Question on Sensuousness

Actualism
21

Vineeto: By choosing to highlight the first section, which emphasis ‘me’, your presentation is diametrically opposite to Richard’s statement that “sensuousness is the wondrous awareness of the marvel of being here now at this moment in time and this place in space.” [highlighted] The interpretation is making sensuousness all about ‘me’ rather than emphasising “the wondrous awareness of the marvel of being here now at this moment in time and this place in space”, which is applying one’s attentiveness to the already always existing perfection of “being here now at this moment in time and this place in space.” It is expanding one’s awareness and wondrous attention beyond one’s favourite “visually appealing things” from which self-less awareness – apperceptiveness – can occur. [end highlight].

Syd: Thanks a good pointer, Vineeto, thank you.
By highlighting that quote from Claudiu I did want to bring attention to this unseen-before interpretation of sensuousness which emphasizes ‘me’.
When Richard uses ‘sensuousness’ he is referring to either experiencing it in a PCE or actual freedom. Basically, for him (and you?), there’s no ‘feeling-being version’ of sensuousness – even though this is what Claudiu and others were talking about in the posts above,

I understood why you highlighted it, that’s why I commented on it, so you are not mislead by this snippet of a quote. I pointed out that when you focus your attention on ‘me’ being sensuous you may be reinforcing ‘me’ rather than allowing sensuousness to experience “the wondrous awareness of the marvel of being here now at this moment in time and this place in space”.

Why do you say “and you?” – I experience no “‘feeling-being version’ of sensuousness”, ever since have become actually free.

Claudiu: But in any case the key for me was thinking of ‘me’ being sensuous as a feeling-based thing, it’s what ‘I’ do as a feeling being. Before I got that part, I was trying to ‘pay attention to the senses’ in order to imitate actuality, as I thought it had something to do with sensory perception. But it’s not that, it’s that it has to do with enjoyment and appreciation of the senses – so it’s something ‘I’ do not something the senses do. But I also came at it from a muddled affer/ spiritual/ buddhistic background which is probably why the distinction was important for me.

(snipped quotes)

Syd: What I take from all of this is that, for a feeling-being – sensuousness is not about paying attention to the senses in a dry way whilst retaining ‘my’ modus-operandi. Rather, it automatically involves thinning ‘me’ (with cheerful concurrence) sufficiently enough so that ‘I’ now have the space, so to speak, to be able to simply enjoy & appreciate all that which is unfolding sensately or proprioceptively in this only moment of being alive. I believe this understanding is in line with the yellow-highlighted part of your response above. Or maybe I’m still missing something … (link)

Claudiu’s emphasis on clarifying that any sensuousness “has to do with enjoyment and appreciation of the senses” was very apt, and you also have “a muddled affer/ spiritual/ buddhistic background” from years of practicing Vipassana, where senses are considered symptoms of “dukkha” (falsely translated as unsatisfactory or suffering) –

Richard: For instance: the key Pali word dukkha – usually translated as ‘suffering’ or something similar – is a compound word (as in du + kha) where, etymologically, the du- prefix – an antithetic prefix, generally opposed to the su- prefix, such as in sukha – has connotations of ‘asunder, apart, away from’, and the kha syllable/ ending, which functions also as root, has the meaning ākāsa (pronounced a-cash-a). (Richard, List D, Claudiu, 11 Feb 2012)

(I recommend the above link and other selected correspondence from Richard on Buddhism (1+2) and Vipassana as well as Richard’s Pali Studies, Introduction in order to fully understand what you have been practicing and how to comprehensively extricate yourself from any remaining habits of this period). This “muddled affer/ spiritual/ buddhistic background” may also be reason why you are approaching so many aspects of actualism in an analytic and conceptual way rather than experiential. It also explains why you consider sensuousness being “paying attention to the senses in a dry way”, which is exactly what for instance Satya Goenka’s practice of Vipassana is all about.

