Behind the bullying

The article below is taken from Lextells, the original can be found at:


Bullying is an all-time theme. Every now and then it becomes topical again because a serious incident is highlighted in the media. All kinds of campaigns and actions are started to combat bullying. Yet bullying continues to exist of all times. Is there nothing that can be done about it? Yes, but I think it is a long-term task.

From the ideas of Ingeborg Bosch, Past Reality Integration (PRI), bullying is a much less elusive phenomenon that it may seem to be. I will discuss this in this article.

Origin of bullying

Where does bullying come from? Why do children bully? Are some kids just plain bad? No, they are - fortunately - not!

Bullying is behavior related to one of the survival mechanisms a child uses to deny the truth that they are not getting what they need.
Not getting what you need is, in a child's perception of life, a very crushing, literally life-threatening experience. It is like this: a child is completely dependent on its parents, it has no choice and no (well-developed) sense of time. Try to picture this… These 3 elements of the child's perception of life make not getting what you need is a terrible experience. So awful that you can't let it penetrate your consciousness.

Our innate psychological immune system ensures that we hide those experiences in a separate part of our consciousness. We can even deny that they happened. We often really don't remember them. The psychological defense system then creates illusions in which we come to believe. We believe in that because the real truth (namely, you don't get what you need) is too overwhelming. One such illusion is, for example, that we could still get what we need, as long as the other person changes. We will then project our misfortune onto the other. Bullying, taunting, belittling, feeling superior to another, becoming violent, etc., it is all a consequence of this. In other words, this behavior is not natural. Indeed, its source is not the core of the child (its true self), but its developed survival mechanism as a result of (perhaps systematically) not getting what it needs. So the bad news is: the child is bullying. How good news is, it's not intrinsically bad.

The innocent child

Because we ourselves as children were not always getting what we needed, we in turn raise our children without fully realizing what their natural needs really are. We ignore it more often than is good for them, no matter how hard we try. They are blind spots for us. So we don't even see them.

This is very painful for the child. It has to employ all kinds of survival mechanisms to hide the reality that it has to grow up with parents who are often unable to give it what it needs. He is bothered by this, but also by his environment. And especially when it has grown up later. Then the survival mechanisms have become obsolete. The child needs the mechanisms for survival, the adult no longer needs. An adult is no longer dependent on his parents for his survival, he does have a choice and a sense of time. However, due to the way our brains work, the survival mechanisms remain active. And we really only suffer from that.

Just look around you. We really shouldn't think that bullying is only a problem for children. Bully adults too!

So bullying is a survival mechanism, no matter how strange it may sound. The child starts bullying because the world is very threatening to him. He has learned that he can make others smaller so that they are no longer a danger to him. It is a way of maintaining a certain sense of control over one's environment. It is very likely that the child often lacks this sense of control at home. There is also a good chance that it is regularly not respected at home, and maybe even humiliated or belittled (no matter how subtle or teasing). It could also be that it is left too much to its own devices, or that it does not receive any support and that it is hardly seen or heard in its needs.

In my view, the child is always innocent. So also the bullying child is. The behavior he shows is therefore not necessarily justified. It means that we have to look at the root causes of the behavior. Bullying is not natural, it says something about underlying problems in the child. For it has strayed from its nature. It only had to do that to protect itself because it grows up in an environment where its needs are denied.

The role of the adult

So we adults need to look to ourselves when the topic of bullying comes up. For we are apparently unable to see, recognize and fulfill the needs of the child. How aware are we of the child's needs? How often do we give it what it needs? How respectful are we to our children? How often do we set a good example for our children? In other words, how safe do we make the environment for our children so that they need few protective mechanisms? Until we face our own unresolved past, we will not be able to properly sense the child's needs. Then the blind spots remain for us and the world remains unsafe for the child. It will have to grow up when its parents usually don't know what it needs. How threatening is that? Very threatening and just as threatening as our own childhood has been to us.

The PRI method is a very effective and practical way to unravel your own unprocessed past. In this way, we dismantle the destructive survival mechanisms that we still unconsciously deploy and that often cause us to lose real contact with the child. We then look at it through the glasses of our past instead of seeing it as it really is: small, pure, dependent, and with very big needs.

