Kuba: Ok so I have been skilfully manoeuvring those obstacles (the morning resentments and the evening gloom) and I can see now what has been going on and what is needed to proceed. Effectively it is that the old has to go in order to make way for the new. There is a caveat when one wants to proceed down the wide and wondrous path, which is that ‘I’ will not remain as ‘I’ am. Those obstacles are the outlines of who ‘I’ am, with the various conditional enjoyments and feelings, hence the ebbs and flows.
I can see now that putting the actualism method into practice is essentially what ‘I’ do in order to put ‘my’ money where ‘my’ mouth is with regards to ‘my’ eventual demise. In that how could ‘I’ possibly agree to ‘my’ extinction if ‘I’ am not even willing to abandon those various outlines of who ‘I’ am.
Hi Kuba,
Exactly.
Richard: Feeling-being ‘Peter’ succinctly summed up this modus operandi many years before becoming basically free from the human condition. Viz.:
• ‘Unless one is willing to contemplate being happy and being harmless, virtually free of malice and sorrow, 99% of the time – then forget the whole business. (…) If someone is not willing to make that level of ‘self’-sacrifice then any interest in Actual Freedom would remain a purely cerebral exercise – a useless ‘self’-deception …’. [emphasis added].
(Actual Freedom Homepage)
Kuba: The reason ‘I’ did not break out in the past is that ‘I’ was not even willing to allow the above, so any interest in ‘my’ self-immolation can only be kidding ‘myself’. This is likely why there was such severe resistance from ‘my’ side and trying to push past it would only mount the resistance even higher leading to eventual burnout.
Where pure intent beckons there is not even a shred of the old, and pure intent cannot be “worked into” those outlines of ‘me’, I mean that would be a bastardisation anyways so that’s a good thing. Those outlines of ‘me’ have to be left behind, that is the way to proceed.
Given that pure intent is born out of the PCE it is always the ‘fulcrum’ outside of ‘me’. Viz.:
Alan: To become actually free it is necessary to use something outside of ‘myself’ – ‘I’ cannot eliminate ‘myself’. It does not matter what the “something” is – a caring as near to an actual caring as is possible as an identity can muster, as happened for her and Peter. Doing it for this body, that body and every body is another possibility i.e. not for ‘me’. They likened it to the quote from Archimedes – “give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world” – the “fulcrum” is ‘outside’ of the earth.
Srinath: This second question is more of a confirmation re: whether my understanding is right:
I hit a bit of brick wall when I realised recently that for self-immolation to occur it had to be more than just ‘me’ intending to disappear and jumping into the actuality, I have experienced in PCE’s. It has to involve my really wanting to bridge the separation that exists between myself and others (this and other bodies). So I cannot just ignore feeling caring and sweep it under the carpet like a dirty secret. Awareness of those feelings is crucial for self-immolation to eventually occur. I can ‘dare to care’ rather than dissociate from those feelings. Not wanting to enter an intimate relationship or being afraid of falling in love is a sign of such a dissociation. Eventually I realise the limitations of feeling caring and also realise that if I really care about the person I’m with – and every person alive today, myself included – I will have to give up living in the real world. (Dona and Alan’s report, 1 Oct 2017)
Kuba: Also what I noticed today is that the resistance ‘I’ put up is not to be pushed through, the resistance is when ‘I’ am not in agreement, it does have to be skilfully manoeuvred but I noticed that the wide and wondrous place is not so much past the resistance, it’s more adjacent to it lol. It’s when ‘I’ see the resistance for what it is ‘I’ am back on the wide and wondrous path.
No. The resistance can neither to be “be pushed through” (i.e. ‘me’ forcing ‘me’) nor can it “be skilfully manoeuvred” (‘me’ trying to deceive ‘me’). The result of this skilful manoeuvring is what you described in the post before this –
Kuba: “It appears that I am now in a similar if not the same place to where I was when you began writing on the forum”. (link)
If with the wide and wondrous place you mean the “mirificent flavour of pure intent” then is not “adjacent”, it is outside of the entire real-world paradigm, where your “resistance” originates from. (see ‘fulcrum’ above)
Do you notice that the longer you ruminate, the more you water down the “mirificent flavour of pure intent”?
Here is what I posted to Sonya two days ago about the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom –
Richard: What actualism – the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom – is on about is a ‘virtual freedom’ (which is not to be confused with cyber-space’s ‘virtual reality’) wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to feel good, feel happy and feel perfect for 99% of the time. (Richard, AF List, No. 4, 19 Feb 1999).
Kuba: Essentially one does not go deeper into the woods when lost. (link)
In other words, when in a hole, stop digging.
Cheers Vineeto