You already had a long discussion with Richard on this very topic in December 2012 –

SYD: No. 19, Richard is not ‘emphasizing’ feelings here (he umabiguously reports that a feeling is not a fact); rather *you*, by your watered-down[Upload failed] rephrasing, are de-emphasizing feelings by insincerely mixing in thoughts into the illusory/ actual distinction. no thanks, i’d rather have someone call a spade a spade instead of twisting a potentially offensive fact only to go astray on the practice for years (your watered-down rephrasing could easily make an actualist reading it go lax on investigating feelings because he ‘readily agrees’ that thoughts and feelings are not part of the physical/ corporeal world; duh!).
RICHARD: G’day Syd, Whilst on the subject of ‘better phrasings’ (as in the ‘I-Know-Better-Than-Richard’ titling of this thread), and the topic of there being no feelings in actuality, it has been brought to my attention that you recently posted three (unreferenced) quotes on another forum, written by feeling-being ‘Peter’ back in 2003, so as to provide ‘food for thought’ … namely:

  1. That those quotes bring up some parallel with Mr. Satya Goenka’s ‘equanimity towards all physical sensations’ practice.
  2. That what those quotes say is that the ‘instinctual reactions’ trigger hormones (which are experienced as physical sensations) in the body which are almost instantaneously ‘felt’ as the instinctual passions.
  3. That those quotes also raise the question of whether AF [sic] people only remain blind to ‘instinctual reactions’ – i.e. have they cut the chain right where these reactions are ‘felt’ (which feelings form themselves into ‘being’)?
  4. That those quotes also raise the question that while even a shadowy feeling being can give off vibes, what of a body with instinctual reactions?
  5. That those quotes conflict with Richard’s report of him not experiencing any bodily symptoms associated with fear (for instance).
    (dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message _boards/message/3694814#_19_message_3694814). [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Syd, 7 Dec 2012)

That you only now discover, from Claudiu’s report, that sensuousness is something different to “paying attention to the senses in a dry way” means that this chapter of your habitual way of paying attention to your senses needs a whole new assessment. It will also have significant ramifications on your practical understanding of the actualism method of enjoyment and appreciation in general and the word intimacy in particular (having aimed for something akin to ‘equanimity’ perhaps?). I only mention this because I know from ‘Vineeto’s’ experience that habitual thought and behavioural patterns persist unless specific attention is applied to them.

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
22

Claudiu: at the very least, something ‘I’ allow to happen (analogous to allowing pure intent to increase in its potency for action).
… something ‘I’ do for the purpose of tilting towards actuality, i.e. of allowing pure intent, allowing ‘myself’ to marvel at this wonder of being alive …
… think of sensuousness as more analogous to pure intent … [Emphases added]. (link)

Syd: This is more or less what I had in mind when I wrote “thinning ‘me’ … have the space … simply enjoy & appreciate” … and even more specifically I was thinking of rememoration of my PCEs (how else can that “beyond one’s favourite” come about?) … and rememoration and pure intent seems inextricably linked per this discussion: Connection with Pure Intent == Rememoration (link)

Whilst you only focus on the words “allow to” I also saw the word “analogous”, (i.e. not exactly, comparable, similar, related) – and so the watering-down process happens. Your analytical, singling-out process does not do you any service when it comes to understanding pure intent, which is always outside of ‘me’. Nothing an identity can experience is in any way comparable to the actual world. It is a different paradigm. A feeling being can only ever lean into the direction of imitating actuality, being well aware that, except in a PCE, it is never the same to the feeling being’s experience. Hence my suggestion below to start by living the sincere intent to become harmless (and thus genuinely happy).

When you look closely at the thread you provided for your definition (link) of what pure intent is, here is how you started –

Syd: Per Miguel’s paraphrasing, Geoffrey defines [the connection to] Pure Intent as the very “revival” (rememoration) of one’s PCE in this moment right now.

Whereas Miguel correctly said – “That “revival” would be the connection with pure intent, the ‘golden thread’ mentioned by Richard.”

Be careful not to water down the meaning of pure intent for yourself – from revival (rememoration) being “the connection” to pure intent, by putting “[the connection to]” in square brackets. From there it is easy (for the cunningness that one’s identity is) to forget the words in square brackets and equate “the connection” with pure intent itself.

Firstly, I recommend to take your understanding of what pure intent actually is from the source, reading it over and over with you whole being, until you experientially get it, and not other people’s rephrasing or paraphrasing from what Geoffrey said in a video meeting. They could be correct but they could also not be. The very fact that you presently cobble together your understanding from many different quotes speak for the fact that you do not experience pure intent yourself. The acknowledgement of this fact is vital to not settle for any certitude until you unambiguously experience it for yourself.

Here is the original definition of pure intent – don’t forget to access the tool-tips as well –

Richard: Pure intent is a manifest life-force; 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. (Actual Freedom Library, Pure Intent).

When you read the article, don’t pick out phrases to memorize but rather immerse yourself experientially in the flavour of what Richard is conveying. Once you get the knack, it might help you having an excellence experience or a PCE.

