"I have neither bondage nor freedom. (...) Oh, the universe, though existing in me, does not in reality so exist." (Asht

[Lennart]

Hello Rali!
I hope you're having a pleasant Saturday.
I've just returned home from a walk. Things unfolded a bit differently than I expected. I'm still a bit weakened and the weather is damp and cold, so the plan for a longer forest hike didn't work out. Instead, I took a stroll through a cemetery, which is quite expansive, though, and resembles a huge overgrown park, densely wooded, ending at a lakeshore. Anyway, I gained some insights that I'll try to use while answering your questions.

Is there anything that is separate from everything else?

No, there's nothing separate from everything else. The apparent 'separation' exists solely within thought. During my walk, I directly perceived the interconnectedness of everything, or rather, that everything is 'made of the same material.' For a few brief moments, it became intuitively clear to me that ultimately everything comes from the same 'source,' even if the composition of elements might seem different to the mind. Initially planning to practice in "nature" rather than a human-made cemetery, I realized that labels like "natural" and "artificial" stem solely from thought and aren't directly perceivable. For a moment, it made absolute sense to me that there's no difference between what thought labels as "my body," "trees," "gravestones," "crows," "benches," "bushes," etc. Also I could not perceive any difference between the sound of cawing crows and the distant noise of cars.

Is there a border that divides “me” and “my body” from everything else, or is it just a thought?

In that direct experience described earlier, there was no border. However, shortly after, thought intervened with the question: "If there's no difference between what thought labels as 'my body' and all other labeled 'objects,' why don't I have sensations of how the top of the tree up there feels?"

Is that interdependent movement outside of you?

No, it permeates everything entirely (although in direct experience, there can't truly be 'movement' or an 'inside' or 'outside').

Is there an “inside” and an “outside”?

No, there isn't.

Is there an owner of being?

No, there's only being, which, so to speak, 'owns itself.'

Are there others? Is there an “I” in others?

To be honest, answering this question is a bit more challenging for me. In direct experience, there's only perception of sensations, but no existence of 'others', just as there isn't the perception of 'my own body' or 'myself.' Anyway, I was wondering: Could sensations themselves be a delusion? After all, I would have an entirely different 'direct perception' if I were, for instance, a bat or a whale... However, I'm aware that this is where conceptual thinking steps in and begins to weave stories... ;) Yet, I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

Is there a 'you'?

No, thought constructs various artificial models, like 'body,' 'space,' 'time,' and, above all, the 'I', which is then projected onto 'others' as a 'you.' However, in direct experience, none of this exists. It was a bit strange to grasp this while walking in a cemetery where thousands of people are buried, their names written all over on the tombstones, all of whom surely never doubted themselves to be an 'I'. ;) Also, I had an encounter with a crow. I was sitting on a bench observing it. At first, it paid no attention to me, but when I stood up, it got startled and flew away. I wondered how it experiences such situations. It must differentiate between itself and me, otherwise, it wouldn't keep a safe distance, right? (Well, here I'm delving more into assumptions again...) ;)

Love and kind regards from the other hemisphere,
Lennart

[poppyseed]

Hi Lennart

I can see you enjoyed your walk despite the cold and damp weather :)
I really enjoyed reading your reply!

In that direct experience described earlier, there was no border. However, shortly after, thought intervened with the question: "If there's no difference between what thought labels as 'my body' and all other labeled 'objects,' why don't I have sensations of how the top of the tree up there feels?"

Hehe , thoughts say funny stuff, right?
How is it known that “trees” have experiences? Or is it an assumption?
Also are object inherently existing? Or “object” is just a label for feeling, seeing, hearing, tasting and/or smelling (remember the apple example)? Can a label feel, see, hear…?

Also, I had an encounter with a crow. I was sitting on a bench observing it. At first, it paid no attention to me, but when I stood up, it got startled and flew away. I wondered how it experiences such situations. It must differentiate between itself and me, otherwise, it wouldn't keep a safe distance, right? (Well, here I'm delving more into assumptions again...) ;)

Yup, assumptions all the way. How is a crow experienced in DE? Does a crow have an experience? How could that be known? Or is the crow’s experience an assumption?
Let’s be clear here… you are only looking at what exists… in your imagination. What seems to be “Lennart’s world,” the totality of his experience of all that is happening, is a creation of language, and words are the building blocks that create the story about it. Everything experienced as things and a world is an interpretation of conditioned thought.

