Andrew

Journals
1269

In other news, I now write my journals (again) in reverse. Like Leonardo da Vinci. It cleans up my handwriting and paces my thoughts. For context, since first learnt to write, I was able to write mirror image. Being left handed, it was natural to reverse what I was seeing the teacher do. Apparently, it took a while to convince me that I should write like everyone else. It really made no sense to me at 6 years old why I should do everything backwards because everyone else said so!

For years before Actualism, many of my journals were “reverse” writing, from the perspective of a right handed person.

2 Likes
1270

Vineeto: Hi Andrew,
You just took the wrong turn-off – here is the sign, just like at all wrong entries on Australian high-ways: “Wrong Way, TURN BACK”.
Without the pure intent to be happy and harmless there is no way you can give yourself a categorically overarching permission for “forsaking all other directives, missives, constitutions, allotments, franchises, contracts, agreements, treaties, implied or otherwise.” This is not “audacity”, this is plainly your “subversive tendency” taking back command.
Please, first find out experientially about pure intent before being guided by “audacity” and other fool-hardy actions.

Josef: Hi Vineeto,
I have to admit this reply surprised me quite a bit. It seems to me like you are trying to “gate keep” feeling good somehow. I thought Andrew was spot on here as it’s the approach I have also been following recently with decent success. Too often in the real world we are so prone to feeling bad for even the smallest reason. This audacity he mentions seems like exactly what is needed to feel good “come what may”.

Hi Josef,

The reason I answered Andrew in such categorical terms is because he expressed his intent in categorical terms –

Andrew: The audacity to feel good all the time, come what may!!!
Nice. Very nice indeed. Now that’s something I can channel my subversive tendency towards! (link)
Andrew: So I hereby give myself permission to feel good, happy & harmless, in all circumstances, come what may.
Over-riding all socially prescribed appropriate moods, reactions, and expectations.
An executive order, unilaterally executed, with no power of veto granted to any party, circumstance, or condition.
Rain, hail or shine, in sickness and in health, forsaking all other directives, missives, constitutions, allotments, franchises, contracts, agreements, treaties, implied or otherwise. [Emphases added]. (link)

I emphasized the categorical aspects in Andrew’s permission to himself, so you might better understand my reply. As Claudiu pointed out already (link), the social conditioning (conscience) is largely in place to curb the excesses of the genetically endowed instinctual passions from running amok. One does indeed need at least the intent to be both happy and harmless, i.e. feeling good and being considerate towards one’s fellow human beings to make the actualism method work and to whittle away any and all emotion, belief, principle, worldview and so on, which stand in the way of being happy and harmless.

Josef: I think (correct me if I’m wrong) you’re trying to highlight the harmless part of the equation. That being happy without being harmless can come with causing harm to others for the sake of your own happiness?

Yes, you are correct. In the beginning one’s attempt to feel good and be happy can be misconstrued as licentiousness and self-indulgence. If one only has the aim to just feel a little better whilst staying firmly ensconced in the human condition, the large variety of self-help books and consultants would be sufficient.

Josef: Even if pure intent was not present, the prescription of feeling good come what may could lift the majority of the population out of the seriousness and despair that plagues the real world. (link)

“The prescription of feeling good come what may” is an invitation to utterly disregard everyone else but ‘me’, the passionate identity, to follow their instincts of fear, aggression, nurture and desire. How does this “prescription” “lift the majority of the population out of the seriousness and despair”? “The prescription of feeling good come what may” is more accurately described as the law of the jungle where not no socialisation is curbing the basic instinctual survival passions.

I am not saying that this is what you had in mind when you wrote what you did, but it is nevertheless vital to carefully think through your prescription and consider the consequences of what you are proposing for “the majority of the population”.

Here is the third alternative to being selfishly following feeling good regardless and living in “seriousness and despair” as you put it –

Richard: The actualism method (‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’) is a method specifically designed to bring about a direct experience of the actual … the question is asked, each moment again, until it becomes an automatic approach to life or a wordless attitude to living. Initially it will be seen that how one is experiencing this moment is usually via a feeling or a belief (sometimes cunningly disguised as a ‘truth’) – and a belief is an emotion-backed thought anyway – thus effectively blocking the ‘direct sense experience’. And for as long as one is experiencing this moment through a feeling – no matter how deep or profound the feeling may be – one is cutting oneself off from the splendour of the actual.
There is an unimaginable and inconceivable purity right here at this place in infinite space just now at this moment in eternal time which far exceeds the most deepest, the most profound feeling of beauty (or love) – the actual is magnificent beyond ‘my’ wildest dreams and schemes – and this moment and this place is an ever-present ‘jumping-in’ point, as it were … however it does mean the end of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself).
This is because ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings’ are ‘me’. [Emphases added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 27a, 15 Jan 2002)

And –

Richard: When one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (through running the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’) the affective energy is thus freed-up to power the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) which, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), can ensue as a sense of amazement, marvel and wonder … which can, in turn, result in apperceptiveness. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 27a, 18 May 2002)

As you can see, Richard starts with the intent “to bring about a direct experience of the actual” by imitating the actual. The overarching intent is to experience life free from the dominance of the ‘I’/ ‘me’ as much and as often as possible. This is achieved by applying the actualism method: “one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings”.

