Kub933's Journal

Journals
2196

Hi Vineeto,

Reading your reply 1 word comes to mind - narcissism. I was doing some reading on pure intent on the AFT website yesterday and under related correspondence there was some old correspondence between me and you. I can’t tell you the cringe that I experienced reading it, because I could see that narcissism in those words written by me.

And now your reply has highlighted exactly that this is what I have been ‘being’, I haven’t seen this part of how ‘I’ tick before, not this clearly/totally anyways. Of course all ‘beings’ are narcissistic by nature (and thus susceptible to self-aggrandisement), whether this is more in me (for whatever reason), perhaps, mainly though I now acknowledge that this is indeed how ‘I’ tick. Actually the various components of ‘my’ persona I can see how they all coagulated under this intrinsic narcissism. And it also makes it clear why ‘I’ as the ‘controller’ always return, ‘I’ return to claim ‘my’ credit, to feed back into the story that is ‘me’ etc. It also makes it clear why ‘I’ am not willing to maintain a connection to pure intent, because with that narcissism ‘I’ am looking for something that circles right back to ‘me’, in one way or another.

So I know I haven’t addressed any of your points directly, but it is just that I have never seen this overarching narcissism so clearly. And at this point it is a fork in the road, that there is no more progress possible whilst ‘I’ am harbouring this narcissism, only going round in circles.

4 Likes
2197

Thanks for this Kub. I have been judgmental toward you in the past because of my perceived narcissism about you. It is easier to see this in others but not in myself.

I did address this to you once before by referring to it as you having a big ‘I’.

I am not aware of any narcissism in myself currently although I’m sure others could point it out to me.

1 Like
2198

Hmm, as an expert on cringe, and will definitely wake up tomorrow and say “why? Why did I post?” It’s not really narcissism that holds us back. That’s really just normal “selfing”.

Richard wrote about it being a type of megalomania needed to really go all the way. The abandon of not being ashamed anymore. The naked and unbridled going for it, in the sense of “who am to say all the saints and saviours are wrong?!”

One thing that has always puzzled me is why “altruism “ was named as a necessity, when none of the reports ever had an overall theme of it.

Richard just found it curious that after weeks of wondering why he was putting of vibes that someone would want to be his disciple, he was out planting trees that he had otherwise cut down in his youth.

No moment of “altruism “.

Peter, just wondering what it would be like in Richard’s world of “people, places, and events”.

No altruistic words recorded.

Vineeto, who can check for us, had no thoughts of altruism. Her report was “sweeping the cobwebs out” and going for it.

Only Craig and Srinath had anything close to such a report. Craig saw that it was ‘he’ making trouble at work.

Srinath saw that ‘he’ could “roar back into life and wreak havoc “.

I think that your best bet is just stop posting, and do your own thing. Narcissism is just normal people stuff. Cringe is just normal.

I know you can go all the way. You do as well.

Andrew
2199

Kuba: Hi Vineeto,

Reading your reply 1 word comes to mind – narcissism. I was doing some reading on pure intent on the AFT website yesterday and under related correspondence there was some old correspondence between me and you. I can’t tell you the cringe that I experienced reading it, because I could see that narcissism in those words written by me.
And now your reply has highlighted exactly that this is what I have been ‘being’, I haven’t seen this part of how ‘I’ tick before, not this clearly/ totally anyways. Of course, all ‘beings’ are narcissistic by nature (and thus susceptible to self-aggrandisement), whether this is more in me (for whatever reason), perhaps, mainly though I now acknowledge that this is indeed how ‘I’ tick. Actually the various components of ‘my’ persona I can see how they all coagulated under this intrinsic narcissism. And it also makes it clear why ‘I’ as the ‘controller’ always return, ‘I’ return to claim ‘my’ credit, to feed back into the story that is ‘me’ etc. It also makes it clear why ‘I’ am not willing to maintain a connection to pure intent, because with that narcissism ‘I’ am looking for something that circles right back to ‘me’, in one way or another.

Hi Kuba,

It is an excellent discovery of a persistent pattern and great that it explains to you “why ‘I’ as the ‘controller’ always return”. It informs you where to focus your attention on in order to dissolve this pattern.

I had attributed your delaying tactics rather to a large dose of self-centredness –

Alan: As we have previously discussed, ‘my’ desire to savour the purity and perfection is not sufficient motivation for ‘my’ extinction.
Richard: Aye … that is self-centredness operating. (Richard, AF List, Alan-a, 31 Aug 1999)
*
Alan: Am ‘I’ really willing to sacrifice ‘my’ self to allow this to happen?
Richard: The question that the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body back in 1981 asked was: ‘what am I saving myself for’? (Richard, AF List, Alan-b, 13 Dec 1999)

Here is the dictionary definition so that you can confirm if that description fits –

Narcissism: [from Latin: Narcissus; from Greek: Narkissos: a youth in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own reflection in water and pined away]: self-love, extreme vanity; (psychological): emotional or erotic gratification gained from contemplation of one’s self or one’s appearance; (noun): narcissist: a person affected or characterized by narcissism; an excessively self-admiring person. (Copyright © 1998 Oxford Dictionary).

You also once said you were a Messiah-archetype (link), perhaps that goes in the same direction of excessive self-importance. The reason I said “It is fortunate you avoided a more serious condition with this scheme of ‘self’-exaltation” is because you have invented/ created a new-to-me version of how to apparently proceed in actualism while ensuring that success will never happen and ‘I’ can stay in situ. The extreme form of empowering the ‘controller’ this way when allowing your ‘being’ operating without pure intent is an ASC or a permanent ASC. It is not a fate I would wish on anyone and the outcome is indeed narcissism reigning supreme.

Kuba: So I know I haven’t addressed any of your points directly, but it is just that I have never seen this overarching narcissism so clearly. And at this point it is a fork in the road, that there is no more progress possible whilst ‘I’ am harbouring this narcissism, only going round in circles. (link)

The ‘normal’ reaction would be to castigate oneself or feel remorseful, trying to purify one’s ‘self’ and thus disperse all the affective energy arising from this perspicuous insight (and shock) that narcissism is overly developed in your modus operandi. Instead you can use this very insight, and its accompanying affective energy, to turn around your modus operandi and finally and sincerely invite pure intent into your life. Then, as Geoffrey said, “the door is as wide as the universe”. (link)