After all, I would have an entirely different 'direct perception' if I were, for instance, a bat or a whale... However, I'm aware that this is where conceptual thinking steps in and begins to weave stories... ;) Yet, I'm curious about your thoughts on this.

These are just more stories that “mind” likes to ponder upon… As we’ve seen already there are no “bats” or “whales” existing on their own – there are experiences (experienced by no one) labelled “bats” and “whales”. So the question doesn’t make sense in that context. Recognising the empty nature of lables does not mean that seeing will change, it’s more like a recognition that the interpretation is wrong. Noticing that only thought cuts out “things” out of the whole and “brings them into existence”. It is only language that makes the experienced appear separated. When you see the bird in the sky, there is a movement of shapes and colours, labels come up— “bird,” “sky,” “in.” Can you experience a bird without sky, outside of sky (while looking up)? It’s one indivisible whole, which can only be divided by words; words that are believed to be real things, objects.

To be honest, answering this question is a bit more challenging for me. In direct experience, there's only perception of sensations, but no existence of 'others', just as there isn't the perception of 'my own body' or 'myself.' Anyway, I was wondering: Could sensations themselves be a delusion?

So, when the descriptions by thoughts are “believed” to be a reality and there are “actions” in accordance to these beliefs, then there is a delusion. When the delusion is recognised it is illusion. Illusion is when the senses tell something that mind can't accept. ..or, maybe more accurately, illusion is when the mind is contradicted by sense input. The interpretation/perception is where the illusion/delusion is. So yes “the world” is an illusion but the raw experience is all that is there. Now if we are talking about if the senses are really existing on their own, that is another story (excuse the pun).
Can the senses and thinking be experienced separately (isolated from each other)? Or is there just indivisible experiencing – just THIS?
We don’t experience our senses individually. Rather, these are different aspects of experiencing. Thought tells us that our senses are separate streams of information. We see with our eyes, hear with our ears, feel with our skin, smell with our nose, taste with our tongue. In DE, though, it is seen as a one experience. Senses affect each other. Although speech is perceived through the ears, what we see can change what we hear. In this video, a man produces the same syllable over and over again. If you watch his mouth, you’ll hear the syllable “fah,” but if you look away, you’ll hear “bah.” Although your ears hear “bah,” your eyes see “fah”. This phenomenon is known as the McGurk effect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k8fHR9jKVM )

Another example of sensory interaction is how both taste and smell are vital for savouring food (flavour). If smell is lost or impaired, for instance, the taste of food will also be impaired, even if taste receptors on the tongue are working fine.
Here is a fun video that demonstrates how a relationship between sight and touch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dphlhmt ... dex=4&t=3s

Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story.
So even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence. Can you see that?

Love
Rali

[Lennart]

How is it known that “trees” have experiences? Or is it an assumption?

It can't be known. It's nothing but an assumption.

Also are object inherently existing? Or “object” is just a label for feeling, seeing, hearing, tasting and/or smelling (remember the apple example)? Can a label feel, see, hear…?

No, they are just a label and don't have an inherent existence. A “label” is the name given to certain perceptions by thinking, so a label isn't anything that would be able to perceive anything itself.

How is a crow experienced in DE?

In DE, a crow is experienced by simply seeing (colour, shape) and hearing (sound). I have a question here. “Simply seeing / hearing / smelling / tasting / feeling” is clear to me but I noticed that I did not fully understand “simply thinking”. At one point you wrote:

Thoughts Arising (but not their content, what the thought is ABOUT)

And in the example of the coffee cup:

Thought about drinking the coffee, simply = thought (thinking)

Sorry, I've only just realised that what I don't understand yet is: When there is the thought “drinking coffee” isn't there already a content / label? (Thanks for your pacience with me.) ;)

Does a crow have an experience? How could that be known? Or is the crow’s experience an assumption?

A “crow” is only a label for certain perceptions, and these perceptions itself can't have an experience. And even if it were the case it could never be known through DE. The crow's experience is an assumption at best.

