The Mystery of Life: Francis Lucille

[@kimelzen6951]

I am so in love with Francis 🎉❤ so concise, brilliantly executed laying bare of our misconceptions. Utterly utterly grateful to be on the same planet with this man right now ❤❤❤

[@innerlight617]

One of the most excellent teachers of non-duality in the West!!Really precious..

[@jaimeboswell8763]

Francis is just so direct. "My body appears to me, I don't appear to my body!". So simple, so direct, so true.

[@conradambrossi738]

That’s cos the I appears in the brain, you can’t see the brain, but it makes known for the experience of centrality.

[@kopilit]

​@@conradambrossi738 therefore your brain exists inside your brain. What's aware of this recursion? Also many cultures had an acentric view and an acentric philosophy. Esp Mongolia/China. But it depends on you. Are you here to show non duality people the simple error of their orientation or are you here to try to understand their orientation?

[@terrylaguardia6838]

Some people who have overcome chronic pain have learned to listen to and learn from the body. We have learned to stop separating mind and and body, and above all to leave behind the paradigm of master and slave/servant.

[@4422michael]

Seriously, why do people go to a non duality function without any research or understanding of it at all. If you have a chance to ask Lucille a question, make it a good one. It's like asking Mozart what notes make up a C Major chord.

[@TaxemicFanatic]

The more human beings come into contact with awakened beings the better. It is good, wether they have a deeper understanding or a little.

[@4422michael]

People are so quick to judge here. Have you watched his videos on youtube from his home? You'll understand his personality and value. He goes into great depth in this subject. But when you have a lot of people here asking stupid questions, I totally get him being tired of it. Like asking his story, etc.

[@DoobyDoo2]

he set that situation up. He was asked to present and instead he asked a room full of new age spiritualists to direct the conversation... I am not very impressed so far

[@owl6218]

Inspite of the situation he is brilliant. He usually does not indulge the audience, but at the same time gets to the heart of the matter, elucidating the question from the most confused or flippant questioner. The humour, when it happens from his side is delicious, but people hanging on to the next funny sentence from him, i feel it is not the right way to treat him

[@DoobyDoo2]

@@owl6218 I will have another look. Thanks for your response

[@DietrichLasa]

@@DoobyDoo2 The motivation is to serve the audience's quest for answers and not to superimpose a talk. I agree that this motivation does not guarantee intelligent questions.

[@drsedehi2]

He's the best!!!

[@cuiying1000]

Love you Francis Lucille.

[@pamelaastarte1194]

Dear Francis, Thank you for offering your wisdom on these platforms. I recently heard you speak at another talk with your friends, a couple from California, and as a life-long seeker of the one truth, I have had many experiences, some of them having to do with experiencing death, or what seemed like death or the continuation of consciousness past the form of this life. At that talk, you explained that death was like our experience of sleep and I have to respectfully disagree. In my experiences, I sensed a deep and profound meshing of energy into the original fabric of creation, like surrendering to not deep sleep but rather a pregnant void, a darkness from which all possibility can emerge, it was a profoundly freeing experience, not like sleep which is simply darkness.

[@playerone3018]

The reference to sleep might be that sometimes you don't experience the belief to be separate when you are asleep (dreamless), the 'idea of you' is asleep. In this way, one can say that there is no sleep or wakefulness...there is only being. The thing that sleeps is the thing that awakens and is the thing that dies, the thing that is not there when you experience the pregnant void. When you surrender, you surrender that which sleeps and awakens. The universal consciousness is always aware. You may have sensed this after your glimpses. When you sleep, especially when it is dreamless, there may be a feeling that upon awakening...you have this feeling that you were somehow 'aware' the whole time your body was asleep. There were no dreams, but...a feeling. Like this primordial thing...ancient...is there, aware the whole time...has always been aware, even before time...beyond time & space.

[@swhite8381]

" My body appears to me, I don't appear to my body"

[@hedevindaniel3747]

Although at some level the body is an extension of thought and sometimes the ups and downs are related to that

[@lindaj71]

My body appears to me-Awesome!

[@teahorseguitarstraps1856]

The question at 4:40 is so honest. Love it!!!

[@victoriaharbison6057]

21:40

[@MidiwaveProductions]

"The present is that which I -- the presenter -- have to present. And how does the presenter present the present." LOL Great line, Francis

[@davee.4847]

I don't get it

[@MidiwaveProductions]

@@davee.4847 Francis is presenting a talk on Consciousness. "The present" is a synonym for Consciousness.

[@davee.4847]

@@MidiwaveProductions oh thx

[@claudelebel49]

"The body appears to me. I don't appear to my body. Silence."

