Discover more of Francis Lucille's wisdom in this video: "How Does the Experience of Our True Nature change our Life?" 👉 ruclips.net/video/oYUe_1bjQGA/видео.html
I think that the true Nature of our life on earth is different as inside infiniteness. On earth is the true nature at one hand engaged inside waves of materiel masses. On earth is on the other hand the nature engaged in the linear lines of gravitation by the singular mass of infiniteness. On earth there is a possibility for transforming the material masses into singular masses, because of the idea that there is inside a humane being a black hole. Said different: emotional pains of wars can become transformed in universal love.
The questioner could have this simple resolution: The capacity to be aware is always there. For example, you're in deep dreamless sleep, not conscious of any experience, nor are you able to self-reflect. Then, suddenly your alarm clock goes off. That sound is registered by awareness and triggers human consciousness/perception to arise. Direct evidence based on experience.
@@dimitrisantoniadis387 The self-recognition of awareness can only happen within the context of experience. But the potential to cognize contrast (perceiver/perceptions, is/is not) is always present. A turning away from experience does not mean absolute nothingness, it's just devoid of content. A mirror that doesn't reflect an image is still a mirror.
This doesn't prove anything to the questioner because you will most likely not have a memory of being asleep and being aware of the alarm even if it is true. From the perspective that consciousness is contingent on perception, it would seem that the alarm woke up your body in the same way that a noise-activated device works and then you became conscious after that.
@@iamishin7675 Consciousness is not contingent on perception. Perception is an expression of consciousness. The body cannot be woken up because the body is not a thing that is alive or asleep in the first place. What you call "the body" is just an expression of subjectivity. The ear is not hearing, the eye is not seeing, the tongue is not tasting. Those are all subjective experiences. There is only subjectivity being aware of subjective expressions of itself or not being of aware of subjective expressions of itself. So it's a turning away from experience (the world, objects...) and we call that deep, dreamless sleep. And then there is a "turning towards" experience which we call waking life. Think of a lightswitch, on and off. You are neither on nor off. You are the lightswitch. Objects are just limited and seemingly seperated forms of subjectivity so that experiences are possible.
One idea is that pure awareness is always perceiving no-matter what. I believe it might be called the Eye that Never Sleeps (a book I read ?). So, when taken to task; When asked did I dream last night? I might answer; No or yes. So what was aware and awake to know if I dreamed or not. One answer is that pure awareness is always awake or registering to any possible phenomenal activity. If it were a deep sound sleep without dreams there would have been no phenomena to perceive to be remembered, so awareness would not receive a dream experience, and answer "no". Optionally, if there were a dream there would be the registration of dreamt phenomenal occurrence which would be registered by the always awake pure awareness. Of course this would be a yes I did dream.
This is a valid point. Our perceptions are like tools used to navigate reality how it appears to us through them. Our mental faculties should be taken very seriously because it’s how we navigate earth and survive, but not literally because they aren’t inherently real. By not taking our perceptions literally, and recognizing them to be “not real” we can abide as consciousness and use this understanding to live a life In alignment with truth! In other words, enlightenment doesn’t stop at realization… it’s a continuous process of reintegration. By doing this the separate self in turn makes the mind work through consciousness instead of wrongly convincing itself that consciousness works through the mind. Im not a guru by any means but I really hope this helps. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Language gets to be difficult to express truth since by labeling consciousness as a separate entity it implies duality but I did my best lol
Big thank you for this brilliant video. But have to say: "like, share and subscribe" felt so overly redundant... Sorry, I hope you get where I'm coming from. All the best :)
I think that consciousness is a voluminal form in motion, where at the same time there is a motion inside this voluminal form. Conscious-ness. Ness is being conscious.
'Conscious of the flower' In the inner sense of Veda Surya,the Sun God, represents the divine illumination of Kavi(poet) which exceeds mind and forms,the pure self luminous Truth of things.His principle power is self revelatory knowldge termed in Veda "Sight". Secret of Veda, Sri Aurobindo. Sight a literary meaning, but as transcendence a profound integrity.1)(N)Faculty or power of seeing 2(N)That a thing one sees or can be seen 3(V)Manage to see or observe something 4.(V)Take Aim by looking through the sight of gun. Quite interestingly, cognitive mental actions and mental processes.There is silence and consciousness in between.
francis is wrong about occam’s razor being the argument for idealism. kant proved logically that space (and time) are dependent on consciousness. so all insides and outsides (being spacial) are dependent on a conscious subject, meaning there can’t be an “outside” to consciousness.