Can you experience a bird without sky, outside of sky (while looking up)?

No, it's only thought and language making a difference between “bird” and “sky”.

So, when the descriptions by thoughts are “believed” to be a reality and there are “actions” in accordance to these beliefs, then there is a delusion. When the delusion is recognised it is illusion.

Thank you for clarifying the difference for me. Just to help me memorise it: Delusion is when I see the mirage and think it's real, while illusion is when I understand that it's not real even though I continue to see it in front of my eyes continuously, right? (Or when I keep hearing “fah” although I know it's “bah”. Thanks for the video. It really blew me away!) ;)

Can the senses and thinking be experienced separately (isolated from each other)? Or is there just indivisible experiencing – just THIS?

There is just one indivisible experience. The distinction between the 'senses' is just another label created by thinking.

Even though it might look as there are clearly defined senses, DE shows a different story.
So even the senses are dependently originated which makes them also empty of inherent existence. Can you see that?

Yes, now I can see it, also thanks to the videos, especially the first one, because I was able to experience it myself with its help. There is only one 'experience' (although in the end, of course, this is just a label, too) and no separate senses. (The only thing that is not quite clear to me yet is "simply thinking" in DE.)

Wish you a nice Sunday!
LOVE,
Lennart

[poppyseed]

Hi Lennart
Awesome seeing as usual!

Sorry, I've only just realised that what I don't understand yet is: When there is the thought “drinking coffee” isn't there already a content / label? (Thanks for your pacience with me.) ;)

You don’t have to thank me, it’s a pleasure talking to you!

The main difference between seeing a thought arising and seeing thought content is indescribable but experienceable.
Let me give you a pointer for that… a Mahamudra koan

You’ve practiced Zazen…Throughout your day, try to observe the gap between thoughts as often as possible. It can be done by noticing that ‘thinking’ is happening right now, then stop and just simply wait for the next thought to come. In the ‘waiting’ there is a gap between two thoughts.
Sit quietly for about 30 minutes and notice the arising thoughts. Just let them appear as they appear. Try your best to COMPLETELY ignore what they are saying and just notice how they appear, without you doing anything at all. Here is the koan:
Is there a difference between abiding in tranquillity and moving in thought?
Love
Rali

[Lennart]

Hello Rali!
Thanks for the explanation, I knew immediately what was meant when you mentioned that gap between one thought and the next. I think now I understand better what "simply thinking" refers to. Thank you for that. I meditated today, which I hadn't done for a while, and it felt really good.

Is there a difference between abiding in tranquillity and moving in thought?

No, there is no difference or contradiction between the two. As can be experienced in meditation, within or through the state of inner stillness, the flow of thoughts can be explored by observing them without attachment or judgment. If one were to suppress thoughts or attempt to halt their movement, this very effort would lead to heightened movement and the loss of tranquility.

Have a good start into the next week!
Best regards,
Lennart

[poppyseed]

Hi Lennart
Yay!!! I really enjoy reading your answer!

Here is an excerpt from the Bahiya Sutta for your enjoyment:

A third time Bahiya said to the Lord: "It is difficult to know for certain... Teach me Dhamma, Sugata, so that it will be for my good and happiness for a long time."
"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."

So let's review where we are at with the following questions.

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?
What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?
Is seeking still going on?
Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?
Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?
Love
Rali

[Lennart]

What has changed and what hasn’t in normal everyday living. What changes? What stays the same?

At first glance, I would say that not much has changed, but upon closer inspection, I notice that I've become overall calmer in situations that previously would have stressed me out or carried me away emotionally. Certain mechanisms where the mind attempts to pre-calculate situations or stages scenarios in imagination that could occur, still happen, but I can observe them calmly and understand that they are not reality, just conditioned behaviors. I don't identify with them, yet I also have no control over the running of this 'program.' In any case, it no longer leads me to draw conclusions that would be followed by corresponding 'actions.' I had a couple of these moments last week, but they ultimately just passed by like a storm without me taking any steps, aside from the practice of direct experience you gave me. I feel they've significantly helped me in maintaining calmness and staying aware of 'what is' versus what is just a creation of the mind.

What is the biggest difference from before starting this conversation?

