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?
1 Like
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 
1 Like
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
- Something ‘dirty’ can get in to actuality (namely ‘me’ as feeling-being). OR
- ‘I’ am not ‘dirty’ after all.
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?
Well we appear to be at an impasse, which impasse is clearly due to our differing experiences.
If I were you all the differences between me and everyone else with success with actualism would be ringing alarm bells!
I don’t see much to say at this point now except to draw your attention again to what you experienced (or almost experienced) with Richard in 2013.
Cheers,
Claudiu
Until now at least, I had no doubt that this was the case, due to Richard’s references to apperception in the absence of PCEs, one of which I interpreted to be this one from the same article:
When the original moment of apperceptiveness is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperceptiveness –a sensuous awareness bereft of feeling content– so that uninterrupted apperception can eventuate.
In a PCE one doesn not use HAIETMOBA (although one could say that then remains the same “non-verbal attitude or a wordless approach to life”, but…)
Well… you could ask him again 
Question
In Vineeto’s report of becoming free I read:
This sweet longing has always propelled me forward to go all the way, to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles and fears and now I had the privilege to experience this sweet intimacy day after day, morning to night.
This experience of ongoing intimacy was so much better than any PCE I ever had, and of course better than any excellence experience I enjoyed because it was dynamic and effervescent, moving closer and closer to my destiny, encouraging me to take the decision to allow the last, final and irrevocable step to happen.
Make no mistake in thinking that it needs a personal contact with Richard in order to take the last step to becoming actually free. What it needs is the unwavering and undiminished intent (100%) to bridge the separation that stands in the way of an actual intimacy with another human being – any human being – and secondly the awareness and intent that what one is doing is not for oneself but for everybody in order for the self-less purity to unfold its magic.
Cheers Vineeto
This experience of ongoing intimacy (can this experience happen with inanimate objects as well ) ??? Did Geoffrey and Srinath and Craig experience this intimacy with another human being ?
I saw without a shadow of a doubt that ‘I’ am the cause of every evil, corruption, dirt… just because ‘I’ am ‘so precious’. How ‘I’ mess everything up for myself and everybody just because ‘I’ am. And not some dissociated ‘I’ with enough quotes not to be me, but me right now thinking this.
That is the awareness that ‘I’ am causing the separation
I went shopping with a friend later that morning. I was much minimised and in a magical world, but could clearly feel my presence there. I was clearly blocking intimacy with my friend and everyone else just by being there, I tried to get rid of ‘me’ somehow but could not do it.
…
It seemed like I was hanging on by a very thin thread that stayed firmly in place. At that point I saw my girlfriend lying on the couch and once again I could see that what was separating us was ‘me’. I went out to the balcony and looked down and saw some people walking. I could see that even though everything was nearly perfect that last little bit of ‘me’ was there separating myself from everyone else on this planet and spoiling perfection. The spoonful that weighed a tonne. ‘I’ would roar back into full existence creating havoc for this body and every body, given half a chance. I had to ‘die’ so that this body and every other body could live peacefully.
Directly after this Srinath becomes free:
I would need to truly die. The enormity of this dawned on me suddenly like it never had before. The enormity of what I had to give up. It took my breath away. Suddenly I felt a twinge of sadness that emerged from me like a thin pungent streak. But it cut-off abruptly as if in mid-air, still-born.
Nothing else happened.
It’s not as clear in @geoffrey’s report but yes the desire/interest for intimacy with other humans does indeed seem to be an essential ingredient
@FrankN If you click the ‘self immolation’ in blue it will take you to a thread that took place a while ago which was discussing this very thing.
1 Like
@rick, if you are looking at a car, that car is an actual thing that exists in the actual world. Your eyeballs, nerves, brain and consciousness are actually doing the experiencing of that car. Still ‘you’ feel like it’s ‘your’ experience even though ‘you’ are blind. ‘You’ have feeling reactions to things that actually exists. ‘You’ are around while an actual car is experienced by the flesh and blood body – although it’s clouded by ‘your’ presence. The lighter ‘your’ presence is the less it will cloud the actual experience. Same with pure intent.
