Thank you Dom, for bringing Francis Lucille into conversation with you. He gave the clearest description I have yet heard or seen of “ Non -Duality” and for that I am grateful. It is so valuable because it does give a clear choice about how to make decisions for oneself and what then should govern our responses to others. This seemingly simple but quite complex way of understanding ourselves in the world, the universe, this consciousness, if we recognise this reality, should inform the choices we make, guide the actions we take, as we grow throughout our lives. It should lead us honestly, with truthful investigation of our motives, our biases, our appetites, our drives, to challenge ourselves to greater altruism, in the best possible meaning of the word. As a tool for growing oneself it looks to be beyond parallel. There is succour in that knowledge and even in the painful choices it causes us to make. We just know what is right, when we go within. So, you’re actively playing a role in your own seeking and happily, making the search available to whosoever wishes to walk along with you. Keep talking. Keep questioning. Keep listening. We all benefit. No regrets.
I liked your interview because it really looked at the question if there is one awareness why does it seem as if we are all separate. Well I think an answer to that might be, infinite awarness means infinite loneliness. Infinite loneliness means infinite freedom. Infinite freedom means infinite creativity. To create is to define. So infinite awareness will always lead to separateness?
Thank you for free sharing. Great guest, great master. Great talk. There is one reality. Theres is one Consciousness but diferent degrees of conscious, diferente degrees of acess to reality or truth.
I t seems consciousness like air that we all breathe, for me it is hard to understand if my consciousness and your consciousness is same , why can’t I read your thoughts?
The first question is answered in a more fluid way by Bernardo Kastrup. Rupert Spira shamelessly borrows Kastrup's concepts. All three are saying the same thing I suppose.
Is he saying that there is no separation because only one consciousness can be real? But why only one? Why must a division of consciousness NECESSARILY be an illusion? It is in a dream, but doesn't always have to be by any solid logic as far as I can tell. There is no proof, just an assertion with room for skepticism. We can also imagine separation from a hypothetical person just like you who is having the same experience but is not you, in an otherwise identical universe (the so-called idiotic conundrum), and there is no proof there either that this would not be possible in principle, is there? If this distinction is possible, then two consciousnesses interacting should be possible as well.
There are a lot of points that you mentioned, so it's difficult to get into a good discussion as we have to be clear on what we mean so we could understand each other. But in essence, there is no separation because at the most fundamental level, we are the same, yet appearances tell us otherwise.
@@DomSniezka At the most fundamental level (relevant to this discussion, at least) there is feeling, qualia. These must belong to someone, some experiencer. There is no proof that they all belong to the same consciousness, only conjecture. I suggest interviewing Geoffrey Klempner to hear the best arguments for why there might be more than one, as he thought about this longer than most philosophers.
@@TheEivindBerge Ah yes, but what is aware of the feeling? Why do we need to prove everything, and what does it mean to prove something? Perhaps this is not an intellectual thing at all and it's only once the intellect / thought ceases that it's clear.
@@DomSniezka It's a great mystery with no proof either way, and I agree we don't strictly need one, but who knows if metaphysical speculation can turn up better reasons to believe one or the other? For now it basically comes down to preference. If we are all the same person then that does wonder for ethics as we truly have every reason to love our neighbor as ourselves, but the solipsism of it is disconcerting to me, so I am not very drawn to that line of thinking.
@@TheEivindBerge How about we look at it another way? If we asked ourselves about what truly matters in life, what would we say? Would you agree that we all just want to discover this inward sense of Freedom, Happiness, Joy? Perhaps it may something else, but even if it is something else, why do we want that? So now the question is, is there a truth to Happiness, Freedom, Joy? I think we will find that there is, and it has been spoken about for thousands of years disguised in words but the words are just pointers towards understanding, but what's necessary is to understand ourselves. What exactly is a person? A body, a mind. Every person is obviously different then. The shape of our body is different, the content of our mind is different. Mind is just a bundle of thoughts, feelings, memories, experiences which is what we call a 'Person'. But there is an Awareness that is aware of the Mind, that is aware of the Body. So the question is what is that Awareness? What Francis is speaking about here is not 'Solipsism' or any belief or philosophy. Anyways, sorry for such a long comment. I think such a dialogue is too much for a comment section but feel free to email me if you want and we can have a proper discussion about this as we can only understand each other if we properly define what we mean when we use certain words.