I think the biggest difference is that at the time our correspondence began, I had stronger doubts whether I might be in the process of constructing a spiritual fantasy world for myself, while through the questions and answers with you, but especially through the exercises, I've already gained some insights by actually EXPERIENCING. And it fills me with confidence that I now have a reliable tool 'at hand' that allows me to SEE and gradually depart from my former rather intellectual approach. It has also become even clearer to me how much clinging to 'intellectualism' is related to fears created by the mind, just in order to not be without entertainment, at any cost. ;)

Is seeking still going on?

Yes, the seeking still happens, but now it's more like a conditioned behavior, akin to a nervous tick or a bad habit, mainly surfacing in rather stressful situations. Once the calmness returns, I see that this behavior serves no purpose at all. Or even if it had a goal, achieving that goal would seem utterly pointless to me. So, it's more like a ghost or the 'lifeless shell' of a promise that somewhere at the other end, there's a 'place' waiting for me where everything is just fine

Is there any confusion at all or anything you would like to address?

I'm not sure if I'd call it confusion, but I notice that I still have many blind spots, which I probably won't be able to examine alone without someone shedding light on them. A significant theme, I believe, especially revolves around 'aversions.' I have not only a few, which indicates to me that there's still a lot of 'selfing' at play, even if I can now observe most aversions more closely and not take them at face value. However, there are also other aversions where I find that quite challenging.

Can you say with a big fat YES, it is clear what the illusion of a separate self is?

YES! However, even though I'm absolutely aware that it's an illusion, it sometimes does still feel quite real! ;)

With love from rainy Schwerin,
Lennart

[poppyseed]

Hi Lennart

With love from rainy Schwerin,

Rainy Johannesburg sends love too :)

I'm not sure if I'd call it confusion, but I notice that I still have many blind spots, which I probably won't be able to examine alone without someone shedding light on them. A significant theme, I believe, especially revolves around 'aversions.' I have not only a few, which indicates to me that there's still a lot of 'selfing' at play, even if I can now observe most aversions more closely and not take them at face value. However, there are also other aversions where I find that quite challenging.

Maybe you can share something specific that we can work with?
Generally, aversions exist mostly as thought content. These are all the should nots’ and the don’t wants. It is the tendency to push experience away. These thoughts have a pull, and once they arrive they have the power to drag attention into the story and there goes the peace.

Resistance/aversion is a protective mechanism, a signal to not go somewhere unknown, unsafe, or dark. Ultimately, resistance is a sensation that prevent us from going into another sensation - a sensation triggered by thoughts. This sensation is not to be feared. Sensations are what simply happen: they are the natural and unavoidable outcome of being alive. The labels that usually accompany sensations are “pleasant”, “unpleasant” and “neutral”. The more unpleasant the sensations are, the more likely that the push and pull of reaction will start up. For example, if we hit your thumb with a hammer, the sensations are rather “unpleasant” :). The same applies with receiving bad news, being criticized, or someone around falling ill - some things will simply never feel “good” when they occur. However, just as any other sensation, they come and go. They are felt as raw energy. When felt fully they dissipate. Explore them with curiosity, as if you have never seen them before. Sensations are not to be feared; they are here to be experienced. And even if they are “uncomfortable”, they add a richness and juiciness to life.

So try to stay with the “unwanted” sensation, experience everything fully. Let it play out. It might be uncomfortable, but supressing it doesn’t work anyway. The only way to find peace is to surrender to what is. Wishing it away is not going to work. Resistance/aversion arises when we say “no” to what is happening. But it doesn’t really matter - life keeps on happening. The only difference is all the feelings that arise. You can hate or love, life will happen anyway. Peace/happiness is always present but it is clouded by the thoughts. What we call suffering is made up story about “shoulds” and “should nots”.

In simple everyday life, what is happening is happening. Thinking about being avoiding stuff, flows with whatever is happening. Experiencing sensations fully allows the story to change. Little by little “unpleasant” sensations are seen/labelled as less “unpleasant” and then at some point they are become just “neutral” sensations – sensations like any other. The drama of getting involved in difficult situations, and the roller coaster of emotions that can produce, is instead replaced by equanimity.

