A bit nervous, but I want to know rather thank think

[Sellthos]

LU is focused guiding for seeing there is no real, inherent 'self' - what do you understand by this?
Right now, what comes to mind is the illusion of separate existence, defined by the body and thoughts, and of a deeper state/truth as both a perspective and the entirety of a greater whole.

What are you looking for at LU?
Clear and solid knowing by experience with certainty, without intellectual maneuvers and without trying to justify my experience in relation to all other disciplines and models learned. I want to see, know and recognize truth, deep, solid and that doesn't require explanations to be truth.
I want to experience nonduality and try to not fuel the intellectual search for it.

What do you expect from a guided conversation?
To be honest, I do want to challenge my current beliefs and systems. And I felt that being guided by someone who might have had to walk similar steps would be best, because they can help with the self-trap of intellectualizing everything instead of seeing what is. When I read the pages and testimonials and saw that this is all voluntary work, it also gave me a good feeling.

What is your experience in terms of spiritual practices, seeking and inquiry?
Most of my spiritual background comes from Spiritism and Umbanda. They give me guidance in many situations of life, and provided me with good experiences. I am not an "avid religious practitioner" in the sense that I try to feel what their message is with heart and mind, as I do with Hinduism and Buddhism, both of these more recently.

I always had this feeling of being out of place in life. Spiritual, psychological and moral effort helped a lot to ease problems and bring more well-being, but the feeling never stopped. As I studied what causes health and disease, I got interested in consciousness and methods to achieve nonduality, particularly meditation.

I have been practicing Reiki for about 8 months; multidimensional healing for about 6 mo; transcendental meditation for about 3mo and the "Who am I?" Koan while focusing on the eyes intermitently for the last 2 months.
I have a mentor (from a buddhist background) that has been giving me orientation regarding the seeking and in some aspects of life, with good effects in many aspects. Just the nonduality that I still haven't experienced above any shadow of doubt or intellectualization.

While studying about nonduality in scientific literature, I came across a mention of LU. When I read the pages, many things that my mentor told me felt like beggining to clear, and I realized that I hadn't totally considered what it meant to realize nonduality. At the same time, it all felt exciting and somehow even appropriate.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how willing are you to question any currently held beliefs about 'self?
9

[vinceschubert]

Hi Sellthos, vince here. i will guide you.

What are you looking for at LU?
Clear and solid knowing by experience with certainty, without intellectual maneuvers and without trying to justify my experience in relation to all other disciplines and models learned. I want to see, know and recognize truth, deep, solid and that doesn't require explanations to be truth.
I want to experience nonduality and try to not fuel the intellectual search for it.

You want direct, solid knowing—something that doesn't require intellectual justification. That means we cut the search, the explanations, and any attempt to fit truth into models. Right now, stop. Where is the "you" that is searching for truth? Not theoretically—look. Can you find an entity, a center, a solid self that is doing this? Or is there just experience happening?

When you ask for nonduality, is there an assumption that you, as a separate someone, will experience it? If so, that's the seeker trap. Nonduality is not something you experience—it’s what already is. What is here right now before thought interprets it?

Drop the seeking for a moment. What remains when there’s no effort to find anything?

Test this. What happens when you stop looking for an answer and just notice what is?

vince

[Sellthos]

Hi Vince. Pleased to meet you. Thanks a lot for your guidance. You can call me Mateus.

While waiting, I read some of the archives and a bit of the LU book, and some changes in experience happened.

Where is the "you" that is searching for truth? Not theoretically—look. Can you find an entity, a center, a solid self that is doing this? Or is there just experience happening?

I can't find anything solid, permanent. Only thoughts affirming a self and occasionally a feeling in some part of the body when the self is mentioned. They are identified as thoughts and feelings, and when looking behind them, only silence.

Sometimes, there are thoughts that the awareness that perceives the experience is my self. When trying to look deeper into this awareness, also only silence.

It seems like the self is not necessary for the experience, and there are periods when clearly experience happens without the thoughts of self. In others, there are thoughts and sensations of effort being made to maintain absence of "thoughts of self", such as tension in the neck, eyes and forehead.

When you ask for nonduality, is there an assumption that you, as a separate someone, will experience it? If so, that's the seeker trap. Nonduality is not something you experience—it’s what already is. What is here right now before thought interprets it?