Respondent: Can an insight, one moment of insight, have an effect here? Does this not call for something that is from moment to moment, ongoing.
Richard: Yes, indeed it can. One fundamental moment of insight can alter the entire course of one’s life wherein becoming free of the Human Condition is no longer a matter of choice – it is an irresistible pull. And, yes, then there is something that is from moment to moment, ongoing. I choose to call this something: ‘Pure Intent’. Pure intent is a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of this physical universe. One can bring about a benediction from that perfection and purity, which is the essential character of the universe, by contacting and cultivating one’s original state of naiveté. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that is the nearest approximation that one can have of actual innocence – there is no innocence so long as there is a self – and constant awareness of naive intimacy results in a continuing benediction. This blessing allows a connection to be made between oneself and the perfection and purity.
This connection is what I call pure intent. Pure intent endows one with the ability to operate and function safely in society without the incumbent social identity with its ever-vigilant conscience. Thus reliably rendered virtually innocent and relatively harmless by the benefaction of the perfection and purity, one can begin to dismantle the now-redundant social identity. Pure intent is not to be confused with being a ‘do-gooder’, or being full of ‘righteousness’, or being ‘moralistic’. Pure intent is the quality that encompasses what morals and ethics aspire to but never reach. ‘Good’ fails to reach its desired goal because it opposes ‘Bad’ … the fight between Good and Evil has raged for centuries. Pure intent enables one to be liberated from both Good and Evil. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 20, 17 Feb 1998).

The other reason I suggest not to castigate yourself is because ‘I’/‘me’ am the best ally there is in this pioneering enterprise –

Richard: Because ‘you’ as ego/soul are your own ally – if and/or when ‘you’ choose for peace-on-earth – and ‘you’ will happily, cheerfully and altruistically co-operate by jumping in boots and all for the good of ‘your’ body and every body … and thus going out in a ‘self’-sacrificial blaze of glory. This is because such a noble ‘self’-immolation is what makes ‘your’ petty life worthwhile … such a magnanimous ushering-in of the already always existing peace-on-earth is ‘your’ crowning achievement.
The way to peace is not through war. (Richard, List C, No. 3d, 13 Apr 2000)

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
2200

Andrew to Kuba: Hmm, as an expert on cringe, and will definitely wake up tomorrow and say “why? Why did I post?” It’s not really narcissism that holds us back. That’s really just normal “selfing”.

Hi Andrew,

So Kuba’s post (link) was a bit too close to the bone for you, was it? You had to step in and offer sympathy, saving a fellow-identity from taking the ultimate step by giving him disinformation regarding altruism and pull ‘him’ back to the shallow end of the pool where ‘you’ reside, albeit cringing.

Perhaps some relevant quotes from the AFT can fill the significant gaps in your understanding about altruism –

Richard: … I was just making the point that, although it is hypothetically correct that the elimination of the instinctual passions would be the elimination of ‘I’/‘me’, it does not work that way in practice (for reasons such as already explained). Not only is it dangerous it is an impossibility … only altruistic ‘self’-immolation will do the trick.
James: You are making a distinction between ‘I/me’ eliminating itself and it being done altruistically.
Richard: No, I am more making the point that only altruism – self-sacrificial humanitarianism – will provide the enormous energy necessary for ‘self’-immolation … the instinct for individual survival is only exceeded by the instinct for group survival.
It takes a powerful instinct to overcome a powerful instinct.
James: I can’t readily see how this can be done altruistically without it still being done by the ‘I/me’.
Richard: Indeed not … it is just that, at root, altruism is a more powerful instinct than narcissism.
James: I can pretend that I am doing it unselfishly but I don’t see how I can truthfully even start the process altruistically.
Richard: As it is ‘me’ who desires peace it can hardly be called an unselfish desire … thus no pretence is necessary.
James: Ok, it might be possible by seeing that I am doing it for this body and everybody but I am really doing it for ‘I/me’ at least in the beginning.
Richard: When ‘I’ see that ‘I’ am as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone else instinctually driven it is actually impossible to say that ‘I’ am doing it for ‘me’ alone … the repercussions of such an event are vast beyond belief. (Richard, List B, James3, 28 Oct 2002a)

-

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?
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. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 34a, 7 June 1999).

-

Richard: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race … then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh? (Richard, List B, No. 12g, 19 June 2000a)

There is more, which you can find in Richard’s selected correspondence on altruism.

Andrew: Richard wrote about it being a type of megalomania needed to really go all the way. The abandon of not being ashamed anymore. The naked and unbridled going for it, in the sense of “who am to say all the saints and saviours are wrong?!”

Before you advise yourself or anyone else of “not being ashamed anymore” please note that this was only done, and can only be done safely, with the utterly fundamental proviso that pure intent be dedicatorily in place – as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else. Besides, it was not “a type of megalomania” but the utmost confidence in the evidence of the PCE and the pure intent derived from that. He did describe being enlightened as a megalomaniacal state of being but emphasised again and again that nobody should follow in his footsteps in that regard.

Andrew: One thing that has always puzzled me is why “altruism” was named as a necessity, when none of the reports ever had an overall theme of it.
Richard just found it curious that after weeks of wondering why he was putting of vibes that someone would want to be his disciple, he was out planting trees that he had otherwise cut down in his youth.
No moment of “altruism”.
Peter, just wondering what it would be like in Richard’s world of “people, places, and events”.
No altruistic words recorded.
Vineeto, who can check for us, had no thoughts of altruism. Her report was “sweeping the cobwebs out” and going for it.
Only Craig and Srinath had anything close to such a report. Craig saw that it was ‘he’ making trouble at work.
Srinath saw that ‘he’ could “roar back into life and wreak havoc”.

Your summary of the way an actual freedom eventuates – watered-down beyond recognition into a sequence of apparent trivialities – reads very similar to what you opined 13 years ago –

Andrew, June 25, 2013: “(…) if ‘hippy’ ideals are the bulk of ones knowledge base, your freedom will look quite ‘hippy’. Nothing wrong with that, but it won’t be everyone’s cup of chai. You[r] historical statement essentially *reads to me like a failed hippy experiment*. So what?. I bet Richard has stubbed his toe and misplaced his shorts now and then as well…”. [emphasis added].

Andrew: I think that your best bet is just stop posting, and do your own thing. Narcissism is just normal people stuff. Cringe is just normal. I know you can go all the way. You do as well. (link)

I am curious, are you intending to spend the rest of your life the way you are because it’s “just normal people stuff” like narcissism and self-centricity and having a “cringe” is being “just normal”, without ever contemplating that there is a far superior way to live life and how to imitate the actual?

This kind of palliative advice and attitude is exactly what keeps humanity enthralled in misery and mayhem.

To explain, in case you missed it – when one fellow human being has the perspicacity and courage to recognize the utter rottenness of ‘me’ at the core of my ‘being’, which perspicacity can give him the necessary courage to ‘self’-immolate, and then you step in consolingly saying it’s “just normal selfing”, don’t worry but “you can go all the way” – isn’t that smothering the very intent to do something about the rotten human condition in oneself?

