ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
How Is Consciousness Experienced After Death? (Meditation 1 of 24)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ธ.ค. 2014
- Does the world have a reality without the mind?
(From 2014-11-23 Dialogue with Francis Lucille)
-----
RETREAT REGISTRATION
• linktr.ee/fran...
WEEKLY WEEKEND DIALOGUES
• www.meetup.com...
SOCIAL MEDIA
• Website: francislucille...
• Facebook: / francislucille
• Instagram: / francislucille_advaita
• Twitter: / francislucille
-----
#reality #afterdeath #consciousness #nonduality #advaita #advaitavedanta #francislucille
Thank you Francis ❤
In his book I Am That, Nisargadatta Maharaj said, "The world can be said to appear, but not to be. The appearance may last very long on some scale of time, and be very short on another, but ultimately it comes to the same. Whatever is time bound is momentary and has no reality'.
Your teachings are incredible❤️
Knowing of world is the world. Like knowing of pain is pain. Is there a objective pain that is apart from its knowing. No. So is the world of perception, is simply a collection of visual knowing, audible knowing etc. Knowing of content, doesn't imply that there is content to knowing outside of such knowing. So material of content is material of knowing. There are no content. Only knowing of it.
"There are no content. Only knowing of it." yes, except that 'of it' is not true as it contradicts the previous phrase- 'there is no content'
Perception is the root of all problems of identity. For example if we slowed movement down to near zero, then waves would appear to be solid objects that never change. If we speed up change then a human body would seem to be like a wave constantly changing and would not appear as an object. We believe that the self (or mind)is the one who thinks but only until we realise that thinking happens by itself as a constant ongoing automatic reaction to the last thought we had - there is no creative act involved by any "mind"- it is only a perception.
A wave is an object.
"Two things that don't come together in a package: Youth and Wisdom."
" Experience is the ultimate measure of reality."...Very wise sayings indeed.
"The Intellect *Is Not* the faculty of Knowing."
"Intellectual Comprehension *Is Not* knowing."
"You *cannot* Know ANYTHING through Thoughts."
I remember being exposed to that line of reasoning when i was a lot younger,but the full import of it's Truth only really struck home in recent times.
This is a kind of caution to anyone who seeks to 'know' the *Ultimate Truth* about Consciousness or Awareness after Death.
What ever you glean from these videos remains in the field of Intellectual Comprehension and therefore *cannot* deliver the Reality that you seek.
Even the Greatest Teachers CANNOT deliver Realities that *have never* been directly experienced.Imagine trying to convey the reality of a simple Colour like Blue
to an individual who has been blind all his life.Which Teacher can do that?..
So imagine if the simplicity of Blue cannot be conveyed with out direct experience.*how on Earth* can we expect a proper satisfactory answer about something as obfuscated as Death?!!..
Lucille is doing his best to give us a few pointers based on his many years of Meditative Experience. He has an intimate understanding of what death is like *to him*..take what you may from it...Peace..
Glyne Martin ..Whatever ideas we have (ignorant or otherwise) about death will be dashed or verified when the real #undeniable# moment of death occurs....Hautep!!..
@@glynemartin well I find this talk confirmed my own death like experience.
I had previously concluded from what my teachers said that death was just a void. A return to source that my mind conceptualized as a non existent void.. This brought up an agonizing terror of non existence and at the high point of terror i become aware of this subtle gasping to existence. Then as it slipped away so did absolutely all awareness of body and world and there was just awareness.. no content. Then out of this emerged subtle realms and then they disappeared into void again. This went on repeatedly, long enough to recognize how it works.
Then there was a kind of recognition of what I am prior to this movement of appearance and disappearance, just this ineffable beyondness.. and a real coming to rest in that. Then soft as a feather manifestation itself started to reappear, first as the sound of a bird singing.. but now there was no distance anymore. It was singing in me or there just was no inside or outside. All perceptions were like that and infused with such a beauty and atmosphere of profound peace.
At any rate the result was that the fear of non existence evaporated and my takeaway was that anything is possible for consciousness after death. We can't hold any fixed ideas about it. Manifestation occurs on gross and subtle forms and they are just modifications of what we are. They appear and disappear in that.