I experience lights come out from my head to universe by waheguruji, it pulled one leg to let it go to the universe than months later the lights come back under trees means something happened spirituality things 🤔 nobody followed the light's ok
He is "certain" that consciousness is real, does it exist independently of its object of consciousness, if not then it has no inherent reality. Has he or anyone else experienced consciousness without anything to be conscious off? If there is no object of consciousness then there is no consciousness pre se. consciousness of what? If you are there then, when there is nothing (as he says) you are conscious of am-ness and that is not the knower of that am-ness! The am-ness is an object of consciousness. Ego is an object, empirical self is an object of consciousness.
I think to put it simply: There is an awareness that is aware of thought, feeling, sensations. As a practical example, you can look a tree commenting how beautiful it is etc etc or one can simply look at a tree, without any mental commentary around the tree. Difficult to comment on words like: am-ness, inherent reality, object, ego, emperical self without knowing why you are using them and what is meant by them exactly.
@@DomSniezka yes there is an awareness that is aware of thought feelings and sensations, those things are objects of awareness as is the most subtle sense of self, what I am saying is if there is no object, either gross or subtle (as thoughts, feelings & sense of self) then is there awareness? If one answers yes then the reply would be "awareness of what?". Awareness is awareness of something. So then if Awareness is contingent on an object then it is said to be empty of inherent reality or existence. Intrinsic or inherent reality of existence exists independently of anything else, it does not rely on any other thing for it to be. It requires no support for it to be. Any contingent reality (a thing that exists only in dependence on another thing) is empty of inherent existence, meaning its existence or reality does not inhere in its self. Inherent reality or existence also means reality as it is intrinsically, independent of how we perceive and experience it. You and I do not experience it in the same way, and a spider or a single cell Amoeba has a very very different experience of it. We all experience the same object differently, those experiences are not the thing/reality as it intrinsically exists. The following is an Excerpt from "Understanding Our Mind" Thich Nhat Hanh When we talk about consciousness, we usually think of it as having two aspects, subject and object. Subject and object are terms used in modern Western philosophy. The Manifestation Only teachings (Vijnanapti Matra), however, say that every psychological phenomenon has three aspects: a subject (the perceiver, darshana-bhaga), an object (the perceived, nimitta-bhaga), and the basis that makes both subject and object possible, which is the thing-in-itself (svabhava-bhaga) {svabhava in Sanskrit means inherent/intrinsic existence/Being}. The German phenomenologist Edmund Husserl stated that consciousness must be consciousness of something. In the Manifestation Only teachings, the same point is made. To be angry means to be angry at someone or something. To be sad is to be sad about someone or something. To worry is to worry about something. To think is to think something. All these mental activities are consciousness. It is naive to think that consciousness is something that exists independently, that it is already there and we can simply pick it up, like a garden tool, and use it to recognize an object. The Buddha said that consciousness has three parts: perceiver (subject), perceived (object), and wholeness. Subject and object work together simultaneously to manifest consciousness. There cannot be consciousness without an object. Consciousness is always consciousness of something. Thinking is always thinking of something. Anger is always being angry at someone or something. There cannot be object without subject or subject without object. Both subject and object inter-are, and they are based on wholeness. There is nothing called “seeing” that is separate from what is seen. When our eyes contact form and color, an instant of eye consciousness is produced. But this one instant of eye consciousness does not last. If our eyes continue to be in contact with form and color, however, this flash of consciousness is repeated, moment after moment. Strung together, these instantaneous flashes form a river of eye consciousness, in which subject and object continuously support each other. This process goes on only as long as there is contact between a sense organ, in this case, our eyes, and an object
![FNAF vs TF2 - Episode 2 [SFM]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z5b3V2-VLb0/mqdefault.jpg)
Beautiful to see at such a young age having this quest for truth. Sending you love 💕
❤
Great to see a young person so curious about the Truth, and at the same time so open of mind to receive it.
