I think that pure intent is the connection to purity (it is the thin place that allows for purity to be experienced by ‘me’) so then saying ‘connecting to pure intent’ is saying, ‘connecting to the connection’
I don’t have any problems with any of this, there is no contradiction
Maybe the most useful way to say it though is like, “I am now experiencing pure intent bc of ‘x’ event
Because it is pure intent that is the connection itself
Think we have a winner 
This makes sense. Using the word “connection” is not intended as a technical description of an interface between the actual world and the real world but the experience of being connected.
Kind of a let down how simple that was 
That is cool, I have read this quote before but reading it just now made me realise this is specifically what I did following that 25 or so minute PCE about 6 months ago.
I remember specifically setting an intent to do this, because the PCE was so stable it seemed like I could find my way back to ‘that’ place easily so as I was coming out of it I specifically focused on ‘unraveling the golden clew’.
Initially the first few months after that PCE were actually very turbulent, like the floodgates were opened up and all sorts of things were experienced deeply and directly for quite a while but it all eventually stabilised.
Yea!
It may still raise the question — in “the experience of being connected”, what exactly is “connected” ?
It seems strange that it’s hard to describe. It’s very evident experientially lol.
I would say it’s not that ‘I’ am connected to the purity … but rather ‘I’ allow the purity to be experienced , existentially (ie not by ‘me’). And then ‘I’ can increasingly rely on that purity , which means ‘I’ don’t have to do all the things I feel I usually have to because the purity takes care of it. ‘I’ don’t need to suppress ‘myself’ with moral injunctions anymore - ‘I’ am free to be exactly how ‘I’ am, rotten through and through, with all ‘my’ ugliness and perversions - and it’s “ok” because the purity makes it safe and ensures ‘I’ won’t direct the body to harm anyone. This allows ‘me’ to see ‘myself’ fully which in turn makes it obvious what must be done … …
Anyway it is strange that “the state of being connected” makes sense as a descriptor but I can’t describe what really is connected. But all that matters is we can convey the experience to each other and to others.
@rick haven’t heard from you since I asked you the $64,000 question :D. Is ‘Rick’ the feeling-being and all of ‘Rick’s feelings pure in the way you are experiencing what you call purity?
I guess if I think about holding a hammer in my hand I am connected to it by the action of my hands grasping. One is connected to pure intent by the action of allowing it to operate each moment over. It is not an intrinsic connection like my arm being connected to my shoulder for example which requires no action to exist, however if my hand stops grasping the hammer drops and the connection is severed.
If I regress back to being normal such as what happened to Devika then the connection to pure intent is also severed.
Not sure why I went for a hammer in this scenario 
The other thing I just realised whilst making this diagram - Depictions of Pure intent is the role that apperception plays in this. It’s really saying what we have already said in a different way… pure intent cannot be experienced via thought or feeling hence it is always outside of ‘me’, and the way pure intent is experienced is apperceptively which is another way of saying that it is an existential experiencing.
Which also speaks to why as ‘I’ get out of the way more pure intent becomes more accessible, because as ‘I’ get out of the way more, apperception can more haply occur as opposed to ‘ordinary perception’ as per my diagram. Yet the connection is always there to an extent, but often it is overshadowed by ‘me’.
I have a hesitation to agree here … it is a terminological one, as Richard has written apperception is binary, it either happens or not, only happens in a PCE.
Apperception refers to the mind’s perception of itself directly… in this sense i agree it only happens in a PCE
I note Vineeto called it a near-apperceptive awareness… maybe that is more appropriate?
Basically I’m not sure I would equate apperceptive awareness with existential awareness… rather id say existential awareness leads to apperceptive awareness. At which point maybe we can day apperceptive awareness is it’s own existential awareness? Lol. I’m not sure one could separate the two at that point.
Experientially… I can see what you’re getting at. But the experience is different outside of aPCE vs inside. Outside is like a hint or clue that the actual world exists. While inside I directly experience the actual world and know directly that it exists
Hmm, how do you interpret this text @claudiu ? :
“In the process of ordinary perception, the apperceptiveness step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept, emotionally recognising the qualia, zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it”
I ask because this is what Richard writes in the ASA article and to me this seems to imply that apperceptiveness is ALWAYS current, even right now as I type these words, however what happens is ‘I’ squander all the attention and as such apperceptiveness is unobservable. But this means it is not binary at all, rather it is always happening. All the contents of the mind happen within apperception, which is why I specifically put the big dotted square in the diagram to show that even ‘I’ happen within that field, it is just that “one has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps”
Aye I never knew how to interpret it. I believe I asked Richard on the yahoo group at one point but he didn’t reply. My experience is that it isn’t always happening yet fleeting. Rather is a binary thing.
Richard also writes elsewhere that the actual world is totally invisible to a feeling-being, which matches my experience too
How would this match with your below experience? There are others you mentioned of similar ilk but this is the first I found.
Essentially the above seems to indicate that the Purity which is Actual is invisible to a feeling being whilst the below seems to indicate that this Purity which is Actual is experienceable even when a feeling being?
I think this might be another ‘can of worms’ that has just opened haha 
I guess apperception is another tricky one just as Pure intent is.
I see it as The purity is the only part of the actual worlds that’s experienceable :D. But the trees the birds the humans , the body I actually am, are not. But pure intent is a hint or a golden thread to follow to that actuality.
You keep waiving that kind of money around 
I’m inclined to oblige you. “Is ‘Rick’ the feeling-being and all of ‘Rick’s feelings pure in the way you are experiencing what you call purity?”