If one only has the aim to just feel a little better whilst staying firmly ensconced in the human condition, the large variety of self-help books and consultants would be sufficient.

And this explained what to do in detail –

Respondent: Are you talking about not ‘taking out’ our emotions on others?
Richard: Yes, but not only on ‘others’ … taking it out upon oneself happens all too often (children are taught to castigate and/or commiserate themselves so as to inculcate a conscience).
Respondent: Not releasing emotion through the body somehow?
Richard: Yes … not having it pump chemicals through the body irregardless whether someone else is present or not.
Respondent: Also specifically which emotions are advantageous to ‘not express’?
Richard: All and any emotion … I oft-times would say to people twenty one years ago when I first put this into practice was that emotions are life’s way of reminding oneself that one has gone astray (that one has wandered off the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition).
An emotion is like a warning buzzer … or a flashing red light.
Respondent: Can this be done in one fell swoop – or would it be done by ‘whittling’ away emotion?
Richard: Whittling. It took me about six weeks, as far as I can remember, to whittle away the obvious or major emotions … the less obvious or minor ones took far longer. (Richard, AF List, No. 27a, 24 Jan 2002)

Does this make it more clear for you?

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
1271

Claudiu: If Andrew goes ahead with his unilateral command to effectively do whatever he (self-centrically) wants without regards to any consequences and without the capacity for anybody else to do anything whatsoever to change his mind about any of it, without pure intent in place… the effect will most likely be for that “wayward self” to … go wayward .

Josef: I don’t think that’s what he said at all. He said he would give himself permission to feel good, happy & harmless unilaterally. I don’t see any mention of doing whatever he wants (self-centrically) without consideration for anyone else.
And even in practice, I have found that the actualism feeling good (not good feelings), is so blithesome and benign in its nature that it is always accompanied by harmlessness. If it’s not, usually there is some good feeling (like greed, or power, or pride) that is tainting the feeling good.

Hi Josef,

I am pleased to read you know by experience that “the actualism feeling good” needs to include being harmless in order to be untainted by “greed, or power, or pride”. Perhaps you simply assumed that Andrew would experience it the same way? In fact, this is what feeling being Vineeto expressed as well –

