Innocence and Spontaneity of Not-Knowing - Francis Lucille

www.scienceandnonduality.com/
FRANCIS LUCILLE
Advaita Teacher
Francis Lucille is a spiritual teacher of the tradition of Advaita Vedanta (non-duality). He became a disciple of Jean Klein, a French Advaita teacher whom he met in 1975. This was the beginning of a close association that lasted until the death of his friend and spiritual master in 1998. Jean Klein's own guru, "Panditji" Rao, whom he met in India in the nineteen-fifties, was a college professor in Bengalore who taught Sanskrit and belonged to a lineage of traditional Advaita Vedanta teachers. www.francislucille.com

[@raulibiza1]

Happiness is the most normal state of being for anyone who enjoys a sane mind...

[@davivify]

Am I the only one struck by the irony of the title: Science -and- Non Duality?

[@null.och.nix7743]

+Dave March ha ha :D ;)

[@alientube1984]

It brings me great joy knowing that Liam Neeson is a fan of Francis and spirituality...

[@kevinlloyd4914]

I will find you, I will….oh never mind. No I…..

[@luisalbelda67]

Thank you!

[@rejeanoe]

'Can multiplicity be one' is Awareness' game!

[@rejeanoe]

'Consciousness' is the tool by which this will be resolve.

[@conradwarne1682]

How can there be happiness when there is so much suffering in the world? You could say that, but happiness has nothing to do with me or you. It is what is always so, it is everything. It is what always is. So in suffering there is happiness, but what happens is, is that we come into the picture and hold on to suffering and create a story out of it. We personalise suffering. Because we personalise everything, My happiness, My saddness, My suffering. What we create is an artificial reality. So instead of there being suffering, when suffering arises no matter what it arises as. We create a story out of it. When we see there is suffering happening to another person, what happens again is that we personalise it. In a way we are projecting ourselves onto somebody else's suffering because it's really about us, our personal story' and not about the apparent person who is apparently suffering. When the personal story is all that is known, then of course, how can we be happy when there is so much suffering in the world. But when there is no longer a story of ME playing itself out and overlaying reality, then what there is, is happiness happying, or happiness unhappy-ing. So no matter what happens it's always happening inside happiness. Happiness is already and always what you are. Happiness pretending to be a person who has lost home, living in a separate reality called the story of my life. And because the felt sense of being separate in a story is deeply unsatisfying. The person in the story continually looks in so many ways, for what has been lost. Only to find that the person in the story was never there in the first place. It was happiness all along. In way it is so obvious, because no matter what is apparently happening there is always that felt sense of unconditional love, even in the most dreadful situations. This can be sensed just prior to or even during an apparent dreadful situation. It's like a stillnesses that is alive and moving and yet still at the same time. When we add ourselves onto whatever is happening, what gets created is a divide. This is happening to me or them. When there is nobody adding themselves onto what is happening, what is left is just what is happening. Happiness Happin-ing.:-)

[@meirenchen1042]

Conrad Warne Well explained, Conrad!

[@d1427]

two things related to the question: 1. it is hard for people to grasp the fact that what they perceive as reality is just fabrications of the mind, i.e. "how can you tell me that rape and killings don't happen in Somalia or elsewhere?! everyone can see that, it is on tv on a daily basis!"; however, instead of talking about happiness/love as an indirect response i'd address the issue through direct inquiry: to whom inhumanity to humans appears? and who wants happiness under these circumstances? 2. i find the concept of happiness and love not that easily associated with awareness/consciousness because of the various uses and views. Instead i find 'peace' as a more basic and clear perception. There's not much explanation anyone would need about what its possible meanings...

[@julianbates2040]

Tell me what good your point is doing for someone who is in suffering? For whom it IS real! I feel this is a limitation on some (not all) teachers who cannot really empathise with an 'individual' 's experience and respond to it empathically. Correct me if I am wrong, but very few people have seen the 'illusory nature of the separate self' really, experientially and, thus, consistently. (Including the vast majority of people here, at this conference). When Frances is asked about climate change and - as here, rape, he does not get his hands dirty at all with the content, the subject-matter being asked.

[@d1427]

If you refer to my point about inquiring 'to whom suffering appears' then I can say that as long as the body is real, suffering is real too. Indeed, very few people may have experienced the 'illusory nature of the separate self', or, as far as I am concerned it can also be said that none… how can i know the truth about what others experience? I only can know what I experience and again, as long as I see myself as a human and identify with this body, I will inevitably experience suffering… life, the [unsatisfactory] way ‘we’ know it [by convention= common sense/tradition…] and which determined the ego go out in searching happiness. The journey is a long loop of returning to the self, eventually reaching to investigate this ego we call I- ‘who am I/where am I coming from?’ to find that it does not really exist... Francis cannot possibly get his hands dirty by diving into the content of something not real, otherwise he wouldn’t be a non-duality teacher but another ‘wise guy’ [there are tons of them out there...] giving advice on how to find happiness in the world/improve our own humanity. In the absolute truth of advaita this body, the world, suffering, pleasure… are all illusory and such nothing lasting can be built upon them; the only [unchanging] reality is that of the Self/awareness. The challenge of realizing this consist not in acquiring a new thing/skill but getting rid of the illusory by looking at this ego that claims existence with whole earnestness Julian Bates

[@julianbates2040]

Wow, so teachers who DO get involved are barking up the wrong tree? I think not... You have missed the essence of my point: children's imaginings are not real (to us, nor in reality) but to them they are. We have to deal withUnderstand and respect the children's perception (otherwise you would be a dimsissive parent, yes?) Similarly, when someone who hasn't been 'Swallowed' by enlightenment, but still feels themselves a human being albeit a good, sensitive, conscious, aware one, confronts abuse, it is unsavoury, unbecoming... How does one deal with it in the real world?! Compassion is when one goes from this Heart of awareness and touches the experience of one who is 'suffering'. If you see suffering as unreal, t hen there can be no compassion. To use Rupert Spira's word, one makes a 'concession'

[@freddystaelens]

Wouldn’t it be great if Francis and K. had had a tête á tête ‘ . Love both of them.