L'accent français de Francis Lucille en anglais me laisse à penser que je pourrais comprendre ce qu'il dit ! Hélas. Cet accent me réjouit certes, mais ma compréhension du texte demeure extrêmement parcellaire ! Impossible de trouver des sous-titres. Au moins je prends plaisir à cet accent ! C'est toujours ça...
From the perspective of consciousness, body-mind and world are synonymous.
Francis does answer the question"How is consciousness experienced after
death?"
1.50
"The experience of consciousness remains the same because it is not
effected by whatever effects the body-mind."
Thank you!
Thank You for sharing
Thank you Francis!
Great... :)
The reality about conciousness is true, but it doesn't solve the problem when we still alive. That's true that conciousness can't die, but conciousness don't have identity. If you add identity conciousness become an object, all objects are maya because it's the product of mind. So conciousness is not you. You are illusions and that is the truth. And also the truth that your appearance as illusions will gone when you die. You can't run from this illusion world. 😭
The question asked is answered in the near death experience, which is universal. You do not cease being you when the body dies. There will be a period of transition, though, usually blissful, as you come to experience yourself more and more as divine being. And you will be ushered along by benevolent spiritual entities, as you become acquainted with absolute Love.
The Christian experience does speak of change in that is a continuous transformation from one glory to another, so change in of itself does not mean that is bad or miserable. After death there will be another limited experience, the type of experience will be determined by the Judge who became man and has became the judge by being the very standard.
Brilliant
Hmmm... The question was not answered. The question was: "How is consciousness experienced after death?" I didn't hear him say anything about how he experiences Consciousness after death. He couldn't, could he? Why do so many teachers play this game of pretending to answer unanswerable questions. What is his "direct experience" of Consciousness after death. I do not question that he understands his true nature. But why not just say "I don't know", I'll find out when the body/mind dies?
How does he "know" that to be true? Has he died? Has he experienced death? What is his "direct experience" of "consciousness" after death? See the point I am making here? Thanks for the reply...
Yes, you are answering the best way you know how. I would be more interested in "your" direct experience. How do you "know" that consciousness exists after death? Are you just going by what you have read and been told? I'm not judging, I'm just curious how "you" came to this conclusion. Are you taking other peoples word for it, or is it your direct experience? See what I am tying to say? Thanks...
***** Yes, but I would just remind you that "common sense" is not direct experience. She has asked him "how is consciousness experienced after the body dies?". How could he possibly "know" from direct experience? Do you think he Has experienced consciousness after death, or, does it sound like he is going by what he has been told or read? I am someone who is interested in the Truth. If the answer is "I don't know" then fine. "I don't know" can be a Truthful answer. But why do teachers have to answer questions they could have no direct experience of? Could he have an "intuitive knowing" of this? Yes. But why doesn't he say that? We're spiritual people here. We can understand what that means.
Joseph McMahon He very much answered the question, but the rational mind just can not hear it. So, don't use your rational mind.
What you have to understand (not intellectualy, but as a fact) is that pure awareness (you) is not dependent on and in time. All that we can see is dependent on time. What is dependent on time is already "dead" the moment it comes "alive". Death only exists in time. But you yourself are not in time. Everything comes and goes (in the same instant), but you always stay as the same awareness 'of it'. If you realize this for real. If you see the fact of it, why would your body/mind need to die for you to know how consciousness will be experienced after death? Think of deep sleep. Even the knowing 'i am' is not there, but deep sleep is enjoyed isn't it? Not only afterwards, but deep sleep enjoys itself. Deep sleep = pure awareness.
***** Did Krishnamurti say that? Anyway, i would suggest to not take what other people say as fixed truths regarding this. Even such high regarded masters. Look at your own experience: is your thoughtstream constant? If not, what is that "space" between thoughts? The mind is thought, so if there is no thought, yet there is still awareness, you yourself know "something" outside of your mind, don't you? If you just stay more and more in this thoughtless "space", you are able to explore it. Thought will try to seduce you into giving it attention, but stay as that awareness between/behind thought. It is SO simple, yet we can make it hard when we stay following our thoughts/conditioning.
Do that often and long enough and you'll know for yourself that it is not just a state of the mind.
