What is pure intent?

[claudiu]

Hi Roy,

@roy

Good day, everyone I’ve been following this messy thread too

Nice to have you along

@roy

@claudiu My question is, how can you say with certainty that this is actual based on your pure consciousness experience? My experience reveals something that is… perhaps similar?, but that I would describe differently (certainly influenced by what I’ve read about this topic):

I don’t know if it is a satisfying answer, but the certainty comes from the experience itself. Not just one time but, a gradual confidence as I was able to replicate it more and more, and see it lined up with what Richard and Vineeto call pure intent, and with what others call pure intent.

It also has been fascinating to see how I am able to tell, experientially, that the pure intent I experience when not in a PCE, is the same pure intent that I then am, in a PCE. And how in an EE it takes on a much more prominent and dynamic quality then when not in an EE, albeit still not quite like a PCE. And, how pure intent is automatically operative now that I am out-from-control.

In other words it is all confidence borne from experience.

I recently re-remembered how I first confidently came upon pure intent, it was while visiting Richard and Vineeto for the first time. You might like to read about it and see if you can do it yourself too: Andrew - #1290 by claudiu .

@roy

• Something must encompass all that there is — be infinite — and the term “universe” seems appropriate to me, considering how it is generally used.
• There is a — at some level apparent — “stillness”, even though everything progressively and inevitably changes. It’s something you can experience.
• It is perfect in the sense that it is as it is and cannot be otherwise. Just as I don’t look at a tree and say, “it’s imperfect”, what exists naturally — the rivers, trees, and life — has this perfection. I think our habit of judging something as imperfect has a lot to do with religions. In the case of roman catholicism, people were attributed free-will to hold them accountable for the choice made in the garden of eden, and from then on, we’re supposedly all born imperfect. But if we choose to look at ourselves and others in the same way we look at nature, and say — that cat is perfect, that rock is perfect, that person is perfect… Maybe that person was born with “messed-up” genetics, or in a “messed-up” environment, or has a brain tumor… that leads them to do something reprovable. Still, it is what it is and could not be otherwise because if it were, it would be because some circumstance had been different. What I’m trying to say, in this convoluted way, is that previous circumstances result in this moment, here and now, and it is “silly” to describe anything, here and now, as imperfect.

I’m commenting on this with genuine interest. My goal is not to question anyone’s subjective experience. I’m just interested in comparing and discussing, in order to learn. It’s possible “pure intent” is something entirely different I have never experienced.

From what you wrote here I would say it sounds like you have gotten the flavor of it already, glimpses perhaps, but it is not confidently established yet. I would encourage you to keep going in the direction you have found here, and see if you can experience it to even greater degrees!

@roy

If you stick to a dictionary, the words “pure intent” make little sense, in my opinion, to describe it.

The term is sort of funny (as in odd/strange). I initially had same reaction as you. “Intent” sounds like something a human possesses, not the universe… like in “sincere intent”. So why “pure intent”, it sounds like “pure” is modifying “intent” and as such it’s a human thing (and not a universe thing).

What I come to conclude is… it is really the best term I have seen haha. Nothing else quite works. I just think of it like this: the “pure” is because it is pure, unadulterated, outside of the human condition, nothing to do with ‘me’, etc. The “intent” is because there is a quality of an “agency” aspect of it pulling you towards/into actuality, it is a guiding light to go towards, etc. Not only that but there is indeed an aspect coming “from the universe”, an impetus, that this needs doing.

So “intent” basically ends up working well.

Another thing to consider is that in a PCE, you are a flesh and blood body being apperceptively conscious, and are at that point pure intent. The experience of it is very different. I remember one fine afternoon in Spain, while I was allowing pure intent as much as I could, and then suddenly it “snapped” into place, and I thought ah – now I really am allowing it! I wasn’t allowing it before, but now there is no longer a separation between me and the pure intent, so this is what allowing it really is. But then I realized actually I had entered a PCE! And that’s why the experience of it changed. Before it was ‘me’ allowing pure intent, and experiencing it to a degree, while afterwards I was pure intent, temporarily.

The point is that even outside of a PCE, the actual flesh and blood body is still being conscious, and this consciousness is actually occurring… so in some way, pure intent is occurring as this body being conscious as well. It is perhaps this aspect of pure intent that comes through to ‘me’ that provides the impetus, i.e. the very flesh and blood body I am inhabiting, being a source of this purity, via a human being conscious.

This is not to say it only exists as a human being conscious – it exists intrinsically, as part of the universe, but it is one of the ways it manifests, if it makes sense.

Let me know your thoughts!

Cheers,
Claudiu