4 Objections Regarding Consciousness -- My Mind Resists the Idea That I Am Consciousness
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2024
- Possible objections to the following:
1. There is consciousness;
2. Consciousness is real;
3. Consciousness is independent from the appearances in consciousness
4. Consciousness is my real nature
Related dialogues: Ignorance is Forgetting the 3 Fundamental Qualities of Awareness: eternity, reality, universality • Video & Eradicating the Remaining 20% of Doubts | Analogy of photographer : photo :: awareness : perceptions • Eradicating the Remain...
(2016 09 17 dialogue with Francis Lucille in Temecula, CA 4)
-----
RETREAT REGISTRATION
• linktr.ee/fran...
WEEKLY WEEKEND DIALOGUES
• www.meetup.com...
SOCIAL MEDIA
• Website: francislucille...
• Facebook: / francislucille
• Instagram: / francislucille_advaita
• Twitter: / francislucille
-----
#objections #consciousness #iam #reality #nonduality #advaita #advaitavedanta #francislucille
I know that consciousness is independent of objects, because when I am truly enjoying a slice of pizza, and the doorbell rings, I know it right away. I don't think, "Why is my pepperoni suddenly singing?!?"
Instead, I answer the door (and try to get back to that slice of pizza, before it is cold.)
Who is handling all of this? And so effortlessly?
Well, seems to me, it is the overlooked miracle of consciousness.
And though I would not want to put on airs, I'd have to admit: It's me!
(I have often been accused of being a little slow, a bit dense. But this is how my experience of consciousness seems to me.)
Wow Wow Wow! Shining with pure logic. Just shows how existence can realize itself using any of its tools.
open to the possibility that we are neither physical nor certain
what if nothing is physical?
what if nothing is certain?
I totally resonate with whats said , thank you so very much 🙏🙏
Great explanation! Thanks so much for these videos.
Thank you Francis ❤🙏
Thanks Francis. "Parmenides: The first and last western philosopher."
Merci Francis tu m’aides immensément!
This is one of the more advanced Francis Lucille videos, because the student has a sophisticated understanding and raises insightful questions.
UPDATE: The response that this one sentence produced, prompted me to add the following:
NOTE:
The word "advanced" is before "Francis Lucille videos" and does not imply anything about Francis Lucille or his teachings or seminars, especially since I have never met him in person nor attended one of his seminars.
The same, of course, applies to the unnamed student who raises the questions. Also note that the word "sophisticated" is used in the sense of "aware of subtle distinctions" such as between inferred knowledge and directly perceived knowledge, etc. Many other questions in other videos are on a more basic and less sophisticated level. This does not mean that the questioner is an accomplished yogi who has completed his path, merely that these are "good questions".
That was an advanced question!!!? I have an advanced question: Does closing your eyes a lot and looking really "spiritual" when you are asking a stupid question turn it into an advanced question?
Sorry, I don't actually watch the people while they are talking in these videos, so the answer is "no".
I'm guessing you are the sort of person who equates "advanced" with complex, e.g. "On the seventh level, the ninth dimension chakra eneergy can be accessed."
Clue: complexity = fake.
BTW, I never used the phrase "advanced question", you need more mindfulness meditation to at least get to the point of being able to read a single sentence.
TheKstuart. No. I equate advanced with "no questions" in other words, understanding and standing as Divine Ignorance or Perfect Not-Knowing prior to the presumed identity with the egoic "knowing subject" who is himself the feeling and need for question. Quite simple if you have transcended Neo-advaitist talking school nonsense.
To your point, you referred to the video as "advanced". An "advanced" response from Lucille to that question would have been silence.
Yes, but I said "one of the more advanced Francis Lucille videos", which is a relative statement within the category of Lucille videos.
And, it's a question and answer session after a meditation session in silence, so this can be clarifying a conceptual understanding, rather than an "experience".
For example, Ramana Maharshi sat is silence and clearly favored that method, but he also answered an awful lot of verbal questions about conceptual understanding.