Thank you Dom, for bringing Francis Lucille into conversation with you. He gave the clearest description I have yet heard or seen of “ Non -Duality” and for that I am grateful. It is so valuable because it does give a clear choice about how to make decisions for oneself and what then should govern our responses to others. This seemingly simple but quite complex way of understanding ourselves in the world, the universe, this consciousness, if we recognise this reality, should inform the choices we make, guide the actions we take, as we grow throughout our lives. It should lead us honestly, with truthful investigation of our motives, our biases, our appetites, our drives, to challenge ourselves to greater altruism, in the best possible meaning of the word. As a tool for growing oneself it looks to be beyond parallel. There is succour in that knowledge and even in the painful choices it causes us to make. We just know what is right, when we go within. So, you’re actively playing a role in your own seeking and happily, making the search available to whosoever wishes to walk along with you. Keep talking. Keep questioning. Keep listening. We all benefit. No regrets.
Beautiful! 🙏
I liked your interview because it really looked at the question if there is one awareness why does it seem as if we are all separate. Well I think an answer to that might be, infinite awarness means infinite loneliness. Infinite loneliness means infinite freedom. Infinite freedom means infinite creativity. To create is to define. So infinite awareness will always lead to separateness?
Francis is the best.
Great wisdom.
Thank you for free sharing. Great guest, great master. Great talk.
There is one reality. Theres is one Consciousness but diferent degrees of conscious, diferente degrees of acess to reality or truth.
Please invite francis lucille, rupert spira and swami sarvapriyananda together.....🙏🙏
Thanks, Dom. He sounds a lot like Alan Watts. I love this concept - I hope it's true.
Is that death? The wanting to go back home; is that the choosing of wisdom instead of playing the gamie of ingnorance?
I t seems consciousness like air that we all breathe, for me it is hard to understand if my consciousness and your consciousness is same , why can’t I read your thoughts?
The first question is answered in a more fluid way by Bernardo Kastrup. Rupert Spira shamelessly borrows Kastrup's concepts. All three are saying the same thing I suppose.
Is he saying that there is no separation because only one consciousness can be real? But why only one? Why must a division of consciousness NECESSARILY be an illusion? It is in a dream, but doesn't always have to be by any solid logic as far as I can tell. There is no proof, just an assertion with room for skepticism. We can also imagine separation from a hypothetical person just like you who is having the same experience but is not you, in an otherwise identical universe (the so-called idiotic conundrum), and there is no proof there either that this would not be possible in principle, is there? If this distinction is possible, then two consciousnesses interacting should be possible as well.
There are a lot of points that you mentioned, so it's difficult to get into a good discussion as we have to be clear on what we mean so we could understand each other. But in essence, there is no separation because at the most fundamental level, we are the same, yet appearances tell us otherwise.
@@DomSniezka At the most fundamental level (relevant to this discussion, at least) there is feeling, qualia. These must belong to someone, some experiencer. There is no proof that they all belong to the same consciousness, only conjecture. I suggest interviewing Geoffrey Klempner to hear the best arguments for why there might be more than one, as he thought about this longer than most philosophers.
@@TheEivindBerge Ah yes, but what is aware of the feeling? Why do we need to prove everything, and what does it mean to prove something? Perhaps this is not an intellectual thing at all and it's only once the intellect / thought ceases that it's clear.
@@DomSniezka It's a great mystery with no proof either way, and I agree we don't strictly need one, but who knows if metaphysical speculation can turn up better reasons to believe one or the other? For now it basically comes down to preference. If we are all the same person then that does wonder for ethics as we truly have every reason to love our neighbor as ourselves, but the solipsism of it is disconcerting to me, so I am not very drawn to that line of thinking.
@@TheEivindBerge How about we look at it another way? If we asked ourselves about what truly matters in life, what would we say? Would you agree that we all just want to discover this inward sense of Freedom, Happiness, Joy? Perhaps it may something else, but even if it is something else, why do we want that? So now the question is, is there a truth to Happiness, Freedom, Joy? I think we will find that there is, and it has been spoken about for thousands of years disguised in words but the words are just pointers towards understanding, but what's necessary is to understand ourselves.
What exactly is a person? A body, a mind. Every person is obviously different then. The shape of our body is different, the content of our mind is different. Mind is just a bundle of thoughts, feelings, memories, experiences which is what we call a 'Person'.