I believe there is a misunderstanding about my use of the word CONSCIOUSNESS. My definition is THE REALITY WHICH IS READING THESE WORDS RIGHT NOW. I define REALITY as that which cannot not exist, same as Spinoza's SUBSTANCE: that, the essence of which implies (involvit) its existence, that ,which by essence exists.There can't be anything outside Reality, AKA Consciousness. However, there are possibly elements of reality outside human minds. Reality is not reducible to mind stuff. Idealism comes in different flavors. Some are consistent with Nonduality, others (Berkeley's version for instance) aren't. By the way, I am curious about Kant's proof that space is dependent on consciousness. My understanding upon reading him was that space was a priori .
yes space and time are a priori, but the reason for that is all experience is spacial or temporal in form - the structure of experience is always spaciotemporal or we couldn’t be aware of it in the first place.
@@Weirduniverse2are you saying yes, the world we perceive is made of conciousness but that the conciousness is activity of a brain ? that the material of brain has to come first- have evolved?
But you have described the main argument in two different ways, one swiftly after another. Perceiving the flower and consciousness of the flower - then you said the same first one but the second one had changed to "I" am conscious of the flower. Consciousness of something and the subject being conscious of something are not quite the same thing. There is consciousness without a subject. It's different from the subject being conscious of the/an object.
I dont know which version of idealism Francis is addressing but he is not taking the most convincing case of idealism into account, namely the one that comes from Bernardo Kastrup. Someone should invite Francis and Bernardo to talk about this.
![OsamaSon - ik what you did last summer [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4DIQDnu3mr4/mqdefault.jpg)
Discover more of Francis Lucille's wisdom in this video: "How Does the Experience of Our True Nature change our Life?"
👉 ruclips.net/video/oYUe_1bjQGA/видео.html
I think that the true Nature of our life on earth is different as inside infiniteness.
On earth is the true nature at one hand engaged inside waves of materiel masses.
On earth is on the other hand the nature engaged in the linear lines of gravitation by the singular mass of infiniteness.
On earth there is a possibility for transforming the material masses into singular masses, because of the idea that there is inside a humane being a black hole.
Said different: emotional pains of wars can become transformed in universal love.
Love you Francis Lucille!
Gratitude for this, may the power of love, grace, and understanding happen to all asap, I, We are IT.
The questioner could have this simple resolution: The capacity to be aware is always there. For example, you're in deep dreamless sleep, not conscious of any experience, nor are you able to self-reflect. Then, suddenly your alarm clock goes off. That sound is registered by awareness and triggers human consciousness/perception to arise. Direct evidence based on experience.
Please listen again from 29 40 until 32 03 for better understanding ❤
Brain or specifically 'hearing' is hyper sensitive during sleep. It's a safety mechanism.
@@dimitrisantoniadis387 The self-recognition of awareness can only happen within the context of experience. But the potential to cognize contrast (perceiver/perceptions, is/is not) is always present. A turning away from experience does not mean absolute nothingness, it's just devoid of content. A mirror that doesn't reflect an image is still a mirror.
This doesn't prove anything to the questioner because you will most likely not have a memory of being asleep and being aware of the alarm even if it is true. From the perspective that consciousness is contingent on perception, it would seem that the alarm woke up your body in the same way that a noise-activated device works and then you became conscious after that.
@@iamishin7675 Consciousness is not contingent on perception. Perception is an expression of consciousness. The body cannot be woken up because the body is not a thing that is alive or asleep in the first place. What you call "the body" is just an expression of subjectivity. The ear is not hearing, the eye is not seeing, the tongue is not tasting. Those are all subjective experiences. There is only subjectivity being aware of subjective expressions of itself or not being of aware of subjective expressions of itself. So it's a turning away from experience (the world, objects...) and we call that deep, dreamless sleep. And then there is a "turning towards" experience which we call waking life. Think of a lightswitch, on and off. You are neither on nor off. You are the lightswitch. Objects are just limited and seemingly seperated forms of subjectivity so that experiences are possible.
One idea is that pure awareness is always perceiving no-matter what. I believe it might be called the Eye that Never Sleeps (a book I read ?). So, when taken to task; When asked did I dream last night? I might answer; No or yes. So what was aware and awake to know if I dreamed or not. One answer is that pure awareness is always awake or registering to any possible phenomenal activity. If it were a deep sound sleep without dreams there would have been no phenomena to perceive to be remembered, so awareness would not receive a dream experience, and answer "no". Optionally, if there were a dream there would be the registration of dreamt phenomenal occurrence which would be registered by the always awake pure awareness. Of course this would be a yes I did dream.
Pranam to your lotus feet master 🙏🙏
Thank you for this video! I think it would be great to have Francis discuss idealism with Bernardo Kastrup.
Consciousness is noumenal and does not sleep. Francis.