1 Like
this is a very fine point Miguel, very interesting . thanks
Very down to earth and i think applicable( as in practicing of the method) description, solavann. Thanks
@solvann This is nice, actually. I agree with your depiction insofar as I would expect equivalent processes taking place between an identity and a car, as would be taking place between an identity and a “palpable life-force” (aka pure intent), as both are equally actual. One quibble: Richard in no uncertain terms depicts the identity as being conscious; as having the capacity of awareness; basically, the capacity to experience. For one example:
Richard (2012): . . . that ‘over-arching benevolence and benignity’, which the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago experienced and named ‘pure intent’, became immanently accessible . . . . the feeling-being inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago became consciously aware of pure intent . . . .
Mailing List 'D' Respondent No. 17
This is in contrast to your depiction of the identity and its feelings as nothing more than blind reactions incapable of experience; incapable of consciousness; lacking any awareness (completely blind). I don’t wish for us (right now) to get hung up on whether your model is more correct than Richard’s, or whether Richard did or did not mean what he said, or whether he was or was not speaking sloppily, or whether he was or was not speaking metaphorically, or whether you are or are not correctly interpreting his metaphors. I am just pointing out an apparent incongruity between the two depictions, which may or may not become relevant later. That said, I would like to examine your depiction of an identity reacting to the actual world, along with its implications:
Let’s look at it by using yourself as an example (if what follows does not align with your depiction, please advise):
Solvann is a feeling being.
Solvann is inside a body.
The body experiences things.
Solvann can neither perceive nor experience things.
Solvann is blind.
Solvann is a (blind) reaction to things that the body experiences.
Solvann feels like the body’s experiences are his experiences.
Solvann clouds the body’s experience of things.
The less of Solvann there is, the less he clouds the body’s experience.
Scenario:
The body sees a snake.
The body does not (cannot) fear snakes.
Solvann is blind.
Solvann has no awareness of the snake (or of anything for that matter).
Yet when the body sees the snake, Solvann reacts with fear.
Question: How does the body’s experience of the snake cause Solvann to react at all?
Somehow the body’s sensory information must reach Solvann.
Somehow the body’s sensory information must interact in some way with Solvann to produce Solvann’s reaction.
The main point to observe: If Solvann reacts to an actual thing, then the actual thing must somehow reach and make contact with Solvann in order to catalyze Solvann’s reaction. The question is: What is happening at the point of contact? Here is one theory which Richard ascribed to at one time. (Note his description of affect as not only a reaction, but an experience. Which begs the question, who or what is having the affective experience? We will explore that later.)
Richard (2001): The sequence of experience is the sensate experience (sensation) first; the affective experience (feelings) second; the cerebral experience (thought) third. The routing of the nerve signal goes first to the thalamus, whereupon the signal is split into two, with one part going to the amygdala (12-14 milliseconds) which induces an immediate affective reaction and another going to the cortex (25 milliseconds) which induces a thought response. Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 19
In Richard’s (slightly outdated) above depiction, an (actual) signal from the sensory system travels directly to and – after 12-14 milliseconds – makes contact with the regions of the brain where affective reactions are synthesized. In all mammals (minus a handful of humans), there exists at all times a literal (non metaphoric) and physical (actual) connection between the senses (aka that which is “pure”) and the affections (aka that which is “impure”). When neurons within those aforementioned brain regions are stimulated by either organic sensory signals or by electric signals administered in lab settings, there is automatic affective reaction. Incidentally, damage to or manipulation of these brain regions will either induce, reduce, eliminate, or otherwise alter affective reaction accordingly. Indisputably, the synthesis of affections arises from, and is entirely dependent on, the dynamic physical processes of the brain. (It is not a coincidence that a bullet to the head is likewise able to eliminate all identity and feeling.)
Speaking of affective reactions being dependent on/ automatically arising from dynamic physical processes, Richard identified a specific region of the brainstem as the origin of identity/feelings:
Richard (2001): I would suggest the ‘Substantia Nigra’ in or near the top two thirds of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ (sometimes known as the ‘Reticular System’) as being the source of the instinctual self/ the instinctual passions.
Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 55
That little fleshy piece of organic matter then is the source of all the “impurity” in the universe. Ultimately, the universe generated instinctual passions, thus it could rightly be said: Purity generates impurity. Go figure.
Lastly, I am interested in looking more closely at something you wrote:
If the body’s experience of the car is, as you say, clouded (by the presence of self), then the body experiences not only the car, but the cloud. That is, the body experiences the presence of self. Yes? No?