Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
Thank you for your post, there is a lot to untangle here as it seems I am indeed re-orienting myself, I will probably answer in multiple parts. I will start with the below as this seems potentially very important :Vineeto: I can recommend to rememorate the flavour of your last outstanding PCE (not the interpretation the ‘controller’ inserted afterwards) and freshly connect to the genuine pure intent. Then daring to care and caring to dare is eminently possible.
Kuba: So when I wrote the below last evening:
What I am experiencing this evening is that the “enticement” which pure intent offers is irresistible, it makes all ‘my’ heroic efforts unnecessary.
I am very very confident that what I was experiencing was genuine pure intent. Because what I experienced matched exactly the description of – “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”.
Hi Kuba,
I appreciate your clarification and I am glad that you are confident to genuinely experience pure intent.
My suggestion simply derived from there hardly being any caring for your fellow human beings in your last post, let alone any sign of altruistic intent for the benefit of every body, and I couldn’t understand this lack whilst pure intent is operating.
Perhaps you know?
Kuba: Now I will contrast the above description with Srinath’s explanation on the simple actualism page :
If one thinks of the actual universe as a magical, benevolent, alive (but non-sentient), glorious, scintillating and infinite thing – then pure intent is our human experience of all of this: our connection to this radiant dimension of the universe. But as feeling beings we are many times removed from this purity
I remember there was a time on this forum when the words pure intent were replaced with purity. That instead of establishing a connection to pure intent one would connect with purity. I went along with this which I now see as a bastardised version of what pure intent actually is. What I confirmed yesterday is that indeed connecting with “purity” is missing the very key aspect of the “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity”. I was blown away when I experienced it last night, it was sweet, it was irresistibly enticing, it was impossible not to care, it was something that could easily pull ‘me’ all the way to ‘my’ demise without a shred of resistance.
Whereas this whole “connecting to purity” I see more as something along the lines of allowing sensuousness. Because when sensuousness is happening there is very much this aspect of the world being like this perfect and pure jewel, and yet that is not pure intent – “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”.
Before the qualitative shift took place last year it would be more correct to say that I was allowing purity over and over, I was not allowing pure intent over and over, I was not allowing the “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” to be dynamically operative - certainly what I experienced last night, I was not allowing that over and over.
It seems Claudiu had it from the start around the time of the rift thread, this “sandpit actualism” is not the genuine article as described on the AFT. And what a damaging influence these bastardisations can have! (link)
I appreciate your elucidating explanation how the word “purity” instead of “pure intent” has temporarily derailed your practice and possibly that of others. Perhaps it’s time that a moderator puts a visible warning notice on “Simple Actualism” or at least on the specific misleading articles. I never read them.
Cheers Vineeto