I totally resonate with what’s being said Francis , lots of love and immense gratitude for your clarity and sense of humour ❤🥰🙏
Consciousness is one of the elements in the makeup of all the objects of our perception and conceptions.Lord Kapila
Pointed questions by the questioner and pointed answers by Francis! This video is a like a chapter in a physics textbook , so much to unpack.
There is only one identity. We are all one. Fractionated, like facets of a diamond.
Wow. Great questions,,,and answers.
My only worry about being pure consciousness is, how will i be able to function as a human being? We need to plan meals, plan the day etc
The mind (thoughts) and body will do what needs to be done. Prakriti does everything. We just need to be knowingly conscious of all that happens
Knowingly aware of all that happens?… come on… cut me a little slack… I’ve got enough on my plate just trying to remember where I left my glasses
This is a valid point. Our perceptions are like tools used to navigate reality how it appears to us through them. Our mental faculties should be taken very seriously because it’s how we navigate earth and survive, but not literally because they aren’t inherently real. By not taking our perceptions literally, and recognizing them to be “not real” we can abide as consciousness and use this understanding to live a life In alignment with truth! In other words, enlightenment doesn’t stop at realization… it’s a continuous process of reintegration. By doing this the separate self in turn makes the mind work through consciousness instead of wrongly convincing itself that consciousness works through the mind. Im not a guru by any means but I really hope this helps. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Language gets to be difficult to express truth since by labeling consciousness as a separate entity it implies duality but I did my best lol
Big thank you for this brilliant video. But have to say: "like, share and subscribe" felt so overly redundant... Sorry, I hope you get where I'm coming from. All the best :)
Perceptions sensing the changes through the sense elements of our body.
Consciousness is realizing the unchanging one….
No doubt that consciousness awareness is always present but is difficult too put it in the words,It is an intuitive 'knowing'
i call it Doubtless Uncertainty
Thank you Sr
I think that consciousness is a voluminal form in motion, where at the same time there is a motion inside this voluminal form.
Conscious-ness. Ness is being conscious.
'Conscious of the flower' In the inner sense of Veda Surya,the Sun God, represents the divine illumination of Kavi(poet) which exceeds mind and forms,the pure self luminous Truth of things.His principle power is self revelatory knowldge termed in Veda "Sight". Secret of Veda, Sri Aurobindo. Sight a literary meaning, but as transcendence a profound integrity.1)(N)Faculty or power of seeing 2(N)That a thing one sees or can be seen 3(V)Manage to see or observe something 4.(V)Take Aim by looking through the sight of gun. Quite interestingly, cognitive mental actions and mental processes.There is silence and consciousness in between.
A perception is possible by the impact of fusion. Such a fusion can happen by a repeating of conscious breathing.
francis is wrong about occam’s razor being the argument for idealism. kant proved logically that space (and time) are dependent on consciousness. so all insides and outsides (being spacial) are dependent on a conscious subject, meaning there can’t be an “outside” to consciousness.
I believe there is a misunderstanding about my use of the word CONSCIOUSNESS. My definition is THE REALITY WHICH IS READING THESE WORDS RIGHT NOW. I define REALITY as that which cannot not exist, same as Spinoza's SUBSTANCE: that, the essence of which implies (involvit) its existence, that ,which by essence exists.There can't be anything outside Reality, AKA Consciousness. However, there are possibly elements of reality outside human minds. Reality is not reducible to mind stuff. Idealism comes in different flavors. Some are consistent with Nonduality, others (Berkeley's version for instance) aren't. By the way, I am curious about Kant's proof that space is dependent on consciousness. My understanding upon reading him was that space was a priori .
yes space and time are a priori, but the reason for that is all experience is spacial or temporal in form - the structure of experience is always spaciotemporal or we couldn’t be aware of it in the first place.
Space and time are non-causal….
@@Weirduniverse2are you saying yes, the world we perceive is made of conciousness but that the conciousness is activity of a brain ? that the material of brain has to come first- have evolved?
🔥🔥🔥
🙏💓🙏
in the moment there is love
But you have described the main argument in two different ways, one swiftly after another. Perceiving the flower and consciousness of the flower - then you said the same first one but the second one had changed to "I" am conscious of the flower. Consciousness of something and the subject being conscious of something are not quite the same thing. There is consciousness without a subject. It's different from the subject being conscious of the/an object.
I dont know which version of idealism Francis is addressing but he is not taking the most convincing case of idealism into account, namely the one that comes from Bernardo Kastrup. Someone should invite Francis and Bernardo to talk about this.
🙏
😏🙏💕🎶GVB ❤
uh ... okay... guess he's got it all sorted... doesn't speak to me though... like flowers though!
He doesn't know what idealism is.
Jai, Dmt. Kindergarteners; in Reality there is no experience. Dissolve. It is all a dream. Termites chatting about wood. Aum