[@celinecloutier763]

Bonjour Francis... Plaisir de te revoir... Gulabo ici.🎈 Tu étais venu chez moi à Aylmer qc. J ai pris ton fils et toi le mien...Jason se souviens aussi. Hafiz et moi étions alléschezvous en CA....du temps de la pub de ton 1er.livre. Namaskar cher ami.🙏 Coeur a coeur.❤

[@satyajeetprabhu]

Even if I don't find the truth, I hope at least I get his dress sense. Gotta love Francis!

[@spaceforthesoul6286]

Match the colour of clothes with your hair colour, adapting when aging of course.

[@TaxemicFanatic]

Truth cannot be found by an "I" because you are That already. You can't become what you already are.

[@luisalbelda67]

Thank you!

[@professormaxtrinity]

I love this platform. It inspires new thought and moves me to investigate deeper. This non-speech gave me 2 mild epiphanies and prompted me to give my own answer to the fate vs free will question Epiphany one; The present. The present is the ultimate paradox because, it's pre(before)sent(already arrived). So it's already occurred and at the same time it hasn't. That's 'where' we live, in self perpetuating paradox. Epiphany two; The wood analogy. There are many things made of wood, bridges, houses tables, paper, art, they're all made of wood and at the same time they are discreet, bounded, individuated objects. Everything, including us, is made of consciousness and we are at the same time discreet, individuated, bounded orientations of consciousness. We can be made of the same 'stuff' and be individuated at the same time. In fact, it doesn't work if the collective and individuated are somehow at odds. The stuff, in this instance, is the active reciprocity that is constant in every relationship. This constant activity is the self generating mechanism of energy. Even wood is made of consciousness. The prompting; What’s the difference between fate and destiny? Fate is inherent in the patterns that are presenting. If a pattern is alternating black and white then the fate of the pattern is to be black and then white and then black again and so on. Destiny is a matter of intention, a manifestation of choice. When we choose how we want to navigate a pattern or alter it or to abandon it all together, then we take fate into our own hands and shape our destinies. Destiny is the result of intentionally manipulated fate.

[@torimusblake6377]

E1: yep, there is nothing else and time is only a projection tool of a limited mind, the way how it can perceive reality not the reality itself. E2: yep, wood is made of consciousness and appears in consciousness. Like objects in your dreams are created in your mind and perceived by it also. "Destiny is a matter of intention, a manifestation of choice." - Who/what is in charge then, which can decide possible altering of the pattern ? I can't find a chief in body & mind complex, as has been also pointed out by Francis in this speech.

[@professormaxtrinity]

@@torimusblake6377 Thought experiment. Do you have a personal focus of attention? Obviously yes, you're utilizing it right now to read this. Where is you personal focus of attention located? Pretty quick deduction that it's not 'located' anywhere. Our focus of attention can be represented as a point, a point of attention. A point is geometrically defined as zero dimensional space, no space. The personal focus of attention is the direct interface between the mind and the body as well as the interface between choosing and what is chosen. In the holographic model. the personal focus of attention is analogous to the source beam which splits with the source beam being diffused and it's unique wave pattern spread across a holographic film. The second beam, the object beam is diffused and comes into contact with the object of attention and then the object wave pattern meets with the source wave pattern at the film surface, resulting in an interference pattern that is particular to the object and its 'observer' source beam. To experience the hologram the source beam is focused on the interference pattern (triangulation) and through that, our focus of attention both generates attention and receives information from the interference pattern showing that the focus of attention can both transmit and receive information simultaneously. That's 2 demonstrations of the focus of attention being the mechanism of choice and the chooser (observer). !. Interface between dimensions of consciousness. 2. Mechanism for holographic (frequency augmentation) experience. Both these functions of focus are constant, persistent and associative in nature. This is occurring with every shift of focus. Think about that.

[@torimusblake6377]

​@@professormaxtrinity > Do you have a personal focus of attention? Obviously yes, you're utilizing it right now to read this. It may be a semantic issue, but there is nothing obvious about it. Ie. reading that text does not imply anything about focus being "personal", me "owning" it or be an effect of individual will/intention. There is non-dimensional/timeless awareness where every perception incl. thought is reflected, but there is no single clue it being personal. > Our focus of attention can be represented as a point, a point of attention … The personal focus of attention is the direct interface between the mind and the body as well as the interface between choosing and what is chosen. In the holographic model … No, these ideas work on assumption from the original and questionable premise and do not match my experience. > the personal focus of attention is analogous to the source beam which splits with the source beam being diffused and it's unique wave pattern spread across a holographic film … That's 2 demonstrations of the focus of attention being the mechanism of choice and the chooser (observer) … -- ditto -- Putting forward yet another layers of mental concepts, false analogies and consequently wrong conclusions won't help at all. Beliefs in holographic nature of the universe, mind as a kind of quantum computer or any other paradigm stay nothing in the end but mental models foolishly attempting grasp the reality which is beyond any intellect. It may be realized, the very concept is *that* obstacle, which perpetuates the ignorance, paradoxically.