‘VINEETO’: The reason I said that there is a remarkable difference between feeling harmless and actually being harmless is because it is easy to assess one’s happiness by checking if I am feeling happy whereas many people may feel themselves to be harmless when they are not experiencing feelings of aggression or anger against somebody. Yet they are nevertheless causing harm via their thoughtless ‘self’-oriented instinctual feelings and actions, something that all human beings are prone to do unless they become fully aware of their instinctual passions before these translate into vibes and/or actions.
It was about a year into my process of actualism when I became aware of how much my outlook on the world and on people had changed in that my cloak of myopic ‘self’-centredness began to lift and I no longer saw the world only ‘my’ way and my judgments and actions no longer revolved around ‘my’ interests, ‘my’ beliefs, ‘my’ ideas, ‘my’ ideals, ‘my’ fears, ‘my’ desires and ‘my’ aversions. Consequently I have learnt to judge harmlessness by the amount of parity and consideration I apply to others whom I come in contact with, both at work and at play, and not by merely feeling myself to be harmless.
Tarin: Can you say more about this? I usually feel harmless but have been thinking lately that I somehow still do harm simply by not paying attention and applying parity and consideration to others with whom I come into contact. How did you do this more and more? And how did you notice that you’re still harming someone even if you don’t have feelings of anger or aggression or the like? And how do you know it’s you harming them? Can you give a few examples? I’m finding it possible to consider this matter more now that I’m happier as its given me breathing room to be less self-centred, but it’s a pretty new subject to me. What keeps your mind on being considerate? Is it just a close scrutiny on the feelings and passions that arise? Are you more perceptive of others because the feelings and passions that are now arising are diminished so you’re naturally more attentive to other things as well, like what’s going on with other people?
‘VINEETO’: Sure. When I met Peter I was full of good intentions to make our living together work, i.e. to be as happy and peaceful as possible, but I had continuous clashes of opinion with him, frustrations of foiled expectation, hurt feelings and revenge of hurtful remarks. I realized that in order to be able live with Peter in peace and harmony I had to sort out a lot – my beliefs, my ‘truths’, my loyalties, my gender ideas, my problems with authority and all other sorts of feelings.
I remember well the first evening when I looked at Peter and saw him as just another human being – not as a partner, a mate, a member of the other gender, a lover, a sexual object, a valuable addition to my circle of friends, and not as someone who would approve or disapprove of me – simple another fellow human being. Suddenly the separation I felt was gone and there was a delicious intimacy, as ‘I’ was no longer attempting to force him to fit into ‘my’ world.
I was astounded and shocked by this experience, being outside of my so familiar ‘self’-centred and ‘self-oriented skin, because I realized that never before, not once in our 3-months acquaintance, had I been able, or even interested, to see him as a person in his own right. I was shocked at how all of my perception and consequently all of my interactions were driven by what I wanted, what I expected and what I believed him to be and how much I was therefore constantly at odds with how he actually was. From then on I paid as much attention as possible to become aware of situations when my feelings, beliefs, expectations and general attitude were standing in the way of recognizing another person, first Peter and later anyone I came in contact with, as equal fellow human beings, as persons in their own right, who live their own life, follow their own goals and aspirations, have their own preferences and tastes, and also, have their own set of morals, ethics and beliefs.
The reason I am telling this story is because this experience was the beginning of a slow and wide-ranging realization that as long as I live in ‘my’ world – made up of ‘my’ worldview, ‘my’ beliefs, opinions, feelings and survival passions – I cannot help but struggle to fit everyone into ‘my’ world, as actors on the stage of ‘my’ play, so to speak, as family and aliens, as friends and enemies, as ‘good people and ‘bad’ people. And not only am ‘I’ busy trying to do this, everyone else – all six billion of us – are equally struggling to fit everyone into ‘their’ world.
It then comes as no surprise that being actually harmless is out of the question – until ‘I’ more and more leave centre-stage, stop resenting being here, stop being stressed, take myself less seriously, take notice of other people the way they are and start enjoying life. (Actualism, Vineeto, Selected Correspondence, Harmless).

Claudiu: Pure intent will ensure that sensibility will prevail (…)
Josef: Again, the feeling good come what may that I’ve been having success with recently has a lack of malice as a quality, so consideration for others is also a part of it.
Claudiu: I don’t think this is really a very high bar, (…)

Josef: This is why I called it gatekeeping.

Knowing the human condition as well as I do (having experienced as a feeling being the full extent of ‘I’ am humanity and humanity is ‘me’) I am much more careful to make a-priory assumptions.

As is now the second time that you used the word “gatekeeping” I wonder if there is perhaps an emotional issue/ investment for you such as frustration that you have trouble to experience a PCE or a resentment against authority? So that this post doesn’t get too long, I simply refer you to a link, if you discover that this is the case.

You have stated yourself you discovered that to be genuinely feeling good requires “a lack of malice as a quality, so consideration for others is also a part of it”. This is excellent. It seems to me that a sincere intent is operating for you in regards of enjoyment and appreciation. Richard’s warning (and mine), what you call “gatekeeping”, is specifically designed regarding the inculcated rules of society which curb the excess of the instinctual passions, i.e. the “wayward self”.

In the absence of the experience of the overarching stream of benignity and benevolence originating – not in ‘your’ fears and desires but outside the human condition – in the vast and utter stillness of the universe, the socialized conscience and principles of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ cannot be safely whittled away – you would harm both yourself and others following only ‘your’ self-centric guide.

Josef: I don’t have pure intent if the strict definition is that is has to be born of a PCE. I don’t have a good memory of a PCE. But I do have the intent that I don’t ever want to feel miserable again. That I want to be in a good mood each and every moment again. I’ve seen how beneficial it is for myself and others when I am feeling good. But should I not start on this path unless I meet the strict definition of having pure intent? (link)

Here is what you wrote in October 2022 as the first entry of your journal –

Joseph: I had what I think is a PCE yesterday while on a high dosage edible. I was just sitting on the couch, and suddenly the inside of my house began to look completely different. It was as if I was seeing everything for the first time again. There was very little affect, and I noticed that while I could think, the thoughts were disjointed from “me”. There was a very high level of sensuous appreciation. But the key aspect for me was time. Past and future were completely gone and it felt like I could stay in this moment forever. That there was nothing else. Again, very very little affect, but I’m reluctant to say a complete absence because I was also pretty intoxicated and hence a little confused.
It was a new way of experiencing entirely, and it was very pure and I would say close to perfect. It was the same world but like a different one within that same one. Like a veneer being pulled back. (link)

Does this experience perhaps give you a clue why you are able to recognize that genuinely feeling good requires “a lack of malice as a quality”, and “consideration for others”?

