Anyway, to conclude… Thank you again for your replies. I don’t think we can progress more in this specific discussion.
In the meantime, I found this quote @Miguel shared in a thread that I hadn’t looked into that is more in line with what I’m doing and what I need at the moment:
Roy: I actually just found a quote from Peter that resonates a lot more with me…
Peter: The pure intent of Actual Freedom comes from the peak experience or PCE wherein one has a glimpse of the purity and perfection of the physical universe untainted by any ‘self’-ish and ‘self’-produced meta-physical imaginations. (link)
Roy: That aligns much more with how I’m able to describe it (link)
Hi Roy,
Of course it would. Peter wrote what you quoted in January 2000, about 2 years after he first came in contact with Richard and actualism. Whatever understanding you and others draw from this quote, it is worthwhile keeping in mind that it is based on “a glimpse of the purity and perfection of the physical universe”, whereas what Richard writes is grounded in the 24hrs every day experience of an ongoing full appreciation of his own apperceptive sensate and reflective experience.
Hence the note written on top of this book review (and appropriate notes on each page of ‘Peter’s’ and ‘Vineeto’s’ writings and correspondences) –
Note: “Please note that Peter’s book review below was written by the feeling-being ‘Peter’ while ‘he’ lived in a pragmatic (methodological), still-in-control/same-way-of-being Virtual Freedom before becoming actually free.”
Roy: I think this shows that what you and Richard describe as pure intent is something more than what Peter describes in that quote I shared.
Of course, Claudiu and Richard describe pure intent as something more than what Peter describes – they both had overall more experiential expertise with pure intent than Peter in January 2000.
Roy: I’m not consciously allowing anything to happen to me during my PCEs. There’s no special mode of behaving… I’m just able to consciously experience reality in a “pure way” — as in without the usual constrains that result from normally experiencing life as a “self”. Does that make sense?
I am not cognisant of/have not found yet any specific description of a PCE you had. Would you be so kind to publish one so I can comprehend better what you are referring to when you say you “consciously experience reality in a “pure way” — as in without the usual constrains that result from normally experiencing life as a “self””. This way it will be much easier to compare notes, so to speak.
Roy: And because of paying attention to my conscious experience, I don’t believe that the “universe” has any special force, purpose, etc… There’s nothing “extraordinary” going on… I don’t mean it’s not marvellous/wonderful — it’s that the ordinary is marvellous/wonderful. (link)
See, when you say “I don’t believe that the “universe” has any special force” you are really saying, I am not sure but I wish this to be true (belief at root = wishing to be true). That means you are open that it could be different. This is great – you are (perhaps) open to the possibility that –
Richard: The purity of life emerges from the perfection that wells up constantly due to an immense 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 everything. 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. (Richard’s Journal, Article Twenty-Five).
Roy: This neutral and indifferent universe contains an earth with marvellous abundance and our “self” prevents us from experiencing that.
Indeed, our “self” prevents us from experiencing that despite the “marvellous abundance” of this verdant and azure planet one perceives, like one’s elders did, that the universe is “neutral and indifferent” despite sometimes noticing the very “marvellous abundance”, which demonstrates that the universe is being benign and benevolent, conducive to life and growth, invigorative and dynamic – the very evidence of matter being “not merely passive”.
Roy: Once you are able to consciously experience that, it is incredible and life changing. Not sure if we are saying the same thing. (link)
Yes, if by “consciously experience that” you mean “an earth with marvellous abundance” . However, I don’t know how you manage the miracle that a “neutral and indifferent” universe contains “an earth with marvellous abundance”? Is the marvellousness only a value/a perception that ‘you’ add and not intrinsic to the earth itself and therefore the universe?
The difficulty often is that the ‘self’ takes over after the PCE fades, so much so that the experience of pure consciousness is interpreted in, and overlaid with, the paradigm of ‘me’. That’s often unavoidable, and you only discover that this happened in the next PCE. But eventually you find out how to rememorate (revive in the memory) the flavour of the PCE (before reinterpretation by ‘me’) more and more and tie a connecting thread to this special flavour – this is the beginning of becoming acquainted with pure intent.
Cheers Vineeto
Just to clarify : Perhaps I may have caused some confusion in explaining while quoting earlier, but I’m also in the second category(Richard, Claudiu, Kuba) aka pure intent isn’t like some intent coming from “me” but rather, it is something completely outside of “me” and it is of the actual universe !