But there is an Awareness that is aware of the Mind, that is aware of the Body. So the question is what is that Awareness? What Francis is speaking about here is not 'Solipsism' or any belief or philosophy.
Anyways, sorry for such a long comment. I think such a dialogue is too much for a comment section but feel free to email me if you want and we can have a proper discussion about this as we can only understand each other if we properly define what we mean when we use certain words.
Perhaps ... but is there sepAration?
What do you think?
@@DomSniezka Well, considering the fact that everything is, and no "thing" is not, I have my doubts.
@@simka321 great answer
I experience lights come out from my head to universe by waheguruji, it pulled one leg to let it go to the universe than months later the lights come back under trees means something happened spirituality things 🤔 nobody followed the light's ok
What the hell are you talking about
Separation
Woops :) Thank you
He is "certain" that consciousness is real, does it exist independently of its object of consciousness, if not then it has no inherent reality. Has he or anyone else experienced consciousness without anything to be conscious off? If there is no object of consciousness then there is no consciousness pre se. consciousness of what? If you are there then, when there is nothing (as he says) you are conscious of am-ness and that is not the knower of that am-ness! The am-ness is an object of consciousness. Ego is an object, empirical self is an object of consciousness.
I think to put it simply: There is an awareness that is aware of thought, feeling, sensations.
As a practical example, you can look a tree commenting how beautiful it is etc etc or one can simply look at a tree, without any mental commentary around the tree.
Difficult to comment on words like: am-ness, inherent reality, object, ego, emperical self without knowing why you are using them and what is meant by them exactly.
@@DomSniezka yes there is an awareness that is aware of thought feelings and sensations, those things are objects of awareness as is the most subtle sense of self, what I am saying is if there is no object, either gross or subtle (as thoughts, feelings & sense of self) then is there awareness? If one answers yes then the reply would be "awareness of what?". Awareness is awareness of something. So then if Awareness is contingent on an object then it is said to be empty of inherent reality or existence. Intrinsic or inherent reality of existence exists independently of anything else, it does not rely on any other thing for it to be. It requires no support for it to be. Any contingent reality (a thing that exists only in dependence on another thing) is empty of inherent existence, meaning its existence or reality does not inhere in its self.
Inherent reality or existence also means reality as it is intrinsically, independent of how we perceive and experience it. You and I do not experience it in the same way, and a spider or a single cell Amoeba has a very very different experience of it. We all experience the same object differently, those experiences are not the thing/reality as it intrinsically exists.
The following is an Excerpt from "Understanding Our Mind" Thich Nhat Hanh
When we talk about consciousness, we usually think of it as having two
aspects, subject and object. Subject and object are terms used in modern Western
philosophy. The Manifestation Only teachings (Vijnanapti Matra), however, say that every
psychological phenomenon has three aspects: a subject (the perceiver, darshana-bhaga), an object (the perceived, nimitta-bhaga), and the basis that makes both
subject and object possible, which is the thing-in-itself (svabhava-bhaga) {svabhava in Sanskrit means inherent/intrinsic existence/Being}.
The German phenomenologist Edmund Husserl stated that consciousness
must be consciousness of something. In the Manifestation Only teachings, the
same point is made. To be angry means to be angry at someone or something. To
be sad is to be sad about someone or something. To worry is to worry about
something. To think is to think something. All these mental activities are
consciousness.
It is naive to think that consciousness is something that exists independently,
that it is already there and we can simply pick it up, like a garden tool, and use it
to recognize an object. The Buddha said that consciousness has three parts:
perceiver (subject), perceived (object), and wholeness. Subject and object work
together simultaneously to manifest consciousness. There cannot be
consciousness without an object. Consciousness is always consciousness of
something. Thinking is always thinking of something. Anger is always being
angry at someone or something. There cannot be object without subject or
subject without object. Both subject and object inter-are, and they are based on
wholeness.
There is nothing called “seeing” that is separate from what is seen. When our
eyes contact form and color, an instant of eye consciousness is produced. But
this one instant of eye consciousness does not last. If our eyes continue to be in
contact with form and color, however, this flash of consciousness is repeated,
moment after moment. Strung together, these instantaneous flashes form a river
of eye consciousness, in which subject and object continuously support each
other. This process goes on only as long as there is contact between a sense
organ, in this case, our eyes, and an object