Blind faith is never the way to go. Blind faith is just more belief. What you want is to be free from belief. I hope you'll succeed in your enquiry. There is only love there. It will be the most familiar "thing" to you. :)
the question sets the stage by taking as true the materialistic belief that consciousness is something encapsulated by the skin and released when the body dies. So, there's a dead body, there is consciousness... what or who is the witness/experiencer required to report on what happens when the two part?! Who/what would that be?!
My question back would be- what happens to the space within which the body lives when the body is dead? How's the space feeling about itself and the dead body?!
Nothing qualitatively changes in our experience when there is the separation from the body at death. We lose nothing but the physical body. There is of course the surprise reaction: "I am still alive!" There is also the recognition that the body is unimportant: "How could I be so attached to that thing". And simultaneously these reactions are witnessed --- as always --- by Infinite Awareness.
so it looks like you also subscribe to the materialistic belief that you have a body, important or not...
I have a body. I have a car. I have a mortgage. I have tried: "But I am Formless Awareness. Formless Awareness does not have a mortgage." They did not buy that unfortunately ;)
I was merely pointing out "the experience" of that which we call death, since I interpreted your comment as "a real wish to know". But I also added: "And simultaneously these reactions are witnessed --- as always --- by Infinite Awareness."
i think you misinterpreted my comment- my question back was rhetorical... If awareness is understood as the omnipresent space then any phenomena appearing to happen inside this space is impotent against the space... It is 'i' that has a body [that will die], a car, a mortgage, a personal history... but this has nothing to do with what you call 'infinite awareness'. i think that your understanding of this awareness is misguided- awareness cannot know anything than itself, it cannot witness phenomena because they don't exist; all there is, is only [impersonal] awareness [that is called 'one'; i.e. we are talking non-duality here]. It is the attachment to 'me and mine' [the body-mind-i- my problems/possessions/history/thoughts...] that clouds the purity of awareness. Getting rid of those thoughts would let the 'infinite awareness' shine and be known as "I".
You say: It is 'i' that has a body [that will die], a car, a mortgage, a personal history... but this has nothing to do with what you call 'infinite awareness'. i think that your understanding of this awareness is misguided- awareness cannot know anything than itself, it cannot witness phenomena because they don't exist;
There is no "I" that will die. The only "I" there is, is Awareness. Awareness is that which is aware. There is not a second "I" that is aware. Right? In deep sleep awareness is aware of itself. In the waking state and in the dream state there is awareness of colors, shapes etc (perception). Right?
The statement "I have a body" is merely a description of the experience in the waking state and dream state used for communication purposes. Like: "Please pass the sugar." or: "At what time will you pick up the kids?" Such statements are not made to reflect Truth, only to be practical and effective.
The consciousness is not affected by the mind but the mind is affected by consciousness.Do not be attached to that which changes.
You may call that reality God if you want to. That is naming to make it personal.
I have no problem with subjective experience of consciousness aka me. My problem is with objective experience of it or its/my manifestation😄
But then who has got the problem really?. Consciousness is freely open. The problem must come from the core belief i am body/mind. Even though I know this I still entertain this belief and keep forgetting or overlooking my Reality. I must admit I am a magician😉
The meaning of the term “real” in Vedanta is obviously very different from its meaning in a common sense western context. Sometimes I think it would better just to say “independent/ dependent” instead of “real/not real”. It’s inconceivable to look at a table and say it is not real. It must be real in some sense. It “just” happens to trace back, as every other existing entity, to God/ Brahman
I am confused, in the previous video, he says that individual choice is an illusion, we don't have a choice. Here he says we are the choosers. Can anyone explain ?
I’m not sure of the specifics of what Francis said, but in general, he has said that as an illusionary / personal self, we don’t choose but as universal consciousness, we are the chooser
@@laurenelizabeth8823 I understand that, as consciousness do we have really capacity to choose or are we saying that nominally ?
@@unified2002 he generally uses the word “choice” re: consciousness more as a synonym for creation. Perhaps this dialogue will help clarify:
th-cam.com/video/9ap1eCikGBk/w-d-xo.html
@@unified2002 so, yes, nominally :)
@@laurenelizabeth8823 I have gone through another video as well - th-cam.com/video/68yRlexJTJs/w-d-xo.html. He seems to suggest that we have free will as consciousness but not as individual. Please do go through it.