It is the source of your intent which defines the quality of ‘feeling good’ and informs you which one is genuine and which one is dictated by the “wayward self”. As long as you pay attention to this qualitative difference of your intent and rememorate the distinct flavour of this “new way of experiencing” you had during the PCE, you are precisely acting according to Richard’s warning.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
1272

Josef: But I do have the intent that I don’t ever want to feel miserable again. That I want to be in a good mood each and every moment again. I’ve seen how beneficial it is for myself and others when I am feeling good. But should I not start on this path unless I meet the strict definition of having pure intent? (…)

Claudiu: I don’t see why you couldn’t start to use the actualism method before having that clear connection. Feel good. When feeling good dips, use the tools, trace it back to when it happened, see why, etc. And this ensures more of a feeling good. And on it goes from there.
This will at some point result in having a PCE or finding pure intent/ pure intent becoming apparent. And that’s when it can really take off from there.

Josef seems to be mixing up two aspects of the actualism method – feeling good, i.e. enjoying and appreciating, and dismantling the social identity, especially its moral (good and bad) and ethical (right and wrong) principles designed to curb the instinctual passions.

However, particularly given that he had a PCE in October 2022 (Josef: “ … sensuous appreciation. But the key aspect for me was time. Past and future were completely gone and it felt like I could stay in this moment forever”) it should not be a problem recognizing/ rememorating pure intent, and then tying a golden clew to the distinct flavour of this “new way of experiencing”.

Claudiu: I’m having difficulty putting it into words exactly what I mean. When you are guided by pure intent, you do end up unilaterally dismantling all the socializing and conditioning etc, via giving yourself permission to have it happen.

As you would know from experience, “dismantling all the socializing and conditioning” doesn’t happen on its own just because ‘you’ give yourself permission. It happens when you look for whichever belief, strategy, principle, social control, etc. triggered a diminishment in feeling excellent and investigate it, understand it, apperceptively see it, and thus cause it to fall away.

Claudiu: And it is a happy and harmless dismantling (both together). I just don’t see how you can successfully do it without pure intent, though. Maybe I’d put it that you can start, and make good headway, but you will always be limited until you do find pure intent, get a flavor of it, learn how to allow it, etc. But the point isn’t that it’s a limitation per se, like you have to wait until it happens, but rather something you can actively gear yourself towards, find that connection sooner rather than later!
What you think, Vineeto ? (link)

Yes, this is a good way to put it. Feeling being ‘Vineeto’ didn’t wait until she fully and in detail understood what the “actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” was – ‘she’ rememorated ‘her’ major PCE and read Richard’s writing with this basic experiential understanding in mind. ‘She’ also made a point to write in this rememorative flavour of the PCE.

In fact, as you pointed out last year (link), I had to correct the term pure intent in many cases to ‘sincere intent’ to be more accurate in ‘her’ reporting. However, with the memory of the PCE in the background the “wayward self” had less and less chance to inadvertently create harm for myself or others when dismantling the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ rules of society yet sensibly following the legal requirements of the country I live in. It is very easy when one becomes more and more anonymous.

Here is how Devika described it in Richard’s Journal –

“These days I feel anonymous. Psychologically speaking, I no longer belong, I no longer believe, I no longer obey, I no longer conform and I no longer know my place. I have no sense of social identity. Without a sense of social identity, the emotions and passions needed to guard it are no longer necessary. Neither applying a palliative nor attempting to escape, I have instead eliminated the ‘Human Constitution’ in myself.” (Richard’s Journal, 2004, Page 206).

A bit further down in the Journal Devika, temporarily reappearing from having fallen in love, has a conversation with Richard how she experiences intimacy with her fellow human beings. It is a fascinating conversation, so I published it on the website here for everyone’s enjoyment and information. (Richard, Selected Writings, Intimacy).

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
1273

Andrew: Contemplating the less than good, but better than neutral mood while falling asleep, it occurred to me the morality around when one is allowed to “feel good/happy”.
Certainly, this pervasive morality is a huge part of hitting a ceiling on how I feel.
Extreme hypotheticals put this morality in sharp relief.

Andrew: Josef is correct in that my unilateral declaration, was my answer to my own realisation…
I reacted strongly to Vineeto’s post, and decided that I would need to keep my hands in my pockets for a few days to work out how to proceed.

Hi Andrew,

It’s good you are writing in your private journal now as well, as I never knew which of your posts were private contemplations or meant for public consumption and comment. :wink:

I took you literally, especially the exuberance in your expressions of “subversive tendency”, “no power of veto” and “forsaking all other directives” and hence issued a strong warning so you won’t harm yourself, or others, in the process. I am also not sure how much of actualism you have read or fully understood, so I gave you a precautionary note.