Secondly, I also recommend before trying to genuinely experience pure intent to first aim for understanding, and living, sincere intent, which is to be harmless and happy as much as humanly possible. I put ‘harmless’ first, because for many it is the more difficult aspect of an actualist’s sincere intent. (Btw, sincere, as used on the website, does not mean ‘true to your feelings’ but true to facts and actuality – and feelings are not facts).

When this intent is firmly imbedded and actualised, i.e. apparent to yourself and others in your daily actions you are in a much better position to grasp the experiential meaning of pure intent. In other words, you can only experience this “genuinely occurring stream of benevolence and benignity” when in your daily life you are as benevolent and benign as a feeling being can be – because that “genuinely occurring stream” is always outside of ‘you’.

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
Just feel good, bro
23

Vineeto to Syd: Now this may not be the situation in your case but your recent reposting (link) of a quote from Claudiu seems to be an example of a misunderstanding I like to straighten out – (snipped quotes)

Claudiu: Mmm that’s interesting, Vineeto. I did think sensuousness referred to something ‘I’ do, a way of ‘me’ experiencing the world, which leads to apperception – at which point, while apperceptive, there is an actual sensuousness that is intrinsic, but the ‘me’ being sensuous is what allows ‘me’ to allow that PCE to happen.

Hi Claudiu,

I have no problem with your writing, and of course for a feeling being there is always in identity operating so the scare quotes are often purely academic. But when Syd singled out this single paragraph for reposting I wanted to avoid a misunderstanding in his mind so as to not emphasise ‘my’ action in the experiencing of a general sensuousness, as in ‘look at me I am being sensuous here’ because that would be counterproductive.

It turned out that he needed this nudge in order to recognize that being sensuous is not “dry” at all, like in the spiritual/buddhistic practice, but can be full of joie de vivre and delight –

Richard: If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, appreciation, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness – then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness. (Richard, List B, No. 19e, 26 Dec 2000)

Claudiu: Reading the whole article I can see now how it could be referring to just something that occurs in apperception.

The article is about how attentiveness and sensuousness can lead to apperceptiveness.

Claudiu: Can you clarify for the record which it is? You did write (emphasis added):

Vineeto to Syd: It is expanding one’s awareness and wondrous attention beyond one’s favourite “visually appealing things” from which self-less awareness – apperceptiveness – can occur.

Claudiu: The specific point is this: If sensuousness is something from which apperception / apperceptiveness can occur, then it is something which occurs before apperception, i.e. outside of a PCE.
And if it’s outside of a PCE – it is, necessarily, something ‘I’ do. Or, at the very least, something ‘I’ allow to happen (analogous to allowing pure intent to increase in its potency for action).
If sensuousness only occurs inside a PCE, then it does not make sense that it is something from which a PCE can occur, since it already would be occurring.

I was simply going by what Richard wrote, for instance here –

Richard: To enable apperceptiveness to haply occur it is essential to allow a reflective attention – attentiveness – to one’s psychological and psychic world. (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness).

If you analytically take apart the words and try to fit them into a logical concept you will always get into trouble with actualism – it is experiential and the words are describing the experiential event. For instance, when Richard wrote in the 1st paragraph of the 2nd section “When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum” apperceptiveness occurs a split second “before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories (…) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept”. So you might say there is a logical contradiction because sequentially it more often occurs when one has allowed attentiveness first.

What is your own recollection when you experience sensuousness? Does it only occur in a PCE? Or can you delight in sensual and sensuous experiencing when feeling happy or feeling excellent?

Claudiu: What I was attempting to convey in the initial quote is it’s something ‘I’ do, but not for the purpose of furthering ‘myself’ (i.e. tilting away from actuality), but rather something ‘I’ do for the purpose of tilting towards actuality, i.e. of allowing pure intent, allowing ‘myself’ to marvel at this wonder of being alive, which naive felicity readily lends itself to an EE (if one is not already occurring) and thence to a PCE.

As I said at the beginning, I have no problem with your writing to Adam-B. Of course for a feeling being there is always an identity operating so the scare quotes are often purely academic. I wanted to alert Syd not to emphasize ‘me’ unnecessarily in the experience of being aware, and delighting in, senses operating as they do.

