Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Do We Choose Our Thoughts? Francis Lucille
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2020
- You can watch all our videos at scienceandnond...
Francis Lucille dialogues with the audience at SAND18 US
Science and Nonduality is a community inspired by timeless wisdom, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience. We come together in an open-hearted exploration while celebrating our humanity.
No one chooses their thoughts. The thought "I am awake" is not awake. The thought "I think" does not think.
Who is the thinker? Is there a thinker? Who or what knows the thinker? Those are the questions.
Francis is very thorough in his inquiry. I learned something from this video, which is a rare pleasure.
The Walking Dead brought me here.
@@philippecuenoud2949 how tf 🤣
@@ayofrtho7014 Lucille is the baseball bat of Negan.
you learned shit.
Philippe Cuénoud - haha 😂 synchronicity at play 🙏🏻
He is so spontaneous and free in his approach. This quality of effortless response is so distinct in all realized souls, I'm noticing.... So obvious yet so hard to pin point. It's keeps me glued to their presence. ❤ed every bit of this interaction.
Yes 🙌🏻
you ain't gonna fuck him. That's MY husband!
Really had to work for it but did receive two important levels of understanding. We are One and part of it all. The episode of the "pot" helped me recognize that yes, all along the experience was indeed being created into the experience all along by everyone, and the forgetting was a whole new insight. Thank you.
This man is authentic; he found his way, with Guides. Ultimately, everyone's experience is unique, and each must find their personal solution. We
must heal ourselves, as he has done. There is no Magic Bullet, only self examination and reflection on one's emotions.
Sehr schöne Art mit dem Unerklärlichen umzugehen, aber am schönsten ist der Rhythmus wie er Bewusstsein in Ruhe und Bewusstsein in Worte einsetzt. Very nice way of dealing with the inexplicable, but the most beautiful thing is the rhythm of how he uses awareness in silence and awareness in words.
Me, too -- similar experience with JK -- he believed, and I believe he is right, that one cannot proceed on a spiritual path "bypassing" to use the popular vernacular. You really have to find out exactly what you are throwing overboard before you can actually do that. It is easy to say "I am not attached" over and over and practice letting your thoughts pass by but in order to move toward that place of neither desiring or fearing you have got to clean house upstairs. JK used to say "Choiceless Awareness". He was an enlightened being and a great humanitarian who was not afraid to go to the non-pc places like conduct and values. He really wanted to help the world, not just help individuals "realize" for their own "bliss".
JK doesn't get his due. That's why I'm here:)
He's just amazing. The way he does it so connects with me.
Love Francis Lucille ❤️
@@TheWorldTeacher please enlighten 🙏🙂
I loved all of this.
❤️
You possess intention. It's no coincidence that the content of your mind is so strongly related to your experiences.
Your thoughts are your responsibility, they simply arise from a level of your mind thats deeper than your awareness... your unconscious mind
This was very helpful, thank you Francis Lucille.
1:12:00 ish, that was a fantastic question. And in general, brilliant as always.
Very good question!
Solutions to unknowable questions about one's self can manifest in the form of spontaneous knowledge (understanding.) A momentary Consciousness regarding a specific unknown. The emotional work, over time, can instantly be grasped, since the puzzle pieces all come together. This is directed to the man who asked about visualizing an object that is not there (?)
I have been years on the path and reading etc ... I got more from this ninety minutes than all my previous work.
Really? Why and how? If you don't mind me asking. 🙏
Your comment further verifies the existence of a Direct Path. I too had been stuggling with a traditional approach requiring "work" to bring you to "enlightenment" as a GOAL.
No one could explain exactly what that actually meant. When my last teacher in that traditional approach died, I was once again cast adrift so to speak. There were several stops on my solo journey before I discovered(as if he were hiding) Rupert Spira. All of the stops on my journey have been what I consider serendipities, each had some element of truth within them. I realize now that a serendipity is not an accident of good fortune but rather an opening within me which leads to my true nature. These cracks of Awareness always occur, but we must be Aware of our Awareness in order to facilitate the lesson. Thank you Rupert, thank you Francis and thank you Sri Ramana Maharshi. And thank you as well and equally so.