Andrew: For the record, my unilateral declaration had little effect on my mood. I was in a good mood day on Friday, and had the day off work.
This morning, whilst obviously running mentally over this issue, I started to realise that I could start by looking at any beliefs, rules, conditioning etc specifically around why ‘I’ have not had a PCE, why pure intent (as in the actual thing, palpable life force etc) wasn’t being experienced.

Your specific query of what is in the way of a PCE to happen is an excellent idea and I wish you speedy success.

As Richard says “‘I’ can have a vested interest in disremembering a PCE as it could very well be the beginning of the end of ‘me’” which could for instance be one of the reasons worth of investigation.

It may also be a reaction to the fear of naiveté which you shared a couple of weeks ago –

Andrew: My fear of naiveté, is entwined with unrequited desire, and resentment of morality. Normal ‘me’ experience of naiveté; buy motorcycle. Fly to other side of world after a girl. Start misguided business (link) However, a moment of “wide eyed wonder, of joyous celebration, of playful abandon” is nothing to be afraid of, frustrated about, or angry towards! (link)

In the meantime, …

Richard: It takes the felicity and innocuity of naiveté to bring about a PCE: where one is happy and harmless a benevolence and benignity which is not of ‘my’ doing operates of its own accord … and it is this beneficence and magnanimity which occasions the PCE.
The largesse of the universe (as in the largesse of life itself), in other words. (Sundry, FAQ, How to Induce a PCE).

Josef: This audacity he mentions seems like exactly what is needed to feel good “come what may”.

Andrew: This was the spirit in which I wrote my overly “wordy” declaration. As I said, it really didn’t do much, except cause a sequence of events which had me reacting to the whole premise of Actualism. As in, if one can’t start without pure intent, and one’s own intent is “dangerous” then one can’t start at all.

This is a typical reaction of ‘me’ rebelliously wanting to stop the whole enterprise before it even started.

Here is an insight you shared only a month ago –

Andrew: That’s what I meant by rebellion. Of course, it’s short lived. The rush of doing something “dumb” but for a moment feeling that edge. (link)

It also smacks of resentment and defeatism (it’s too difficult) as well as making it someone else’s fault.

As “audacity” when misunderstood can also mean “impulsiveness, recklessness, fearlessness, imprudence and insolence” (Oxford Languages), it is well worth sorting out the weeds from the flowers. In other words, if you want to replace ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ with sensible and silly you first need to know what is sensible.

Andrew: My mind was made up this morning, to basically go ahead anyway, warning or not, as I wasn’t talking about licentiousness or “doing whatever I want”, but specifically that all social rule etc, which dictate that I should feel bad now, or should feel “good feelings” now, no longer are ones I will blindly follow. Following that decision, I realised that I could be very specific and look at the beliefs around “pure intent” as described on the AFT. There does seem to be a background of conditioning (perhaps) that specifically prevents me experiencing that.

I am pleased you are sensibly contemplating how best to proceed. I am fascinated to hear what you find out about your beliefs and feelings regarding pure intent. Also be careful to avoid the trap created by ‘me’ to turn actualism into a set of unliveable/ punishing rules designed to keep you in the cage you are intent to leave.

Andrew: It was surprised that I had decided that, minutes before I opened the Forum and saw the discussion here. (link)

Yes, my reply to you stirred up a fruitful discussion about pure intent.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
1274

Andrew: In other news, I now write my journals (again) in reverse. Like Leonardo da Vinci. It cleans up my handwriting and paces my thoughts. For context, since first learnt to write, I was able to write mirror image. Being left handed, it was natural to reverse what I was seeing the teacher do. Apparently, it took a while to convince me that I should write like everyone else. It really made no sense to me at 6 years old why I should do everything backwards because everyone else said so! (link)

Hi Andrew,

I am starting to understand how early your rebellion really started and how it has been your life-long occupation … and perhaps still is.

I am pleased you are writing on the forum in the way everyone can read it, though.

Soon you may fully understand that, and how, pursuing an actual freedom from the human condition, where 8+ billion live, is the most beneficial and enjoyable way of being a true rebel.

To rebel successfully against life being called a ‘vale of tears’ and demonstrating by successful escape that it is not so, is the most wonderful rebellious adventure anyone can undertake. ‘Vineeto’ always called it the best game in town.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
1275

Hi Vineeto,

This was something that I have been considering in the mix of everything else I have been thinking.

I tend to write with some thought when posting publicly, but when doing so privately, it has less consideration. So, I end up using this public forum as a private diary, to leverage my greater sincerity when writing publicly. .

I determined that it was necessary to change that, as reacting to posts, especially yours, is a poor way of proceeding.