Bullying will not just stop. After all, a survival mechanism does not just give up. In any case, punishment makes no sense. By punishing you achieve that a child needs even more survival mechanisms. The use of bullying behavior is an unconscious mechanism for the child, it does not consciously choose it. Stopping bullying must come from himself and not because the environment puts him under (serious) pressure to do so. The best way to let it come out of himself is to treat him differently as adults. Create a safe climate. We can do this by working on ourselves to learn how to fully see and recognize his needs and fulfill as much as possible. As a result, it will slowly begin to feel safe and learn that it does not have to protect itself by bullying others.

As I said, this is a long-term task. But one that tackles the problem at its root, something that the many well-intentioned campaigns and actions have not yet succeeded.

By the way, of course adults can't let a bullying child go about their business while we are working on ourselves. Direct intervention is absolutely necessary when a child is bullying. The (emotional) health and safety of the victim is at stake and damage can also be caused. But we can try to let our intervention happen in connection with our heart, so with an eye for what is really going on in the here and now, with both 'perpetrator' and 'victim'.

A new vision of the child

Since I started training as a PRI therapist, the realization has really started to dawn on me how much we are doing violence to our children. We often don't see them as fully-fledged people. But they are so fragile and dependent, and at the same time so pure and true, that we should approach them with the utmost care. We should want to know everything about the child's needs and experiences. Of the influences of physical and emotional violence on their development. We should give them all the space to let them discover their passions and talents. We should do everything we can to keep them in touch with their inner knowing. We can certainly realize that, but we ourselves have often lost contact with our inner knowing due to the consequences of our youth and the unresolved trauma therein.

It is such a strong vicious circle that we are in. And it is so difficult to admit that we are doing that violence to our children because in doing so we must recognize that we ourselves are walking around with a tremendous amount of unresolved pain from our own childhood. We prefer not to suffer that pain. This is understandable, but that is how we stay in that negative spiral. Yet the only way out is to start the process with yourself. And it is not as scary as it seems. We survived our childhood, it is over and we are still here! It is our defenses that hold us in and make us think it is dangerous to investigate our unresolved past. However, there is nothing to fear. It is this fear that stands in the way of real healing and thus a real breakthrough in the education of our children.

Recently I got the following thought:

“Children are the future, but what do we do? We give them our past. ”

A child can only give what they get, so let's stop burdening them with our past.

Related Information:
-) Wikipedia on Past Reality Integration

60 thoughts on “Achter het pesten”

  1. Interesting reading.
    When people decide to buy a puppy, books are read, the internet is searched, breeders are visited and after the purchase they go through one or more courses. If, consciously or not, children are chosen, the preparation is only a fraction of that for a dog (regardless of the nursery and whatever). One or more courses would not be a superfluous luxury here either. By the way, I do not want to indicate that a puppy and a child are the same, far from it, but merely that raising a child also requires the necessary knowledge.
    I actually expected that social media would also play a role in this, but don't read about that. Does it not play a significant role?

  2. Lextells, a well and clearly articulated story / given. In my opinion it is indeed that experiencing = becoming aware. If the experience is experienced as negative, the awareness will also be stored as negative. This in turn has the effect of actually pushing it away, as we don't want to know. The character also plays an important role in this, we were not able to determine this as a child, we can adjust that later. But in principle the suffering has already happened. And it can take years before the negative is converted into the positive. As a child you will have to deal with it. Self-confidence is something the child must learn and can only be promoted by the parents and those who love the child. Mvg Paul.

  3. Are children not somewhat idealized in the above section?
    A child who gets everything it thinks it needs will only settle for a position of king or queen.
    Setting boundaries and not always giving the child what it asks for is part of the upbringing. Depending on the predisposition of a child, it will be angry or not.
    The predisposition of a child also deserves further attention. Children differ in genetic predisposition. In the article it is somewhat assumed that children are all 'good', but children also have a character that is not always pleasant and that is partly caused by genetic factors.
    I could imagine that a child has wonderful parents and yet (due to genetic factors that make him or she recognize no boundaries) develop into a bully. 