Please let me know if you need any help with specific aversions

YES! However, even though I'm absolutely aware that it's an illusion, it sometimes does still feel quite real! ;)

Yay!
This going backwards and forwards is quite normal at this stage. Seeing probably won't be 24/7. There's likely to be a "honeymoon period," and then what we call, "got it, lost it," as untrue beliefs come up to be questioned. There might still be expectations, confusion, and doubt. This can go on for months and years. You may be thinking that this is not enough, that some experiences need to happen, that you should be happy and blissful all the time. When these thoughts arise, bring the focus to what is present here now. Just THIS. And look again: what is here that wants THIS to be different (including the presence of doubtful thoughts)?

The initial shift is irreversible, just as we can never go back to believing in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. The recognition of no self is just the beginning of seeing life and “yourself” in a new light. It takes time to clean up all old beliefs and conditioning. Conditioning was not created in a day so it won’t be cleaned in a day either.

To “deal” with conditioning and problematic emotions, question everything, and little by little you will notice changes in everyday life: less judgment, more openness; less thinking, more appreciation; less story, more being; less structure, more flow. You will notice that some habitual thoughts no longer arise. The story changes in a way that allows more space for simply being.
This video might be helpful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJQcD588g2w

By the way even after crossing the gate you can continue to write on your thread and I will try to help with whatever problem you are trying to solve. There are also support groups on Facebook where you can share experiences and ask questions.

Now… We have some traditional final questions. Would you like to answer those?

Love
Rali

[Lennart]

Hello Rali!
If it's OK with you I'd like to answer only one of your questions today (but I promise to get back to the other ones tomorrow):

Maybe you can share something specific that we can work with?

As I already told you, when I returned from Argentina, I decided to move to Schwerin. Most of my friends from Berlin wrinkled their noses and said they wouldn't move there because there were so many neo-Nazis. On one hand, I thought it was an exaggerated stereotype, and on the other hand, I believed that it would be good if other people moved there too, so that the radical right wouldn't dominate the entire region. For the first time since the end of National Socialism in 1945, a right-wing populist, fascist party with racist and anti-democratic beliefs sits in the German parliament. During the five years I spent in South America, this party managed to change its previous image as an outsider group of radical fanatics to now appealing to a broad part of the middle class that sympathizes with them.

Working as a German teacher for migrants and refugees, I was certain that at least my colleagues at work wouldn't endorse such an ideology. However, as the past few months have shown, I was mistaken. Out of a total of 10 colleagues, I've had to listen to incredibly racist and xenophobic remarks from 6 of them in the teachers' room, at least once a week. I simply don't understand why someone would do such a job if they hold such views. I feel sorry for the course participants, often traumatized by war, who are confronted with these teachers as their first point of contact in a foreign country, having to interact with them every day.

It's extremely difficult for me to accept that this seems to be the current reality in my home country, especially because the situation was somewhat similar in the 1930s, and we all know where that led. In German schools, it's mandatory to learn, analyze, and understand how Hitler came to power in history class, and it's obligatory to go on a class trip to a concentration camp. If you visit such a place once in your life, you will certainly never forget it. Since the 1950s, there have been numerous efforts in Germany to work through this entire history and enable citizens through political education to maintain a critical perspective on what's happening in their own country. It's just unfathomable to me that such discussions have to be held in the teachers' room again. I thought we had left these things behind for good.

To put it in a nutshell, I find it very challenging to be friendly with those colleagues because I have strong aversions against them. But yes, I understand that the core of my aversion lies in the fact that I simply cannot or do not want to accept "what is" at least regarding this issue, and secondly, that my colleagues are, in the end, nothing but a product of an infinite number of conditions, too, and not that horrible "you" which is projected on them by my mind.

LOVE,
Lennart

[poppyseed]

Hi Lennart

To put it in a nutshell, I find it very challenging to be friendly with those colleagues because I have strong aversions against them. But yes, I understand that the core of my aversion lies in the fact that I simply cannot or do not want to accept "what is" at least regarding this issue, and secondly, that my colleagues are, in the end, nothing but a product of an infinite number of conditions, too, and not that horrible "you" which is projected on them by my mind.