How can someone answer this question?! Because it can be answered only after someone dies and therefore he is dead and cannot answer...
So after the body mind dies consciousness can't become a body again immediately after death?
"How the consciousness is experienced when the body dies" was the question by the girl at starting of the video.. Yes? Did Francis answer it? Can anybody help me.? What my understanding was.. "Without a body(and so there is no mind expressed) only consciousness exists which will be knowing itself. But how that knowing will be like we ( as human beings in body with mind) cannot grasp. It may be like the feeling of deep sleep to a person in sleep.Are we knowing in sleep that we are sleeping? NO..But Something existed without a feeling of existence for itself. OR consciousness is not conscious of itself like we human beings are conscious of our living presence. Can any body correct me if iam misunderstood? Please
Gopi p.v, Hi, The question "How is consciousness experienced after death?” contains 2 underlying assumptions:
1) there is an experiencer / perceiver
2) the experiencer / perceiver is the body-mind
Fransis is addressing these 2 underlying assumptions.
He explains that the experiencer is consciousness and the experienced is mind-body-world, which is a manifestation of consciousness, like a wave is a manifestation of water. This means that the human mind is not the experiencer as it is not an entity in its own right. So assumption 1 is correct but assumption 2 is not. Consciousness and body-mind-world are one and the same reality.
“Are we knowing in sleep that we are sleeping? NO..But Something existed without a feeling of existence for itself. OR consciousness is not conscious of itself like we human beings are conscious of our living presence. “
What you say contains the same underlying assumptions as the above assumptions 1 & 2 of the questioner in the video. The body-mind does not know, it is known, human beings are not conscious, only consciousness is conscious. Human beings are a manifestation / activity of consciousness.
We are consciousness manifesting itself as body-mind-world. Consciousness contracting into a body-mind and identifying itself with it, gives rise to seeming duality: a self on the inside and a world of objects on the outside. When the physical body dies a specific manifestation / activity of consciousness ceases to be, like when a wave disappears, a particular activity of the water comes to an end. This does not make any difference to the water. Similarly, the death of the body does not make any difference to consciousness. It continues to experience itself as consciousness, sometimes in its active state as manifestations of body-mind-world, other times in its resting state when the body-mind-world activity ceases to be, for instance in deep sleep.
Francis uses the metaphor of the Japanese painting rolls stored in a box as metaphor for the inactive state of consciousness which contains within itself a limitless potential for manifestation.
So, after dismantling the underlying assumptions of the question: "How is consciousness experienced after death?”, the answer is: the death of the physical body as an activity of consciousness does not make much difference to consciousness experiencing itself as consciousness. After all, the cycle of body disappearing and reappearing every day in the cycle of deep sleep and waking state, is not impacting consciousness in any way.
I hope this is of any help.
Best whishes.
@@veral7792 🙏 Thank you dear for the elaborate perfect answer.
Now..Can we say, that
There is "knowing" in waking state AND there is"no knowing" during deep sleep/after death?
That is not correct no?
Beacuse the " not knowing" in deep sleep is also known by something/ consciousness. Right?
The knowing during waking AND the knowing in deep sleep/death is by the same consciousness only. Yes?
Then one is knowing the "experience" and the other is knowing the "no experience"( named as self knowing )
Yes?
@@pvgopiabnle The knowing of the waking state is objective knowing: the self is believed to be the body-mind, a separate entity subject to birth and death, and the world is believed to consist of separate finite objects. This is the state of ignorance, that is, consciousness identified with a body mind, ignoring its infinite nature.
Deep sleep is consciousness just knowing itself as subject. However, objective knowing in the state of ignorance is in fact also, consciousness just knowing itself, through its activity, because the body-mind is not an entity existing in a world of separate objects made out of dead inert stuff called matter.