Indeed there is that assumption and a feeling in the body associated with it. When looking at both, they melt. After that, there are only the senses and thoughts of present experience.

Before the labelling by thoughts, it does seem like the qualitative difference the body, objects, sounds get reduced.

Drop the seeking for a moment. What remains when there’s no effort to find anything?

Test this. What happens when you stop looking for an answer and just notice what is?

Before labelling, there was seeing, touching, breathing and hearing , but the intrisic difference between them reduced a lot. There was even a moment were it all felt a bit like one and the same.
After labelling and thoughts, feelings of individuality/isolation of single objects, the body, souds, sights, etc became stronger.

It is as if the labelling, thoughts and sensations cause the impression of separation and identification.

There were no strong emotions or "bells and whistles". Everything was just like that it and it felt neutral.


About expectations and how the experience has been so far:

There was some expectation of a more "colorful" experience, especially after having moments of pure awareness in meditation. But even these moments did not feel ultra-extraordinary. They felt pleasant and satisfactory, but in a way part of the story, not exceptionally wonderful points to keep remembering, pondering over or hyping.

In periods with few thoughts of self, things still happen normally and there is no intrisic bliss, but also patterns of negative thinking and feeling diminished in frequency and intensity very much. Like they don't have much where to hold on to.

Neutral and calm are the most common states, with a pleasant feeling of well-being sometimes, particularly when focusing on what is.

Thanks again for your patience and effort, Vince. Please say if there is too much intelectualization going on.

[vinceschubert]

Good to meet you, Mateus. Now, let’s get right to it.

You say, “the self is not necessary for experience,” and you see thoughts and sensations as just arising. Excellent. Now, what about the one who is seeing this? That sense of being aware of it all—what is that? When you say “I notice the absence of self,” who is noticing?

You already see that labelling brings back the sense of separation. But who or what is labelling? Does a “you” sit there generating labels, or do they just arise, automatically, like a reflex? If no one is doing it, who is there to be affected by the labels?

This experience of things blending before labels kick in—what’s missing in that moment? Is there a “you” experiencing it? If not, what happens when the mind rushes back to claim ownership of the experience?

You mentioned a tension in the body when trying to maintain “absence of thoughts of self.” Look at that closely—what is struggling? Who is the one trying to maintain this state? If it’s just happening, where is the effort coming from?

Forget “colorful experiences” or bliss. That’s the old conditioning wanting something special. What’s wrong with neutral? Who is judging it as not enough?

Stay here. Drop even the effort to stay here. What is left, completely uncontrived?

Please say if there is too much intelectualization going on.

Yes, there’s still some intellectualization. But more importantly—who wants to know if there’s too much intellectualizing? Who is measuring and evaluating this?

Notice that the mind wants a report card, a reassurance. But what if you don’t engage with that? What happens if you just sit in raw experience without analyzing it?

Try this: for the next few moments, don’t touch any thought. Let them come and go, but don’t grab any. Just be.

What remains? And more importantly, who is left to report on what remains?

vince

[Sellthos]

Now, what about the one who is seeing this? That sense of being aware of it all—what is that?

The sense of being aware happens by itself. Sometimes, it's followed by thoughts claiming to be the awareness.
When trying to look behind the awareness, only silence.
Is awareness then a part of the experience just like the senses and thoughts?

When you say “I notice the absence of self,” who is noticing?

There is no one. Noticing just happens. Some thoughts are about that abscence and others claim to be the awareness that notices, but they are transitory, and are not the noticing itself.

You already see that labelling brings back the sense of separation. But who or what is labelling? Does a “you” sit there generating labels, or do they just arise, automatically, like a reflex? If no one is doing it, who is there to be affected by the labels?

Labels arise automatically.
The moments of labelling of different "forcefulness" also happen by themselves. Thoughts claim to be controlling labelling, to choosing to focus on the experience before labelling or to interpreting the sensations of different moments.
There is also the thought that all of that is just happening, without a self commanding it. This thought causes no feeling of discomfort and there was a slight feeling of self-satisfaction for such situation, which is also just a feeling.

This experience of things blending before labels kick in—what’s missing in that moment? Is there a “you” experiencing it? If not, what happens when the mind rushes back to claim ownership of the experience?