    1. Dear Roeland,
      Perhaps good if I clarify that when I talk about children's needs in the piece, I am referring to their natural physical and emotional needs. So not their need for a candy, cookie, chips or another round on the roller coaster.
      Of course, a child cannot always get what it needs in that sense and it is good if a parent indicates what the boundaries are. However, it is important that the parent shows that they see and understand the needs of the child. In addition, it is important that we do not abuse the argument that a child also needs boundaries to silence them or otherwise force them to conform to our will. That really happens very often. We abuse our powerful position as a parent more often than is good for the development of the child. PRI does not advocate laissez-faire upbringing at all. Precisely because a child needs guidance, boundaries and guidance. But PRI also makes clear that we usually act in a guiding way from our own needs instead of those of the child.
      Much has also been said and written about aptitude. Nature-nurture, that discussion. Ingeborg Bosch puts it as follows in 1 of her books. You can see the construction as the CD collection in your closet. The upbringing ultimately determines which music you put on. The metaphor is clear.
      It is becoming increasingly clear how decisive our experiences in our early childhood are on the development as human beings later on. That's just the way it is. I am not saying that there will never be another bully who comes from 2 loving parents who consciously try to respond to the needs of the child. But with the nature-nurture discussion we should not try to take our responsibility as adults towards the child no longer seriously.

  4. If you do a search, a number of things seem to be wrong about Ingeborg Bosch and PRI.
    PRI is a registered trademark,
    the modules cost almost 6000 euros each (4 required to be able to name your PRI therapist), every 5 years (and annually) you have to pay again to keep your certificate valid.
    It is suggested on that website that those modules are in the 0% VAT group and that is a lie, see
    Here it is very clearly explained in tax language what is wrong with PRI therapists, it seems more like a cult or a pyramid scheme than anything else.

    See also for example: 

    And here an ex-colleague of Ingeborg who is not very happy with her behavior:

    The whole repressed memory story is originally from Freud and is long obsolete.
    from ; "The idea of 'repressed memories' has no scientific basis."
    Alice Miller and PRI are also mentioned in passing in that article.

    Just a quote from someone from the forum (link above);
    “I have experienced the PRI world from a fairly close distance. I know someone who has done part of the training and I have some PRI therapy experience myself. The movement gradually acquires more sect-like traits: one doctrine, one leader (Ingeborg Bosch), missionary urge, handing in money, energy and free time for the Charity (putting PR in the world), criticism that is absolutely not appreciated. and can only be seen as a defense that you should work on (for a generous fee to your (learning) therapist, of course). ”

    1. I think your criticism of the PRI method is justified, and due to time pressure we are sometimes unable to thoroughly check the content and sources of articles. Now in the corner where PRI is, there are countless companies that want to make money with their idea with something you can call hot air. I see eg. de Baak regularly seek publicity, with courses that are quite expensive. But there is a market for it, and they derive their right to exist from that. I am quite liberal and believe that people are allowed to figure out for themselves what is correct or not.

  5. In itself I find the theory of PRI interesting and I think that it can also deliver things for a person, but you should always look carefully at how something is organized and whether or not you want to invest your money in it. 

    However, the theory is that you are actually not good by definition and that you can be good through their method. A lot of religions and other schools of thought use these mechanisms to give people a carrot in front of themselves. 

    I myself am now more of a fan of the movements that say that everything is already fine, but that we lack insight into it. That method is often offered free of charge, but I don't know if that says something. 

    I think that everyone can determine for themselves what they find interesting or not and in that respect I find it interesting to get to know PRI and someone's experiences with it.

