So this morning I had an interesting experience, I will write it down here so that I don’t do with it what I usually do. I was having a cigarette in the garden and slowly waking up. There was the experience that I was here, solidly in the garden and no place else. This was contrasted with where ‘I’ usually am, which is in the cinema room of ‘my’ projections. It was this contrast that stood out, that ‘I’ am never ever here, ‘I’ am watching the movie of ‘my’ life somewhere inside the psyche. ‘I’ am watching those various images flash on the screen, this is ‘my’ life. And now those images where as if wiped off and there was the awareness of being here. This was fascinating in itself, that this is what ‘my’ life amounts to in the end, images flashing on the screen of ‘my’ psyche, no wonder ‘I’ suffer, ‘I’ can never ever be here where all is genuine. The flesh and blood body called Kuba has nothing to do with that ‘cinema room’, he is here where this moment is happening.
This I could see clearly, that ‘my’ life in the ‘cinema room’ is essentially a different dimension to where this body exists.
In light of this experience I can see what Richard wrote that it is relief unimaginable to be released from ‘me’, to finally be genuine - this was the flavour of the seeing.
So now that the experience is over, ‘I’ am back to ‘my cinema room’ and yet ‘I’ remember that there is a genuine world where this flesh and blood body exists and that it would be relief unimaginable for this flesh and blood body to live where all is genuine and for ‘me’ to no longer live ‘my’ life.
So in terms of what use this experience has… ‘I’ cannot make it ‘mine’ as ‘I’ was seen to be living essentially a parallel life ‘some place else’. Perhaps there is the intent, seeing that “unimaginable relief” aspect, that ‘my’ self-immolation releases this body from ‘my’ bondage and ‘me’ from ‘my’ burden.
But it is the “in the meantime aspect” where ‘I’ usually trip up, because that experience is over now, and it was only a temporary seeing. So how can ‘I’ imitate (to the extent that ‘I’ can as a feeling being) that which was seen. It seems what you have suggested Vineeto, to put everything on a “it doesn’t really matter” basis is the sensible next step, in fact it is probably a step which should have been taken a long time ago. I never considered properly the fact that Richard did this as one of the first things. But there is no way to be a part time actualist, certainly not if the goal is to go all the way.
Actually there is something else here, about the imitation aspect. Because in the experience both ‘me’ and ‘my’ resistance are of no concern, because it is a different world altogether. Whereas when ‘I’ am back behind the throne all of a sudden ‘my’ resistance has ‘weight’ to it again. So it seems this is where I trip up with the in the meantime aspect, is it simply a question of putting some effort in? 
Hmm there is a 3rd option which I have not considered before, and this might be it. That the experience itself is a mirage, because it was not a PCE, there was not that magical aspect there. Could the thing itself be a diversion then. Perhaps the sensible way to proceed is that if pure intent is not squarely experienced then the experience itself should have a big question mark over it.
This seems to be the case, because there was that morning resentment, a heaviness of the day ahead, and so ‘I’ must have created a mirage to escape the feeling. Well at least it’s good I am beginning to catch onto this. It’s a little like what Richard discussed with the lady in the PCE DVD, that there was pain and ‘she’ went into an ASC in order to escape the pain.
So those experiences preceded by good/bad feelings these can be contaminated. That is for sure a very important reason to apply the method in the meantime! Any potential glimpse of actuality should come from felicity and innocuity rather than desperation / aggrandisement.