[@professormaxtrinity]

@@torimusblake6377 You have your subjective experience and I have mine. You're operating through models, modalities, systems and cycles whether you prefer it or not. And you demonstrate fully, your preference of perspective. The model I laid out is my preference and regardless of what it assumes or where it stems from, it works well for me. It works spectactularly in fact. I notice you offer critique and consensus but, I'm not hearing your genuine proposal for a mechanism of determinism?? What is your demonstrative mechanism for the "no free will stance" ? I'm hearing the same deductive retort I've heard for decades. Tell me something new. As far as I know, no one is proposing the personal focus of attention to be the mechanism of human free choice or as an interface between different states of direct personal experience. As far as I know, that's my own genuine idea. If you propose that you operate without a unique, discreet bounded focus of attention that is germane only to your first hand and private experience well, that's your choice. Pun intended. However, it seems limiting and claustrophobic to me and I am not enticed by it nor does it arouse curiosity.

[@playerone3018]

@@professormaxtrinity Ideas are fine (and a dime a dozen) but have you found out for yourself if your idea holds water? Is the idea the FACT? Do it! Find out! Test it out! Be sure to not be attached to any specific outcome but instead search for the truth. All of these words are just another (poor) model that tries to explain the indescribable. As in all models, they have limitations and are NOT THE THING. The word is not the thing. The finger pointing to the moon is not the moon. The idea of the fact is not the fact, you must experience the fact and move beyond the idea because the world of ideas is endless. If one stays with just the idea then the understanding cannot move past just the intellectual boundary. An example of this is when one intellectually understands death...has the same downsides as intellectually understanding life. What we are looking for is beyond mind.

[@ordinaryguy815]

Francis the best

[@THEUNDERCOVERMONK]

Is he the guru of Rupert?

[@najbrzi28]

Yes☺️👍.

[@youarewhatyourelookingfor4496]

The body is a manifestation of the mind

[@smilelikeUmeanit90]

true

[@stevenhoch1076]

"My body appears to me. I don't appear to my body." Sounds like the Lucillean version of 'the perceiver is not perceived.'

[@TaxemicFanatic]

Exactly the same. The sharpest sword can cut almost anything but the blade cannot cut itself.

[@FirstNameLastName-yk4uz]

at 13:43 he gives an example that I first heard from one of these dead gurus he said you shouldn't pay attention to, except he completely changes the conclusion, quite faultily I would say. Thinking/ saying the word "consciousness" does not invoke consciousness. The consciousness has been there before the word consciousness was uttered, and no objective difference in consciousness is present after saying the word "consciousness." But, to prove this, his scientific mind should conduct an experiment and say "consciousness" over and over and see if he has more consciousness. There has likely been billions of years of life on this planet, and before Homo species evolved, scientists presume that no life had ever pondered consciousness, who they are, why they are here, etc etc. So no, consciousness does not appear when the word is uttered and consciousness is always present whether the word is spoken or not. If he is arguing that it is present whenever the word is spoken, I would argue that the same is true for space. and time. and air. and yeah THERE IS, HOWEVER, another version of this which he likely plageurized and changed from the word "consciousness" to something more desirable, that word being an assortment of names of God, such as Krishna, Govinda, Madana Mohan and so on. Names of God, according to most (if not all) religious and spiritual traditions are transcendental to material nature where names of things are separate from the thing itself. God's names, activities, various energies, are non-different than God. The ancient millenia-old belief and practice is that God's names do invoke god's presence within the person speaking the name, and that presence purifies the soul, and over time that person is able to progress in spiritual advancement. Anyone can conduct the experiment themselves. It is a science. being as such, there are many ways in which to speak the names of God and they have different results. You know, according to some stuff people wrote down a long time ago. www.harekrishnajapa.com/wp-content/ebooks/Hari-Nama-Cintamani-Nama-Bhajana.pdf there are, according to Vedic scripture, infinite names of God, as God is infinite and names are merely a description of qualities. You see, this guy likely doesn't want you listening to dead gurus because his source material will get exposed vanisource.org/w/index.php?title=730103_Lecture_BS_Bombay&t=hl#terms=Coca-cola

[@lcuddy12]

"Thinking/ saying the word "consciousness" does not invoke consciousness." He didn't quite say that, though it may have seemed so at first, if you listened on his point was clear: consciousness is the one concept that appears in its referent. That's why he made the point about the word chocolate not appearing in chocolate. "So no, consciousness does not appear when the word is uttered." He didn't say that either. Again, he said the word consciousness appears WITHIN consciousness. You've got the causality reversed. Consciousness is not CREATED by the word, rather the word itself APPEARS within consciousness (its own referent).