  6. Dear Douwe,
    After reading the books by Ingeborg Bosch I come to a completely different conclusion than you. In my opinion, the theory says that everyone is good. The problems we see around us are precisely caused by the fact that our behavior often no longer comes from our core, our heart or whatever you want to call it, but from illusions in which we believe holy. We had to build those illusions in our youth to deny the reality that we didn't get what we needed. But our core is still there and we are therefore good.
    I am now also affiliated with the PRI institute as a therapist in training. My experiences are exclusively positive. I do not recognize myself in the image that apparently exists and which Henk is talking about. But perhaps most importantly, I personally experience the value of applying PRI in my life. Everyone has to find out for themselves, or not of course. Let's just say everyone is his thing.

    1. I may have expressed myself a bit awkwardly, but PRI seems to assume that the world is not perfect right now and that you can improve the world by applying their techniques. There is a problem and it can be solved with their technology, so to speak. That may very well be the case and it is also interesting to read that it actually improves life in your experience. But taking that strategy of a problem as fact and then being the solution for it is a mechanism that is used by many schools of thought. The Christian church, for example, everyone is sinful and through us you can do something about it. By definition, that mechanism makes people dependent on your current. 

      This problem-solving mechanism is quite at odds with philosophies such as Byron Katie or Non-Dualism who say that there are actually no problems at all, only we do not understand that because thinking itself creates illusions. Logically, there is nothing to improve according to those people. Not that the difference in starting point is bad by the way, but I just tried to show the difference.

      PRI seems to say, bullying is a problem and we offer a strategy to address that (and it can be very successful). However, these other schools of thought do not progress when bullying is.

      I don't know if you might want to give a few concrete examples where it specifically helped you, I always find it interesting to get a more concrete picture. 

  7. Don't underestimate the influence of TV. video games and toys, according to
    Due to the passive absorption, they also do not get rid of their (negative) energy properly, and aggression is a form of energy. When children discharge their negative energy on another child, they lose this energy, and even gain new positive energy with it. They get status, power, followers, money. The victim, on the other hand, often has a powerless feeling, has to spend a lot of energy on social-emotional problems instead of being able to concentrate at school, because he or she does not feel safe. The school often places the problem with the victim, who sometimes lapses into the perpetrator's role in the defense. Then each other is always pointed to as guilty, parents get involved and everything has to be resolved through the school. It also costs the school a lot of energy, and bad results (underachievement?) And bullying problems usually do not mean much good. Children who bully and / or are violent take a long time to change, but often it is dismissed as normal toughness, as a normal response to 'provocation', as a weakness of the 'hypersensitive' and peaceful child who does not feel like irritation at all , aggression and violence, but suffer from this.

  8. Yes, there can be many causes for the bullying behavior, there are also people who say that all put children of the same age together, let them compete with each other and let them compete for attention from the teacher. You make a monoculture of children and that causes problems. On the other hand, having children grow up in a village with many contacts, especially with the elderly and young people of their own age, would be much healthier and prevent many of these kinds of problems. 

    1. Yes, but the school more often sees this as a problem of the individual child who demands attention in a negative way; the so-called child with behavioral problems. After primary school, a school sometimes admits that it has an order problem. However, competition is usually rated positive because it would bring out the best in children.

    2. As other causes are mentioned:
      - want to play a joke, or several
      - successful bullying over and over again
      - it looks cool
      - want to be the boss
      - Fear of being bullied yourself
      - pay attention to another so that it diverts attention from itself.

        1. And they are not only children, it is also true that a lot of adults also bully, so to speak. I think you always have people who think they can boost their self-esteem by trying to undermine others. A kind of continuous status struggle on the human monkey rock. That's why I'm personally a bit skeptical about something like PRI because I wonder if that hierarchy battle can ever be eliminated between people. 

          Although I do believe that what PRI seems to suggest could certainly help in part. Usually when people understand themselves well and have respect for themselves then it is no longer necessary for them to acquire self-esteem at the expense of others. 

  9. A little piece of;
    “The PRI therapist training that Plaintiff followed was developed by one person, A, without supervision or control by any independent medical or scientific body;
    - The criteria for admission to the training and for certification - and which Plaintiff meets - are prepared unilaterally by A, without supervision or control by any independent medical or scientific body;
    - Although one of the criteria for certification is that A is acting in accordance with the professional code for psychologists, any assessment of the plaintiff's behavior against this code by A takes place;
    - Complaints submitted by the plaintiff's clients are handled by A;
    - Plaintiff is not a member of an independent professional association for psychologists or psychotherapists. ”

    Everyone is of course free to register for PRI therapy, but it would be good if it was mentioned that PRI has no scientific basis whatsoever. The disadvantage of PRI is that they like to see repressed memories.