Cheers
Shashank
Roy to Kuba: I think I got my point across because Shashank understood it. I’m simply commenting on that specific description of “pure intent”! (link)
Hi Roy,
I looked through the first message you received from Shashank to understand in what way Shashank understood you and others did not. Here is the first one (I snipped out Richard’s quotes to clearly understand what Shashank personally is saying) –
Shaskank: I remember having all these confusions myself too ! (snipped quotes)
Roy: I have to admit that I struggle to understand the use of the term “pure intent” to describe what is experienced during a PCE. “Intent” or “intention” are words reserved for subjects (I would even say for conscious beings) which is not the case with the universe.
Shaskank: This was Richard’s explanation : (snipped quotes)
Roy: Lastly, the term “life force” has been and is used to describe what gives life to matter in different traditions, but it’s a term I personally wouldn’t use, for various reasons. I find it puzzling that Richard chose them.
Shaskank: This question [regarding life-force] was raised to Richard by me hehe and thusly he clarified : (snipped quotes)
I think Roy we think alike lol as I was terribly confused about the word benevolence… …benignity was easy to grasp for instance thinking of a benign tumor or reflecting on the fact that a bullet coming to kill me is benign in the sense it has no intention to kill me. Here is what he [Richard] clarified about benevolence : (snipped quotes)
What I get from this message from Shashank to you (apart from very helpful and clarifying quotes is that he understands your dilemma because he had all these confusions himself as well and hence concludes that you think alike.
However, when you write out your answer you seem to concur with Shashank’s understanding only in his first remark but not regarding the meaning of benevolence contained in the quotes he provided –
Shashank: […] benignity was easy to grasp for instance thinking of a benign tumor or reflecting on the fact that a bullet coming to kill me is benign in the sense it has no intention to kill me.
Roy: Yes, it makes sense to me if “benignity” is described as in “harmless”, but usually the term is used to indicate that something is beneficial/ positive in some way, and my experience is that the universe is simply neutral, or even, I would say, indifferent.
If I may interject here – Shashank had not further inquired into benignity because it made preliminary sense to him. Benignity is indeed something positive – “of being favourable, propitious, salutary”.
Respondent: I’m trying but I still don’t fully understand. Any value is of human invention, surely?
Richard: The values under discussion – the benignity (as in being favourable, propitious, salutary) and benevolence (as in being well-disposed, beneficent, bounteous) inherent to the perfection, the purity, of the infinitude and/or absoluteness that this actual universe is – are most certainly not human inventions. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 110a, 25 May 2006).
Roy: So the following makes sense to me:
Shashank quoting Richard: “I do not use the words benevolent/ benevolence and benign/ benignity as antonyms to the words malevolent/ malevolence and malign/ malignity (such as to require reconciliation) as the latter exists only in the human psyche.”
Richard: “perhaps if you were to think of it in a similar way to what is expressed in the phrase ‘a benevolent climate’, for instance, it might start to make sense.”
Richard: “Of course, I mean it in much more than a ‘conducive to life’/ ‘conducive to growth’ sense … oft-times expressed by me as ‘I am swimming in largesse’, for example, so as to convey the super-abundance of life.” (all quotes from Richard, List D, No. 32, 14 Jun 2013).
Roy: This is a great way to put it and complements the observation that the universe is indifferent/neutral. I wasn’t able to put that into words. (link)
Here again you perceive “‘a benevolent climate’” and “conducive to life’/ ‘conducive to growth” as the universe being “indifferent/neutral”. Would your classification rather read indifferent/neutral to life, indifferent/ neutral to growth and indicate that there is no abundance but ‘just enough to survive’? Doesn’t this indifference/ neutral come close to the ubiquitous belief that life is a ‘vale of tears’, perhaps because nobody cares about ‘me’?
Here is another quote Shashank provided in this message –
Richard: (…) this actual world, the world of the senses, is indeed characterised by benevolence and benignity (there is neither cruelness nor horrors in actuality). However, in the real world, the world of the psyche, any such kindly disposition – as in being well-disposed, bountiful, liberal, bounteous, beneficent (aka benevolent) and being favourable, propitious, salutary (aka benign) – being not readily apparent, as in directly experienceable, requires naiveté for its intellectual ascertainment.