@@TheWorldTeacher lol are u practicing english or just plain nuts
@@TheWorldTeacher sweetie, here's more help for u: step 1, scroll up, lmao
Maybe thanks to your previous work, you're now able to understand/comprehend/welcome the content in this 90 minutes video
It all begins with awareness and desire.
Yes, through love and will
I honour this space in which you exist.
41:43: Consciousness is prior to everything. Everything we are experiencing could be a dream (when we dream we're not aware that we dream) but even if it were, there is something that is real beyond the shadow of a doubt, which is the conscious-nessing aspect, which points to the fact that consciousness belongs to a level of reality that is superior to that which it perceives; because of the 100% of this certainty we have of the consciousness whereas the certainty of the existence of what is perceived is less certain. In the common view of the world, most people in our culture, it's the opposite: what is perceived, especially what is tangible and made out of matter (like this glass or this table), is seen as real, and the consciousness is inadvertently put it in the same drawer where the thoughts are, not as real as that which is tangible like this table. We have to understand that the reversal of the hierarchy of realities can be done, that consciousness is real and then we have this natural intuition that there is only one reality (non-duality) and then everything falls into place. If consciousness is real, if consciousness is a reality which is hearing these words right now and if there is only one reality then consciousness is this reality. And a corollary of that is that we all share the same consciousness. And the recognition that we all share the same consciousness is the experience of love.
@WhiteWolf My pleasure.
Very good explanation, albeit a bit hard to follow. I prefer it the way Eckhart Tolle puts it: we are consciousness and everything else is just content that we are aware of.
@@onreact Whatever rocks your boat. If you want to follow Francis Lucille, try first his student Rupert Spira, who has a terrific ability to put the unexplainable in words. In the non-dual perspective, there is no two, like consciousness in me and the world made out of matter out there. So the witness point of view where Eckhart stands is sort of half-way; however, it's already much further than our original understanding.
@@Misslotusification Ah, OK. Maybe I was just misquoting ET because of my own limited grasp on the higher self. I will check out Rupert Spira. Thank you very much for suggesting.
@@onreact My pleasure. I hope you'll find there a way to what you're looking for. xx
Lovely! Enjoyed thoroughly!🧡
29:18 " So Yes , The Truth is a very important element of change..."
@@TheWorldTeacher Well , in context I think it means growing wiser and not just older , he said his teacher must of met a "real " guru because he ripened so quickly , ultimately Truth is just a footnote in Awareness by Awareness
He’s a pretty cool kat
I'm thankful for the opportunity to speed the video up lol
Awesome, thank you xx
Amazing. Thanks of lot.
Man can do what he wants, but he can’t want what he wants. Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills. I’ve got all kinds of choices in this dream. There is free will within the dream. I can decide to do something, and then do it, but I don’t have a clue where the idea to do something came from.
Who is this " i" that you refer to? It doesnt exist
Meditate around great jnani gurus in India itself for hundreds of days and have a big breakthrough that is nondual. Then it is obvious that you can not even choose to get out of bed a second you want to. You are awake even in your dreams and it is clear that the whole thing is a process, that there is no seperate anything including a separate chooser that makes its own choices.
You can even ignore everything said by Francis or in this comment and just notice that the one who says he will change himself and does so is really just a continuation of what was already in process, not a new person or a real choice.
