pure intent. But I have already dedicated myself to allowing that pure intent as much as possible. Thus each time I whittle away some part of the social identity, like feeling remorse, instead of becoming psychopathic I rather become more able to allow that pure intent to operate freely - which will ultimately lead to 'my' demise and thus the elimination of the possibility for me to ever be malicious again. It's really pretty good stuff!

To be clear, I would not recommend doing such things were one not already dedicated to peace-on-earth/being happy/being harmless/allowing pure intent as much as possible/aiming for actuality.

- Claudiu
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 11:21 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/2/12 11:21 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
Hi Claudiu,

(sorry about that; i know I Silvio that i talk to daily, so have also been mispronouncing your name in my head also)

feeling remorse and changing ones behaviour(thinking/acting) not to repeat the causes of that remorse will result in happiness. Not feeling remorse when that is what a 'self' is generally programmed to do is indeed an interesting investigation you may need to undertake so as to understand more of what makes 'you' tick.

perhaps rather than remorse you were happy to have hijacked various threads and stirred up conversation about your new understandings of what actualism is. That in itself is useful to invesitgate. Learning that 'others want me to be unhappy' is of limited value though, especially when that other most certainly doesn't want you to be unhappy. They simply stated the common assumption that remorse is indeed in 'selfs' somewhere and is expressed through sincere apology.

but perhaps remorse at no time made any attempt of expressing itself as there was none there at all. this is again interesting don't you think? (I'm not saying you should feel remorse, I'm saying it is a matter of investigation what you did feel in the light of you misguided thread mangling.)

what did you feel is of great importance, and whether you investigated that is the underlying point I'm trying to make; did you learn anything about 'you'?

for example perhaps you felt liberated in your new understanding of being 'calm and sensible', despite it clearly being potentially distressing and intellectually questionable (silly) to have chopped up threads and hijacked others?

i'm not at all distressed, and yes i am investigating carefully why that is, and for what bits of this behaviour (my posting) are useful for increasing my own investigation, i also am aware of the fact we are currently hijacking tommy's thread and i wonder to what avail that is. Sometimes, more often than not these days, it is tempting simply to lurk and not post, though i see that as applying the opposite force to the pendulum of my behaviour and not productive. Perhaps there is something I am contributing, perhaps not. It simply occurred to me that in your list of things you had learnt, 'you' didn't feature at all. Which I think is missing the opportunity to actually do the damage needed to get this done.

Perhaps a thread called 'Claudiu's actual freedom questions and answers' would nicely avoid needless learning about others projected malice and help focus in on what it is 'you' are trying to achieve here? what do you think, shall we take it to another thread?

with more respect than my written tone may imply,

A
thumbnail
Andrew , modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 12:34 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 12:34 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 336 Join Date: 5/23/11 Recent Posts
I don' t disagree with your points, I'm not in a position to know what is and isn't inherited, and my tone, as i admitted , seems harsh, so I do wonder what it is about 'me' that is being expressed in this behaviour considering I don't feel harsh.

But the purpose of actualism is to realize that it is ok to feel whatever you are feeling, it is ok to feel remorse. As it is no-one in particular's fault that one feels this way.


this is a good summary of the neither 'express or repress' instructions, as they (feelings) are not a personal thing, but rather inherited/conditioned behaviour, the key though is the knowing of them as such first. hence I am , perhaps clumsily, pointing out that the enjoying the moment should not be an excuse for avoiding mixed feelings (especially subtle malice, which hides in the intellect quite often) and learning everything there is to know about the human condition when one has that very condition ticking over under ones own nose. Enjoying posting is one thing, why one is posting is another. The why is important.

It's nice to hear your thoughts on it James, I was surprised, as I didn't think actualism was your method of choice, but pleasantly surprised as there are plenty of good points you make, some i wish i had grasped earlier than I did. cheers.
thumbnail
katy steger,thru11615 with thanks, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:09 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:09 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1740 Join Date: 10/1/11 Recent Posts
Hi Claudiu -

I have two questions for you about your actual practice. Perhaps it will add more clarification about your practice.

When you are here, are you practicing Actualism, and are you mostly/seldom/always or not at all experiencing that system's "PCE"?

Here is my full quote you've excerpted:
You show the emotion of superior self regard and acting for others (without their consent) but shirk emotion of regret and action of apology.
Here I was referring to your comment: 8/1/12 2:07 PM"I did indeed wrongly assume my actions were right for everyone. "

Is your voluntary action to elevate yourself above other's own volitions arising from the emotion of conceit (defined as an especially unduly high opinion of one's own abilities) or any other emotion or no emotion whatsoever?
Rotten Tomato, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:39 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:38 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 22 Join Date: 7/24/12 Recent Posts
Nikoloi

'
Pure intent'=the inherent purity of the universe (the world in which we live) as it always has been regardless of whether we are alive or not. Not really 'intent' per say as in affectively influenced intention or the actual intention sans affect to act via the mind/body organism but the inherent 'purity' of the universe that always has been. It's just only recognised by th dropping away of 'being'?

in·tent (n-tnt)
n.
1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.
adj.
1. Firmly fixed; concentrated: an intent gaze.
2. Having the attention applied; engrossed: The students, intent upon their books, did not hear me enter the room.
3. Having the mind and will focused on a specific purpose: was intent on leaving within the hour; are intent upon being recognized.

It would seem, tarin was also confused by the term 'intent' with his original interpretation of 'pure intent'. Though I don't think he would have nor currently confuses the 'purity' of the universal benevolent life force. Nor Trent, not by what they have said many times in the past.



Hi Nick, (and Claudiu and Tommy)
Two things arise in my mind.

1) So you are also saying there is a "purity"; a benevolent life force in universe.
And this is not a mystical? This is a "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."?

2) Why has AFers used the term Intent for it. It's so different from purity or a stream of ...." Why would they settle for intent? THat is curious, isn't it?

At times Richards uses that term thus:
"
If there is no vital interest in peace-on-earth, or were that vital interest to fade away such that the pure intent to attain to one’s destiny dissipates, then the actualism method would fail, or begin to fail, like any other action done within the human condition as it is the end which energises the means (and which is why the means needs not to be dissimilar from the end)
.

(Link here )

Here its used in the way Intent is commonly used. And this leads to a few doubts about that other meaning. Curious.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 10:19 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 10:19 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Katy, see my reply here.
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 1:52 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 1:51 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Rotten Tomato:
1) So you are also saying there is a "purity"; a benevolent life force in universe.
And this is not a mystical? This is a "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."?

Hmm, depends what you mean by "mystical", but given the usual connotations of the word, I'd say no (for example, mystical: "Having a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding.")