Claudiu: Let me know if that clarifies anything. As I write this now it seems to make sense to think of sensuousness as more analogous to pure intent, i.e. something ‘I’ allow to happen but not something ‘I’ do – and when a PCE is happening it is automatic. That does seem to track much better with my experience.
Cheers Claudiu (link)

It’s curious that you now say you “think of sensuousness as more analogous to pure intent” whereas in the beginning of this post you wrote “I did think sensuousness referred to something ‘I’ do”. In either case, pure intent is not something ‘you’ do.

You may find my post to Syd of today informative –

Vineeto to Syd: Whilst you only focus on the words “allow to” I also saw the word “analogous”, (i.e. not exactly, comparable, similar, related) – and so the watering-down process happens. Your analytical, singling-out process does not do you any service when it comes to understanding pure intent, which is always outside of ‘me’. Nothing an identity can experience is in any way comparable to the actual world. It is a different paradigm. A feeling being can only ever lean into the direction of imitating actuality, being well aware that, except in a PCE, it is never the same to the feeling being’s experience. Hence my suggestion below to start by living the sincere intent to become harmless (and thus genuinely happy). (link)

Sensuousness can be analogous to pure intent but you would know that it is not pure intent per se. Otherwise I fully agree and it is delightful how easy fully enjoyed and appreciated sensual and sensuous experiencing can lead to excellence experience and PCE.

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
24

Hi Vineeto,

Ok, that makes sense now. The point of confusion is if you were saying that sensuousness is something only occurring in a PCE. And then I found this quote (emphasis added):

i.e. that “sensuousness” has an “in-built apperceptive awareness”, and thus I thought it may be actual only.

However I see now that you were just drawing an emphasis away from ‘me’ and towards the object/point of sensuousness, rather than saying it can’t happen outside of a PCE – and of course, Richard was in that quote describing sensuousness as it occurs whilst apperceptive (PCE or actually free), not excluding that there is a feeling-being sensuousness that a feeling-being can make use of in order to lead towards apperception (much like enjoyment and appreciation itself being actual during a PCE/when actually free, and affective when outside of a PCE!)

Yes, that is what I had thought before!

Yes, in this case it made sense though, the from which is logical (and aligns with experience) that it’s something that leads to a PCE as well, not only something in a PCE.

It was a matter of what the words refer to – there is something that I was experiencing outside of a PCE that I was calling “sensuousness”, and then I became unsure that that was what to call it. Now I am sure again that it had been the correct word all along.

Sensuousness really beings to shine during an excellence experience, where it takes on an aspect of that magical quality that is intrinsic to PCEs. At that level it really is a wide-eyed wonder at just how amazingly, thoroughly delightful and enjoyable being alive really is! It continues to knock my socks off :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

Haha oops. The ‘analogy’ was in the sense of sensuousness being something ‘I’ allow rather than something ‘I’ do. Sensuousness is more like an “allowing” rather than a “I can do it like I can move my hand” kind of thing. It does seem to really take on a life of its own once pure intent is in the picture, which imbues it all with that ‘magical quality’.

Incidentally and for similar avoiding-watering-down purposes, I don’t like that phrasing of “rememoration is the connection with pure intent” (as I wrote here)… because pure intent already (besides being “a manifest life-force; 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”) is also “an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”.

Thus we would have it that “rememoration is the connection with the intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”.

Indeed it would be too easy to drop the first ‘connection’ and be left with the erroneous “rememoration is the connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”.

I think a better phrasing would be that rememoration is the key to allowing pure intent (my only hesitation is that I’m not sure if it is the only key, so perhaps “one of the keys” is better).

In any case then we would have that “rememoration is the key to allowing that intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”, as well as “rememoration is the key to allowing the experience of that manifest life-force; that 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 it is true all this is experiential and the words can only describe it, it is so much nicer when we can have our cake and eat it too, such that the words used are also more resilient and robust in the face of an analytical taking-them-apart :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:. It won’t matter much for those already with a firm experiential basis (whether actually free or still a feeling being), nor for those feeling-beings who are more intuitive in nature [e.g. the ~90% of the population that is not an “NT” type on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator], but it can perhaps benefit the more analytically-inclined among us [e.g. the ~10% of the population that is an “NT” type, i.e. those of type INTJ/INTP/ENTJ/ENTP].

Cheers,
Claudiu

2 Likes
25

Claudiu: Hi Vineeto,

Vineeto: I have no problem with your writing, and of course for a feeling being there is always in identity operating so the scare quotes are often purely academic. But when Syd singled out this single paragraph for reposting I wanted to avoid a misunderstanding in his mind so as to not emphasise ‘my’ action in the experiencing of a general sensuousness, as in ‘look at me I am being sensuous here’ because that would be counterproductive.