Now, where do you suppose the impetus and intent arises from to agree to ‘my’ irrevocable demise if not from the experiential understanding that ‘I’ am rotten to the core? Especially as you depicted an actual freedom just accidentally occurring and neither Richard nor Peter and Vineeto had supposedly ever any intention of doing something for the benefit of this body, that body and everybody? It just happened by accident?

If becoming actually free was such a minor accidental event, why do you think Richard wrote this –

Richard: Thus I find myself here, in the world as-it-is. A vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity. Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions, imbuing everything with unimaginable fairytale-like quality. For me to be able to be here at all is a blessing that only ‘I’ could grant, because nobody else could do it for me. I am full of admiration for the ‘me’ that dared to do such a thing. I owe all that I experience now to ‘me’. I salute ‘my’ audacity. And what an adventure it was … and still is.
These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite nature of life – who would have it any other way? [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 31, 7 Mar 1998).

If Richard had listened to your kind of advice that it’s “really just normal selfing”, ‘he’ would have never discovered an actual freedom, the Actual Freedom website would not exist nor would you be able to post on this forum.

Also, how do you know that “it’s not really narcissism [i.e. selfism] that holds us back”? Do you know experientially what it is that holds you back from starting the process of freeing yourself from the human condition? When you say to Kuba “I know you can go all the way”, what is your experiential suggestion how one should proceed apart from “just stop posting, and do your own thing”? Can you vouch for the success of your advice from your own experience? By having removed altruism from the process of becoming actually free you really have nothing left to offer.

No wonder you cringe when you write this stuff.

Cheers Vineeto

4 Likes
2201

Hi Vineeto,

Thank you for your replies and your invaluable assistance throughout. This insight has taken the legs out from underneath ‘me’. It’s essentially arriving at the undeniable recognition that all ‘I’ have ever done in ‘my’ life is to go around with a microphone and shout ‘Me’, ‘Me’, ‘Me’ at each and every situation and circumstance.

You know actually I experienced no castigation or shame when writing about it, I thought at first “well that is the very narcissism in operation”, but it doesn’t appear so. It was just such a thorough seeing that action was the only response possible.

When I cringed reading that past correspondence it was because I could see ‘me’ supposedly describing a journey of a self-diminishing inclination and eventual altruistic self-sacrifice, and yet under the words it was ‘Me’, ‘Me’, ‘Me’.

And this seeing has been working away, the recognition that it was never the lack of perfection which was the problem, the problem has always been ‘me’.

4 Likes
2202

Hi Kuba,

You are very welcome and I am pleased to read that “this insight has taken the legs out from underneath ‘me’”. It was obviously so engrained and inveterate that only a ‘thunderbolt’ insight allowed you to finally recognize it.

What was the action which was “the only response possible”?

Kuba: When I cringed reading that past correspondence it was because I could see ‘me’ supposedly describing a journey of a self-diminishing inclination and eventual altruistic self-sacrifice, and yet under the words it was ‘Me’, ‘Me’, ‘Me’.

Ha, the way you put this sentence together is quite humorous. May it have wide-ranging repercussions.

Kuba: And this seeing has been working away, the recognition that it was never the lack of perfection which was the problem, the problem has always been ‘me’. (link)

It seems that your connection to pure intent, after perhaps having been relegated to mere lip-service through a period of obfuscation and prevarication is now fully alive again, and you can focus on the relevant question of what is preventing ‘me’ from agreeing to ‘my’ abdication.

Cheers Vineeto

1 Like
2203

Hi Vineeto,

I think action might not be the best word, I just couldn’t find any other word to fit though. It was that ‘I’ couldn’t squirm away from the seeing, which the “squirming away” could exactly take the form of castigation or shame, or any other way to direct attention away from this seeing working it’s way through ‘me’.

So I guess the ‘action’ was for ‘me’ to stand still (psychically) and look at this thing square on, and to allow the ramifications of it to rock through ‘my’ being. This was the only recourse possible in ‘my’ consciousness, and it happened automatically.

Indeed the ‘normal’ way to deal with a situation like this is to waste the potential of such a seeing by directing ‘my’ affective energy into essentially a way to regain ‘my’ grace, that cycle of shame and repentance, which it has no benefit at all with regards to bringing an end to the human condition. That cycle keeps ‘me’ alive.

I guess I could also say that the ‘action’ is the knowing that ‘I’ am simply not prepared to continue walking down that path (as it is a rotten path), no matter the ramifications for ‘me’.

Yes I think I am still swallowing that previous bite, as it was a big one! :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: But that is the question ineed - What is preventing ‘me’ from agreeing to ‘my’ abdication.

3 Likes
2204

Actually I like the way Richard put it better - Just what am ‘I’ saving ‘myself’ for?

2 Likes
2205

Hi Kuba,

Thank you for the clarification – the reason I asked because there is a difference between realisation, no matter how fundamental and breath-taking it is, and actualisation –

Richard: Generally speaking a realisation is an understanding of something previously not cognised and an actualisation is the putting of that comprehension into action … as in acting upon that cognisance so that it is experiential and not only intellectual. (Sundry, FAQ, Difference between Realisation and Actualisation)

Richard: My experience with the peoples who have chosen to give felicity/ innocuity a go is, as a generalisation, that the necessary paradigm shift has usually been a gradual process of comprehension – not necessarily an instantaneous shift – and which paradigmatical change commences because of that choice … and that choice mainly comes after a gestation period (which itself follows intelligent appraisal/ thoughtful consideration).
And, by way of personal example, I need only point to the six-month incubation period (in 1980) already mentioned. (Richard, AF List, No. 60g, 30 Oct 2005b)

Here is an example of my own most profound realisation and eventual actualisation –

Richard: Hence it came to pass one fine evening that feeling-being ‘Vineeto’ realised, with a profound visceral impact, how ‘she’ had never actually cared – although ‘she’ certainly felt caring (in fact ‘she’ had a deeply-ingrained and ongoing feeling of caring about all the misery and mayhem) – and upon that realisation transforming itself into an actualisation (as per the intimacy-yearning process detailed in the ‘Direct Route Mail-Out, James’ email part-quoted at the top of this page) it activated “a caring which is as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster” and there was indeed action which was not of ‘her’ doing … to wit: the ending of ‘her’ and all ‘her’ subterfuge and trickery (just to stay in keeping with the above wording purely for effect). (Richard, List D, Srinath2, 6 Aug 2016).

-

Vineeto: It seems that your connection to pure intent, after perhaps having been relegated to mere lip-service through a period of obfuscation and prevarication is now fully alive again, and you can focus on the relevant question of what is preventing ‘me’ from agreeing to ‘my’ abdication.