This resonates as true, but the process is agony to experience, and contentment in the observational state has been unattainable to me thus far. Thank you for your comment, friend
Such beautiful sharing thank you Francis
Nice ! Thank you
I tend to push back on this way of framing the occurrences of thoughts. I appreciate Lucille's ideas but when he says, "I don't care how it feels, " he is contradicting himself because he seems to care about the feeling he has that he does not choose his thoughts, but rejects the feeling that one has of choosing to follow a thought, as the first questioner expressed. I think we have a multitude of facets to our conscious being, of which we only relate to or identify with 1 small set of the facets. For some reason people want to rely only on this top level, meta-thinking, problem solving, self referencing aspect of consciousness. So, when someone poses, do I choose my thoughts, they really mean, does my self-referencing mind choose my thoughts. But this notion ignores the possibility that deeper, or more hidden facets of our being, (which are invisible or unrelatable in our mind's eye) might be choosing the thoughts or choosing to follow thoughts. It is not self evident that we don't choose our thoughts, because I believe we are not privy to access the full scope of our being which may in fact be generating, choosing and following thoughts in a way that many would describe as free will, or the will to choose, or the will to power. It is not so uncommon through the history of philosophy to believe in free will. But, as with many esoteric ideas, reductionism and materialist paradigms dominate with a flippant ignorance and lack of self criticality and open mindedness.
@@TheWorldTeacher I'm sorry but I could not read your entire, "comment" before rebutting. One reason, is that I can rebut something in your first paragraph. Like Lucille, you are starting with the a priori assumption that we don't possess free will. i.e. "each and every thought and action is governed by our genes and environmental conditioning." There is no more proof of this than there is proof that we do in fact have free will. Like Lucille you contradict yourself from the very beginning. You say, "we refuse to believe that we are not the author of our thoughts and actions." Could I not say the inverse, "we refuse to believe that we ARE the author of our thoughts and actions. Your statement implies without proof that we are not the author of our thoughts. As I have just displayed I can make an equally valid argument from the opposite position. I don't think you took the time to think deeply about my questioning of this type of logic. I will now try to go through the rest of your comment and will amend my rebuttal if it seems appropriate. But I urge you to check your own assumptions with the level of skepticism you apply to those who believe free will, in some form may exist. Personally I am agnostic, and I think it is a mistake at this point in history to ultimately be anything but agnostic. A rigorous discussion can take place without rejecting either position from the outset.
@@TheWorldTeacher With your statement, "To assume that free-will suddenly and INEXPLICABLY appeared on this planet at the birth of the first Homo sapiens, is the height of presumption." Are you implying that I have made that assumption? Because I certainly do not believe that is the case whatsoever, nor do I think it is necessary for free will to exist in such a form. It seems that you make quite a few outstanding assumptions about what you see as truth about your own understanding of free will not existing. Again, I want to see both positions, yours and mine, on equal footing of NOT YET TRUTH. You also assume determinism is true, and that we are operating in a reductionist physicalist ontology. Both of these are assumptions and not proven true. I would argue that it is more likely that determinism and physicalism are both false and that these two concepts are as hard to let go of, as you consider the difficulty of letting go of an individuals belief in free will. Have you considered the ramifications of quantum mechanics and chaos theory as it pertains to physicalism and determinism? Have you considered objective idealism as an alternative ontology? Do you know of Kant's notion of a universal will to power, or Bernardo Kastrups theories of Universal Mind at large? How about theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli's timeless quantum mechanics and relational quantum mechanics?
> he is contradicting himself because he seems to care about the feeling he has that he does not choose his thoughts, but rejects the feeling that one has of choosing to follow a thought
I don't think he contradicts himself here. It is quite in accordance with the original idea. (Un)caring about anything as an expression of yet-another thought he does not choose.
> But this notion ignores the possibility that deeper, or more hidden facets of our being, (which are invisible or unrelatable in our mind's eye) might be choosing the thoughts or choosing to follow thoughts. It is not self evident that we don't choose our thoughts, because I believe we are not privy to access the full scope of our being
You may be correct here, but this is just sweeping the dilemma under a carpet. Idea of "free-will" is based and depends on conscious mind. When the decision comes from some sub/unconscious depths of mind one has no conscious access to and control of, it is effectively the same like absence of free-will completely.
I'm not saying it is this way or other, but all observable phenomena conform to cause & effect principle and it just feels unlikely only the choice would be an exception. I've listened to many neuroscientists who claim, based on many experiments including well-known Libet's, there is not something like free will with high degree of confidence. It is also interesting, idea of free will seems an invention of religion-based civilizations, while some remote civilizations like amazonian indian tribes does not consider its existence at all.