    If I wanted to paint a picture of PR therapists I would like to put them in the corner of, niburu, David Icke.
    Can you identify with that?

    1. The whole scientific basis behind current psychology can also be called extremely dubious, see Tui's piece about the DSM recently, everyone is a bit crazy. So just because something isn't officially scientific doesn't mean some people find it useful.

      If people have the idea that they will get on with it, that seems fine to me. Your last question is mainly stigmatizing and not really constructive. David Icke and Niburu and Wanttoknow have nothing to do with a form of therapy, so that seems a silly comparison to me. The tone also shows little respect.  

      Is there a specific reason Henk that you rage so hard against PRI and Lextells, have you had negative experiences with it yourself? Perhaps it is more useful than sharing it instead of bashing it in this way. And if you have no experience with it, it seems to me especially useful to be open to the personal experiences of someone who likes it and you can always see for yourself whether it is something for you or not. 

      In that sense I would find it more useful to have a substantive discussion about the meaning and nonsense of PRI and what people's own experiences are with it instead of keeping it at an abstract level where you apparently have no experience at all with this technique. have.

  10. Don't worry Douwe, I personally have no experience with PRI. The fact that I rage against it so badly (? Is not too bad I thought) is because I find it worrying that on this website free advertising was made for a fantasy therapy that is potentially harmful, without any significant counterarguments (in the article, then).
    The comparison with Icke and Niburu is something that I don't think Lextells has any problems with, he himself lists them as 'useful links' on his website.

    Funnily enough, I also found a fairly uncritical article about Scientology on this site today, I have some doubts about that too. I suspect that and I do not fit together :).

    1. is definitely not behind Scientology, because then I would absolutely not want to be part of a visionary. In the distant past, have made Scientology as difficult as possible, because this brain-ailment club demolished the marriage of a friend of mine with their exploitative practices. The measures taken against them were very effective, it turned out. In that respect, I am very grateful to the services available to the Netherlands. I also recognize certain methods they used, which are still used by ex club members. If that's what you mean, everyone else is clean here, happy.

    2. I think it is especially interesting on visionary that you can find pieces that describe these kinds of things and preferably from the angle of people with some own experience. I myself have quite a bit of experience with Scientology and Lextells here with PRI, which is interesting to get acquainted with what there is. We also write about other philosophies, lucid dreams and psychedelic drugs etc.  

      We have great confidence in visionary in people's own common sense and that they can make their own choices about what they do and do not want to delve into. And there are always responses in which substantive discussions can be held about these kinds of matters. 

      If people find Niburu or David Icke interesting, that seems fine to me. I personally find David Icke very interesting on a number of points, for example, and Niburu sometimes has very vague things on the site, but well the NOS has also sold us an illegal war through the media and matters such as child abuse within Dutch institutions remain silent. It is always up to people themselves which information they will or will not consume and believe or not. It does not seem to me that I or you should dictate to others what information and which trends they should or should not follow or experiment with. Life is a personal quest where you will have to find and test your own truths. On visionary I find it interesting that there is room for these kinds of things. 


      1. Especially interesting is the side effect of presenting drugs as passionately as LSD. Without the persons being able to criticize anything in the field of psychological abnormalities, and so they can do an experiment with these drugs, supposedly reassured, they can still get flashbacks. It is known that traces of the substance are permanently stored in the spinal cord. Intelligent, curious, highly educated people, encouraged by the so-called responsible knowledge environment, are thus tempted to use. Let's see what happens when such a person is a pilot of an airship and has a flashback at critically critical moments. That apart from other risk-bearing functions, such as that of operator in the control room of nuclear installations or the biohazzard environment of medical experiments with a manipulated virus or bacteria species. All risks taken into account, or just bizarre irresponsible behavior?   