Kuba: Yes I think I am still swallowing that previous bite, as it was a big one! But that is the question indeed – What is preventing ‘me’ from agreeing to ‘my’ abdication. (link)

Kuba [Addendum]: Actually I like the way Richard put it better – Just what am ‘I’ saving ‘myself’ for? (link)

This morning I came across a snippet from P.G. Woodhouse (a prolific English author and 20th-century humourist, best known for creating the witty valet Jeeves and the bumbling Bertie Wooster – Britannica) where he whimsically describes a moment of life in the real world of those pathematically inclined –

“The proprietor of the grocery store on the corner was bidding a silent farewell to a tomato which even he, though a dauntless optimist, had been compelled to recognise as having outlived its utility. (pg. 26). (…)
“How’s business, Bill?” she called to him, as she passed the spot where he stood brooding on the mortality of tomatoes. And, though he replied ‘Rotten”, a faint, grim smile did nevertheless flicker across his tragic mask. (P.G. Woodhouse, A Damsel in Distress, pg. 30).

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
2206

Kuba: Yes I think I am still swallowing that previous bite, as it was a big one! But that is the question indeed – What is preventing ‘me’ from agreeing to ‘my’ abdication. (link)

Hi Kuba,

I am reading this sentence again and I am wondering why you would want to “swallow” this “big one” – which is the insight that you are “narcissism”, and that “under the words it was ‘Me’, ‘Me’, ‘Me’”. Wouldn’t it be more sensible to not look at it from the identity’s point of view (integrate this into your identity /swallow it, i.e. make ‘him stronger because ‘he’ could handle such a crisis) but rather see it from the perspective of what you are aiming for, and celebrate that you can safely and felicitously /innocuously leave behind this particular chunk of ‘my’ ‘self”-importance and be naïve instead?

Kuba [Addendum]: Actually I like the way Richard put it better – Just what am ‘I’ saving ‘myself’ for? (link)

Something to imbibe whilst you are contemplating (either fascinatedly, theoretically or imaginary) what is to happen next –

Peter: ‘This all-consuming experience of sweetness[1] lasted perhaps less than a minute but this precursor left me with the utter confidence to proceed further into the actual world (…). The following evening, I found myself back on my couch, leaning across the little table that separated us, explaining to Richard that I experienced him as being on the other side of a veil – with only his face bulging through as it were. As was I explaining this to him, I was waving my hand in front of my face so as to illustrate the veil and I happened to look down at the table in front of me. On the woven table mat my attention was drawn to a dark blue plastic cigarette lighter, an empty glass, a tobacco pouch and other sundry items. All of a sudden, Richard’s phrase ‘the actual world of people, things and events’ came to mind and I found myself acknowledging that the things on the table existed in actuality, i.e. did in fact actually exist, and this being the case, here I was waving my hand in front of ‘people’, in this case Richard, saying that I experienced him as if behind a veil, i.e. not actually existing. It took only a few more seconds of switching my attention from the things on the table and my waving hand for the whole illusion of a separating veil to collapse – along with my illusory self-centred identity as I was gradually becoming aware of.

The whole experience was like **a seamless transition between two worlds – from being a feeling being trapped within an illusionary all-encompassing self-created and sustained bubble to being here in the actual world. There was no dramatic end for ‘me’, no death-like traumatic experience, no prior psychic events or escapades, no ‘wall of fear’, no ‘abyss’ – rather there was a profound experience of sweetness, a ready acknowledgement of my destiny and a final understanding that the feeling of separateness was nothing other than an illusion of ‘my’ own making. **[Emphasis added]. (Long Awaited Announcement, #sweetness).

[1]Footnote: This all-consuming experience of sweetness: “… this experience of sweetness is the closest experience that I, as a feeling being, could have of the innate sweetness of having the on-going, sensuous direct experience of the benignity, purity and perfection of the paradisaical playground-like world that flesh and blood body-only humans actually live in.”

Read it slowly with your whole being, word for word, and see if now – that you are so stunningly aware of your (illusory) identity to a large part being narcissistic/ ‘self’-centric (as is the nature of feeling beings to a lesser or greater extent), and you have also experienced the sweetness of pure intent which Peter describes in the footnote – you can follow Peter’s description in action and allow the “separating veil to collapse” in order to be the innocence and purity as this flesh-and-blood body Kuba, which you have longed to be for so long.

Psst – it’s as easy as falling off a log – it is sincere but not serious.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
2207

Hi Vineeto,

Thank you for your replies, I have been contemplating on what you wrote.

Yes I see your point completely, this sense of “regaining ‘my’ equilibrium” after such a seeing is to swallow the insight into ‘my’ worldview and disable its potential. A couple of days after this seeing it was as if the ‘controller’ came back with a vengeance :laughing: I think because those various narratives (of the controller) were exposed for what they are - self-centrically spinning around in circles. So I experienced this operation of ‘me’ as the ‘controller’ in a raw and jarring way.

Since then the above has stopped and I have been able to contemplate without distraction on Peter’s report and your follow up suggestion. I don’t know if I can say much other than that I have been having intimations of what you are pointing to. For example this morning I woke up and I could see ‘me’ as if loading up, and ‘I’ was seen to be this extra happening which has no relevance at all over life as it actually happens. That this self-centric bubble in which ‘I’ exist/which ‘I’ am is completely superfluous/redundant/irrelevant/outmoded etc. Initially I want to say that ‘I’ have no purpose left now other than to suffer for sufferings sake but indeed ‘I’ am pivotal in something still, which is to set this body free.

2 Likes
2208

Hi Kuba,

I appreciate you can see the point I was making.

As for agreeing to live without the controller in charge you already done a ‘dress-rehearsal’ –

Kuba: All in all I have never found myself so effortlessly happy and harmless and it is all so right, so correct, living like this. I am kind of in two minds about posting this, wary to potentially invite the ‘controller’ back into the picture and yet I wanted to share this so here we are.
Looking back as well I see that the me that I am now is nothing like the me that was in the (even recent) past, it’s a qualitative change in terms of how life is experienced, I could say that virtually I am only here now where this moment is happening, I don’t find myself to exist across the past-present-future like I did in the past, with the “virtually” qualifier definitely applied though.
Oh and another thing! Perhaps part of / the reason for what changed recently, interestingly enough this is how ‘Vineeto’ stepped out from control. Which is that I dared to fully enjoy sex and sexuality, and since then it’s like something opened up, this doorway to a totally naive enjoyment of life. Now knowing that I can fully enjoy sex and sexuality I have nothing else that could possibly be missing. The thing that I realised is that under the guise of ‘actualist morality’ I had been repressing my sex drive, and the other day I remembered something that Richard wrote under the correspondence on sex, that one starts where one is, which as a feeling being it is to ‘be’ that sex drive and thus enter the ‘sexual dimension’ that way, then of course there is the possibility of actuality peeking through. (2.4.2026)

Now that you know experientially that the ‘controller’ “is completely superfluous/ redundant/ irrelevant/ outmoded etc.” – why not do it again, as in the previous ‘dress-rehearsal’, allowing, and thus ensuring being-out-from-control, to be open-ended this time?