@@torimusblake6377 Well put. I definitely think there is a strong argument to be made that free will (if it exists) must occur in the phenomenological conscious mind. I'm sure you realize that this is where we enter into the most difficult aspect of philosophy, semantics and definitions. Obviously, and it seems like you know this, the definition one uses for free will dictates the existence or non-existence of free will in a way. For instance, I could choose to define free will simply as the feeling of volition, or the will to choose. In that way, it would see that free will exists. But if you use other definitions like the common "could not choose otherwise," then it is likely you will determine free will does not exist. Libet's is interesting, you may want to look for articles (because there are many now) which refute Libet's findings as a proof against free will. I really like your example of the Amazonians. I agree that the idea of free will is just like any other human idea, constructed and therefore highly subject to scrutiny when placed in a reductionist physicalist framework. I mentioned this in my comments above, but this is one of the reasons I don't like the arguments against free will. I think they start from an incorrect ontology and metaphysics. Yet, even if one assumes a physicalist reality, which relies on determinism as the argument against free will, ignores the ramifications of quantum mechanics and quantum field theories as well as chaos theory. Another a priori assumption which is certainly not proven, but may actually be at the center of the determinism/free will argument is the idea of causality and causal closure of the universe. I have been thinking hard about this in particular lately. It is sooooo deep and relates to the nature of time. Ugh it really hurts to grapple with. One bright spot for my position, came from a recent conference talk I attended by theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli. In his theory of quantum physics, he finds a place for free will in a pseudo-deterministic universe. In short, the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics allows for a multitude of possibilities at any moment, this set of diverse future moments allows for something to choose a particular path amongst many. The resulting cause and effect is deterministic in the sense that it follows universal laws, but the outcome is not deterministic before the choice is enacted. You might find the talk interesting. ruclips.net/video/WY5As3nGvyk/видео.html
@@S.G.Wallner Oh, thanks for the comprehensive reply and share of a different standpoint. I'd agree, some discrepancies may come not only from different ontological perspectives, but also distinct epistemological and semantic understanding. Attempt to explaining the mystery by quantum physics may also be misleading, like any other branch of science, because its research and discoveries concern only to measurable patterns in the physical world of phenomena and it would thus implicitly assume same nature applies to mind or even consciousness. I'm afraid more thorough debate is beyond scope of YT comments section. Just my short take about QM. Still valid Copenhagen interpretation which, instead incorporation of some hidden variable or invention of concept about more then one reality, explains its "indeterministic" nature by taking an observer into the equations, ie. consciousness which is out of scope of conscious thinking. It perfectly fits to non-dualistic understanding, which consider consciousness (in the eastern sense, the background of subjective experiencing not reduced to a waking state) as the only reality and any object only as an appearance which originates from it.
In the end, I would never yield even to most sophisticated and convincing authoritative explanation, but always rely on my intimate experience void of all conceptualizations as possible. I've got most breaking revelation during my stay in darkness (a week or more), when bare mind working can be observed undisturbed and possibly revealed. Since then I know, my mind does _not_ create and cease thoughts and process how a subsequent thought bearing my identity appropriate former's thought ownership. And yes, the knowing itself is also just a thought, but now different, integrated and unquestioned like feeling of presence/existence. Maybe _genuine_ would be the right word.
1:15:23 .................................It's a dicey thing to speak about the silence. It's better to let the silence speak
We are not attached to opinions anymore 😊
Francis💛
Wow! 🙏🏿
, with respect i find it v difficult to understand him, perhaps sub titles would be a v good idea, i know a lot of like minded people,
To answer the question of the title, No.
Our attitude decides which thoughts come to us because our attitude is our vibration.
Now, we can consciously choose our thoughts, but we generally only do this once we are fed up with experiencing low frequency thoughts and the feelings that they cause.
A fear-based attitude can only attract low frequency thoughts from the quantum field or the one mind that we all share, also known as the Mind of God.