Rotten Tomato:
2) Why has AFers used the term Intent for it. It's so different from purity or a stream of ...." Why would they settle for intent? THat is curious, isn't it?

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think I asked Richard a very similar question while I was in Australia. He acknowledged that other people did indeed have trouble with the term. He said "don't blame me, blame the entity within that coined the term all those year ago."

I think the reason he might have coined the term as he did is because "pure intent" is indeed quite related to 'my' intent to tap into it. The way to notice it is for 'me' to intend to notice it. But you just have to be sure to know the difference between the 'me' side of it (which, when I asked Vineeto what she would call it, she said 'dedication'), and the actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity side of it (which has nothing to do with 'me').

Rotten Tomato:
At times Richards uses that term thus:
"
If there is no vital interest in peace-on-earth, or were that vital interest to fade away such that the pure intent to attain to one’s destiny dissipates, then the actualism method would fail, or begin to fail, like any other action done within the human condition as it is the end which energises the means (and which is why the means needs not to be dissimilar from the end)
.

(Link here )

Here its used in the way Intent is commonly used. And this leads to a few doubts about that other meaning. Curious.

Yes, I noticed that he does use "pure intent" like that on the AFT in several places. I actually emailed him & Vineeto about this, pointing out a few instances where "pure intent" was used to mean 'my' intent (like in the quote you gave), and they made a few changes to some of the articles to clarify.

Why does that lead to a few doubts about the other meaning, though? Richard certainly talks about that actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity... and whenever he does use the word "pure intent" in a more standard sense you usually don't have to look far to see a mention of that that benevolence and benignity together with it. For example, here he says:
1. Activate sincerity so as to make possible a pure intent to bring about peace and harmony sooner rather than later.
But later in that same enumeration he says:
6. Habitual felicity/ innocuity, and its concomitant enjoyment and appreciation, facilitates naïve sensuosity ... a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight.
7. That naiveté, in conjunction with felicitous/ innocuous sensuosity, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is to operate more and more freely.
8. With this intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings, freely operating one is the experiencing of what is happening ... and the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure earth actually is, is sweetly apparent in all its scintillating brilliance.

Precision is indeed important, but so long as you keep straight what is 'my' intent/dedication and what is the intrinsic benevolence and benignity, there shouldn't be any problems. However, if the only sort of "pure intent" you experience and know is the dedication to do something, but there is nothing to dedicate yourself to (no experience of the stream of benevolence and benignity)... then you will not become actually free.


Now, it's not lost on me that one might say, perhaps Tarin and Trent and Nikolai have all known and experienced this intrinsic benevolence and benignity and used it to become actually free but haven't been calling it "pure intent". Perhaps they have instead been referring to something else by "pure intent" (e.g. something more like "pure intent to be happy and harmless") and have been referring to that benevolence otherwise. Nikolai alludes to this in this thread as well:
Nikolai:
It would seem, tarin was also confused by the term 'intent' with his original interpretation of 'pure intent'. Though I don't think he would have nor currently confuses the 'purity' of the universal benevolent life force. Nor Trent, not by what they have said many times in the past.

That could be a possibility. Language is tricky and it does not matter what you call something, so long as it is clear what is being referred to. However, to that I will just say: in all my interactions with Tarin and Trent (there being far more with Trent than Tarin), be they via forum posting, or email communications, or text-chatting, or even meeting in person for many hours at a time, I never got any hints from them or clarifications from them experientially or intellectually pointing me to that benevolence and benignity which I now refer to with the words "pure intent"... whereas it didn't take long at all for me, interacting with Richard and Vineeto in Australia, to really get an intellectual and experiential understanding of what it is, and to realize how to tap into it, and from there, to know the basic idea of how the rest of the path to an actual freedom will go. Given how vitally important that benevolence and benignity is, for eventuating an actual freedom, why would that be the case if Tarin & Trent had been experiencing it this entire time?
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 2:11 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 2:11 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Hey Nikolai,

Your post does indeed indicate that we've cleared some things up, which is good. Still a few comments I have to make, though.

Nikolai .:
Oh. So it is not 'intention'? If 'purity' is a term more fitting then yes, purity is the inherent quality of the absence of all 'being'. Though I conceptualize it as a purity of absence, which can be also conceptualized as purity inherent in the universe or the world experienced via the senses. It is a purity of absence, absence of 'me-ness'. And such an absence being an absence, is not locatable anywhere within this mind body organism and this the purity and flow of experience of being alive is easily termed "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".

Hmm how do you go from "an absence of being" to "a manifest life-force" or to "a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity"? One is a negative quality (an absence of something) while the other is a positive quality (something that is actually there and occurring and happening in-and-of-itself). Though 'absence of being' does make pure intent more apparent, the pure intent itself is something else.

Nikolai .:
Yes. 'Purity' though is seemingly inherent in the experience of the universe, within which this mind/body organism moves about. And that 'purity' can be said to be always there as part and parcel of the universe (the world all around with it's street dogs, ice cream and morning coffee) but it is covered over, or blocked, or warped by the streaming outflow of 'being', me-ness, affect so that such inherent purity is not recognised. And yes if I were not alive, this mind/body organism were dead, the same purity inherent would still be accessible and recognisable by anyone alive, but why can i not experience such benevolence when dead? Because the six sense spheres have disintegrated. The only way such purity can be recognized (by a human being) even though it is not 'of' the mind and body inherently, is via a mind and body that is living which is essentially the six sense spheres, which can also be influenced and experienced somewhat warped and overlayed by being and affect, but when such overlays are absent, the six sense spheres recognise the 'purity'.

That seems more or less accurate, if you keep in mind that that 'purity' is not merely "absence of 'being'" nor comes from "absence of being" as its source. And also, it's not the 'purity' itself that is warped, but rather, one's *experience* of the purity - the purity itself is the same regardless. As Richard says, 'nothing dirty can get in'.

Nikolai .:
'Pure intent'=the inherent purity of the universe (the world in which we live) as it always has been regardless of whether we are alive or not. Not really 'intent' per say as in affectively influenced intention or the actual intention sans affect to act via the mind/body organism but the inherent 'purity' of the universe that always has been. It's just only recognised by th dropping away of 'being'?

Hmm ya it is obvious with dropping away of 'being' entirely, but can also be experienced without (for example, I have been experiencing it a lot, even as a feeling-being).

Nikolai .:
It would seem, tarin was also confused by the term 'intent' with his original interpretation of 'pure intent'. Though I don't think he would have nor currently confuses the 'purity' of the universal benevolent life force. Nor Trent, not by what they have said many times in the past.

I addressed this in my reply to Rotten Tomatoes. If they were experiencing pure intent as I use the term, and they knew how important that pure intent was to becoming actually free, it certainly didn't come across in any of their communications to me.