Here is ‘Vineeto’s’ as told to Claudiu –

Vineeto: The only way to counteract this falling back will be if you make the deliberate decision, when feeling excellent and experiencing pure intent comes along, to commit to living out-from-under-control from then onwards. When ‘Vineeto’ got out-from-under-control after many ‘ums and ahs’ it was delicious but a few days later ‘she’ fell out of it and accepted this as a matter of course. But Richard didn’t. When ‘she’ told him about it, he said jokingly something to the effect of “stand in the corner until you are back into out-from-under-control”!
So post-haste ‘Vineeto’ invited Peter into the bedroom and after some delicious intimacy soon was back where ‘she’ had been, and then was more watchful and determined to in fact stay out-from-under-control. It worked. It does need your active and decisive input – until an actual freedom happens, then you can’t fall back. (link)

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
2209

Hi Vineeto,

That is a brilliant suggestion thank you! I think I was somewhat circling this but you spelt it out.

I also found the below very helpful to consider :

I have been wondering today, why is it that this falling out happened for me, because I still can’t pinpoint any specific reason, it is just that seemingly after some time ‘I’ resume ‘my’ operations as the ‘controller’.

And today I started sincerely considering whether up until now I simply have not been ready/sincerely wanting to actually proceed into new territory / abandon the old. And I think the bottom line is, that this is it. Hence I have always found some way to scurry back to ‘normal’, and you have seen the many variations of this first hand :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes: .

So there is this fundamental unreadiness to proceed into totally new territory / completely abandon the old, and this fundamental unreadiness will then dress up in seemingly endless new problems or diversions etc

I think the reason I started wondering about this today is because I saw a glimpse in me, of that readiness to proceed into the new / abandon the old.

Hmm but then reading over that quote again, is it really that what has been missing is the - “It does need your active and decisive input – until an actual freedom happens, then you can’t fall back”. Because I do remember that once out of it I also had that approach of “accepting it as a matter of course.”

2 Likes
2210

Hi Kuba,

This may already be a result from the shock you received when seeing “Me, me, me” (link) in continuous action and dominance – that you are now able to be more “sincerely considering whether up until now I simply have not been ready”. A fortnight ago, you put your finger on the vital issue when you said –

Kuba: I am wondering if the connection to pure intent is the critical component which is missing. (link)

Without this solid connection to pure intent – the crucial connection to what is outside of “Me, me, me” any short sprint into an excellence experience will peter out at the next opportunity of ‘me’ asserting myself.

Kuba: I think the reason I started wondering about this today is because I saw a glimpse in me, of that readiness to proceed into the new / abandon the old.

This is a great start. Now this “glimpse” needs to grow until pure intent becomes the number one priority in your life, until it becomes the vital factor to counterbalance the inborn, automatically operating ‘self’-centricity/ ‘self’-importance. This, and only this, can give you the vital daring, and caring, required to “proceed into the new/ abandon the old”.

Kuba: Hmm but then reading over that quote again, is it really that what has been missing is the – “It does need your active and decisive input – until an actual freedom happens, then you can’t fall back”. Because I do remember that once out of it, I also had that approach of “accepting it as a matter of course.” (link)

Indeed – and that “decisive input” is not created by willpower (the ‘controller’) but by the constant pull of pure intent. Sincerity is the key, then naiveté can follow.

Respondent: That is, ‘normal’ people usually have quite a different standard of what constitutes a good life than an actualist does. Is this a correct assessment?
Richard: Indeed it is … an actualist settles for nothing less than the perfection evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Hence my report, in the previous e-mail, that I could not deny that all the while I was both normal and abnormal there must be/surely was something better, far better, than either the ‘great life’ or the ‘glorious life’ – and thus I would not, could not, and did not, settle for second best – and that this is precisely what I am conveying to my fellow human beings: whatever you do, do not ever settle for second best.
For the best is just here, right now, where it already has been, all along, and always will be. (Richard, AF List, No. 27f, 24 Oct 2003).

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
2211

Hi Vineeto,

This is all very much spot on, thank you! Indeed so far it has been ‘me’ sprinting to the edges of the human condition but then without the ongoing connection to pure intent the ‘controller’ would resurface every time, and then in the absence of that which is outside of ‘me’,’me’,’me’, ‘I’ would resort to narratives and diversions instead, that is how ‘I’ made the goal of eradicating the human condition into a narcissistic endeavour. So it is pure intent which is so crucial here. I remember Richard’s words to one of the DHO guys basically clarifying that there is no other actual freedom than via pure intent, as in to be actually free is to be that very pure intent personified. This just popped into my mind as an illustration of how critical pure intent is to becoming actually free, as in there is no other way!

Ah well I’m glad you said this, it probably saved me a lot of time trying the former option :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:.

Yes for a start now I can see the vital importance of pure intent, that without it, it can only ever remain about ‘me’,’me’,’me’. Something that is solidly outside of ‘me’ is required to form an ongoing connection to, otherwise ‘I’ am fated to forever spin around in circles, which that is exactly what has been happening so far.

Yes I remember a similar quote of Richard’s answering to a correspondent as to why one would continue proceeding when no longer motivated by feeling bad (ie out of desperation). That is precisely how I find myself these days - that I don’t have moods anymore, I don’t go around feeling resentful or glum about life, the various aspects of ‘human wisdom’ have been explored and decimated (to borrow Devika’s word), it is second nature to have a good time being alive, as an ongoing modus operandi. And yet I know that there is something far far better, that this is a very distant second best, and even just a brief glimpse of that which exists outside of the human condition reminds me immediately of this. So it is the utter preciosity of that which is glimpsed, which is outside of ‘me’, which is the motivation to continue, even when no longer out of desperation.

3 Likes
2212

Also I think I have got the flavour now, of pure intent, it is exactly as those words describe - “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”.

Although I don’t know if ‘I’ can experientially tell (maybe in rare glimpses but not in general) that second part - “that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”. As in ‘I’ can experientially detect a “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” which is not of ‘me’ in any kind of way, but ‘I’ am not experientially aware of the infinitude of the universe to clearly know that it is coming from there :laughing: .

Either way there is this genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity which is not of ‘me’ and as such it is completely unpolluted by ‘me’.