Short answer: From a local perspective, definitely not. From a universal perspective, definitely yes.
If you catch my drift with that, I’m happy to leave it there. If you would like the long answer, I’ve got a draft saved.
Well what I’m trying to determine on your behalf is if you’re experiencing the same thing as the rest of us. You certainly think so, but I am not so sure one way or the other.
When I asked on the feeling/fact thread what you base your conclusions on, ie how you are confident you are right and Richard is wrong, you never answered. But it seems the answer is clear- you base it on this experience of what you call purity.
And on my journal thread when I asked how you can be experiencing the same thing but reach such different conclusions, you said ” I don’t have a good explanation for this.”.
But the most obvious explanation, of course, is that you’re experiencing something else. Different experience forms a different basis for a premise and therefore leads to different conclusions.
By asking you if feelings are also pure in this way, I was seeking to determine if it is the same thing. Because ‘me’ and ‘my’ feelings are certainly NOT pure in the same way pure intent is. Locally they are clearly not… and “globally” they don’t exist lol (they never come into ‘being’ by virtue of the feeler being in abeyance or entirely extirpated).
But you answered both yes and no so there’s nothing definitive.
I’m not interested in a debate back and forth. But rather to help elucidate whence the differences.
Now a possible edge in is that you said that feelings are NOT pure, “locally”, while presumably the purity obviously is.
Doesn’t this strike you then as feelings being of a different nature than the purity? And don’t you see how the actual world (as experienced in a PCE) is of the same quality as that purity (and not of the same quality as feelings?)
And if everything in the actual world is pure, and the purity you experience is pure, but feelings are not / the experience of feelings is not… … … then doesn’t it start to come together how one category might be said to actually exist while the other does not?
Different insofar as the local (the relative) can be differentiated from the universal (the absolute).
Hope this makes it clear. While a chemist may recognize an impurity in a substance, the universe does not. Both the chemist and the universe are correct.
OK so I read over the ASA - Attentiveness And Sensuousness And Apperceptiveness to clarify the whole apperception thing, these are the bits which I found that are relevant :
Apperceptiveness is a word describing a condition which happens of its own accord and attentiveness depicts an activity that one vitalises with remarkable verve and vivacity which activates the quality that the word sensuousness specifies.
The word apperceptiveness denotes a pre-identification integrity
When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia
This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment … in a word: apperceptiveness.
In the process of ordinary perception, the apperceptiveness step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps:
Apperceptiveness is the immediate sensitive discernment of whatever is happening without the medium of feeling – it comes before the feeling-tones in the perceptual process
The main thing these seem to be pointing to is the fact that apperception is not an activity that could be started or stopped but rather a fundamental mechanism of perception. However in normal perception the overwhelming part of the focus is on ‘me’, when ‘I’ go into abeyance apperception is automatically experienced because that mechanism has been ‘live’ the whole time, this is why it is always a seamless transition.
Pure intent is actual and as such it cannot be experienced via thoughts or feelings. My question is, if it is not apperception that allows the experience of Pure intent then through which other mechanism could it be experienced?
Also maybe its worth splitting the topic? that’s if you are interested in pursing this further
Hmm that’s not the same because that is a value judgment on the part of a human.
It’s not a value judgment that ‘me’ as feeling being along with ‘my’ feelings are not pure - it is a property of the feelings themselves, that is readily ascertained experientially.
What you seem to be saying is that as you experience it, feelings are the same as any other substance in the universe , ie ultimately pure (absent ‘local’ human judgment), actually existing, of the same quality as anything else. And what this tells me is that the purity you are experiencing is not the purity that is reported here and on the AFT site. It is just another ultimately self-centered projection that is keeping you within the human condition, very cunningly perpetuating ‘your’ illusory existence.
At least this is the best I can come up with absent another explanation of why you’re experiencing the same thing but reaching such different conclusions.
And there’s nothing ultimately ‘wrong’ with that haha. The universe is perfect regardless. It’s just that you miss out on it - and possibly mislead others with your confidence.
If you take a moment to just think – really think – about what you just wrote, then this entire topic that @solvann initiated may become bleeding obvious. To wit, what kind of non-existent thing has “properties”?
Non existent things cannot connect to existent things. Non existent things cannot experience existent things. It makes absolutely no sense. Only existent things connect to existent things, and only existent things can experience existent things. That’s the answer to this entire thread. Simple.
Indeed thats why as has been described here it’s more that the non-existent thing allows the existent thing to be experienced , rather than forming an actual connection per se.
Aye that is why, as it has been reported by many, pure intent is not/cannot experienced via feelings.
It makes perfect sense what the experience of pure intent is like. It has proven tricky to talk about. But I think we ultimately did a good job here.
But it might make no sense without having that experience as a referent … which is evidently what is happening here.
IF feeling-beings did actually exist and could actually connect to the purity , that would either mean that
Neither of which are the case.
You can have all the strongest conviction in the world that feeling-being ‘Rick’ actually exists … yet that won’t make it so. Why not just allow yourself to see ‘your’ true nature ? It is such a relief afterwards … it is only scary leading up to it.
Such a thing would require pure intent though, and, as you already think you’re experiencing it you therefore won’t be looking for it… … which leaves you at a bit of a dead end.
One possible way out for you is to recall something Richard wrote to you on May 28, 2013:
Is the purity you are experiencing now that very same purity that you were experiencing as stopping at Richard’s shirt that afternoon?
Oh dear. Claudiu, you are a feeling being, are you not? You experience pure intent, do you not?