What was missing was thoughts and feeling of separation/individuality of each object, thing or sensation.
Perception of the blending just happened, with thoughts of a self who experienced it later.
When the mind rushed back, each object and sensation was labelled, and thoughts and feelings of individuality of each one also came.

You mentioned a tension in the body when trying to maintain “absence of thoughts of self.” Look at that closely—what is struggling? Who is the one trying to maintain this state? If it’s just happening, where is the effort coming from?

Along the feeling of tension were thoughts of doing effort to improve, which pressupose there was a self to improve. Again, only silence behind these thoughts, not an individual self to be found.
So the sensations and thoughts were just happening.

Forget “colorful experiences” or bliss. That’s the old conditioning wanting something special. What’s wrong with neutral? Who is judging it as not enough?
Stay here. Drop even the effort to stay here. What is left, completely uncontrived?

There is just the senses, some thoughts and feelings passing by.
Judgement may come as a thought, but it's getting much less intense.
There is the thought of awareness of the experience.
A sense of calm neutrality overall.

Yes, there’s still some intellectualization. But more importantly—who wants to know if there’s too much intellectualizing? Who is measuring and evaluating this?
Notice that the mind wants a report card, a reassurance. But what if you don’t engage with that? What happens if you just sit in raw experience without analyzing it?
Try this: for the next few moments, don’t touch any thought. Let them come and go, but don’t grab any. Just be.
What remains? And more importantly, who is left to report on what remains?

When sitting in raw experience, there is just the experience without anyone experiencing it.
Seems like moments of more movement, intelectual activity or intense emotions facilitate more intense thinking about someone going through these moments.


Mateus

[vinceschubert]

The sense of being aware happens by itself. Sometimes, it's followed by thoughts claiming to be the awareness.
When trying to look behind the awareness, only silence.
Is awareness then a part of the experience just like the senses and thoughts?

Yes. Awareness is just another arising—just like seeing, hearing, and thinking. It’s not something you are or something you have. It happens.

That silence when you look behind awareness—what is that? Is there anyone there to own or do awareness? Or is there just... this?

Look again. Right now, is there an "I" doing awareness? Or is there just awareness, happening?

There is no one. Noticing just happens. Some thoughts are about that abscence and others claim to be the awareness that notices, but they are transitory, and are not the noticing itself.

Exactly. The noticing happens, but there is no one doing it. Thoughts come and claim ownership, but they are just more appearances, no different than a sound or a breeze.

Now, without touching thought, just stay here. No owner, no center—just this.

Is anything missing? Is anything needed?

Labels arise automatically.
The moments of labelling of different "forcefulness" also happen by themselves. Thoughts claim to be controlling labelling, to choosing to focus on the experience before labelling or to interpreting the sensations of different moments.
There is also the thought that all of that is just happening, without a self commanding it. This thought causes no feeling of discomfort and there was a slight feeling of self-satisfaction for such situation, which is also just a feeling.

Yes! Even the thought “this is just happening without a self” is just another happening. And even the self-satisfaction about that insight—just another passing feeling.

Now, what if you don’t follow any of it? No need to grasp or push away—just let everything be as it is, without interference.

Without identifying with any thought, feeling, or label, is there a problem? Is there anything left to seek?

What was missing was thoughts and feeling of separation/individuality of each object, thing or sensation.
Perception of the blending just happened, with thoughts of a self who experienced it later.
When the mind rushed back, each object and sensation was labelled, and thoughts and feelings of individuality of each one also came.

Yes. The mind rushes in after the fact to carve everything up, to claim an experiencer, and to re-establish separation. But that initial perception—the blending, the seamless happening—was already the case before thought made its claims.

Right now, before the mind adds anything:

What exactly separates you from what is seen, heard, felt?

Is there any actual boundary? Or is it only created by thought after the raw experience?

Along with

There is just the senses, some thoughts and feelings passing by.
Judgement may come as a thought, but it's getting much less intense.
There is the thought of awareness of the experience.
A sense of calm neutrality overall.

the feeling of tension were thoughts of doing effort to improve, which pressupose there was a self to improve. Again, only silence behind these thoughts, not an individual self to be found.
So the sensations and thoughts were just happening.

Yes. The effort, the tension, the thought of “I must improve”—all just happening. And behind it? Nothing. No self pulling the strings.