[@genestrong7737]

Humble smart man.

[@matthieuvaucher3347]

I understand that maybe one can be tired of telling his story. But I don't understand non dual teachers that refuse to respond to somebody who - maybe - was interested to know more about « the place » where the teacher comes from. It seems that here, the student (Rupert Spira) has surpassed his master (Francis Lucille). I can't imagine the first doing the same answer as the second to this kind of question. Personally, I'm tired of spiritual teachers that people fear to ask a question because they might be spurned! I'm also confused with spiritual teachers (or speakers) that say « I've nothing to teach » or, even worse, « I've nothing to say »… Why do they go on stage if so ?!

[@TaxemicFanatic]

The world spends their time talking of personal issues, not enough time is spent talking of non duality. Rupert addresses many personal questions which sometimes distracts further from the essential teaching these meetings are held for.

[@luisperfume]

Cuanto lamento que no esté subtitulada al castellano. Google es pésimo traduciendo.

[@user-pk1pc8to3w]

stunning !! Age 75 ..

[@jonashjerpe7421]

He looks like he could kick some spiritual ass for another 20 years!

[@williamolenchenko5772]

Couldn't there be individuated units of consciousness (from ultimately a single source) which make free will choices, even though the body/mind are fake?

[@albundy9597]

Who knows? what you are referring to is the soul. This would explain reincarnation or transmigration of the soul but would negate karma, the soul being unblemished cannot make karma and the human person is dead. At any rate even without consciousness we are all one as we and everything started from the same source, the big bang. I have come to the conclusion it is pointless discussing this, it is impossible to know truth even as a concept, it is as it is. When Buddha was asked if there was a God he replied it was pointless to consider such a question as it can never be known.

[@claudelebel49]

If nothing is separate then nothing is separate, so no, there could not be.

[@albundy9597]

You haven't grasped the concept. There is only consciousness, you are in a field of consciousness, you breath it in and out. Your body is not 'fake', it is both real and unreal, it is life being, the absolute appearing as the particular, the nothing appearing as everything, the one appearing as two.

[@evolvedtripple6]

Sam Harris’s wife has a new book out on consciousness and I would bet after reading it that they’ll both eventually come around to the notion that consciousness is primary. Brains simply mediate it, they don’t produce it.

[@evolvedtripple6]

Free will, if we’re honest, is nowhere to be found.

[@vampireducks1622]

But "word" also "delivers itself", sure. As does, "English", or "vocalized", etc. 14:40. Alas, I lost the thread.

[@jageo48]

Sad really that some SAND speakers continue to separate the body from the mind or consciousness of the person. I suppose by extrapolation, they can also separate the mind and the body from the environment. How else would all life now face the 6th mass extinction? All of this clearly reveals how powerful the mind is, even without the external aid of substances to alter it.

[@jageo48]

@@MegaUpstairs Very well put; however, you as well, have separated bodily sensations & thoughts from the entirety of the simple equation that we term life. What we know now from peering ever deeper into the DNA chromosome of every living creature, including so-called inanimate life, is that the library of that very DNA is nearly identical. I'm sorry, but, sensations are what makes us human; thoughts, well, those pesky clouds that drop in and out are what Tolle things we need to rid ourselves of as the next great leap forward in evolution. Someone, please tell Eckhart that unless we deal with the climate ecological nightmare fast encroaching, there will be no opportunity to post a reply to a reply from a two-year-old comment. hahaha

[@jageo48]

@@MegaUpstairs Thanks for the reply. So much is written about purpose, life, God, consciousness...it's a long list. The only fact I know, is that we're here and for the most part, we make up all the rest.

[@critterkarma]

The first questioner your voice sounds like Snatam Kaur.... is it you, my dear sister?

[@ahrimanic7]

J B I don’t think sh would have asked such a pedestrian question.

[@critterkarma]

Jeffrey Moore What’s so pedestrian about asking him about his personal story?

[@ahrimanic7]

Because he doesn’t identify with a story. It is irrelevant.