I am, of course, using the word ‘kindly’ in its Oxford Dictionary ‘acceptable, agreeable, pleasant; spec. (of climate, conditions, etc.) benign, favourable to growth’ meaning … and which I generally express by saying I am swimming in largesse. (Richard, List D, No. 32, 14 Jun 2013).
Do you seriously suggest that the words “any such kindly disposition – being well-disposed, bountiful, liberal, bounteous, beneficent (aka benevolent) and being favourable, propitious, salutary (aka benign)” in combination with the definition of the word “kindly” indicate indifference or neutrality to you?
If so, the last five words of the first paragraph might give you a clue.
Shashank quoting Richard: “what is being conveyed by those words is the invigorative quality, or dynamic nature, of that [quote] “immaculate perfection and purity [snip] (Richard, List D, No. 32a, 10 July 2015). (link)
Again, the words “invigorative quality, or dynamic nature” point to the different experience of materialism (“indifferent/neutral”) and actualism.
[Edit]: I just found your recent post, Roy, where you said –
Roy: The end matches my experience, now that I understand what people mean with “benevolent”. (link)
I am very pleased you can see that.
So to pre-empt you experiencing me like another “wise one showing the student the way” (link) perhaps it is pertinent to point out that you would know from your own life that because you experience something, it is not necessarily factual but tainted by your beliefs (often disguised as truths), principles, worldview, conditioning and most of all your feelings.
Besides, feeling being ‘Vineeto’ took 12 long years to work out all the various accurate meanings of the words used in Richard’s writings and often had to lay aside some puzzling questions and put them in the background as open questions, until they became experientially clear to ‘her’ during moments of apperception (link).
However, what ‘she’ always found encouraging was that ‘she’ more and more unravelled, discovered, de-mystified how ‘she’ ticked, how the cunning aspect of ‘me’ (the ‘self’-survival instincts in action) got in the way, and ‘she’ recognized and dismantled one by one of those tricks to keep ‘her’ in ‘her’ cage, and as a consequence life became more and more enjoyable, delightful and even exuberant.
Out of this exuberance (coupled with sincerity) slowly, hesitantly, came naiveté, that curious ingredient which first makes one feel foolish, like a simpleton, but which is the very quality which allows one to experience life with fresh eyes, to discover a new depth of meaning in Richard’s words and to naïvely explore what else it is that I have missed all my life, because nobody told me about it.
This is really the key – nobody told you about it because until recently nobody had been told themselves by their elders or the elders of the elders. Basically, the good life, you were told, was to start after death. Life on earth is/was a serious business. Children had to grow up and be serious.
All I am saying, there is more, much more to life than all these serious grown-ups taught you and are teaching you in their ‘scientific’ treatises and philosophies, and the best way to discover your hidden-away-during-puberty childhood naïveté is to allow it to happen whenever possible – this is also where a memory of a childhood PCE can be hidden and new PCEs can and will happen.
Then a lot of puzzling question may fall in place of their own accord.
Cheers Vineeto
Yes @Vineeto You have tracked the conversation flow very accurately !
A technical mistake I admit is to take benignity of pure intent in its harmless sense despite Richard detailing that it is used in it’s favorable sense…I know why this confusion happened - because here in India with English not my primary language, all my life I’ve only heard of the word benign tumor which is to mean a harmless tumor…but I’m glad to be corrected now on this !
Cheers
Shashank
It’s an excellent question, actually!
I have definitely experienced the bliss and trance-derived and trance-induced pleasure of Buddhist meditations. I spent a lot of hours meditating and developing that ability while I was on the spiritual path.
It is vastly different, a totally different phenomenon, an entirely different ballgame.
Superficially it can seem to be similar at first, so I understand your question. With the jhanic (i.e. trance-state meidtative) bliss, it is felt in the body (at first) like thereis a bliss and pleasure coming forth from every part of the body. With practice in meditative concentration (ie blocking out thoughts, single-pointedly focusing on just one thing), you can develop this bliss to encompass more of your body, to fully drench in it. Then it is like every part of your body is emanating forth this blissful pleasure.
The key, or trick, to developing the ability to do that (and take it further) is in seeing that the jhanic bliss derives from a viewing of the normal sensate phenomenon that you experience as dissatisfactory or displeasurable in some way. In that way you train your psyche to reject and distance yourself from them. This withdrawal from the senses is what produces the jhanic bliss[1]. And the more thoroughly you do it, the more you besorb yourself in the bliss.