So feelings matter
That’s a very new age oriented belief system, discard it.
1:09:07 - this is actually heart breaking. I don't think I've ever had an experience of shared silence with a teacher. And I think I never will.
Sadguru is your very best teacher. Peace.
I don't mean the guy "Sadguru" I mean the guru within you.
Yeah, we choose what we ALLOW TO REMAIN in our mind and mind's eye. That's how we choose.
Que sera ,sera.... how about adding the cocept of intention??? Where does that fork lead, or maybe does it originate???
To 1:07:20:
"Awareness is not in deep sleep"
Awareness is always aware. Body-mind is in deep sleep. Awareness is always aware. Now. No past, no future; no memories (thoughts about the past), no plans or expectations (thoughts about the future). Body-mind cannot remember since it was in deep sleep, right? Awareness can - again being aware only of the present moment - be aware of an actual thought of remembering mind that someone woke you up. You cannot travel back to visit awareness being aware of body-mind deep asleep nor to the moment when someone woke you up, but it is aware in the moment you remember being woken up, it is aware of your present thought about the past. As Rupert ;-) also says, there is no absence of awareness, there is awareness of absence.
I don't choose the thoughts that appear. I choose the thoughts to listen to. I have to believe in Freewill, even if it is a dillusion. It is a stubborn dillusion that happens to be a gift that Natural Selection has given to humanity. Trying too hard to unravel it with the logical mind doesn't work. It will drive you temporary mad. But it is an important journey to go on to find your personal truth. You can only answer your personal truth which IS truth.
It is a wild and exciting journey friends. We'll meet on the other side and all say "Aha!"
What is this "i" that you say chooses? Can you find it? The "i" is just another thought. A child sitting in the back seat with a toy steering wheel..
Not even your self delusion is a choice. Wake up to it and go “mad”.
"I" think...."I" do....its "mine"....."my" this...that....
Who am "I"...?
Search for that....you'll get all answers....🙏
Die Annahme das Supperpositionen eine beinah unzählige Anzahl von Möglichkeiten ist die tatsächlich existieren und sich eine davon durch Beobachtung oder Messung zeigt ist eben nur eine Annahme. Ersetzen wir doch Supperposition einmal mit Potentialität, dann stimmt es eher. Worte sind vorwegnahmen von Unwahrheiten. Schlechte Fragen sind Supperpositonen aber nicht die Potenitalität. The assumption that superpositions are an almost innumerable number of possibilities that actually exist and one of them is revealed by observation or measurement is just an assumption. If we replace supperposition with potentiality, then it is more correct. Words are anticipations of untruths. Bad questions are superpositions but not potentiality.
Are we to believe that Francis is not choosing the words he uses to speak - that there is some kind of total determinism of thought and speech at work here?
I've watched my thoughts just go on their own without any input from me like an automated system! I'm sure I was completely apart from the the event...
Why are seekers so lazy, they seek out others truth in the hope for making it their own. The very beginning of knowing the absolute is forgoing the relative. The relative by the way is YOU!
I respectfully refer you to 57.59 in the video.
Absolute truth!!
Totally agree. Gimme, gimme, gimme. No one is going to give it to you, and there is nothing to get.
26:00
38:00
41:00
46:00
49:00
52:00
54:00
55:00
What is the answer to the question - Do We Choose Our Thoughts ? I am not sure if that is answered.
the answer is we do choose our thoughts.
@@soofitnsexy is the question, do we choose our thoughts as in "what thoughts" come to our mind ? or if we choose the thought that arrives or have ability to let it go ?
It was answered in the beginning, we dont.
Hi, we are part og univers not seperat, it is not business that I should be nice to universe so universe will be nice to me, we are like a atom in a universe, we are not seperate
It is very hard to understand his accent. Please, give English subtitles.
You will get used to it
It is difficult for me to understand how Consciousness can be acquired without an understanding of psychology and/or psychiatry.