One of the things I have noticed over the last while, since recent re-committing to this endeavour, is just how ‘I’ am like a psychedelic trip, without any of the fun visuals! Indeed, most of what is happening isn’t being carefully thought through, or planned. It’s swirling around, with convincing but later on, unconvincing conclusions, with proliferation of theories and such making clarity hard to have.

One habit I have noticed, which I did in my excessively worded unilateral declaration was to tag on an equivalence of ‘my’ subversive nature, with the subversive nature of actual freedom. As if, I am somehow going to achieve this endeavour without changing one of ‘my’ most cherished attributes.

Wild Hail Mary stabs at trying to short cut the method have not worked.

The primary feeling/belief seems to be ‘me’ becoming impatient every time I made even the slightest progress. Which is obviously ridiculous , as I would spend months and years doing very little towards being sincere about progressing into territory where I would have to change.

The cunning is obvious. Make no progress, ‘I’m have zero objection to that, make some progress? All of a sudden ‘I’ am all about saving the world etc!

Funny, if it wasn’t so darn awful being a ‘self’.

Cheers

Andrew

1 Like
1276

Richard: Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself.

(This doesn’t have its own glossary entry? This quote was copied from This Moment of Being Alive, from the link on the first page)

The objection I had for years about this description was this; how can something “stream” from something that is “stillness “?

Something still, by definition, is not streaming.

It just occurred to me why this objection is wrong. Human Consciousness is finite. The infinitude is, infinite!

And perception of the actual by a finite consciousness (the only type there is) will be experienced as streaming,

The other thought, which I never acted on, is; this stillness is the very stuff I am made of. It’s not some distant star streaming pure intent, or a tree, or something outside of this body per se, the proximate location of pure intent as described IS the actual body ‘I’ inhabit.

As to whether consciousness is finite; if ever there was a person who who posthumously correct himself as to an assertion he made, it would be Richard. To my knowledge, no one has received any messages from beyond the grave. Indeed, my own father an I made a pact before he passed, that he would send me a message from the “other side”. Nothing received.

So, back to the topic; pure intent is experienced as a “stream” originating in the “vast and utter stillness” because consciousness is finite.

I am writing this out now, as I am about to go for a motorcycle ride, and I would hate for my last thought, if the worst happened, was “I should have let others know I finally get it!” @rick :joy::wink:

1277

This one is such a wonderful thing to contemplate, I will say that you are making a mistake here though.

The vast and utter stillness of infinitude is not static/inert! The problem is that ‘I’ as ‘self’ project a boundary onto the universe, ‘I’ take it as if it’s a closed system (like a very big container), so then yes if this system is said to be fundamentally still then it therefore must be static/inert at core. Hence the need for a big bang to “get it all going” and of course a very sad “return to nothingness” one day :laughing:

Infinitude (having no edges) is not a closed system, there are no boundaries to the universe. This accounts for the most astonishing state of affairs… The universe is dynamic/active/“alive” and yet it’s essential character is a vast and utter stillness - wow!

This is why - “Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself.”

The stillness of infinitude is not inert, it is “the life giving foundation of all that is apparent”.

1 Like
1278

This is a really silly objection to have for years!

The problem is like trying to describe color to someone who is blind. How can the sky and ice both be blue? How can the ocean have a color but water doesn’t? It makes no sense! (link)

But rather than a birth defect, it’s like there’s a place a person can go to where all of a sudden they will be able to see, and then see for themselves what ice and the ocean and water look like. But then someone objects and says they don’t want to go and see for themselves because they don’t like the descriptions!!

It is resolved simply: just experience it for yourself what is being discussed! And then you can come up with a better way to describe it with your own words.

What I will say is once you do clearly experience it, you will see why the description makes sense :laughing:. But then you will be in a perfect position to explain this to other people who might have the same objection as you.

My shot at it (I never had this objection so I can’t directly relate): the stillness of infinitude refers to the fact that time does not move in actuality. Time exists, but does not move (same as space). Time is the vast, still arena, within which everything happens. Apperceiving this is truly breathtaking and remarkable. The nature of this stillness is that it is perfect – this is also due to the fact that there is nothing ‘outside’ of it, it has no peer, no opposite, hence perfect. And the quality of this perfection is that it is pure. This scintillating purity is intrinsic to the stillness. And this purity is palpable, ever-present, and… it streams! Haha. It does stream. Don’t know how else to put it. It can be apperceived as more or less, it can come in bursts. It has a dynamic quality to it. Actually free people also experience it in varying degrees. So it’s not some inert thing, it is dynamic.

Not sure if it helps, I don’t know ‘why’ it streams per se, just that it does. The sky is blue and so is the pool water, although a cup of water is transparent :laughing:.

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
1279

@kuba @claudiu

He specifically says “stillness”.

