James: Thanks for pressing me on this Vineeto. I hit a wall on pure intent and self-immolation and came to an abrupt halt.
From memory I realized that pure intent is outside of ‘me’ so I can only access it that way. This seems to be where my block is. I need to see that this ‘me’ is not actual. I do know that intellectually but only experience it in a pce.
Hi James,
Have you considered that what you intellectually see “that this ‘me’ is not actual” could very well be the belief which is preventing you from accepting existentially [relating to ‘your’ very existence] that ‘you’ have to die, to disappear in your totality, in order to reach your destiny? One reason I am calling this a belief is that in a PCE the identity is in abeyance and therefore could not experience “that this ‘me’ is not actual”. Richard explained it this way –
Richard: To die means to die (extinct means not exist) … to die does not mean to continue to be in existence and ‘be attent to the totality’. ‘My’ question was: How on earth am ‘I’ to do this?
Co-Respondent: Elaborate this…
Richard: Given that ‘I’ knew, via direct experience, that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection … then the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. So when I asked (as an open question) ‘how do ‘I’ do it?’ the essential character of the perfection of ‘the physical infinitude’ of this material universe was enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. (Richard, List B, No. 34a, 7 June 1999).
As Claudiu so eloquently described he had to fully comprehend that this is “not kid stuff”. Here is again Claudiu’s report from his visit to Geoffrey with additional emphasis –
Claudiu: Basically the way he [Geoffrey] put it is, what will happen in the universe if I physically die? Essentially nothing except this body is dead (most of it will continue as-is). And the point is that the only difference with self-immolating rather than dying, is that there is a body that will continue being conscious (and not fall into a coma or whatever). But for me it will be exactly the same as if the body physically died, no difference whatsoever for me – total extinction. That put the notion to rest that I would continue in any way after self-immolating.
He also really impressed upon me just how significant this is. It’s not kid stuff. It’s not a playground ride or a roller coaster where you get on it then come back and get off and you’re back to where you were. It is a one-way ride with no return ticket. So long as the enormity of it is not grasped – to which fear and dread are a normal response – then it’s still just being on the playground ride.
Only once this is grasped then can the decision be made to take the leap and continue anyway (otherwise you’re just imagining yourself to be on a cliff but you’re really on a flat ground, and you don’t see the edge to jump off of but only think you do). So you have to actually get to the edge of the cliff (seeing the enormity of the extinction) and only then you can decide to jump.
And that decision to jump, self-immolation doesn’t happen right then – it takes a little longer, which is the final, constantly-accelerating, out-from-control process which Geoffrey experienced for about a week. But he said the experience after jumping is one of constantly accelerating, and also no dread afterwards, the dread part (“wall of fear”) only happens before. [Emphasis by me] (link)
In other words, as long as you intend to “disappear the feeling and I am free’ (link) and avoid the existential realisation that ‘self’-immolation is total extinction of everything you think and feel yourself to be, you will continue to “hit a wall on pure intent and self-immolation”. Telling yourself that ‘I’ am just a ‘ghost’ is not, and never will be, a fact for ‘you’.
Andrew put the actualism method in a nutshell –
Andrew: Minimising the malice and sorrow, while maximising the felicity and innocuous, IS minimising the entire ‘self’ automatically. (link)
And here is a more detailed summary to minimise ‘me’ –
Richard: Perhaps the following summary of the way the actualism method works in practice may be of assistance:
1. Activate sincerity so as to make possible a pure intent to bring about peace and harmony sooner rather than later.
2. Set the standard of experiencing, each moment again, as feeling felicitous/ innocuous to whatever degree humanly possible come-what-may.
3. Where felicity/ innocuity is not occurring find out why not.
4. Seeing the silliness at having those felicitous/ innocuous feelings be usurped, by either the negative or positive feelings, for whatever reason that might be automatically restores felicity/ innocuity.
5. Repeated occurrences of the same reason for felicity/ innocuity loss alerts pre-recognition of impending dissipation which enables pre-emption and ensures a more persistent felicity/ innocuity through habituation.
6. Habitual felicity/ innocuity, and its concomitant enjoyment and appreciation, facilitates naïve sensuosity … a consistent state of wide-eyed wonder, amazement, marvel, and delight.
7. That naiveté, in conjunction with felicitous/ innocuous sensuosity, being the nearest a ‘self’ can come to innocence, allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is to operate more and more freely.
8. With this intrinsic benignity and benevolence, which has nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings, freely operating one is the experiencing of what is happening … and the magical fairy-tale-like paradise, which this verdant and azure earth actually is, is sweetly apparent in all its scintillating brilliance.
9. But refrain from possessing it and making it your own … or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared. (Richard, List AF, No. 118, 16 June 2006)
James: I need to see that to access pure intent means to have the intent to access the purity of a pce which is outside of ‘me’.
I do appreciate your guidance.
Correction: I do see and am experiencing now that the way to experience pure intent is to have the intent to access pure intent by remembering the purity of a pce. (link)
Pure intent is not, as may be believed, akin to the ‘Grace of God’ which, if invoked ‘correctly’, will “disappear the feeling and I am free’. (link).
Pure intent, when experienced, can provide the motivation and intention to minimise ‘you’ – i.e. malice and sorrow, compassion and desire – while maximising the felicitous feelings to the point where all of ‘me’ voluntarily and joyfully agree to go into oblivion. This process is experiential, not intellectual.
Respondent: I guess there are no shortcuts.
Richard: What I find telling – and this is a general observation – is just how much peoples object to being happy and harmless … the vast majority of the correspondence in the archives is, in fact, a cutting indictment on the human condition itself.
Do you realise – and this is a personal observation – you have just said, in effect, that you guess you will have to become a happy ‘being’ before you can become actually free from the human condition (as if were there a way to be thus free without having to do so you would not)?
Whereas it is actually such a delight to finally be able to be happy (and harmless) … and a relief. (Richard, AF List, No. 54, 27 Nov 2003).
Cheers Vineeto