The deeper trance states from there follow the same pattern and it works remarkably well. If you do it enough you start to see (either naturally, or from instruction) that this bliss you are experiencing has a ‘coarse’ quality to it. There is a more ‘refined’ bliss that is ‘underneath’ the coarse one. By then finding the coarse bliss dissatisfying, it sort of evaporates off, leaving just the refined bliss instead, which is more equanimous/peaceful yet you perceive it as better[2].
If you go deeper still then you ‘see’ even this remaining pleasure as less desirable than not having any pleasure at all, and you enter a deeper trance that is marked by equanimity and calm [3]. At this point you are still percipient of your body, and if you are able to stick through it, this is the next thing to be seen as dissatisfying and to slough off, which brings you to an out-of-body experience (ie no perception of your body at all)… and deeper and deeper it goes.
I say all this from experience – that is how it worked for me, I actually experienced all these things – with corroboration from the Buddhist texts that I studied as a guide.
So with that background in mind, what is the difference between that and pure intent?
The experience of the two is simply totally different. The bliss felt in my body was affective in nature. It had a hedonic tone – a positive one but a hedonic tone nevertheless. It was something that I felt, intuitively, as in the way I would feel an emotion. It was something ‘I’ controlled, that ‘I’ trained ‘myself’ to increase, that ‘I’ could direct to other parts of my body.
By contrast, the purity experienced as pure intent, is not affective in nature. It is anhedonic pleasure. It has no ‘cap’ to it the way hedonic pleasure does, it can increase forever without it being “too much”. I do not experience pure intent via my senses or my feelings, neither sensately nor intuitively. It’s a different sense, an existential sense. It quite simply is not an emotion, mood, or feeling, it’s not affective in nature at all. It is not something ‘I’ generate, ‘I’ cannot direct it anywhere. Rather it is something I can attune to, and increasingly allow myself to experience more of it – but I am not directing where it goes or how it is experienced.
In other words the bliss is something I generate/generated inside of me, while the pure intent is something already-existing that I allow myself to experience more of.
It is also notable that the bliss is something derived from withdrawal and seclusion. It is in a sense incompatible with worldly sensate existence – hence needing to tuck oneself away and meditate quietly to go deeper into it. Following the bliss leads you to another world – at the very least, away from this world. By contrast, as pure intent originates in the actually-existing universe itself, following pure intent leads you more towards the universe, rather than away from it. It takes you outside of ‘yourself’, but the result isn’t a secluded or out-of-body state, but rather, being here, now, more than you ever had been before!
In short, they are very different, and the way of knowing the differences is experientially, so I can easily compare the two and give an answer such as this one.
Cheers,
Claudiu
At Savatthī. “Bhikkhus, to whatever extent I wish, secluded from sensual pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states, I enter and dwell in the first jhana, which is accompanied by thought and examination, with rapture [piti] and happiness [sukha] born of seclusion. […] with the subsiding of thought and examination, I enter and dwell in the second jhana, which has internal confidence and unification of mind, is without thought and examination, and has rapture [piti] and happiness [sukha] born of concentration. SN 16.9 ↩︎
[…] with the fading away as well of rapture [piti], I dwell equanimous, and mindful and clearly comprehending, I experience happiness [sukha] with the body; I enter and dwell in the third jhana […] SN 16.9 ↩︎
“[…] with the abandoning of pleasure [sukha] and pain, and with the previous passing away of joy and displeasure, I enter and dwell in the fourth jhana, which is neither painful nor pleasant and includes the purification of mindfulness by equanimity. SN 16.9 ↩︎
Shashank: Yes, Vineeto. You have tracked the conversation flow very accurately !
Hi Shashank,
Thank you, it wasn’t easy to track it in the right order, lol.
Shashank: A technical mistake I admit is to take benignity of pure intent in its harmless sense despite Richard detailing that it is used in it’s favorable sense… I know why this confusion happened – because here in India with English not my primary language, all my life I’ve only heard of the word benign tumor which is to mean a harmless tumor… but I’m glad to be corrected now on this!
I didn’t intend to correct you – I am confident you understand pure intent experientially – it just happened being part of the conversation that ‘harmless’ is only a very minor aspect of the benignity of the universe. Great you learnt something new today.
You see, this benevolence and benignity of the universe becomes also apparent when a ‘self’ immolates and their flesh-and-blood body becomes the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being – it’s a wonderful collateral attribute and delicious in the ongoing experience.