@Kub933 , “having no boundaries” is simply an imaginary way to introduce movement.

@claudiu It’s a silly objection not to have investigated, but it’s not a silly thing to point out.

The sky is blue because the blue wavelengths of light are shorter than the red, and are scattered more easily by the atmosphere. Water appears blue because it reflects the sky.

Water is transparent because hydrogen and oxygen are also transparent.

1280

Ha @Andrew … I remember having a very similar confusion in the begining days - If Actualism is that matter is not merely passive then what is this opposite quality of stillness ?

The stillness isn’t as if a surface of a pond is physically seen to be still…I think you may be thinking in terms of lack of motion of materiality…but stillness that Richard spoke about (and can be quite easily known experientially in a PCE) is the lack of movement of the whole universe itself and also the lack of movement of eternal time. The galaxies and stars move about but the universe as a whole isn’t going somewhere.

Richard had these convos in the Audio Taped Dialogues :

R : […] The universe is not expanding – it is already complete. It is incredibly still. The universe is not moving at all. Objects like stars and planets are moving – in relation to each other – but the universe is not. Otherwise one gets into what cosmologists do with their ‘Big Bang’ theory of the edges of the universe receding. And into what the mystics do with their ever-expanding vastness. It amounts to the same thing … and it comes from the self as the centre of all existence.

Whereas the experience of the infinitude of space and time is of an utter stillness. There is no movement.

Q(1): Well, I’ve experienced stillness … or silence.

R: Silence is usually when the mind stops worrying and puzzling away … and the emotions and passion cease agitating and churning. What is that popular song? ‘The Sounds of Silence?’. I have experienced sound as coming out of silence … but one needs to be wary here for it is almost mandatory to go into ‘Movement coming out of Stillness’, ‘Light coming out of Darkness’ … one is starting to get into a ‘Primary Cause’ as in a ‘Creator’. You know: ‘Something comes out of Nothing’ – and all that.

Now, I do not hesitate to say that there is a stillness that is the source of everything. With that statement I wish to convey that infinitude is utterly still; there is no movement at all. There is no ‘rushing’ as in going somewhere – or coming from anywhere. The ‘edges’ of the universe are not ‘rushing’ out into nothingness at the speed of light or whatever.

However, I fail to see how anyone can grasp all this as a concept.

Cheers
Shashank

1 Like
1281

Hi Andrew,

The objections about color I gave were from an actual adult person that had been blind their entire lives. These explanations don’t make sense to them, because they have never seen color. Here is the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59YN8_lg6-U .

The point is that seeing color is experiential, and no amount of intellectual explanations will allow one to see color.

And if you can see color, it doesn’t matter how you describe it, you are still seeing it.

It is silly to harbor this objection for years and not just go ahead and gain the experiential knowledge instead, to resolve it.

Richard’s description of pure intent is apt. However it seems expounding on it has had the result for you to go backwards towards defensive intellectualization. But the intent was rather to encourage you to naively just go and see for yourself! So rather than expound on it again I’ll just leave off with this salient point so it is not diluted again:

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
1282

@Shashank i am reading what he wrote, and indeed your understanding of what he is referring to by using the adjectives “vast and utter” makes sense.

It doesn’t take much thought to realise that an infinite and eternal universe is at rest in relation to itself. Which means, at every single point, it is also “vast and utterly still”.

Richard used this definition repeatedly, so I doubt it is something he was flippant about, considering it is central to the entire discovery.

I would concede being wrong on many other quotes, as he was also writing extemporaneously. Except on this one. If he had meant something else, why would he use the exact same words repeatedly over many years?

That would not be extemporaneous, but deliberate and consistent. That is, words he was happy with describing the central driver of Actual freedom.

1283

@claudiu

I don’t see how you are adding anything useful to the discussion, by adding your “that’s silly “?

How do you see it adding anything useful? Do you imagine that I otherwise didn’t see that it was silly not to have just asked Richard what he meant?

What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? Considering that Vineeto has already provided lots of links to descriptions of pure intent , and that I am working through them, I hardly see what it is you are trying to say with “that’s silly “.

Sure, it’s silly. Well spotted.

1284

Hi Andrew,

The point I’m trying to make is this one:

I’ve double-emphasized (both bold & italics) the point so that you will not be able to say you didn’t see it this time around :slight_smile:

What I am pointing to as being silly is not that you didn’t ask Richard what he meant, but that you didn’t go ahead and just experience pure intent for yourself. Then you will know what is being described, and if you still don’t like Richard’s description, you can come up with your own.

Is your intention while “working through them” to use them as pointers and guidance to then experience pure intent for yourself? Or is it to come across or find a description more palatable to your intellect?

If the former then my posting about this has borne fruit! If the latter then this latest repetition is warranted.