        1. Enter the following on bing:
          Consequences of LSD use.
          Scroll down to the text “Drugs and Side Effects-Do First, Think Later!
          Unfortunately, there is no other way, this link cannot be copied working.

        2. Incidentally, this is not the link that leads to the comments about spinal cord storage, but it appears to have become completely untraceable. However, it is a medical fact, so it can be found in other ways. Nice weekend. ;)

        3. I think we have had this discussion before Antares and to be honest I personally do not feel that the article on LSD is passionately promoting drug use, but if you do, it is no different apparently. I'll leave that to the people themselves, the article is below. 

          The last time you raged like this you hadn't even watched the video of the article in question and I now understand from Henk that he has a lot of criticism but 0 personal experience with PRI. That's all fine but for me it's not that interesting to be honest, I'd rather learn from people's personal experiences than from their beliefs about certain things.

        4. Come on, I had already watched the video, but you could not have known that, as I did not announce it. I did not want to show your pseudo-knowledge on that subject, while I have personal experience with it, because I could use it as an instrument in later, useful discussions. Just ask Tui. Then a little bit about the consequences in practice, have you already thought about it, as I have described them completely according to reality? By the way, I estimated you correctly. 

        5. I think that's a strange strategy, but good if you now want to claim that you saw it while you said you didn't, then I think you lied to me once.

          November 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm · Comment · Edit
          I have not seen the documentary you present here

          Anyway, you should know that for yourself.

          I further propose that if you have substantive comments on the article itself from, for example, Inside LSD, you indicate this below the article itself and that you observe the visionary rules of the game. I don't feel like repeating a discussion. I know how you are in it and you know how I do, so I don't think it will yield any special insights to repeat that whole tune here.

      2. @Douwe,
        “It is always up to people themselves which information they will or will not consume and believe or not. It does not seem to me that I or you should dictate to others what information and which trends they should or should not follow or experiment with. ”

        Of course, Douwe. And I don't dictate anything at all. And the fact that you have taken over the above pri article from Lextells uncritically does not automatically mean that you agree with the content or that you like to advertise it.

        I personally have a little more with evidence and with, you know, scientifically substantiated things and it irritates me when people preach nonsense and then say that it is only an opinion and that I especially have to be 'open' to it.
        But I do 'believe' that my criticism of PRI was a bit more substantiated than your hallejulah article.

        1. Science is also only an instrument in the human experience and in a number of matters extremely functional, but in these types of personal matters that is often not the ultimate means in my experience. Things like life experience, religion and how you as a person can get peace with yourself and life is little scientific and also extremely diverse for each person. Therefore, to be honest, I am personally more interested in the personal experiences of PRI and what that has done to them than criticizing it on an abstract level. The same goes for Scientology and many Eastern philosophies. You have to experience many of these things for yourself in order to really be able to say something meaningful about them. At least that's my vision.

          Anyway, I understand that you yourself have 0 experience with it and do not intend to do this as you have already concluded that it is nonsense. That seems fine to me, but I am also very interested in the positive and negative personal experiences of PRI of people who do actually have experience with PRI.

          “Look directly at things, at life and at others;
          don't look through a haze of prejudice, a veil of fear or another's interpretation ”
          -The Way to Happiness

      3. Douwe, I think the same; avoiding, attacking or defending something is only necessary in the event of a threat, apparently some feel threatened instead of perceiving themselves or others as responsible and autonomous. That, then, is something that these people can now become aware of.

        1. It is indeed very strange there is such a strange reaction to criticism of this Pri-article by douwe / lextells. A therapy without supervision or control by any independent medical or scientific body.
          You would wonder what makes people object to that. :)

        2. Not weird criticism is certainly welcome, which is why we have the reactions, the wikipedia article below also clearly indicates that there is little scientific support. But many religions also give people peace and that has nothing to do with science. Yet there are billions of people worldwide who get a lot out of religion. I am trying to make it clear to you that some things in life cannot be understood in science for everyone. Why we are here on earth, what the purpose of mankind is, etc. These questions have more to do with meaning and actually fall by definition outside the scientific domain and more in the metaphysical regions. And if PRI gives some people useful handles in life, I think it is interesting to hear from people with experience with it.