Now, what happens if you don’t interfere at all? No pushing thoughts away, no clinging to silence, no trying to keep this insight—just letting everything arise and pass as it does.

Is there anything left to struggle with?

There is just the senses, some thoughts and feelings passing by.
Judgement may come as a thought, but it's getting much less intense.
There is the thought of awareness of the experience.
A sense of calm neutrality overall

Yes. Simple, direct, just this. No struggle, no owner—just experience happening, effortlessly. Even the thought “I am aware” is just another passing movement.

Now, without holding onto even neutrality or calm, without grasping at any state—what happens if you completely let go? Not as a doing, but as an absence of holding?

What is left?

When sitting in raw experience, there is just the experience without anyone experiencing it.
Seems like moments of more movement, intelectual activity or intense emotions facilitate more intense thinking about someone going through these moments.

Yes! In stillness, it’s obvious—just experience, no experiencer. But when things get intense—movement, emotions, mental activity—the habit of a “someone” going through it kicks in.

But now you see it clearly: that “someone” isn’t actually there. It’s just thought constructing a story after the fact.

So here’s the real test: next time there’s movement, intensity, or strong emotions, look right then—does a self actually appear, or is it just more experience happening?

vince

[Sellthos]

That silence when you look behind awareness—what is that? Is there anyone there to own or do awareness? Or is there just... this?
Look again. Right now, is there an "I" doing awareness? Or is there just awareness, happening?

In direct experience, there is just this and awareness is just happening, without anyone doing or receiving it.
A question: in direct experience, only the senses, thoughts and feelings are "sources of information". That would mean that something which isn't accesible by them might exist, but is not part of the experience?

The answer to the following questions is similiar, so they're grouped. Please say if you prefer separate answers.

Now, without touching thought, just stay here. No owner, no center—just this.
Is anything missing? Is anything needed?

Now, what if you don’t follow any of it? No need to grasp or push away—just let everything be as it is, without interference.
Without identifying with any thought, feeling, or label, is there a problem? Is there anything left to seek?

Now, what happens if you don’t interfere at all? No pushing thoughts away, no clinging to silence, no trying to keep this insight—just letting everything arise and pass as it does.
Is there anything left to struggle with?

Now, without holding onto even neutrality or calm, without grasping at any state—what happens if you completely let go? Not as a doing, but as an absence of holding? What is left?

So here’s the real test: next time there’s movement, intensity, or strong emotions, look right then—does a self actually appear, or is it just more experience happening?

It didn't take long for an opportunity to experience strong emotions to present itself kkkkkk. Many of the insights on your points were in the last 1-2 days in this context:

- Even during strong emotions, no clear self could be found. There were strong and gripping thoughts and feelings, but they also went away after some time.

- Contradictory thoughts may arise closely, such as a thought of a "me doing/thinking something" along with another of "that's not correct, cut it out" and another of "don't try to hold on to the thoughts". Althought there are periods when it is reduced.

- There were also thoughts and sensations of "maintain peace of mind, stay detached, don't let events, thoughts and feelings influence as much, don't let them disturb peace, don't think about the future, only now". And they could be subtle, as a background theme and not narrated in the mind.
It was as if there was a "self" trying to determine how things should feel and, in doing so, sensations/feelings/thoughts felt diminished. When letting go, emotions seemed stronger, like there was no deciding how they should or shouldn't be felt. Self-depreciating thoughts also arise a bit more often. However, both feelings and thoughts didn't have as much "grasp", and each eventually dissolved away.

- It seemed like even strong thoughts and feelings just came and went. It felt ok to feel confused, angry or indecisive, and these feelings also went away.

- With all that said, it seems that even during intense periods, there is just experience happening, and there is no deciding the way it should be, it just is like it is. In such a state, nothing seems to be missing. Desires pop up as well, but they don't cause a gripping feeling that something is missing.



Mateus

[vinceschubert]

With all that said, it seems that even during intense periods, there is just experience happening, and there is no deciding the way it should be, it just is like it is. In such a state, nothing seems to be missing. Desires pop up as well, but they don't cause a gripping feeling that something is missing.

Beautiful. There’s just this, exactly as it is—intense or quiet, thoughts or no thoughts, desires or no desires. Nothing missing, nothing to fix. Even desire is just another arising, not a problem, not a lack—just part of what is happening.