When I see that something I have been doing is silly, it is wonderful, wondrous and rejoicing news. Because my life just got better, in that moment, by seeing I no longer have to do that silly thing. I often react with laughter and amazement at the silliness. Could I/should I have seen it sooner? Well if I could have I would have. It doesn’t really matter, now – I can’t change the past. But now life will be better going forward.

IOW although feeling hurt or resentful or foolish is a natural reaction, it also is, eh… not sensible, lol. It doesn’t benefit anybody and definitely not yourself either (it just prevents you from acting to improve your life). But it’s up to you.

Cheers,
Claudiu

1285

Hi Claudiu,

I am simply reading the information and seeing what comes up.

I had a great ride on the bike and felt a genuine sense of well being.

I will continue to read, and post things which occur to me.

You are free to read those posts, and free to comment.

I can let you know now, ahead of time, that it is redundant to call the fact I haven’t dealt with objections before now as silly.

You can continue to post in response to each of them, if that suits you. If pointing out silliness is what is helping you, feel free.

It doesn’t add anything useful to me, even reading it in bold; “just experience pure intent for yourself” That is the entire goal I am working towards. If your or Richard’s and anyone’s imperative command worked, it would have worked by now.

In other words,if just do it advice works for you, that’s great, It’s not been effective for me.

Cheers
Andrew

1 Like
1286

That is wonderful to hear :appreciation: . It wasn’t clear to me from reading your posts that this was your goal.

With that in mind I’ll go back to your original post that prompted my posts:

Keeping in mind your goal is to experience pure intent, the way you will accomplish that goal isn’t by intellectually reasoning through various descriptions and reconciling it with your current worldview and consolidating it with other descriptions you find until you reach an intellectual understanding that is palatable for you.

My advice would be to set all that aside and just consider, be open to the possibility, that pure intent does exist, actually exist, and that it is something you can experience. Consider that people describe it in different ways, and rather than object to how people put it, just put them aside as a “I’ll keep it in mind” sort of thing.

Then, while feeling good and while being as naive as possible and generally enjoying yourself, read the various descriptions of pure intent that are on the AFT site, and also in particular the various descriptions of PCEs.

Read it with your whole ‘being’, with all of ‘you’. Do not skim through it looking for familiar things. Read each word carefully and fully. And read it with the intention, set beforehand, that you will experience that which is being described! The goal is not to intellectually make sense of the descriptions, but to experience what is being written, for yourself.

I do sincerely think that you will have a high chance of success via doing the above! It’s all about being naive enough to consider that you can do it, that it’s easier than you think, that you could have done it at any point (although it doesn’t matter now that you are only doing it now, no reason to beat yourself up), setting the intention to do it, and then going ahead and giving it your best shot!

Cheers,
Claudiu

1 Like
1287

Thanks Claudiu,

I know you mean well with your posts, but they are not useful to me right now.

Vineeto had already given me plenty to contemplate, and through that I had already seen that it was the most important aspect that I needed to consider; pure intent.

As to things being “palatable to my intellect “, it was exactly the opposite. It wasn’t palatable to ‘me’ to raise these objections and others when I was with Richard and Vineeto in 2017. Instead, I, in Richard’s words (paraphrasing) “You are sitting there ‘yes-ing’’ and ‘amen-ing’ what Vineeto is saying “. That was before he “told me off” in a stern way and gave me the ultimatum which I wrote about years ago.

Both Vineeto and Richard were otherwise at a loss as to why ‘I’ was who ‘I’ was. Richard said “he had never met the particular mix of person I was” (paraphrasing , referring to the extreme religious upbringing I was formed in. They were both however very accommodating having me there, and had I been in a better place to make the most of it, well, things would be very different.

So, as to what is palatable, or useful, or otherwise going to help, reading and understanding what is written on the AFT, is where I will continue for now. Paraphrasing Geoffrey “it’s all just like Richard described “.

I have no ambition to experience pure intent so that I can describe it in my own way. That would be redundant.

Cheers
Andrew

1288

@Andrew He didn’t mean something else because in that second quote from Richard, he did say :

I do not hesitate to say that there is a stillness that is the source of everything.

As to how some “movement” can come out of something still, thats one of the conceptual questions…I remember asking Richard something similar like “If the actual world is of the senses, then which sense organ is perceiving infinitude ?”…to which Richard replied that its apperceptive consciousness !

You asked a very valid conceptual question and I don’t find anything wrong in having such questions…but I’ll just say that certain things aren’t answerable at the conceptual level

and Richard touched upon a similar thing as you’ve asked when he said “Movement coming out of Stillness” in that second quote but in that last sentence he says “I fail to see how anyone can grasp all this as a concept.”

2 Likes