Claudiu: Ok, that makes sense now. The point of confusion is if you were saying that sensuousness is something only occurring in a PCE. And then I found this quote (emphasis added):

RESPONDENT: Richard, in reading your recent contributions to this list, such as the example above, I am beginning to question whether you and I use certain words, such as ‘emotions’ in the same way. For it seems that perhaps I use that word in a more inclusive sense of which your use is a subset. Perhaps your use is more restrictive / precise. For example when you express that communicating via the internet is great ‘fun’ – I equate fun to have an emotional component. If joy and fun are non-emotional, they also are not machine like nor dead. What do you call that vivifying facet of each breathtaking moment if not emotional?
RICHARD: I appreciate that what you want to discuss is the ‘vivifying facet’ … for it cuts straight to the nub of the issue. Put simply: sensuousness and its in-built apperceptive awareness is the vivifying facet. It is the ability to fully enjoy and appreciate being just here – right now – at this moment in eternal time and at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body. In this full enjoyment and appreciation is an amazement that all this wondrous event called life is actually happening … and a marvelling at the perfection of it all. [link] (Richard, List B, No. 25g, 8 Dec 2000).

i.e. that “sensuousness” has an “in-built apperceptive awareness”, and thus I thought it may be actual only.

Hi Claudiu,

I am delighted that it makes sense to you now. When you say “actual only” – being actually free automatically includes “apperceptive awareness” as the “vivifying facet”. That also means that the more the identity is in the background, the more one experiences the utterly delightful enjoyment and appreciation of sensuousness. I remember Kuba recently saying –

Kuba: And this experience of literally coming to my senses has been happening since yesterday and today in a way which I haven’t experienced before. It was particularly “vibrant” just before I wrote my post to you yesterday, like the entire world was shimmering with aliveness. And then there is the seeing that in the world of the senses ‘I’ have no existence at all, and where ‘I’ am not, all is pristine.
Fascinating times indeed. (10 Feb 2026)

Claudiu: However I see now that you were just drawing an emphasis away from ‘me’ and towards the object/ point of sensuousness, rather than saying it can’t happen outside of a PCE – and of course, Richard was in that quote describing sensuousness as it occurs whilst apperceptive (PCE or actually free), not excluding that there is a feeling-being sensuousness that a feeling-being can make use of in order to lead towards apperception (much like enjoyment and appreciation itself being actual during a PCE/when actually free, and affective when outside of a PCE!)

Yes, I am pleased you can see that.

-

Claudiu: Reading the whole article I can see now how it could be referring to just something that occurs in apperception.

Vineeto: The article is about how attentiveness and sensuousness can lead to apperceptiveness.

Claudiu: Yes, that is what I had thought before!

I think the first sentence of the article specifies it most precisely –

Richard: Apperceptiveness is a word describing a condition which happens of its own accord and attentiveness depicts an activity that one vitalises with remarkable verve and vivacity which activates the quality that the word sensuousness specifies. (Richard, Articles, Attentiveness, Sensuousness, Apperceptiveness).

Btw, I read in this thread, in a conversation you had with Kuba earlier, that you “never did like” the article (link). I understand you well because ‘Vineeto’ also did not particularly like the article, it was too confusing for ‘her’. However now, especially when I read only a few sentences here and there, I am impressed at the detail and precision of Richard’s observations and descriptions of how human consciousness operates. Now that there is no identity that might obscure what I read with previous concepts or ideas so as to confuse the content of Richard’s writing, it is treat to read it.

-

Vineeto: If you analytically take apart the words and try to fit them into a logical concept you will always get into trouble with actualism – it is experiential and the words are describing the experiential event.
Claudiu: Yes, in this case it made sense though, the from which is logical (and aligns with experience) that it’s something that leads to a PCE as well, not only something in a PCE.
Vineeto: What is your own recollection when you experience sensuousness? Does it only occur in a PCE? Or can you delight in sensual and sensuous experiencing when feeling happy or feeling excellent?

Claudiu: It was a matter of what the words refer to – there is something that I was experiencing outside of a PCE that I was calling “sensuousness”, and then I became unsure that that was what to call it. Now I am sure again that it had been the correct word all along.
Sensuousness really beings to shine during an excellence experience, where it takes on an aspect of that magical quality that is intrinsic to PCEs. At that level it really is a wide-eyed wonder at just how amazingly, thoroughly delightful and enjoyable being alive really is! It continues to knock my socks off.