How are “others” and “others’ thoughts” experienced in DE? You are not the thinker of “your” thoughts, are others?
Let me start but making it clear that in DE there is a just a clash between thought patterns. There are no “Lennart” and “others”, right? So aversion in this case is not exactly “you don’t like these people” but a confirmation bias of some thoughts against others. Confirmation bias is the tendency to favour information that confirms or strengthens "your" beliefs or values and reject information that goes against the coreof beliefs. Thoughts’ content is self-organising. Thoughts attract and repel other thoughts like magnets – like puzzle pieces that fit or do not fit together. So at the end is that problem “yours” to solve?

Wanting to be right is the flip side of lacking control over what "others" think. Wanting is a sign that something is incomplete, or missing. Here is another angle. Wanting to be right is just that—wanting. The end of trying to change what is starts with seeing that the doer/thinker is imagined. Still, though, actions are taken and choices are made with or without the narration of events. The story continues. When a story is seen as a story, not actuality, it can carry on without making things and events overly serious and dramatic. The story can be taken lightly; it can be entertaining and fun, as well as serious when a situation asks for seriousness.

In German schools, it's mandatory to learn, analyze, and understand how Hitler came to power in history class, and it's obligatory to go on a class trip to a concentration camp.

My kids went to a German school here and I know what you are talking about. I was impressed on how much attention is given to this topic. They are currently studying in Munich.

Love
Rali

[Lennart]

How are “others” and “others’ thoughts” experienced in DE? You are not the thinker of “your” thoughts, are others?

In DE, 'others' can only be perceived like everything else, namely simply as sensory impressions. The 'thoughts of others', however, are not experienceable at all. I am just as little the one who 'thinks his thoughts' as the (supposed) 'others' are.

There are no “Lennart” and “others”, right?

That's right, neither “I” nor “the others” are there.

So at the end is that problem “yours” to solve?

Actually, there's no “problem” at all, just what is, and that in itself is neither problematic nor unproblematic. Such a judgment is artificially constructed by thinking based on assumptions, interpretations, concepts, labels, beliefs, conditioning, predictions, hopes, desires, fears, identification with preferences and aversions, etc., so it's mind-made.

By the way, on my way to work today, I thought again about what I wrote to you, and I realized that I might have exaggerated some aspects. And that the "telling of a story," whether it's to oneself or another person, somehow always uses such dramatic maneuvers. Also, I noticed that ultimately, the entire history of the country where I live is a collectively told one that cannot be verified by me (which doesn't mean I would deny it because of that). In Argentina, for example, there was also a military dictatorship, and when I lived there, certain populist discourses might have irritated me, but they didn't evoke such aversions as in the context of Germany, which probably has to do simply with a stronger "identification" with the place because the "person Lennart" was shaped here. ;)

Today was the last day before the Christmas holidays, and I wished a colleague, whom I always interpreted as particularly "sour," all the best and hugged her. It was a kind of exercise that somehow showed me that “Lennart” doesn't lose his "good reputation" in front of himself when he cuddles with people labelled "racist" by 'his' mind. It simply didn't change anything because neither “Lennart” nor the “racist” exists. That was quite an interesting insight. ;)

[poppyseed]

Hey Lennart

I really liked what you wrote!
Do you think you can give the final questions a go?

Love
Rali

[Lennart]

Do you think you can give the final questions a go?

Of course, with pleasure. ;)

[poppyseed]

Hi Lennart

Here are the final questions. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready. Please answer what's true for you rather than any sort of 'ideal' answer
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form? Was there ever?

2) Explain in detail what the illusion of separate self is, when it starts and how it works from your own experience. Describe it fully as you see it now.

3) How does it feel to see this? What is the difference from before you started this dialogue? Please report from the past few days.

4) What was the last bit that pushed you over, made you look?

5) Describe decision & give examples from experience.

Describe intention & give examples from experience.

Describe free will & give examples from experience.

Describe choice & give examples from experience.

Describe control & give examples from experience.

What makes things happen? How does it work?

What are you responsible for? Give examples from experience.

6) Anything to add?
Love
Rali

[Lennart]

Here are the final questions. Please answer all questions in full, when you are ready.

Thank you. It will still take a little to answer them all, I would prefer to take my time, if you don't mind.

Thank you so much again for your guidance!

Hope you're doing fine over there!

LOVE,
Lennart