And it’s weird because the experience of it is indeed like a benefaction or a blessing, so when ‘I’ am experiencing that flavour there is no question at all that it is a safe thing to pass the baton to. But then when that flavour is not present and ‘I’ am imagining ‘my’ way around pure intent then ‘I’ have the most severe reactions around it.

2 Likes
2213

Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
This is all very much spot on, thank you! Indeed so far it has been ‘me’ sprinting to the edges of the human condition but then without the ongoing connection to pure intent the ‘controller’ would resurface every time, and then in the absence of that which is outside of ‘me’, ‘me’, ‘me’, ‘I’ would resort to narratives and diversions instead, that is how ‘I’ made the goal of eradicating the human condition into a narcissistic endeavour. So it is pure intent which is so crucial here. I remember Richard’s words to one of the DHO guys basically clarifying that there is no other actual freedom than via pure intent, as in to be actually free is to be that very pure intent personified. This just popped into my mind as an illustration of how critical pure intent is to becoming actually free, as in there is no other way!

Hi Kuba,

It was Tarin who Richard clarified it to and it’s in the Latest Announcement, Addendum 7. And right above that bookmark Richard again gave step-by-step instructions –

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. [emphases in original]. (Richard, AF List, No. 118, 16 June 2006).

Note well how Point No. 8 specifies that this overarching benignity and benevolence has [quote] ‘nothing to do with ‘me’ and ‘my’ doings’ [endquote] … meaning that no rotten-to-the-core feeling being can ever infiltrate (bona fide) pure intent.

Can you see the very first point “to make possible a pure intent” and the emphasis of “Point No. 8” “that no rotten-to-the-core feeling being can ever infiltrate (bona fide) pure intent”?

I am genuinely amazed how you could obscure/ forget/ ignore this crucial point all these month?

-

Vineeto: Indeed – and that “decisive input” is not created by willpower (the ‘controller’) but by the constant pull of pure intent. Sincerity is the key, then naiveté can follow.

Kuba: Ah well I’m glad you said this, it probably saved me a lot of time trying the former option.

I wrote about the significant difference between ‘beer’ and the ‘doer’ on the list many times, including clarifying quotes from Richard. For instance on October 2024 –

Vineeto: Here is how ‘Vineeto’ described this period in the Direct Route – “I experienced an ever-increasing pull to move forward into what I clearly and unambiguously recognized as my destiny – an irrevocable freedom from the human condition. It set in motion a process that was to undo all of my remaining bonds to humanity, my residue of inhibitions, my last hesitations and any and all lingering doubts. Having finally arrived at being out-from-control, living the ‘beer’ rather then being the ‘doer’, filled me with a previously unknown confidence and certainty that ‘my’ redemption was indeed nigh.
To step out from control was a step deliberately taken, after sufficient clearing of the ground, so to speak, and after sufficiently ascertaining that what I wanted was indeed what I was aiming for (the genuine article of an actual freedom). Taking that step ‘I’ then willingly and with intent gave myself permission to allow the universe to pull me forward ever more strongly into the hitherto entirely unknown territory that lay between me and the ultimate goal. […]
The other observation from this period of being out-from-control […] I remember clearly one day sitting in a circle of 5 friends, utterly relaxed despite the fact that I had never met one of them in person, and I noticed that I had no personal agenda whatsoever, no plan to stir the conversation into a particular direction, nothing to emphasize or hide, no self-centredness or favouritism, no shame, shyness, embarrassment, no power or drive – I was just being myself as I was. I sat in this group, as one of many, and my sole interest was that everyone present (including me as one of those present) enjoyed themselves/ obtained the maximum benefit from our meeting. I experienced myself as being unreservedly at ease and utterly benign and wasn’t driven to say anything unless it contributed to the overall quality of the conversation.” (i.e. no ‘self’-centredness whatsoever). […]
“During the period of being out-from-control the identity (being the ‘beer’ as opposed to being the in-control ‘doer’) gallops ahead closer and closer to her/his destiny.” (Direct Route, James, 17 Jan 2010)
Just to emphasize – it’s not a membership-club, it’s more like being a fast-running tide carrying you inevitably towards your ultimate destiny. (Actualvineeto, Claudiu2, 29 Oct 2024).

I also described it in detail, with extensive quotes from Richard to Alexander on 11 June 2025 and to Ed on June 15, 2025 and then to yourself on June 24, 2024 – let me know if something is still not clear to you.

You must have missed all this, or forgotten the vital details while you were busy trying to insert you ‘self’ into actuality.

I am very pleased that you seem to understand now, “that “decisive input” is not created by willpower (the ‘controller’) but by the constant pull of pure intent” and will indeed “saved me a lot of time” and the reason I am pleased is not only for your own sake but for everyone’s sake, both here on the forum and the world at large because you do not exist in isolation – whatever you do in regards advancing an actual freedom for yourself has ramifications way beyond your imagination. Viz.:

Richard: … the global spread of peace and harmony – as well as individual peace-on-earth – is not taking place via having to ‘convince the few left’ (to use your phrasing); as it is a matter of consciousness – consciousness, as in, a flesh-and-blood body being conscious, or sentient – it is spreading via common consciousness and, to utilise the words of the well-known correspondent, it has already ‘escaped into the wild’ and there is nothing, absolutely nothing, which can now halt its spread. (Richard, List D, No. 2, 15 Feb 2012).

It is quite stunning when contemplating this.

-

Vineeto: This is a great start. Now this “glimpse” needs to grow until pure intent becomes the number one priority in your life, until it becomes the vital factor to counterbalance the inborn, automatically operating ‘self’-centricity/ ‘self’-importance. This, and only this, can give you the vital daring, and caring, required to “proceed into the new/ abandon the old”.

Kuba: Yes, for a start now I can see the vital importance of pure intent, that without it, it can only ever remain about ‘me’, ‘me’, ‘me’. Something that is solidly outside of ‘me’ is required to form an ongoing connection to, otherwise ‘I’ am fated to forever spin around in circles, which that is exactly what has been happening so far.

Good. I will take advantage of this window of opportunity to point to a detailed description Richard wrote to Claudiu on 15 July 2015 where he is using newly resurrected words (rememoration and presentiation) in order to describe “how ‘he’ utilised that rememorative-presentiation process to imbue/ suffuse ‘his’ day-to-day life with the ambience/ the flavour/ the appeal of the PCE and thus invigorate and vitalise ‘his’ moment-to-moment experiencing as well”.

You may understand that a “glimpse” of pure intent needs kindling and supporting – via naïve enjoyment and wondrous, marvelling appreciation each moment again – in order for it to become the constant ‘addictive’ pull, which will guide you to your, the flesh-and-blood-body’s, destiny.