So now, if there’s no sense of something missing, no struggle, no need to resist or chase—what is left to seek? Who is left to awaken?

vince

[Sellthos]

So now, if there’s no sense of something missing, no struggle, no need to resist or chase—what is left to seek? Who is left to awaken?

There isn't any need for seeking, as in searching for something missing, since there is nothing missing. It's like that fundamental discomfort simply went away.

Desire to improve on one thing or other still shows up, but not as a means to solve some fundamental flaw with life, just another desire. There were also conflicting thoughts about desires, but it seems that they are also part of the experience, and aren't very gripping.


Thanks a lot for all you are doing, vance!

[vinceschubert]

Yes. The fundamental itch—the restless sense that something is off, something needs to be found or fixed—is gone. What remains is just life happening, naturally, without an underlying problem to solve.

Desires, conflicts, thoughts—they still arise, but now they are just what they are. Not burdens, not personal, just part of the flow. No gripping, no struggle, no imaginary “someone” needing to control it all.

Now, in this moment—without referring to thought, without checking or evaluating—is there anything wrong? Is there any problem at all?

vince

[Sellthos]

Thanks a lot for all you are doing, vince!*

[vinceschubert]

Let’s run through these questions and see if there’s anywhere that needs further investigation.
1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

2) Describe how the illusion of an independent, self came into being by giving examples from actual experience.
Then give some experiential examples of how life changed for you after seeing through this illusion.

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) Can you remember any specific inquiry that resulted in an epiphany? ..a before and after seeing the actuality of the Self. Was there a point when you ‘got it’?

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how these things happen and how they work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

6) Anything to add?

vince

[Sellthos]

Now, in this moment—without referring to thought, without checking or evaluating—is there anything wrong? Is there any problem at all?

There is nothing wrong. Even the idea of something being wrong is just a thought.

1) Is there a separate entity 'self', 'me' 'I', at all, anywhere, in any way, shape or form?
Was there ever?

Not that can be found in direct experience.
Since some elements can't be well noticed by the senses, would it be reasonable to assume that entities like the spirit or karma might exist and influence the experience in some way? However, they wouldn't be part of the direct experience most of the time, unless spiritual phenomena that affect the senses happen. Is this interpretation correct?

2) Describe how the illusion of an independent, self came into being by giving examples from actual experience.
Then give some experiential examples of how life changed for you after seeing through this illusion.

It came into being by being reinforced in multiple ways, particularly language and culture. Labelling, judgment, right/wrong, and guilt/satisfaction become central in the "normal way of life" and they all require a separation between a "self"and other things to be applied.

The main examples are: that everything feels lighter in a sense, since self-deprecating thoughts are not so gripping; to notice things, thoughts and sensations more clearly; and to accept everything as it is, both because judgments about situations are also thoughts and because it becomes clear that there isn't control over the events, only the illusion of it.

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.

Complementing the last answer, the thoughts and sensations start to change in behaviour. They are not so gripping, not the be-all end-all that define reality.
And as it becomes clear that they come and go by themselves, the layers of thoughts and analyses and analyses of the analyses reflect that.
Situations of pain, discomfort, doubt or frustration are felt with less and less feeling/thoughts of resistance.
Events of joy and pride are also felt, and are recognized as that, not more and not less.

4) Can you remember any specific inquiry that resulted in an epiphany? ..a before and after seeing the actuality of the Self. Was there a point when you ‘got it’?

It was spread over some days. The 2 inquiries closest to an epiphany were:
- When beggining to analyze the self and why it felt importat, or why the lack of seemed it would be painful. There was a narrative of this single being, on a long path to improve himself, who exerted a lot of effort and went through so many things, and so this journey had importance/value, couldn't let go of it. This triggered the insight that the narrative itself was a cause of suffering. Seeking makes it hard to just be.

- When examining the effects of language and labelling. Their very use can bring the idea of separation very strongly. And when focusing on the moment before labelling, there was the first sensation of the blending between elements of the experience, or oneness. And althought it felt good, it also felt matter-of-fact, just how things are.