By the way, I suspect that the student's calm demeanor, slow speech, and habit of closing his eyes to concentrate on what he is saying, is indeed due to having just completed a session of "sitting", which often makes one "spacey", rather than any intent on his part of "appear spiritual".
Long diversion into being and nothingness and criticism of philosophers obfuscated answer to the question. I'm content that consciousness is independent of objects because I have experienced it with no objects during the first moment of waking up. Anyway it could be provisionally assumed until disproven.
Somebody wrote a book of 500 pages on being/non-being and someone else gave a direct opinion @20:49 “Being is and non being is not”. Is it that simple to accept it?
Why not ask a question, what was there before the being arose? Must not there be non being? It becomes more clear if being means a state of limited consciousness “the egoistic state” and non-being is the natural state of consciousness “a state that is not conscious of its separation”.
Same way, everyone feels that their consciousness is limited. But why not ask, what was there before we collected the content of our personal limited consciousness through interactions with the environment?
The obvious answer is that there was the unlimited consciousness that did not know anything. Through knowing more and more it limited itself.
Thank you for the clarification, I needed it!!
Is it another one of these paradoxes: Step 3 of the inquiry is that consciousness is independent of the objects that appear in it , but yet we also know that whatever is perceived is consciousness and consciousness alone? Eyal
Eyal. It is not a paradox. It simply means that consciousness exist with or without it´s modifications/manifestations (objects).
Example 1: You exist with or without your gross objects (car, house etc) and your subtle objects (your emotions and thoughts).
Example 2: In the waking state and dream state, consciousness exist plus ít´s modifications/manifestations (objects). In the deep sleep state consciousness alone exist; without any modifications/manifestations (objects).
Eyal Orgad yes, that's generally the progression of understanding. This is mainly because practically, we need to be grounded in the universal witness before we can recognize the seemlessness of consciousness without objects.
In my experience it becomes obvious when you really experiencially know for certain that consciousness is not subject to death or disappearance and is in fact eternal and complete in itself (without any need for a mind or body)
That usually necessitates a complete dissolution of phenomena, which is like a simulation of death. Its a very real.
Then from that place the return of phenoma is experienced as not distinct from its source (which is one's own universal being)
This requires an act of grace, because the separate self can't and won't get rid of itself. This can bring up fear initially, like you're going to die.. like some power far greater than the separate self ia working, but then you realize that power is the real you :D
.
That's just the start of another chapter haha
michael mcclure is meditation the best way, or an entheogen?
Reality is made of matter, feels like the "safer" assumption. Who would argue?
Yet even if it is made of matter, it is still indistinguishable from a dream.
In fact you could say that the dream, the perception, is all that can ever be known.
There is no test for the "hard stuff" that lies on the other side of perception.
The mad hatter had matter, or so he said. He made hats only the blind could see.
Beautiful ❤
When Advaita Vedanta meets Taoism ;)
you sit by the window petting your cat on your lap. An annoying neighbor passes by and tells you she saw your cat in the middle of the road, flattened out by a car... What do you do, start panicking?!
"matter is seen to exist independently"
but how would one test the independent existence of matter?
Do the objects in my environment exist on their own?
What does an unobserved object look like?
Even quantum mechnics says the matter is just a illusion as material thing that exist in dreams look real while dreaming but when we wake up we realized they were non existent
I wonder whether the word 'seen' in that was perhaps meant as metaphorically seen, rather than as literally seen. In any case, the question of "...how would one test the independent existence of matter?" seems to me to presuppose the existence of matter. If there is no existent matter, then there also is no way to test the existence of matter, right? How (if in any way) would anyone know whether or not there is any independently existent matter?
These are really good questions. The explanations lack logical clarity -- for the simple reason that all this is not logical at all. All these words are somewhat good since they calm down the curious mind and allow the seeking person to sink into experience. However, in retrospect all these words and explanations are unnecessary and certainly not correct in a logical sense...
this is great
Drop your ego 😉
"the mind is passively manipulated"
- dislike
matter of definitions