Nikolai .:
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.


Fair enough. Just checking to see.

I find it interesting that one the one hand you put a lot of effort into showing and explaning that you are experiencing the same thing Richard is, and on the other you try to discredit Richard, for example by here insinuating that he exchanges 'sex' for the title of 'actually free'. Is Richard's experience something desirable or is it not? That is, for example, if it were possible to experience the world as Richard is and yet exploit people sexually, would you want to be experiencing the world that way?
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:09 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 3:52 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
I think I asked Richard a very similar question while I was in Australia. He acknowledged that other people did indeed have trouble with the term. He said "don't blame me, blame the entity within that coined the term all those year ago."


Does that mean that he started writing about Actual Freedom coining terms to be used before he became Actually Free himself? If so, then he wrote fictional freedom.

Also, hasn't the flesh and blood body found time to change the coined terms even after all those years have passed?
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 4:54 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 4:54 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
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.


What do you mean by "rowdy orgy"? Were all the 9 townsfolk known to Richard or did you just bump into them when you went into town? How long had they been practicing Actualism if they were?


I sometimes lack my ability to read people correctly on this, but I believe, judging by the "but I didn't think it worth mentioning", that he was possibly being facetious.

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 3:10 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 6:48 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1650 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai .:
Oh. So it is not 'intention'? If 'purity' is a term more fitting then yes, purity is the inherent quality of the absence of all 'being'. Though I conceptualize it as a purity of absence, which can be also conceptualized as purity inherent in the universe or the world experienced via the senses. It is a purity of absence, absence of 'me-ness'. And such an absence being an absence, is not locatable anywhere within this mind body organism and this the purity and flow of experience of being alive is easily termed "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".

Hmm how do you go from "an absence of being" to "a manifest life-force" or to "a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity"? One is a negative quality (an absence of something) while the other is a positive quality (something that is actually there and occurring and happening in-and-of-itself). Though 'absence of being' does make pure intent more apparent, the pure intent itself is something else.


I don't think you can divorce the experience of the six sense spheres from experiencing the purity we may be speaking of as when disintegrated, the mind/body organism doesn't function and no purity is recognised. So, to say that purity is not of the mind/body organism but inherent in the universe is simply a conceptual way of saying it always recognisable by different human beings; by inference that others can recognise such purity as well when my own mind/body organism is dead. That purity then must be inherent in the universe and accessible and recognizable by anyone alive.

But i could also say that anyone can experience the absence of being and the absence of being has all the curtain of 'me-ness' dropping away from covering up that purity. So i could also say that any human being alive who experiences the absence of being recognises the purity. I presume you arrive at your way of thinking due to never having had a prolonged absence of being and having 'being' still in play but experiencing 'purity' for fleeting moments? Thus since never having experienced a prolonged absence of being, it can't be equated to 'purity'? Isn't this purity (what you call 'pure intent') derived from of the PCE, technically the absence of being? When there is no 'me' distinguishing 'me' from purity, what may happen to how one experiences the 'purity' and describes it? If I do not experience being yet there is purity all around, and no 'me' to compare it with, would distinctions be necessary? Could distinctions be possible? The universe is experiencing itself now, no? Via what? It may makes sense to distinguish 'me' from purity, but absence of 'being'? perhaps your recognition of 'purity' IS the fleeting moments of the absence of being? How could 'purity' be experienced at the same time as 'me' when 'I' am my feelings and my feelings are 'me'?

Nikolai .:
Yes. 'Purity' though is seemingly inherent in the experience of the universe, within which this mind/body organism moves about. And that 'purity' can be said to be always there as part and parcel of the universe (the world all around with it's street dogs, ice cream and morning coffee) but it is covered over, or blocked, or warped by the streaming outflow of 'being', me-ness, affect so that such inherent purity is not recognised. And yes if I were not alive, this mind/body organism were dead, the same purity inherent would still be accessible and recognisable by anyone alive, but why can i not experience such benevolence when dead? Because the six sense spheres have disintegrated. The only way such purity can be recognized (by a human being) even though it is not 'of' the mind and body inherently, is via a mind and body that is living which is essentially the six sense spheres, which can also be influenced and experienced somewhat warped and overlayed by being and affect, but when such overlays are absent, the six sense spheres recognise the 'purity'.

That seems more or less accurate, if you keep in mind that that 'purity' is not merely "absence of 'being'" nor comes from "absence of being" as its source. And also, it's not the 'purity' itself that is warped, but rather, one's *experience* of the purity - the purity itself is the same regardless. As Richard says, 'nothing dirty can get in'.


So you experience whatever you term 'pure intent' when 'being' is still in place? Or has it dropped away for those moments? If it drops away, how can you divorce it from the absence of being? If it doesn't drop away, we may be talking past each other, as I do not experience 'being' and thus whatever I term 'purity' is not the same experience as yourself as no 'me-ness' is associated with it. But if that purity is recognized only in the absence of 'being' then it I think it makes sense to me that it can be seen as one and the same.

Nikolai .:
'Pure intent'=the inherent purity of the universe (the world in which we live) as it always has been regardless of whether we are alive or not. Not really 'intent' per say as in affectively influenced intention or the actual intention sans affect to act via the mind/body organism but the inherent 'purity' of the universe that always has been. It's just only recognised by th dropping away of 'being'?

Hmm ya it is obvious with dropping away of 'being' entirely, but can also be experienced without (for example, I have been experiencing it a lot, even as a feeling-being).


How can you truly say that 'pure intent' or the 'purity' I'd prefer to term it now derived from a PCE is experienced at the same time as one experiences oneself as a 'feeling being'? Wouldn't the affective quality cloud such a recognition? And in the absence of a feeling being, wouldn't such a purity be experienced differently? Or is such 'purity' only experienced in the fleeting moments of the fleeting absence of a 'feeling being'?

Nikolai .:
It would seem, tarin was also confused by the term 'intent' with his original interpretation of 'pure intent'. Though I don't think he would have nor currently confuses the 'purity' of the universal benevolent life force. Nor Trent, not by what they have said many times in the past.

I addressed this in my reply to Rotten Tomatoes. If they were experiencing pure intent as I use the term, and they knew how important that pure intent was to becoming actually free, it certainly didn't come across in any of their communications to me.


It certainly did with me. They were always pointing to the immeasurable friendliness (at least trent did) and the stillness of the experience of being alive sans being in my exchanges with them. The stillness was apt pointer for me. Trent pointed constantly in such a direction in my exchanges with him.

quote=Nikolai .]
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.


Fair enough. Just checking to see.