[@critterkarma]

Jeffrey Moore But if one didn’t know anything about him previously, they may ask that question. You have made an assumption. 🙏

[@ahrimanic7]

J B I’ve made an ASS out of U and ME. Sorry about that.

[@dar_jada]

I follow the teachings of Michael Singer, Paul Selig’s Guides, Mooji and Paramahansa Yogananda. They all make sense to me. Is he deliberately being obtuse? He makes no sense to me.

[@Lila-cy8qm]

yes, he is deliberately. Read his books...he is a Teacher of one of the most incredible teachers: Rupert Spira.

[@bilimoriafirdaus]

🙏🧡

[@garypuckettmuse]

Wow, people trying so very hard to enjoy themselves. It's like watching a bad comedian with an audience full of loving relatives. He used to be good but now he's so in love with himself he just can't get over it. . .

[@AvatarChrist]

Got the same feeling, he doesn't seems to be so humble I don't understand what people find in him, so many other people like Indian gurus has more depth. He looks more like arogan. Facial expressions doesn't lie, and he doesn't have a peaceful woke face.

[@jpm408]

@@AvatarChrist I get the impression that you can get burned out answering the same questions over and over. Trying to speak to the public about the non duality which is a paradox can be exhausting imo. I think he might need a break.

[@AvatarChrist]

@@jpm408 what I find the saddest is people asking question in the audience hanging their whole being by his feet like he's some kind of God knows it all. It sadden me to see vulnerable people with such lack of self confidence and self love like this. Anyway, that's not my problem but I guess I'll always have this tendency to put myself in other people shoes.

[@albundy9597]

I rather think he has reached the stage where there is no point in talking

[@anasantosha]

All of you here are just giving an interpretation (opinions, thoughts) of reality which is not actually or necessarily the reality. To many of us Francis's way is intelligent and clear, deep and humble and often delivered with great patience and humour.

[@ferkinskin]

3:57 "that was a short one!", They're all short ones is if one is intent only on answering questions with a deepity soundbite. Why even bother getting on the stage to talk..if you aren't interested in talking? Sorry, but this is not my bag at all.

[@anudeeparakkathara5520]

ferkinskin Exactly! He is not for everyone.

[@johnburman966]

I know he has to make a living......but these lost people!!! The old gurus would boot them out.

[@miyamotomusachi4400]

Bushes

[@leelanjoy]

Stupid questions arise in consciousness

[@consciousawarness]

Is this a comedy? Slapstick...nice performance.

[@jonashjerpe7421]

Well he managed to drop some profound words of wisdom during the first ten minutes already. Did you listen? When you look for wisdom you need to look beyond your conventional expectations of a good performance. People like Frances don't work to meet your expectations. To be perfectly honest, your expextations is a significant part of the problem that he deals with.

[@oneofthepeoplehere]

@@jonashjerpe7421 I think he was saying that Francis is funny. Your head is too far up your own ass to be of any help here. And your method of helping by jumping down the throats of people that you've heaped your own projections upon is a wild interpretation of help. Knock it off.

[@jonashjerpe7421]

@@oneofthepeoplehere You are truly aggressive mate. You might be right. Perhaps I totally misunderstood the point made. That's not so strange after all. Humour is a very cultural thing and I speak English as a second language. Nuances tend to get lost as we engage cross culturally in a foreign language. I appreciate Frances work a lot and the way I red the comment it sounded very disparaging indeed. I guess that explains my tone. Concerning projections. I can certainly listen to your critique. With a better understanding of the initial remark I had probably not written anything at all or the overall point and tone would be different. Are you equally open to reflect on your own hostile attacks? You ask me to knock it off. Partially I suggest rightly so. But if you would adhere to your own standard shouldn't you knock it off yourself, mate? Let's put the blame game aside. Actually, I am quite grateful that you sorted out this misapprehension of mine. Enjoy your day! Yours in discourse, J

[@oneofthepeoplehere]

@@jonashjerpe7421 I understood that I was participating in what I was accusing as I was doing it, and before I hit the Reply button, and then I finished writing and hit Reply anyway. I don't understand why I did either to be honest, and that's why I did it anyway. Cheers, thanks , maybe something will come of this.

[@jonashjerpe7421]

@@oneofthepeoplehere So I guess we are still perfectly human after all. You seem to be a lovely, intelligent man. I did learn something from this exchange. Partially because your first comment was really superb rhetorically, so I could not resist but took it to my heart, and also because of the beautiful openness that you show. I guess that this was after all a good example of human exchange. Enjoy yourself! Cheers, J