-

Vineeto:

Respondent: That is, ‘normal’ people usually have quite a different standard of what constitutes a good life than an actualist does. Is this a correct assessment?
Richard: Indeed it is … an actualist settles for nothing less than the perfection evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Hence my report, in the previous e-mail, that I could not deny that all the while I was both normal and abnormal there must be/ surely was something better, far better, than either the ‘great life’ or the ‘glorious life’ – and thus I would not, could not, and did not, settle for second best – and that this is precisely what I am conveying to my fellow human beings: whatever you do, do not ever settle for second best.
For the best is just here, right now, where it already has been, all along, and always will be. (Richard, AF List, No. 27f, 24 Oct 2003).

Kuba: Yes I remember a similar quote of Richard’s answering to a correspondent as to why one would continue proceeding when no longer motivated by feeling bad (i.e. out of desperation). That is precisely how I find myself these days – that I don’t have moods anymore, I don’t go around feeling resentful or glum about life, the various aspects of ‘human wisdom’ have been explored and decimated (to borrow Devika’s word), it is second nature to have a good time being alive, as an ongoing modus operandi. And yet I know that there is something far far better, that this is a very distant second best, and even just a brief glimpse of that which exists outside of the human condition reminds me immediately of this. So it is the utter preciosity of that which is glimpsed, which is outside of ‘me’, which is the motivation to continue, even when no longer out of desperation. (link)

Are you saying that up to now you practised actualism “out of desperation” and that only now that you have glimpsed “something far far better” you have the interest and “motivation to continue”? If that is so, I can understand why you don’t remember the vital importance of pure intent and forgotten the above given quotes regarding the ‘doer’ (controller) and the ‘beer’.

In fact, I am pleased that you now say that “the utter preciosity of that which is glimpsed, which is outside of ‘me’, which is the motivation to continue”.

Here is an excerpt from Richard’s personal webpage as to how enjoyment and appreciation evoke and strengthen pure intent and to be able to imitate the actual as much as possible –

Richard: In 1981, as the new year dawned, I took the first step on what I would later choose to call the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. (…)
By being relentlessly attentive to, each moment again, and scrupulously honest about, how that only moment of ever being alive was experienced (so that any deviation from such felicity and innocuity was attended to with the utmost dispatch) it rapidly became more simpler and much easier to live peacefully and harmoniously with my then-wife and then-children, in particular, and with anyone and everyone who came into my presence. And this way of living was such an admirable state of affairs[image](javascript:void(0)) I was wont to exclaim to all and sundry, then, about how I had discovered the secret to life (for that is how far beyond normal human expectations the felicitous/ innocuous state, which I nowadays call being virtually free, truly is) and I recall being perplexed as to why, it being such a simple and easy thing to do, nobody had ever done it before.
Including myself, of course.
Because the felicitous and innocuous feelings are in no way docile, lack-lustre feelings; in conjunction with sensuosity they make for an extremely potent combination as—with all of the affective energy channelled into being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible (and no longer being frittered away on sorrow and malice or their redressive hand-maidens love and compassion)—the full effect of ‘me’, the feeling entity at the core of ‘being’ itself, is dynamically enabled for one purpose and one purpose alone.
Such imitative felicity and innocuity, in concert with sincerity and sensuosity, readily evokes amazement[image](javascript:void(0)), marvelment[image](javascript:void(0)), and delightment[image](javascript:void(0))—a state of wide-eyed wonderment[image](javascript:void(0)) best expressed by the word naiveté (the nearest an identity can come to innocence whilst being an entity)—and which allows the overarching benignity and benevolence inherent to the infinitude, which this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe actually is, to operate more and more freely. This magnipotent munificence, an intrinsic largesse which has nothing to do with the imitative affective happiness and harmlessness, will do the rest.
All what is required is cheerful, and thus willing, concurrence. (Richard, Selected Correspondence, Method Origin, 3rd Article)

Best to read this excerpt in its original to have the benefit of the various tooltips.

I wish you lots of fun in your contemplations and explorations of this new territory.

Cheers Vineeto

2 Likes
2214

Kuba: Also I think I have got the flavour now, of pure intent, it is exactly as those words describe – “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”.
Although I don’t know if ‘I’ can experientially tell (maybe in rare glimpses but not in general) that second part – “that originates in the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”. As in ‘I’ can experientially detect a “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” which is not of ‘me’ in any kind of way, but ‘I’ am not experientially aware of the infinitude of the universe to clearly know that it is coming from there.

Hi Kuba,

When you experience “a genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” generally ‘you’ are temporarily in abeyance, hence the vital importance of the golden clew (the intimate connection to pure intent via rememoration) when ‘I’ return. However, nowadays pure intent can also be experienced from within the human condition (i.e., as a feeling ‘being’) when pure intent is experienced via that purity personified (i.e. those fully free human beings), reported by ‘Peter’, ‘Vineeto’ and ‘Pamela’ as “a sweetness that was palpable” – plus how ‘he’/ ‘she’ was “literally being bathed in this sweetness”.

Richard: … if you were to think of pure intent as being both (simultaneously) the palpable life-force and that (experiential) “state of being connected” it might make more sense, to start off with, as the experience is of them being one-and-the-same-thing … to wit: an indistinguishable composite; as in, no such grammatically-induced subject-object connective dichotomy. (Richard, List D, James, 11 July 2015).

In regards to “the perfect and vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe”, I remember feeling being ‘Vineeto’ only had a few PCEs in which “the vast stillness that is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe” were experienced but it was enough to make it indisputably clear to ‘her’ that there is no higher power operating inside or ‘outside’ the universe (it also made it obvious from the start that freedom is in ‘my’ hands alone – that there is no entity/ presence/ deity which will set me free.

You can probe into the vast stillness yourself – best when having a ‘self’-less experience – and explore going deeper into the vast stillness by appreciating in wondrous amazement the fullness of this stillness. Richard explained “the actual experience of the infinitude of space and time is to be ‘everywhere all at once” this way –

Claudiu: … *But Richard was saying how the nature of infinitude is that it is always here and now. Thus to be here now is to be everywhere at once. I’m not sure what to make of this ‘everywhere’. …*Richard: (…) It is better explained in ‘Richard’s Journal’. Viz.:

• [Richard]: ‘The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to a vast stillness which is utterly immense in its scope and magnitude. This stillness of infinitude is that something which is precious. It is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent. This stillness happens as me. This stillness is my essential disposition, for it is the principle character, the intrinsic basis of every thing. It is this universe at its genesis. It is not, as it might commonly be supposed, at the centre of everything … there is no centre here. This stillness, which is everywhere all at once, is the be all and end all of life itself. I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being’. (pp. 179-180, ‘Richard’s Journal’, 2nd Edition: Article 25, ‘Peace-On-Earth Is Not The Be All And End All Of Life’).