I find it interesting that on the one hand you put a lot of effort into showing and explaning that you are experiencing the same thing Richard is, and on the other you try to discredit Richard, for example by here insinuating that he exchanges 'sex' for the title of 'actually free'. Is Richard's experience something desirable or is it not? That is, for example, if it were possible to experience the world as Richard is and yet exploit people sexually, would you want to be experiencing the world that way?


Who is to say that conditioning isn't still in play? My current thinking has been altered somewhat by some eye-opening details I've been told about by what I deem to be reliable sources though it isn't my place to share. I am curious at the apparent politics involved in all this. There is much that seems not shared by the AFT. Some apparent bizarre and contradictory behaviour and things that would make honest comparisons easier but would undermine agendas if shared. I agree with the effectiveness of the techniques and practice approach of the AFT and see such an objective of being free from 'being' and recognizing the 'purity' we may speak of as very, very worthwhile and am behind anyone taking it on. But I do not side with the apparent manner in which the AFT attempts to disprove and avoids complete clarity. I also think that the playing down of other paths and propping up the actualist one as superior (it has been done quite a bit by the actualists) does the other paths a disservice when experiences and results are seemingly similar if not the same. Belittling others' paths even via insinuating such things at the DhO is a disservice to those motivated to walk them. I disagree that a 'buddhistic split is counter productive to peace on earth'. I think avoidance, lack honesty and clarity is.

I side with simple honest pragmatic comparisons divorced of politics and agendas which i do think are still at play here regardless of whether you think they are or not. You may have gained clarity about your own path but trying to disprove at every turn the experiences of others perhaps unwillingly or willingly pushes the agenda of the AFT. And you may argue that it is all different but with others' descriptions that are similar if not identical to toss away, I find agendas to be the main driving force at play still when anyone attempts to disprove them as the same experiences. Something, perhaps the whole rhetoric of the AFT, is at stake. And perhaps there is some positive drive behind it; an apparent agenda of 'peace on earth'. But if anyone who experiences the same experiences but has leanings that are not in line with the rhetoric then they must be disproved at all costs. No room for honest comparisons. But the DhO, as far as I l see it, is a place for such honest comparisons regardless of leanings. Plus, I see such honesty to be more beneficial than trying to disprove everyone else. You may have had an experience that supports the rhetoric, but what if others do not?

No, I would not like to set up such conditions (to exploit people sexually) nor am I setting up such conditioning. I am simply talking about my experiences. I have no intention of claiming 'af' (which seems more political than not from what I've been told). I'd prefer to support honest pragmatic comparisons of experiences common at the DhO divorced of politics, agendas (except for the honest pragmatic comparisons) and maintaining authority over whatever, maintaining central roles, deluded thinking, oneupmanship, self-righteousness, and anything else that simply hinders down-to-earth honest pragmatic comparisons.

Nick

Edited x 2
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 7:36 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 7:36 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Jasmine Marie Engler:
I sometimes lack my ability to read people correctly on this, but I believe, judging by the "but I didn't think it worth mentioning", that he was possibly being facetious.


Ok, thanks.
Change A, modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:13 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:13 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 791 Join Date: 5/24/10 Recent Posts
Nikolai, don't you want to meet Richard in person?
thumbnail
Nikolai , modified 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 10:01 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/3/12 9:48 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1650 Join Date: 1/23/10 Recent Posts
Aman A.:
Nikolai, don't you want to meet Richard in person?


No, no urge. Too much on my plate. Plus I don't do orgies. (joking)
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 6:30 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 6:28 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
"No, I would not like to set up such conditions (to exploit people sexually) nor am I setting up such conditioning. I am simply talking about my experiences. I have no intention of claiming 'af' (which seems more political than not from what I've been told). I'd prefer to support honest pragmatic comparisons of experiences common at the DhO divorced of politics, agendas (except for the honest pragmatic comparisons) and maintaining authority over whatever, maintaining central roles, deluded thinking, oneupmanship, self-righteousness, and anything else that simply hinders down-to-earth honest pragmatic comparisons.

Nick

Edited x 2"

Nikolai;

In concurrence with this concept, I have noticed something with the individuals that I have encountered who tend to spout their beliefs as the "best way", the "only way" or the "right way." I have had experience with many different religions, and this is what I have found to be most prevalent as a first grade lesson when dealing with religion:

1) Any person who totes their beliefs in such a fashion, generally needs to use a lot of rationalization of contradictory behaviors in order to continue with their self-illusion of self-righteousness. I can give numerous examples, if asked, from the different answers that I have received to the contradictory questions I posed to different individuals.

2) Any person who is unwilling to question their own beliefs with as much fervor as those which they are certain are wrong, generally are acting within an illusion given off from pride, in which they are afraid of finding themselves inherently wrong, or unwilling to admit that they do not comprehend their religion at a deep enough level to answer those questions with integrity.

3) The person who is willing to sit, answer any and all questions about their faith with an open heart, and, at the same time, sit and respectfully listen to the possibility of another's truth with the mentality not to prove the other one wrong, but to learn a different way, tends to come to a wiser understanding of the religion or belief they appear to uphold, and very rarely denounce another's as being untrue. One Chaplain that I spoke with actually stated that, the more he spoke with those of other religions, the more he began to realise their similarities. And yet, the more that he spoke with those of his own beliefs, the more he began to pick at the differences.

So, once again, I believe that this might be a matter of perception- a matter of the three blind men and the elephant, so to speak. After all, the concept of mindfulness in this moment of time is not new- I have heard it mentioned by a Scientologist as "living in the present", by a Buddhist writer as "mindfulness in the present moment" (True Love- Thich Nhat Hanh), and by a Sufist as asking the "Three Questions." Has it been taken apart as simply in practice as when I heard it from the AFers? No, but then, I heard it from you, as well, with Buddhist and Wiccan precepts, to make it easier to comprehend. Am I certain that it leads to Actual Freedom the way that Richard claims it does? It definitely has done me no harm, and made me more aware, which can only be a good thing, so I am going to keep practicing mindfulness, but I have no aspirations to anything greater anymore, anyway.
I will say, however, that a belief that has language set up to be understood in such a narrow way in order to ascertain heights, is going to deal with, once again, a conflict of self-illusion amongst its members, as, in my limited perspective, everyone seems to understand English differently dependant upon their experiences, and those from other language backgrounds and cultural backgrounds have a much different understanding even than that allows for. So, by limiting any cause to a purity of language, you are indeed spelling out the limitlessness of the goal. Also, it once again, from my limited perception, would appear at that moment to be a pride issue, that "I" should not have to stoop to explaining these truths to "them". Hope this made sense.

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 3:34 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 3:34 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
So, once again, I believe that this might be a matter of perception- a matter of the three blind men and the elephant, so to speak.

Nicely said.

Has it been taken apart as simply in practice as when I heard it from the AFers? No, but then, I heard it from you, as well, with Buddhist and Wiccan precepts, to make it easier to comprehend.