Yes, sensuousness can operate at any time, and the quality of it varies the less ‘you’ the identity interferes with feelings and classifications, and the more magical it can be.

Vineeto: It’s curious that you now say you “think of sensuousness as more analogous to pure intent” whereas in the beginning of this post you wrote “I did think sensuousness referred to something ‘I’ do”. In either case, pure intent is not something ‘you’ do.

Claudiu: Haha oops. The ‘analogy’ was in the sense of sensuousness being something ‘I’ allow rather than something ‘I’ do. Sensuousness is more like an “allowing” rather than a “I can do it like I can move my hand” kind of thing. It does seem to really take on a life of its own once pure intent is in the picture, which imbues it all with that ‘magical quality’.

Ah, that’s wonderful, especially when it takes on “a life of its own once pure intent is in the picture, which imbues it all with that ‘magical quality’”. That’s what is drawing you irresistible closer and closer to your destiny.

-

Syd: Per Miguel’s paraphrasing, Geoffrey defines [the connection to] Pure Intent as the very “revival” (rememoration) of one’s PCE in this moment right now.
Vineeto [to Syd]: Whereas Miguel correctly said – “That “revival” would be the connection with pure intent, the ‘golden thread’ mentioned by Richard.”
Vineeto [to Syd]: Be careful not to water down the meaning of pure intent for yourself – from revival (rememoration) being “the connection” to pure intent, by putting “[the connection to]” in square brackets. From there it is easy (for the cunningness that one’s identity is) to forget the words in square brackets and equate “the connection” with pure intent itself.

Claudiu: Incidentally and for similar avoiding-watering-down purposes, I don’t like that phrasing of “rememoration is the connection with pure intent” (as I wrote here)… because pure intent already (besides being “a manifest life-force; 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”) is also “an intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”.
Thus we would have it that “rememoration is the connection with the intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”.
Indeed it would be too easy to drop the first ‘connection’ and be left with the erroneous “rememoration is the connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”.
I think a better phrasing would be that rememoration is the key to allowing pure intent (my only hesitation is that I’m not sure if it is the only key, so perhaps “one of the keys” is better).

Yes, “one of the keys is better”. You certainly have a gift with words.

Claudiu: In any case then we would have that “rememoration is the key to allowing that intimate connection betwixt the near-purity of the sincerity of naiveté and the pristine-purity of that actual innocence which is inherent to living life as a flesh-and-blood body only”, as well as “rememoration is the key to allowing the experience of that manifest life-force; that 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”.

Yes, and once the connection is firmly established, pure intent (the universe, so to speak) can run one’s life, as in letting go of the controls, and interruptions or interference by dominant feelings happen less and less.

Claudiu: Although it is true all this is experiential and the words can only describe it, it is so much nicer when we can have our cake and eat it too, such that the words used are also more resilient and robust in the face of an analytical taking-them-apart. It won’t matter much for those already with a firm experiential basis (whether actually free or still a feeling being), nor for those feeling-beings who are more intuitive in nature [e.g. the ~90% of the population that is not an “NT” type on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator], but it can perhaps benefit the more analytically-inclined among us [e.g. the ~10% of the population that is an “NT” type, i.e. those of type INTJ/INTP/ENTJ/ENTP].

Ha, I didn’t even look up all those acronyms. But I remember when studying social sciences and psychology at university in my twenties, and after, I jumped at every possibility to figure out how to classify myself according to body-type, emotional or psychological make-up, even in the astrological category and many others. While discovering patters is what the human brain enjoys and is good at, to make certain patterns into ‘self’-classifications/ categorizations (make them a designated feature of one’s identity, like hanging a certificate on the wall) is not very practical when whittling away one’s identity. The human brain is, after all, malleable, else one would not be able to change human nature.

Cheers,
Claudiu (link)

Cheers Vineeto

3 Likes
26

While I agree with Vineeto on the tendency to ‘self’-classify (and thus it being immaterial to AF), my opinion is that at least some of these personality tendencies will remain after AF. I guess I’ll find out for sure after becoming fully free.

And, on the topic of “perhaps benefit the more”, FWIW: it is only when I came across the niche REBT terminology was I able to sort out the various feelings, including self-worth itself (as if they were much ado about nothing).[1]

  1. Obviously, REBT doesn’t help beyond that - since it is only concerned with emotion-backed “unhealthy” beliefs rather than underlying passions or commonly-accepted emotional themes. ↩︎