That's because it's beyond the intellectual mind. It's also not something you "acquire", you are already it, you are only ever coming home from a dream. Think of a dream, it feels real, emotions arise and just as it's getting too much, you surrender to it and you awaken. Once you wake up, you realise it was all just a dream. In that dream you could be searching answers for eternity but, it's not until you surrender or let go that, you instantly wake up.
Leading up to the experience, you're letting go of all that intellectual thinking (the psychology or thinking you need psychology) and a space opens up where all those things/thoughts fall away and an experience arises.
Psychology is a relatively new thing so, if you need that knowledge, how could people thousands of years ago reach enlightenment? I think most people's struggles to have an experience is, they're thinking it should be this way or that way instead of just allowing it to be. Surrender is the key.
It is not acquired. Consciousness simply is. Conventional psychology/psychiatry can't understand this because they are too locked into a materialistic belief system.
you can from experience.
get out of your head !!
"I don't care how it feels..." That says it all. All IQ and no EQ, letting the mind and ego go berserk in a closed body... It makes a sound, but it doesn't resonate with me one bit.
Patrik Norell - emotions are mostly ego as well....the wounded past arising in this moment. Beyond emotion is peace, compassion, kindness, etc which are aren’t emotions...🙏🏽
I agree with this comment, that was my first intuition too.
@@JEiowan I think he asking her to hold on to impersonal observation through out the experiment. Otherwise there is no way find out what's objectively true.
21:41 beautiful
(a) wear ness. (a) wearing. 👁️ wears...
In the beginning he’s contradictory, he pretty much tells her to “trust her experience”, then as she expands on her experience of choosing to follow a thought he then says “it doesn’t matter what you feel”
it's a bit worse, as he says "I don't care how it feels", which sounds kinda rude, but whatever, French style... I can understand where he comes from, but actually I see another contradiction afterwards (though I have no objection to contradictions, I'll explain that one).
He says "a thought can't create another thought", according to what he read Krishnamurti saying. But then she asks "what is it inside me that decides to follow a thought?" and she gives an example of thoughts that are delicious and she feels a strong pull towards them, and then Francis says "well that's just another thought" (that's when she says "but it feels like..." and gets interrupted).
But since thoughts don't create thoughts, all these thoughts are coming from some source, and this source cannot be the very thought, as he put it before. So is the source of decision the same of thought? What is it, after all, that creates the "thought that decides"? That's a question worth it investigating, yet he dismissed it.
@@RogerioLupoArteCientifica exactly. He’s oversimplifying, this is all much more complex and complicated.... But I would much rather trust my experience than what someone else deems as truth.
@@bsan7919Well, I tend to always prefer simplicity rather than complexity, that's where I've always found my answers. Nisargadatta could say that "the reason for everything to be as it is, is everything" (those are my words tho).
But the fact is that the thoughts and the unconscious processes of decision are all taking place automatically as a result of the chain of events. Eckhart Tolle could say that the only choice we have is between presence or identification (as long as we're aware that this choice is a possibility). And indeed, as we choose presence, our decisions substantially change, because a new factor for a decision comes into the scenario and fear becomes no longer a big thing.
its interesting tho bc then he answers the next questioner by illustrating his own inner FEELING of .. something in me said " YES! " so, he answered her question eventually....why his first response that sounded so belittling like she is a hysterical women who is confused about men falling in love with her or not... that is well, I don't know lol
@@RogerioLupoArteCientifica again, you have a preference/ bias towards simplicity. Your preference may not reflect reality...you go on to say that that it’s “fact” that thoughts are brought about by a chain of events, which is not necessarily true either. We do not have a grasp of causality, let alone consciousness, so how can you conclude to know truth? There are so many mysteries yet to be answered, so I have a hard time believing anyone who claims to have the answer to mysteries as such.
Then, there is the reality that not everyone can love.
Please sub titles in English. Thanks
Obviously not
Im i the only one hoo find Francis to be always intolerant in the background. Poor him! He have to endure his superiority in wisdom world whit all his"sujet" not understanding. Long live the king!!! When we are at this level how it is possible to be frustrated like that? ok ok ok ; )