I don't know if you were making a comparison here, but just for the sake of clarity I'd say that Wicca is definitely not aimed in the same 'direction' as Buddhism or Actualism. I may be reading your reply incorrectly so I apologise if I've misinterpreted your words.
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 9:33 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 9:24 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
No, it was not THAT particular comparison, although I would ask what would make you think that, and might be able to give a rebuttal on some points. My point was that, while to me, the point of Actual Freedom's pathway to their goal had been mentioned more comprehensively to my ears than those of other paths, this was, in part, because Nikolai, the first person to introduce me to this concept, used both my Wiccan background and his Buddhist background as a backboard to how he explained the situation of Actualism's HAIETMOBA. This may have made AF's pathway easier for me to comprehend because the explanation of the goal was catered directly toward my own perception, use and knowledge of language, and experience.
As for the other, at it's simplest definition, Wicca means wisdom. To be Wiccan, means to be searching for the Ultimate Truth of the Universe, the ultimate wisdom. Some get so caught up in the "magick" that can go along with this that they forget that simple definition. In order to find Ultimate Truth, Wiccans believe that one should examine those laws of nature. They have two simple, or so-seeming, laws that we as Wiccans are supposed to follow. Besides these, the religion is allowed to change via the interpreter, for they believe that my truth on God may not be the same as another's, and so on. So we follow the Law of Three, and the Code, or are supposed to.
I could rant for days about the "New Age" mysticism that a lot of people claim as Wicca, but in reality is them setting up self-illusions, through the use of "magick". And yet, at the same time, as Wicca is a search for Truth, even these seemingly opposite paths might be leading people to a deeper self-understanding in the end. But the point is, there are as many interpretations of Wicca as there are of Gods, Goddesses, and concepts, and to us, they all have the potential to be true for the wielder that chooses to believe that way, because they are their way of interpreting the path to their own Truth. The path of the Wiccan is to find the Goddess/God within themselves, by coming to an understanding of themselves, through an understanding of nature. What people call spellwork is, from a solitary practice, extremely intensified will in sitting sessions, designed to allow you to grasp a further understanding of yourself.

Now, on a funny note, have you ever heard this joke: "How many Wiccans does it take to change a lightbulb? -Thirteen, and to a Gardnerian, that's not funny!" -Circle Mom Alyssa Wilma

Hahahaha....ahh. But the point is, there are, like any religion, those so caught up in the mysticism that they have long forgotten the purpose of the ritual in the first place. One of the few things that I liked when reading Ravenwolf, was that she said that, more than any ancient incantations, or gestures, one's practice would be more likely to get a positive outcome if it was heartfelt. In the words of my latest Circle Mom; "Ritual is 90percent mental, and 10 percent what actually takes place in the room." This is, no doubt, the reason for such chaos in the first place with public practitioners, because, in our own way, aren't all humans a little mental? LOL.

But I spent a Year of Devotion to the Goddess, where I ate no meat, without effort caused absolutely no harm to other beings, and felt great Love for all Life, without differentiating between the rock and the tree. Very close to Jan Frazier's definition actually-"We're all made up of atoms and energy, right?".... A full year, where I can state that I, under no external influence (I don't really do the drug thing, ever), felt as though I was the Goddess, intricately connected with every living thing, to the degree that Self no longer really mattered, every day, and cannot remember any suffering negativity at that time. Everything actually felt that it was happening the perfect way that it should have been. My boyfriend has explained this away in Buddhist terms, saying that it sounds as though the experience may have been what Daniel Ingram first explained as "First Path", and later decided wasn't, but was something like the "First Cycle"? I make no such claims, but they don't matter to me, either. The only point I wish to make with this is that maybe, in actual root, there is not such a difference, after all. Was it healthy? Umm...I literally forgot to eat for three weeks, and drank very little, which ended with me almost passing out in front of my friends, so that they forced me to injest food, and I was not perceiving my priorities in the same light, which meant that I skipped classes because I was too busy sitting in the forest, "feeling" the trees, or dancing in the breeze to try to understand its movement. But a part of me has always wondered if I can someday get back that simplicity of understanding, where the mind never questions, without giving up my grasp on the physical world of my body for that of the ethereal. For at that point, there was perfect happiness. There was joy, and understanding, in everything. There was no harmful ability, for there was no harmful intent. I felt most connected within myself. And, after a year, when I snapped back to "reality", there was a grave sense of loss. Of course, there was also a grasp of all mental reins so that that sort of loss of control would not happen again, and it took me three years to do any more than a five-minute holiday ritual with my practice, out of fear of returning to the state where I so longed to be; where the entire miracle of every moment of my day was a miracle of itself.
So, would you still say that there are no similarities to the aims of Wicca and Buddhism? I don't honestly feel that I know enough about you or Buddhism to make that answer myself. I can go on with specific sects, and specific beliefs, but the truth is that Wicca has so many different practices and aims within its practice that to say yes or no to that answer would probably once again depend on the wiccan in question (although I am certain a Gardnerian would give you a very correct answer!emoticon ).

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

*Edit- to be a "Witch" is supposed to be to have found this Ultimate Truth, or Ultimate Wisdom. I have never called myself a witch, except jokingly, or to those that don't know what the religion is, in the first place, to make it easier for them to understand what I mean when I call myself "Wiccan".

**Edit- Is it possible that ALL religions are truly on the hunt for the same thing? I have recently learned that this is a "Sufic" belief, but I've been wondering for years, and studying the Quran and Bible with that mentality...Any responses to anything are welcome- I am eager to learn.
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 9:47 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 9:45 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
It seems to me that there are different endpoints based on the duality one still experiences, it is very possible to think one has come to true peace - nonduality, by simply seeing everything as object or everything as subject. Some people experiences the entirety of everything under a single overriding sense of self, there are no objects in their experience, nothing seperate that doesn't seem to be self (seems like hinduism goes here)... some people experience the opposite - apparently what happens in "4th path", only objects, nothing that seems to them to be a subject. It is easy to get stuck here for the misconception explained in this sutta, even if you see that nothing in particular is self, there can still be a separation, still desire because any experience of subject or object automatically creates a sense that there is something "other" even if one can't point to it in any way... this is really just speculation for me, but perhaps it could explain the way in which traditions which teach the attainment of some sort of "enlightenment" could be teaching different forms of enlightenment while being fully convinced that theirs is the best it can get... anyway, on to the sutta:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html

Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him, "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'Concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: If, with regard to these five clinging-aggregates, Ven. Khemaka assumes nothing to be self or belonging to self, then Ven. Khemaka is an arahant, devoid of fermentations.'"

"Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'"

Then Ven. Dasaka went to the elder monks and, on arrival, said to them, "The monk Khemaka has said to me, 'Friend, concerning these five clinging-aggregates described by the Blessed One — i.e., form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate: With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, there is nothing I assume to be self or belonging to self, and yet I am not an arahant. With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, "I am" has not been overcome, although I don't assume that "I am this."'"

"Come, friend Dasaka. Go to the monk Khemaka and on arrival say to him, 'The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness'? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"'"

Replying, "As you say, friends," to the elder monks, Ven. Dasaka went to Ven. Khemaka and on arrival said to him, "The elders, friend Khemaka, say to you, 'Friend Khemaka, this "I am" of which you speak: what do you say "I am"? Do you say, "I am form," or do you say, "I am something other than form"? Do you say, "I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness," or do you say, "I am something other than consciousness"'? This "I am" of which you speak: what do you say "I am"?'"

"Enough, friend Dasaka. What is accomplished by this running back & forth? Fetch me my staff. I will go to the elder monks myself."

Then Ven. Khemaka, leaning on his staff, went to the elder monks and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with them. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, the elder monks said to him, "Friend Khemaka, this 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'? Do you say, 'I am form,' or do you say, 'I am something other than form'? Do you say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' or do you say, 'I am something other than consciousness''? This 'I am' of which you speak: what do you say 'I am'?"

"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"It's just like the scent of a blue, red, or white lotus: If someone were to call it the scent of a petal or the scent of the color or the scent of a filament, would he be speaking correctly?"

"No, friend."

"Then how would he describe it if he were describing it correctly?"

"As the scent of the flower: That's how he would describe it if he were describing it correctly."

"In the same way, friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 10:25 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/4/12 10:16 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Adam;
Wow! Thanks! That was insightful! It was very well-written, and to the point. It came across clearly. I appreciate your opinion, and your wisdom. :-)

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

*Edit- Although, wouldn't this then be implying that the eventual endpoint that they should reach would be the overcoming of these dualities, and the collective overcoming, therefore, of "I am"? Which would technically correspond with both the Buddhists and the AFers...and mean that those who have not yet seen the point of "no objects" or "no subjects" are still lost. Although (and this may just be a word-battle--not sure), would this concept of a lack, as in "no ___" also be a sense of self? For it istill defines itself and its experience via something, albeit the lack of something. (On a side note- this is the reason I gave up the concept of striving toward these lofty goals...these questions can circle within my mind in an ever-deepening spiral leading nowhere, and solving nothing- much better to simply look for happiness in the moment; it causes me less insanity).
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 8/5/12 2:27 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/5/12 2:17 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
*Edit- Although, wouldn't this then be implying that the eventual endpoint that they should reach would be the overcoming of these dualities, and the collective overcoming, therefore, of "I am"? Which would technically correspond with both the Buddhists and the AFers...and mean that those who have not yet seen the point of "no objects" or "no subjects" are still lost. Although (and this may just be a word-battle--not sure), would this concept of a lack, as in "no ___" also be a sense of self? For it istill defines itself and its experience via something, albeit the lack of something. (On a side note- this is the reason I gave up the concept of striving toward these lofty goals...these questions can circle within my mind in an ever-deepening spiral leading nowhere, and solving nothing- much better to simply look for happiness in the moment; it causes me less insanity).


IMO, attaining nibbana = attaining actual freedom, both of which are a lack of subject and object... however different people think nibbana is different things.

also, when there is an experience of a lack of something, one could conceptualize that lack into an object and create a self in reference to that object, though one could also not. ;)

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Jasmine Marie Engler, modified 10 Years ago at 8/5/12 2:26 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/5/12 2:25 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 69 Join Date: 5/1/12 Recent Posts
Please define "IMO". This has caused me quite a few confusions in the past, where I've seen it used here.

Love and Happiness,
Jazzi

*Edit- Thanks for your response- well-written. :-)
Adam , modified 10 Years ago at 8/5/12 2:26 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/5/12 2:26 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 613 Join Date: 3/20/12 Recent Posts
in my opinion
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/6/12 8:42 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/6/12 8:30 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Hey Nikolai,

It seems we might actually get to a point where we agree that we disagree!

Nikolai .:
I don't think you can divorce the experience of the six sense spheres from experiencing the purity we may be speaking of as when disintegrated, the mind/body organism doesn't function and no purity is recognised. So, to say that purity is not of the mind/body organism but inherent in the universe is simply a conceptual way of saying it always recognisable by different human beings; by inference that others can recognise such purity as well when my own mind/body organism is dead. That purity then must be inherent in the universe and accessible and recognizable by anyone alive.

In my experience, it's not a conceptualization, no. When I experience pure intent it becomes obvious that it is inherent in the universe. It sort of comes with the experience. I don't have to take several logical steps of reasoning to arrive to that conclusion, although I can do that as well in an attempt to intellectually explain what it is.

Nikolai .:
But i could also say that anyone can experience the absence of being and the absence of being has all the curtain of 'me-ness' dropping away from covering up that purity. So i could also say that any human being alive who experiences the absence of being recognises the purity.

That is true, yea.

Nikolai .:
I presume you arrive at your way of thinking due to never having had a prolonged absence of being and having 'being' still in play but experiencing 'purity' for fleeting moments? Thus since never having experienced a prolonged absence of being, it can't be equated to 'purity'? Isn't this purity (what you call 'pure intent') derived from of the PCE, technically the absence of being?

No, the purity is not the absence of being. The purity is a thing in-and-of-itself. When 'being' is absent, it is immediately recognized, because nothing is covering it up. But you can experience the purity even when 'being' is not absent, as I have been, so they are clearly different things.

Nikolai .:
When there is no 'me' distinguishing 'me' from purity, what may happen to how one experiences the 'purity' and describes it? If I do not experience being yet there is purity all around, and no 'me' to compare it with, would distinctions be necessary? Could distinctions be possible?

Well, Richard and Vineeto don't experience being and experience pure intent, but my descriptions seem to match their descriptions. Distinctions would not be necessary for me in that case, but they'd be necessary for other people. And distinctions would be possible given I can remember that there was indeed a clear difference.

Nikolai .:
The universe is experiencing itself now, no? Via what? It may makes sense to distinguish 'me' from purity, but absence of 'being'? perhaps your recognition of 'purity' IS the fleeting moments of the absence of being? How could 'purity' be experienced at the same time as 'me' when 'I' am my feelings and my feelings are 'me'?

No, I recognize purity even when there is 'being'. What I call purity is not fleeting moments of the absence of being. I don't know why it can be experienced at the same time as 'me', but it is really nice that it can be.

Nikolai .:
So you experience whatever you term 'pure intent' when 'being' is still in place?