Thus if you think of it, initially, as the vast stillness which is ‘everywhere all at once’ (as in, there is no centre to physical infinitude) then, when following a train of thought about the audio-taped dialogue regarding the actual experiencing of that vast stillness – where matter-as-energy is the source of everything apparent (i.e., matter-as-mass) – as being a flesh-and-blood body’s essential disposition it will make more sense.
Incidentally, Vineeto affirmed this experience of being, in essence, that vast stillness in another way, during the period in which she was becoming essentially the same as me (how I have been, on my own, all these years), inasmuch she was able to detect four distinct properties of that ‘everywhere all at once’ matter-as-energy source … to wit: ageless, genderless, shapeless, and limitless.
Here, in part, is how she wrote about it in an email to another back in February 2011:

• [Vineeto ]: ‘(…) before Richard left for India I experienced this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard (the word energy used in its general purpose sense) as being bathed in a delicious, delicate and appreciative intimacy, and Pamela reported the same. (…). Presently, I apperceptively experience this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard on a daily basis. Often I experience it as ambrosial in nature, of a quality that fills me with extraordinary delight and well-being, in a way that it makes every cell in my body hum with fulfilment as if a missing chemical has suddenly been added to each cell’s physical structure. (…). Other times this immanence was of a more expediently potentiating nature that furthered my progress to become fully actually free and nowadays is advancing the progress in my aim to *be* Richard, undifferentiated except bodily. (…). One day when I experienced the fullness of the quality of this energy, which I labelled ‘experiencing the source’, I described four outstanding qualities – it is genderless, ageless, shapeless and vast in its depth …’. (Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:24 PM).

Thus, whenever we interacted intensively over the months after writing that, she inexorably came ever-closer to experiencing herself as each of those four distinct properties, one after the other, until only the last one – being limitless as an actuality – remained unconsummated.
And that is what took place between 3:30 and 4:00 AM, on the 28th August, 2011, which I wrote to you about in February last year on this forum. (Richard, List D, Claudiu2, 28 May 2013).

As you can see, “the last one – being limitless as an actuality – remained unconsummated” until 28 August 2011.

Kuba: Either way there is this genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity which is not of ‘me’ and as such it is completely unpolluted by ‘me’.
And it’s weird because the experience of it is indeed like a benefaction or a blessing, so when ‘I’ am experiencing that flavour there is no question at all that it is a safe thing to pass the baton to.

What you call “to pass the baton to” is ‘you’ giving permission to let life live you by allowing the ‘doer’, the ‘controller,’ to go into abeyance and allow the naïve ‘beer’ to be ascendant (agreeing to being out-from-control).

Richard: To explain further: when out-from-control – out from being under control of the ‘controller’; that self-centred/ self-centric ‘doer’ (i.e., the ‘doer’ of deeds; the ‘actor’ of acts; the ‘speaker’ of words; the ‘thinker’ of thoughts; the ‘feeler’ of feelings) – the primary impetus of agency is the benevolence and benignity of pure intent being dynamically operative via the full concurrence of the ‘beer’[1] of those deeds, acts, words, thoughts, feelings (i.e., being the experiencing of same, as a state-of-being, as opposed to doing them).
And the words “primary impetus of agency” (‘impetus’ as in, “being dynamically operative”, that is) are used advisedly as, with the ‘doer’ abeyant and the ‘beer’ ascendant, the modus operandi of this mutual agency is indeterminable due to an incapacity to distinguish between the one and the other.
I have written about this quite extraordinary state of affairs before (albeit expressed as “unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’” due to those words of mine being read/ heard by a ‘doer’ and not a ‘beer’). (Richard, List D, Srinath 2, #out-from-control)
[1] Footnote Beer:
Richard: There is, of course, no ‘beer’ to be the experiencing of agency in actuality: here in the actual world this flesh-and-blood body is the agency itself; as such, this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing its own infinitude, as an apperceptive sentient creature, and this is truly wonderful.

Richard: As to be having an EE (or an IE) is to be out-from-control then the critical criterion, which you have evidentially been looking for throughout this email exchange, is the ascendant beer being in full allowance of the benignity and benevolence inherent to pure intent being dynamically operative (whereby the actualism method segues into the actualism process) and pulling one evermore unto one’s destiny. (Richard, List D, Srinath 2, 13 Aug 2016)

Kuba: But then when that flavour is not present and ‘I’ am imagining ‘my’ way around pure intent then ‘I’ have the most severe reactions around it. (link)

Of course – and if you take your phrase “to pass the baton to” to mean instant abdication of ‘me’, then it may well be a consideration too fast too soon. Hence my suggestion to strengthen the connection to pure intent and aim for eventually living in a more or less permanent excellence experience – being dynamically in a different-way-of-being – as the most sensible next step. Here is a useful reference for you to understand and appreciate the range of naïveness which you can explore –

Richard: A rather quaint clay-pit tale which nonetheless depicts the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself⁽⁰¹⁾ to an actual innocence.
⁽⁰¹⁾To be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as a childlike persona with adult sensibilities), which is to be the closest one can to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not), one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness and/or sweetness and togetherness and/or closeness whereupon moment-to-moment experiencing is of traipsing through the world about in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous)—yet with adult sensibilities whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable—simply marvelling at the sheer magnificence of this oh-so-material universe’s absoluteness and unabashedly delighting in its boundless beneficence, its limitless largesse, as being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian (due to the near-absence of agency which ensues when the controlling doer is abeyant and the naïve beer is ascendant), with a blitheness and a gaiety such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like nature of this paradisaical terraqueous globe, this bounteously verdant and azure planet, becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent, as an experiential actuality, is almost always imminent. (Richard’s Personal Web-Page, A Quaint Clay-Pit Tale, last tooltip)

Cheers Vineeto

2215

Hi Vineeto,

This is alot of information so I am slowing taking it in bits. This morning I had a read of the post you mentioned regarding rememoration and presentation. A while ago Geoffrey described rememoration in his excellent succinct style and I think it clicked back then. Reading Richard’s thorough explanation was very interesting too although I think I will need to go over it a few times for it to properly click. It is amazing how Richard was able to thoroughly understand all manner of things by going right to the root of them and working through the topics diligently.

The way I understand rememoration currently, if I was to put it in my words, is that it is to intently bring forth the flavour of that which was experienced previously, now. In that I know I have experienced pure intent previously, and yet to cognitively remember this fact is not enough. So I experientially set my antennae to that flavour which I remember was tasted back then, and when that flavour is tasted, it is happening now ie it has been rememorated.

2 Likes