          I kind of get the idea from you that apparently those people shouldn't be allowed to tell their story because it doesn't match your worldview. That doesn't seem very visionary to me to be honest. I think it is important that you let people think a little outside their box. And as you can see from your reactions, that was at least partially successful. In addition, you are apparently intelligent enough to appreciate PRI for yourself, so we will give other people that space to do the same for themselves.

        3. PS
          Make sure in advance that you, your wife, or husband and children, each have legally described their rights to goods and goods. In any other case, the other family members will go completely legally bankrupt without scrupeles on the part of Scientology. Obviously not mentioned by the commentator.

  11. I did not expect this discussion. With my article I approached the theme of bullying from the perspective of PRI. I would rather have seen a discussion of which approaches to bullying all help or don't help. I was mainly concerned with the theme of bullying, not PRI.
    It is impossible to discuss whether PRI is a valid instrument. I'm not going to do that either. Everyone is allowed to read the books and draw their own conclusions. Incidentally, there is a longitudinal study by Maastricht University on the effects of PRI as a form of therapy. That may be of use to those with evidence needs.
    I myself am not much of scientific evidence. In my view, we give science far too much credit. I also think that 'science' keeps spinning too many rounds in the head while it is so urgent that we start using our heart in our everyday life. Our hearts 'know' and need no proof. Ever felt fear? Or love? I suppose so. Yet there is no scientific evidence for it. Science doesn't even know what we humans actually consist of at the most basic level. Should we then also start doubting our existence?
    Anyway, that's how I see it. Experience, knowing, intuition, heart, that's what counts for me.
    Finally Douwe, I understand your invitation to share my experiences in the field of PRI here. I hope you don't mind that I don't. First of all, I really don't have the time and space for it. But I also don't see how it can help you (or someone else). If PRI doesn't resonate with you, then leave it. My experiences will then make no difference. Find what suits you to tackle the obstacles within yourself. Your experience counts.
    I also have a lot of thoughts about non-duality. The most important question I have is: What behavior does embracing non-duality lead to in everyday practice? I am afraid that embracing non-duality very quickly leads to burying your head in the sand, finding everything 'good' and, above all, not looking at yourself anymore. In other words: a license to no longer have to take responsibility.
    In itself I can still do something with the idea of non-duality, but more important for me is the question: to what behavior does such a conviction lead?
    This was my last contribution here for a while. I wish everyone a very loving and fulfilling 2013!

    1. Hey Lextells, it has gone in a bit of a strange direction, as far as I am concerned it could have been a bit more about the content and a bit less about the packaging, but that is apparently not always easy to manage. Nevertheless, thank you again for your contribution, I thought it was very interesting to get to know PRI and how you view bullying in that light.  

      Much discussion about Non-Duality has been conducted previously under this article, additional comments are of course always welcome:
      The beginning and end of good and evil


  12. Dear Lextells, you write the following at the end: Recently I got the following thought: “Children have the future, but what do we do? We give them our past. ”A child can only give what they get, so let's stop burdening them with our past. Through our DNA we always give a piece of the past, you can never see that detachably. Then you write that the child can only give what it gets, I do not agree with this, because if I had to live from that statement now, I would be a loveless being. Because I never had that in my youth, so I don't think that's the case. Because I can give it and therefore also experience the love of someone else. I had never heard of PRI, so read that again. In my experience, a negative experience, which is stored, is something that takes a lot of time to process that data. In addition, depending on the strength of the negative experience, it needs several repetitions of processing to process it. Depending on the repetitions, the negative force is eventually reduced and you can gradually better accept that experience (become aware). The data in itself will always be engraved. Finally, Love, Fear, etc. are chemical reactions. These are regulated by the neurotransmittors. But you should know that. Every harassment is a case in itself and will have to be treated separately, I think. Difficult to indicate a common thread here. Mvg Paul.

Leave a Comment