The universe is not only ‘out there’ in the farthest reaches of what the telescopes can observe – it is right here, closer than your heartbeat – your own flesh-and-blood body, keeping you alive. Just contemplate how many detailed actions and processes are happening of their own accord (despite ‘your’ interference) and overall doing a splendid ‘job’.
Enjoy.
Cheers Vineeto
Hi Claudiu,
What an outstanding description, both of the jhanic ladder one climbs, described from the inside, so to speak, and then the contrast to the experience of pure intent.
It also clearly shows in your comparison between the two methods/ aims, that applying the Buddhistic method, which utilizes willpower and a determined controller how relatively quickly you achieved higher and higher states of bliss.
Whereas the actualism method is about diminishing the activity/ dominance of the controlling ‘I’ and the passionate ‘me’ until with naiveté you go out-from-under-control and more and more letting the universe live your life – which takes a lot of time for most people getting used to.
You do indeed have a great skill of putting experiences into words and thus de-mystifying both the spiritual and the actual experiences.
Much appreciation.
Cheers Vineeto
Have you experienced bliss / blissfulness in the past? If so, are they different from this and in which ways? I thank you in advance and of course I understand if you don’t feel like answering. It may be a stupid question. Again, I’m simply trying to understand what is actual, what is not actual, and the differences, comparing my experience to the ones other actualists have.
Hey, Roy. Perhaps the glasses analogy can help clarify this further.
Picture the spectrum of negative-positive feelings as glasses: the grey-colored as the negative, and the rose-colored glasses as the positive, to simplify. Wearing those glasses creates a distortion of the actual world, depending on the emotion(s) experienced at a given moment.
There’s another factor in this analogy for the self that is the thickness of the glasses. The deeper you go into a positive/negative emotion, or the more convoluted your mix of emotions is, the more you’ll feel separated from the world. It’s like a severance and a gap between an internal and an external world. This in turn creates a distance from the actual world.
These two dualities (positive-negative feelings, and inner-outer worlds) are constantly operating in people in the real world in a way that makes normal experience the way it commonly is: selfish, self-centered, contingent, chaotic…
People in the spiritual world operate in this same spectrum and separation, by playing with different colors and thickness of glasses (the different superposed glasses that Richard mentions, for instance).
Aside from the excellent description from Claudiu above, I’ve noticed this myself after years of practicing different kinds of meditations, with experience ranging from Tibetan buddhism style visualizations (in which you sublime a particular emotion like compassion) to the mindfulness and concentration Theravada style (in which you basically create a cozy coating in your internal world). These methods aim to transcend or unify experience, but ultimately, if you pay attention, you can feel the affective composition of the glasses, no matter how sophisticated.
Actualism, on the other hand, is perpendicular to this. If the thickness and the spectrum of the glasses wearing is the X axis, the actualist method is the Y axis, as in it leads to a completely different direction. To make an equivalent of the spectrum/thickness of this axis, we can use Grace’s scale of feeling from good to perfect.
The next natural question would be: “how can you be sure you’re not just creating a different category of glasses?”
Because, albeit different colors and thicknesses, you can sense how the glasses are made of certain stuff. And that specific affective stuff is absent when you navigate Grace’s scale via the actualism method.
Of course, this navigation is still affective, and even in a spectrum (good-very good-great-excellent-perfect); the difference is that, in this axis, the more you navigate to the extreme (feeling perfect), the less you experience the qualities of the common affective experience of the X axis (ie, the selfishness, self-centeredness, contingency, the chaos mentioned above), in a way that it feels like the self is thinning (rather than thickening).
In effect, the actualism method creates a path to the actual world via an affective imitation that nonetheless has very specific effects in your experience, as in it is effectively leading you closer to actuality, to the point the doer goes absent at the highest point of the affective trajectory. Here you’ll notice things like a more decentralized and free flowing and stable awareness, as opposed to the centralized and contrived experience of the ordinary way of being.
In this whole process, you can sense how the progression of your experience is more decremental in nature in relation to ordinary self activity, rather than incremental. For the purposes of the analogy, we may simplify it as: you can sense how you are progressively taking off the glasses rather than wearing other kinds of glasses, as you experience less and less of your self-centered activity.