[@ourloveourjourney215]

K?

[@zatoichiable]

If there are no more forms to be aware, what happens to awareness?

[@MagdiNonDuality]

+Zatoichiable If there are no more clouds, what happens to the wide open sky? If there are no more limitations, what happens to freedom?

[@zatoichiable]

+Magdi Badawy You have zeroed it.

[@priyatoshtiwari5139]

One doubt I have, if someone can help. When Francis proposed that if you can't remember when you began then that's proof enough that you never begun. Well we don't remember so many things like events happened till the age of 2-3 years(in my case), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Maybe it began but we don't remember it. Why questioner didn't clarify it with Francis? Can someone help?

[@Brandon-ig4uh]

It’s almost as if we’re no different than any other animal during that stage, just an innocent presence living until the mind is smart enough to perceive itself. Pretty cool.

[@selflit]

In the sense it is truly delicate instrument for generating memes (ideas) and spreading them in and out with supposed ability to reflect on it's conclusion (but that ability seems to come online later) that is formed as we progress from fetus to adulthood and changes shape over the course of its unfolding, but awareness which is our essence is prior to all that relative interpretation, even to cognize an event of its formation means imposing limited rules which mind can't help but do even ideas such as mind and consciousness are in the end trivial, they point out to something which is in the end just single and unified whole (and so it only seems that there is some hierarchy of nestedness due to nature of language and our senses that are optimized for survival I assume)

[@thatapuguy2768]

I agree with you that put that way, it is not a strong logic. But perhaps what he was referring to is the fact that consciousness predates the faculties of mind such as memory of events. You would agree that you were conscious when you were 2 or 3 old, right? So, can you logically put a finger on when did you start consciousnessing? Perhaps when you were a fetus..., or a zygote..., or may be even before that... We don't know. So, let's not assume that it is limited to the mind or body.

[@clairem6596]

That's funny Dave march

[@ghulamsarwar4512]

What is evil? why is there evil? is evil also the work of atman/brahman?

[@rickardrenstrom6318]

Maybe evil is an expression of hate? And isn’t hate dependent on the belief that someone has done something that is understood and felt as being painful to oneself? That is dependent on the belief to be a separate entity, a completely autonomous body mind, and that the others are just that too. Then if someone does something which is painful it is their fault and the inevitable consequences of that “view” is what is called hate, which is the painful judgement of that person as the totally independent doer of its deeds which are seen as bad and hurtful.

[@kabasakalis]

Claiming that Buddha taught "happiness" is not relevant though.Buddha's teaching had nothing to do with happiness.... You can't just "be happy" by choice,because of the afflictions-individual and collective.Happiness comes as a byproduct of doing away with these afflictions,and not much is talked about how this is done.Great question from the woman -"how can we be happy with so much suffering in the word.Women being raped in Somalia etc".The answer was disappointing at least.The path starts with the Four Noble Truths,and you can't skip any part and just be "happy" without doing your homework first.

[@selflit]

I would point out and you see what you can make of it, that overall on "the path of life" (or as some like to say spiritual unfolding) we should at least be careful with referring to any higher authority, because mind is so clumsy in tricking yourself into being righteous (that apply to this or any supposedly authentic and raw live teaching as well, downloading it into just concepts do no good whatsoever, but it is easier with ancient knowledge for us to respect it and also get stuck on certain parts that we resonated with) I get that your comment was made 6yrs ago but i try to leave it for anyone in doubt who resonated with your past position, which is not unusual position to be held really

[@ibperson7765]

I dont remember him ever claiming we can just “be happy” easily and without certain actions. He said that testing that first hypothesis... is a cause of happiness. And then went on to imply that happiness also comes from testing the hypothesis that we are this consciousness and that it is the same consciousness that is experiencing other body-minds. Ever tried either? Both have made me feel better.

[@renateuwe9033]

🔴Physics meets Spirituality!🔴To the question if science can help to discover and accept the ultimate reality:👉🏽Yes it does! In fact: It helps me a lot to accept my already dawning intuition about the ultimate reality - as not contradictory but confirmed of silence!It's not "new" science, it's already about 200 years old, but it's just now slowly slowly reaching the public knowing.

[@rogervanoro]

I wish Lucille didn't keep giving the same rote answers to questions for years on end. I feel all the non-duality teachers have some reckoning to do - I don't doubt that there are some vital realizations in the body of work - and I had been actively in the community and having realizations in my own experience - but you also see the limitations when you're up close - limitations in the effect of the teaching, the embodiment of the teacher, many people who are bypassing in the community, the teacher resting on a perch - When you look at how non-dynamic longstanding teachers in the field are - you have to admit they are not demonstrating mastery or skillfulness in many terrains of the human experience, including emotional IQ and trauma awareness and many other relatively vital elements of human connection. Check out his interview with Conscious.TV Ian McNay for a first class introduction to Lucille's lack of emotional skills. The standards have to raise for what we all term 'enlightened' because that's a pretty high status we are bestowing with the cultural context around that term.

[@brianbritchie8710]

That is all nonsense. A Zen master would give you a clout with his stick.

[@rogervanoro]

@@brianbritchie8710 Actually, empty trolling responses are nonsense. Why not offer a salient counterpoint? Or did the Zen master already hit you with the stick way too hard?