Yep.

Nikolai .:
[...] If it ['being'] doesn't drop away, we may be talking past each other, as I do not experience 'being' and thus whatever I term 'purity' is not the same experience as yourself as no 'me-ness' is associated with it.

There is no 'me-ness' associated with my experience of the purity, either.

Nikolai .:
But if that purity is recognized only in the absence of 'being' then it I think it makes sense to me that it can be seen as one and the same.

Given that the purity is not recognized only in the absence of 'being', does it then make sense to you that they can seen as two different things?

Nikolai .:
How can you truly say that 'pure intent' or the 'purity' I'd prefer to term it now derived from a PCE is experienced at the same time as one experiences oneself as a 'feeling being'? Wouldn't the affective quality cloud such a recognition?

It usually does, yea. I can't experience the purity if I am feeling an intense emotion. But if I am not, I can reflectively contemplate what it means to be alive, and this begins to allow me to experience the purity, even at the same time that I experience myself as a 'feeling being'.

Nikolai .:
And in the absence of a feeling being, wouldn't such a purity be experienced differently? Or is such 'purity' only experienced in the fleeting moments of the fleeting absence of a 'feeling being'?

It probably would be, ya - there would indeed be nothing at all preventing the full experiencing of it.

Nikolai .:
Nikolai .:
It would seem, tarin was also confused by the term 'intent' with his original interpretation of 'pure intent'. Though I don't think he would have nor currently confuses the 'purity' of the universal benevolent life force. Nor Trent, not by what they have said many times in the past.

I addressed this in my reply to Rotten Tomatoes. If they were experiencing pure intent as I use the term, and they knew how important that pure intent was to becoming actually free, it certainly didn't come across in any of their communications to me.


It certainly did with me. They were always pointing to the immeasurable friendliness (at least trent did) and the stillness of the experience of being alive sans being in my exchanges with them. The stillness was apt pointer for me. Trent pointed constantly in such a direction in my exchanges with him.

Well, I'll be explicit. I did experience many things they were pointing to, including stillness, but none of the things they were pointing to ended up being the pure intent that I became able to experience as a result of having gone to Australia.

I've replied to the more politics-oriented part of your post here so as to keep this discussion about pure intent on-topic.

- Claudiu
thumbnail
Tommy M, modified 10 Years ago at 8/7/12 10:05 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/7/12 10:05 AM

Continued: Pure Intent Discussion

Posts: 1199 Join Date: 11/12/10 Recent Posts
Thanks to Adam for finding the link for this split-thread, I forgot to bump it up when I initially seperated it so my apologies if it's thrown the momentum of what is an interesting discussion.
Rotten Tomato, modified 10 Years ago at 8/9/12 12:39 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/9/12 12:39 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 22 Join Date: 7/24/12 Recent Posts
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

Hmm, depends what you mean by "mystical", but given the usual connotations of the word, I'd say no (for example, mystical: "Having a spiritual significance that transcends human understanding.")


Ok got what you mean. You, and Richard, say that it's a manifest life force. Manifest is defined as "readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain"
Is it so "obvious"? Not many in the world seem to know or perceive it? How is it Manifest then?
And hence it looks "mystical" or mysterious to me.


Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think I asked Richard a very similar question while I was in Australia. He acknowledged that other people did indeed have trouble with the term. He said "don't blame me, blame the entity within that coined the term all those year ago."


Hmm. That's still strange. Why wouldn't he change it? Surely, he would have realised the confusion inherent by its usage. You can't use pure intent and mean "manifest life force" by it. And the fact (?) that it needs "your" ("my") intent to tap into it doesn't validate the usage of that term to the life force. It only (and it already has as observed with Nick n Tarin's cases) creates more confusion.

Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem:
in all my interactions with Tarin and Trent (there being far more with Trent than Tarin), be they via forum posting, or email communications, or text-chatting, or even meeting in person for many hours at a time, I never got any hints from them or clarifications from them experientially or intellectually pointing me to that benevolence and benignity which I now refer to with the words "pure intent"... whereas it didn't take long at all for me, interacting with Richard and Vineeto in Australia, to really get an intellectual and experiential understanding of what it is, and to realize how to tap into it, and from there, to know the basic idea of how the rest of the path to an actual freedom will go. Given how vitally important that benevolence and benignity is, for eventuating an actual freedom, why would that be the case if Tarin & Trent had been experiencing it this entire time?



Interesting observations. To be honest, though, until you started harping about Pure Intent, I too didn't think (because i didn't get that idea from my readings of the AFT site) that it's such an important attribute in getting AF. It seemed an attribute that would help you along the way (the one you "tap into it" on your way but not so ultimate (as i get from you).
thumbnail
Beoman Claudiu Dragon Emu Fire Golem, modified 10 Years ago at 8/9/12 1:05 PM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/9/12 1:05 PM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 2227 Join Date: 10/27/10 Recent Posts
Rotten Tomato:
Ok got what you mean. You, and Richard, say that it's a manifest life force. Manifest is defined as "readily perceived by the eye or the understanding; evident; obvious; apparent; plain"
Is it so "obvious"? Not many in the world seem to know or perceive it? How is it Manifest then?
And hence it looks "mystical" or mysterious to me.

Ah yeah I see your point. The difficulty is that everyone is born with a feeling-being, and the feeling-world it projects covers up the manifest life-force entirely. So no, it is not obvious to most people. But it is obvious if there is no feeling-being - thus, during those PCEs that everyone Richard has spoken to as length can recall, the life-force is indeed manifest. And because that is such a different way of experiencing the world than normal, it can seem mystical and mysterious, too. But really it is pretty straightforward.

Rotten Tomato:
Hmm. That's still strange. Why wouldn't he change it? Surely, he would have realised the confusion inherent by its usage. You can't use pure intent and mean "manifest life force" by it. And the fact (?) that it needs "your" ("my") intent to tap into it doesn't validate the usage of that term to the life force. It only (and it already has as observed with Nick n Tarin's cases) creates more confusion.

I don't know, you'd have to ask him. I suspect it's because the term "pure intent" already appears everywhere.

Also, to be clear, it doesn't need 'my' intent to tap into it when actually free, it's just obviously all-around.

Rotten Tomato:
Interesting observations. To be honest, though, until you started harping about Pure Intent, I too didn't think (because i didn't get that idea from my readings of the AFT site) that it's such an important attribute in getting AF. It seemed an attribute that would help you along the way (the one you "tap into it" on your way but not so ultimate (as i get from you).

Yea, I didn't realize its importance either, before I went to visit Richard. I think it's just in the nature of the written word. When reading so many words, you can pick & choose what you want to look at, so you might just gloss over the things that say 'pure intent' and focus on the other parts, like social identity, for example. Also much of the correspondences on the AFT are with people who are debating Richard on other points, so the topic doesn't come up in those correspondences... and if those are the ones you mostly read, then you won't get an idea of how important it is.