The major proof is that following this continuum in which your doer is absent in an excellent experience, the next likely stop if you keep going is the absence of the beer, which happens in a PCE, where the full being goes in abeyance, and the qualities of the actual world are fully revealed (the more magical and dynamical). The cause-effect is not always as predictable (getting to an IE is way easier to getting to a PCE), but it sure makes it way, way more probable, demonstrating there’s a continuum towards the actual via the actualist method.
So, basically, in this actualist process you remove self-related obstructions as you walk towards perfection, and thus you see less and less of your own subjective qualities (or biases) to allow the qualities of the actual world manifesting in different ways in your journey. And you’ll notice how different these qualities are (with some tastes of it when close to EE, with the full experiencing during a PCE) that you then realize they are different, that their qualities are distinct. And these differences tastes or contacts with such qualities are samples and flavors of pure intent.
Perhaps the term “pure intent” doesn’t resonate completely with your current biases (and I can relate to that), or maybe the analogy I’m making has its limitations and reductions (it’s surely perfectible!), but the underlying experience is unequivocal, once you consistently navigate the whole scale and eventually experience a PCE.
Thanks for all the contributions to the conversation 
I think you may be right… I need to be open to the possibility that the fact that an “outside universe life-force” sounds so alien to me is because someone is trying to communicate to me an experience that I’ve never experienced. Picking up the analogy of the glasses… maybe it’s more like trying to explain what yellow is, or feels like, to a blind person 
Hi Roy
This is a description of " pure intent " in "simple actualism " ,
written by Srinath . You may have already read it . I just wanted to make sure .
Pure intent
The actualism method is all about imitating the actual. If one thinks of the actual universe as a magical, benevolent, alive (but non-sentient), glorious, scintillating and infinite thing – then pure intent is our human experience of all of this: our connection to this radiant dimension of the universe. But as feeling beings we are many times removed from this purity. Feelings are a gross distortion of it. The intention to feel happy and harmless or to be rid of the human condition, is the surface manifestation of pure intent but quite removed from its quality. It can even feel like a kind of morality, because as feeling beings we try and interpret it in terms that makes sense to us – feeling being terms. But this is not to be poo-poohed, because it is a first and necessary step. Feeling happy and harmless brings us closer to pure intent. Down the track one realises that the feelings (however ‘actualist’) were only covering over something very sublime, sweet and magical i.e. pure intent. This is encountered usually in EE’s and PCE’s. It’s also something I realised later on I experienced a lot as a young child.
But tapping into pure intent isn’t a one and done thing. Not at first. You encounter it many times at first and forget it. (NB: Even at a late stage when you are not that far from self-immolation, you will need to periodically regress back to intending to feel happy and harmless and investigating obstacles, rather than simply riding the wind of pure intent. That’s how persistent feeling being/social identity are) Eventually you find ways to keep it around for longer and longer. Because without it actualism starts to segway into a kind of morality or some kind of self-help thing. Something from outside ‘you’ needs to get in there somewhere. Also living with pure intent is like life on steroids! It’s like carrying a bit of PCE with you everywhere.
Roy: 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
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.
Richard: The choice of the word ‘pure’ should be self-explanatory by now,
from all the above, and the word ‘intent’ is
because of the agency-association it had, in ‘his’ mind,
with the word ‘destiny’ … as in, ‘escape one’s fate and
achieve one’s destiny
While experiencing pure intent as a ‘feeling being’, one is not actual. The purity of the universe mixes with one’s being to create feelings of felicity.
The purity of the universe is experienced in actuality during the PCE. This experience can be brought to ones daily experiences (outside of a PCE) by noticing the purity of the surrounding environment, as purity is an actual characteristics of the universe we all live in. This purity then mixes with being and creates felicity. It is something noticed and then allowed to occur as one is aware of it and then proceeds to enjoy it because it is enjoyable.
The intent part of pure intent, as seen the Richard’s quote above, in my view, was used to describe an agency characteristic of pure intent. The purity of the universe moves you toward more purity, and more of that experience directionally, and lessens the experience of a stressful “normal reality” conjured by stirring passions and imagination.
The purity of the universe gets allowed into your experience, to be allowed to mix with your experience and to enjoy it’s characteristics as it is very pleasurable.
Vineeto and I spent some time reworking and improving the pure intent topic page as a result of the conversations that went on here — I think the result is much improved! Be sure to read all the tooltips as well as they provide vital clarification and context: Topics Pure Intent