The dualistic view of a separate self on the inside and a world of discrete objects on the outside is just an appearance due to the filter of the sense perceptions. When we realize: the body-mind is not the self, the body-mind is an activity of the self, i.e. consciousness, we awaken to our true nature. After awakening, as long as there is a body-mind, the world of objects as display is still experienced, but its reality as consciousness is no longer obscured by the objective world of the senses. The body-mind-world is experienced as an undivided manifestation of consciousness as the true self.
The lines from a poem by William Blake express beautifully the true reality of the world of objects:
"To see a world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wildflower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour."
I hope this helps.
Just to add for clarity: consciousness knowing itself as subject, either in its resting state or in its active state of manifestation is called not-knowing, as in the not knowing of objects, because consciousness being undivided never knows separate objects. It is only when it temporarily forgets its infinite nature and identifies with a body mind, consciousness is able to experience a world of objects. This is also called not-knowing as in ignorance. So there is a big difference between de first not-knowing and the second not-knowing. When we awaken to our true self and know the sensory world as self, as consciousness, that is the position of wisdom.
@@veral7792 🌈Thats simply a wonderful explanation 👍🙏Thanks lot for your time and concern.
@@pvgopiabnle you're very welcome 🙏
Pretty good. But, I always shutter when I hear, There is no God in consciousness. The many NDE patients I've had usually tell me, God is consciousness. The source of our consciousness is God's consciousness. In fact, many tell me there is only One consciousness; God's. Our individualized self awareness is more like a water drop in an infinite ocean. We are It and It is us. However, we are of It, It is not of us. Without It we don't exist, but without us It remains. Call It what you want, but God consciousness is all that never leaves. That's why we call It Infinite Consciousness. It has no beginning and no end.
123johnbrowne Remember that words are pointers and not things in and of themselves. I posit this thought: Consciousness/God/Creator/Ground of Being/Source are all the same thing, just the pointer is different.
Just a thought.
And so it is. When one thinks of how each individual body/mind interprets their experiences, feelings and, even, words, we may find that there are various differences from individual to individual as to what that is.
There are subtle nuances to life.
Check this out: Experiment with any theory you like -- if you are truly earnest and honest, the attainment of reality will be yours. As a living being you are caught in an untenable and painful situation and you are seeking a way out. You are being offered several plans of your prison, none quite true. But they all are of some value, only if you are in dead earnest. It is the earnestness that liberates and not the theory.
~ Sri Nisagadatta Maharaj
Well, I am not a scholar on Buddhism. You might want to do a little research on it. I know that there is a believe in reincarnation and the evolution of the soul, just because they do not call the life source God, does not negate there being a creator (or creation)..
More importantly is this. The behavior of people regardless of what they believe in. Buddhists are more loving than most groups and more inclusive of others.
+123johnbrowne this is actually exactly what Lucille and every other teacher is talking about?
He said it is a religion without A god. Not a religion without God. :-)
In one particular aspect of this discourse, Francis is wrong, and that in is the assumption of the existence of other human minds. There is no actual evidence for such existence, nor any evidence that the world exists apart from my mind.
The thing which I call ‘the world’ I have no memory of before I was born, and based on observations while sleeping, if death is like sleep, I will have no memory of it after I die.
In other words, going by the evidence alone, the world began with me - with the arising of this mind - and will end when it dies.
I may believe that there are minds apart from my own, and I may believe that the world exists independently of whether my mind perceives it, but these are beliefs supported by no empirical observations, i.e., no evidence.
There may be such a thing as New York while I am not observing it, but how would I know? There may be minds that are experiencing phenomena inaccessible to me, but how would I know?
I see faces moving, I hear voices talking, but of minds, I see none. I experience shapes, colors, sounds, touch, taste, smell, and from these I construct objects and ideas, including other people; but of the world when I am sleeping, I know nothing. Why, then, should I assume that they exist?
Francis completely wrong: the world is NOT independent of the mind that knows it. And the mind is NOT independent of Consciousness in which it appears. And finally Consciousness is not independent of SELF: your own beloved Nature, your own Self-existence.
24. O man, like a parrot waiting expectantly for the silk-cotton fruit to ripen, you persist in your sufferings, believing this world appearance to be real and enjoyable; if the world is real simply because it appears to your senses, then a mirage would be water. Sri Ramana.
What a load of word-salad bollocks
Thank you!