An obvious example in my case was reading Peter's Guide to the Path to Actual Freedom. I read this before visiting Richard. If you'll notice, quite early on it says the following:
Peter:
What is clear is that at some stage, fairly early on the path, if one has travelled the traditional spiritual path that an about-turn has to occur for what we are talking of is 180 degrees opposite to the spiritual viewpoint of life. For those who have travelled the spiritual path, this business of turning around and backtracking is often too daunting a prospect or too much of a blow to their spiritual pride to even consider – spiritual seekers are usually too humble to admit they could be wrong! Whenever the ‘penny drops’ about spirit-uality and one begins to be able to look at the spiritual world with clear eyes, it then becomes increasingly clear how deeply the spiritual viewpoint pervades all human thinking and how it is, apart from malice and sorrow, the predominant aspect of the Human Condition. This tackling of the spiritual viewpoint is closely analogous to dismantling the most substantial component of one’s social identity, for the morals, ethics and values that we have been instilled with are essentially spiritual values based on the concept of a battle betwixt good and evil in the world. Unless this overarching spiritual belief is tackled in oneself the real business of taking a clear-eyed look at the instinctual passions in operation in one’s own psyche is not possible.
All spiritual ideals, beliefs and notions must be investigated and eradicated in order to become actually free of the Human Condition.
So, an essential part of this first stage to a Virtual Freedom is to take on board the fact that Actualism has nothing at all to do with Spiritualism and much of the initial work of an Actualist involves reading, contemplating and understanding this fact. Unless there is a crack in the door, a doubting of one’s spiritual belief, then it is impossible to even begin the real life-changing process that Actualism is.

I ignored all that, thinking I was not Spiritual. Then he says
Peter:
The very action of turning around from the spiritual and facing the other direction – see diagram of ‘180 Degrees Opposite’ – means that one begins the process of demolishing one’s social identity and for those who have travelled the Eastern spiritual path this means one’s spiritual identity, usually layered on top of the underlying identity instilled in childhood and refined in early adulthood. The process of investigating and demolishing the social identity is also evident in the two-stage process that happens with each and every investigation of a deep-seated emotion from then on, on the path to Actual Freedom.

I ignored all that, thinking I was not on the Eastern spiritual path. Also, it seemed I didn't really have to worry about the social identity so much given I was a pretty good meditator. So I skipped ahead some more...
Peter:
Virtual Freedom is a readily obtainable, realistic goal available for anyone – and is an essential step on the path to Actual Freedom. Unless one is willing to contemplate a virtual freedom of being happy and harmless, free of malice and sorrow, 99% of the time – then forget the whole business. If someone is not willing to make this level of ‘self’-sacrifice, then any interest in an Actual Freedom would remain a purely cerebral exercise – a useless self-deception.

Blah blah yes happy and harmless, I can do that by meditating, but how do I get to actuality? In hindsight I was looking for meditative-type instructions that I could follow "to the tee". Oh look, finally something I recognized!
Peter:
Half-way point
...
This past the half-way point is a most fascinating period for one finds oneself literally on one’s own, without the security of a social identity of any substance and adrift from the familiar security of being able to mindlessly indulge in malice, or wallow in sorrow. One finds oneself seemingly at odds with the world and its citizens for one has left the accustomed ways of coping, or avoiding, behind. It is possible to pass through periods of stark reality where nothing has any meaning and all is experienced as grey and dull. Boredom, meaninglessness, pointlessness and similar feelings are often encountered ...

I've experienced those feelings before! And long ago, too. My spiritual path must have gotten me past this half-way point, already.
Peter:
Deep experiences of the raw instinctual passions can be safely had at this stage, be they the tender passions of nurture and desire or the savage passions of fear and aggression.

Yep I experienced intense emotions and stuff while meditating. Man that Dark Night stuff is pretty intense, good thing it has prepared me for this.
Peter:
One’s physical senses are freed of the instinctual burden of being constantly on-guard and more and more sensual delight becomes abundantly apparent. Having none of the instinctual drives operating and traditional values and meanings to hang on to can be quite discerning, to say the least, and a learning or accustomizing period is necessary for this new way of living.

Yep I experienced more and more sensory delight, thanks to meditating on the senses! I must be doing pretty well, then. Guess I'll just keep on as I have been.

Anyway, now it's obvious I was missing the entire point and just picking & choosing in order to reassure me that my essentially spiritual path was taking me towards an actual freedom. So, maybe the AFT site can be more clear with regards to pure intent, but if it's possible to so easily ignore what is written, maybe it wouldn't help much at all.

The importance of pure intent is quite obvious now, anyway. As Richard said, "I don't see how you could do it without pure intent." I've noticed a few people other getting the idea, too, which makes me glad I decided to write about these things.
Rotten Tomato, modified 10 Years ago at 8/10/12 8:36 AM
Created 10 Years ago at 8/10/12 8:36 AM

RE: Freestyle Practice: Exploring Without A Map

Posts: 22 Join Date: 7/24/12 Recent Posts
Thanks for that post. Interesting.

For me, now, the stuff in the para below seems vital.

Attentiveness is an aesthetic alertness that takes place with minimised reference to self. With attentiveness one sees the internal world with blameless references to concepts like ‘my’ or ‘mine’. Suppose there is a feeling of sadness. Ordinary consciousness would say, ‘I am sad’. Using attentiveness, one heedfully notices the feeling as a natural feeling – ‘There is human sadness’ – thus one does not tack on that possessive personal concept of ‘I’ or ‘me’ ... for one is already possessed. Attentiveness is the observance of the basic nature of each arising feeling; it is observing all the inner world – emotional, passionate and calentural – which is whatever is presently taking place in the affective faculty. Attentiveness is seeing how any feeling makes ‘me’ tick – and how ‘I’ react to it – with the perspicacity of seeing how it affects others as well. In attentiveness, there is an unbiased observing of the constant showing-up of the ‘reality’ within and is examining the feelings arising one after the other ... and such attentiveness is the ending of its grip. Please note that last point: in attentiveness, there is an observance of the ‘reality’ within, and such attention is the end of its embrace ... finish.

Here lies apperception.




Every moment, I am an feeling.
A feeling occurs. Then "I" get tagged on to it.

I see the mechanism of how any feeling makes me tick.

For me, that above para is vital in the context of this:

"in actualism, one puts one’s attention on being here ... now. When feelings cause one’s awareness to wander from actualism’s focus, it is attentiveness that reminds one that one’s mind is being manipulated ... and why one is doing this happening called being alive."




From here.

Breadcrumb