5) a) Describe decision, intention, free will, choice and control. What makes things happen? How does it work?
Give examples from your own recent experiences to how these things happen and how they work.

b) What are you responsible for? Give examples from your own recent experiences to how this works.

a) They are all parts of the experience as thoughts and sensations, but there is no effort, choice or control being truly done by a separate entity. Things happen by themselves, including the thoughts that claim to have chosen or done something.
Good examples would be: noticing that the body does everything automaticaly, and thoughts claim ownership of the actions;
Noticing that a "choice" actually just happened based on several conditions, which themselves depend on several other things;
Noticing that, as the pointing went on, thoughts began to reflect some changes and be less intrusive, and in such contexts the actions of the body were more fuid.


b) Ultimately, there isn't a "me" in direct experience that can control or take responsibility for anything. There are only thoughts of doing so and of feeling responsible for the events that happen. They still happen, but there is no longer personal identification with them.

The best examples would be the behaviour of self-deprecating thoughts that come with uncomfortable situations, like doubt, sadness or worries. Before this, they were strong, very gripping, took a lot of time and space and felt like they defined the person.
As things went along, the thoughts and feelings themselves start to change. It's not a self that notices and causes this change, this changes is part of the experience as well.And so thoughts and sensations tend to become shorter, less gripping and there is not identification with them.

6) Anything to add?

2 commentaries:
1) It's weird how simple things seem at this point. After all the pointing, the "big discovery" is to just feel what is there to be felt at that time.
And that means that uncomfortable thoughts, feelings, situations also happen, and in a way can be felt more intensely since there is no resisting them. At the same time, they have less "staying power", less grip, and there is less identification with them.

It's like ultimate honesty, where things are experienced just how they are and it feels ok, even if the experience is "unpleasent".
But that could also mean that "pleasent" experiences are also felt more fully.
Is that how things tend to go?


2) The pointing helped a lot to better understand non-duality. In materials talking about this, there was an impression that it would be like "feeling the whole", but this scenario implies there is someone separated from the whole feeling it. In actuality, there is just the whole, nothing outside it. The perception of isolated beings and things comes from thoughts, feelings, etc.


Thanks a lot for all you've done, vince.

[vinceschubert]

Hi Mateus, i asked other guides to look at your answers to those questions and a couple of clarifying quesstions came back..
From #6 "In actuality, there is just the whole, nothing outside it."
There is just the whole what?
& Do "spirit" and "karma" exist without thought stories?

vince

[Sellthos]

Hi vince.

From #6 "In actuality, there is just the whole, nothing outside it."
There is just the whole what?

"The whole" was used here meaning the complete absence of separation that is the initial state before thoughts and labelling cause the perception of separation and individuality.
Since in it there are no individual elements or distinctions, it's very complicated to describe.
Is this what was asked?

& Do "spirit" and "karma" exist without thought stories?

In direct experience, "spirit" and "karma" are usually components of a story, described in thoughts and with accompanying feelings.


That's a really good question to shed some lights on some doubts about the direct experience (DE), if it's allright:

1) Since only input of the senses and the flow of thoughts are perceptible elements of DE, what about the precursos/conditionants of these elements? They might not be part of DE most of the time, but are they considered to "exist", since they influence/ are related to it?

Another way to put it: While DE is a great method, are there elements of duality that are not part of it?
What affects elements of direct experience exist, even if not part of the experience itself?


An example:radiation, cells, molecules. Most of the time, they can't be noticed by the senses without instruments, but their workings influence the body and the senses and thoughts even without thoughts about such influence.
That would make them not a part of direct experience, but somehow related to it.


2) When a sensation happens, what can it be said to exist based on the direct experience of that?
For example: a cold metal touches the skin and is seen. There's the tactile feeling and the seeing. These sensations "exist" and are part of DE. What about the metal and the skin? They are seen and felt, but are they considered to exist, or only the sensations and thoughts associated with them?

If in DE only the sensations are considered to exist, independent objects would not be considered to "exist", correct?
In such cases, could it be considered that these objects exist in some form outside DE, or that DE can't encompass all the elements that "exist" in duality?



3) Going back to "spirit" and "karma", could they be examples of elements of duality that, while not part of DE most of the time, influence it?
For example, how would people with spiritual manifestations in their direct experience consider this questions?


Looking at DE is wonderful, these doubts are just about defining the "existence of something" based only on DE.


Thanks a lot for your attention and hard work!