Is the piano behind you ultimately made of Consciousness?

28 thoughts on “Is the piano behind you ultimately made of Consciousness?”

1. This man should get a Nobel Peace Prize.. His teachings brings literal peace to more people than anything/anyone else, and after he is gone, these teachings will continue to bring peace to more and more people.

2. Wowza 💥💖

3. Donald Hoffman's computer desktop analogy is helpful

4. There is only consciousness, anything other then that is the projection of consciousness, is like two sides of the coin, looks different yet the same coin

5. This talk exemplifies the problem with advaita vedanta and why it is 3000 year old logic, and not appropriate currently anymore. We know there is a dichotomy between what is inside the skull and what is outside, even though both are made out of matter. Yes this is still a problem; but advaita vedanta is not the answer

6. Like one who quotes "There is no you and no me, there is only Oneness" in practical life and denies that there is a physical world and issues to be worked out (e.g., facing a divorce) is not based on true understanding but only understood intellectually.

7. Another gem from Francis

8. What kind of piano is it?? A Steinway, no doubt. 😉

9. Nice mapping

10. 💞🙏🌺

11. You look healthy in this video Mashallah.

12. You can never know what this universe is, you are just guessing. More likely to be a computer simulation than anything else

13. Science says if you compress all the atoms in the universe together so that there is no space between the electrons and protons, the whole universe would fit on the end of a pin head

14. Does the recognition of itself as unconditioned conciousness allows a human mind to transcend it's own limited perception? Go beyond the normal senses?

15. The precision, the logic. Wow.

16. Another way To prove that the Piano is made out of consciousness: If I go to sleep and in my dreams there is a piano it is obvious even for a person like Richard Dawkins that this Piano is made out of consciousness But the wooden piano I see in Francis house is also and appearance in the same consciousness that was aware of the dreamed piano. Then how we can say that one is made out of consciousness and the other no when it is clear that both appear in the same consciousness?

17. The last sentence of Francis is how I have been able to understand this very tricky question about Non Duality When we say that the Piano is made out of consciousness we mean Universal Consciousness in which all matter is an appearance including also the matter out of which our eye brain and body is made. In that way of understanding both the Piano and the Human body that perceive it are made out of the same consciousness or in another way of saying: it is consciousness perceiving itself

18. Practical illusion. That this wake has nothing to do with reality. It is as good a lie as the dream is. So is you as a finite self that lives a wake, dream and deep sleep.

19. Solipsism is not the enemy to any beings. There is no solipsism. There is no mind. There are no beings. There is no one to be an enemy and no one to fear of having any enemies. There is just this Consciousness.

    In my experience, I have never come across more fear against "solipsism" than those who profess to being followers of Francis Lucille and Rupert Spira, which I wouldn't hold that against Francis or Rupert at all. That is only the ego claiming to be a follower of an "other" perceived ego, and of course, will make an of solipsism. Whether it is a ridiculous argument or not so ridiculous of an argument is just something that arises in the mind. If one is trying to uncover the Truth of the mind, to know its nature, to know its source, then one must go beyond all the mental arguments entirely, and all arguments are thus ridiculous, if one is truly interested in going beyond the mind to its reality from which the mind seems to arise from.

    Consciousness takes on the apparent limitations of body-mind and wrongly assumes this is a reality, that there is a real mind and a real body, and thus a real person inhabiting and experiencing them. This only seems like a reality through the device of self-ignorance, but for whom is body-mind real? For whom is the self-ignorance a reality? Who experiences this Consciousness that is not Consciousness and as a subject then speaks of this Consciousness objectively? That is all the same Consciousness. To call it solipsism or Consciousness is the same Consciousness calling itself that, thinking itself to being those concepts.

    Solipsism is just another idea that rises in the mind. The mind is a cluster of thoughts, nothing more. When there are gaps of no thought there is nothing there to apparently call a "mind." There is no body appearing without the mind projecting concepts upon some nonexistent object. Without concepts Consciousness is everything but loses all its conceptual projections mistaken for being a reality they are not. There really isn't a "mind" to begin with. It appears as a concept, just like the word "body." There is no body outside of the concept. There are the appearances, the ever-changing phenomena that only seems to be coming and going when you take the thoughts of the mind's conceived stories to be true. When concepts are mistaken to hold truth in them the Truth becomes obscured by abstractions. This is taking concepts too seriously for what they never actually are, nor ever will be. They are not concrete objects, they are mere abstractions. Even what with using our mind we call "objects" are not solid and static in any sense as memory makes them out to be. Memory in and of itself is untrue and unreal.

    Concepts are never revealing any truth but is a mechanism of phenomena in seemingly hiding the truth. The idea that there are other beings, and that their experience is being denied, as if to suggest that they are being injured by such an inquiry into their so-called identity is absolute nonsense. These so-called "beings" hang upon self-concepts that without these concept there could be no such suggestion of there being any beings to begin with. Who needs to validate these beings, or whom shall defend them from any "attack" in questioning their validity? Who fears that solipsism is a problem? Who THINKS solipsism is even valid? Both are nonexistent imaginings and imply the ego is your indivisible reality, you must therefore be a limited self-image concept attached to more concepts like that of the body-mind. You hang all that you know about yourself and world upon a mistaken fiction presumed to be real because you haven't yet realized who you think you are is not really who you are. That is what is called "self-realization" the falling away of all that you thought was real, all of which is entirely dependent upon thoughts, and the primary illusion which is the I-thought. Until the falling away seems to happen then all you have accumulated in knowledge is actually only learned self-ignorance. It is this accumulation of relative knowledge why everything seems so confusing and unknown to you, even the ideas you have about yourself are not all that clear to you, and are loaded with confusion as they are born of self-ignorance. The idea that one is a "being" is still egoic. It implies you are a thought conceived of in the mind, and that you are nothing more than a figment of imagination, and ultimately speaking, is unreal. You know that the Self is real. It cannot even be denied. Go ahead and try denying the existence of the Self and clearly there is something beyond the expression in which said expression even appears before it disappears. You cannot even pinpoint when exactly it appears and disappears but here and now. That here and now is ever-present while all that appears to It is not ever-present. Yet, all that appearing and disappearing phenomena clearly is made of what isn't appearing or disappearing and yet is ever-present, never absent while all else is mostly absent and only ever extremely brief in temporary in appearance. You may think the Earth, the Sun, the Milky Way galaxy, and the entire Cosmos doesn't appear and disappear and is a constant presence but that is only in the stories of your mind and is no one's actual direct experience. The entire Cosmos disappears with every blink of the eye. It disappears even from memory in dreamless deep sleep as there is no mind there, no Consciousness there with content to suggest it exists in some ever-present state awaiting you to wake up from your dreamless deep sleep. The Self is clearly ever-present no matter what states of mind seem to be appearing.

    It is not the "being" who is an experiencer. That is nonsense. The beings are apparent experience and Consciousness, only in a sense only when taking the appearance as a "real thing," is the experiencer. When do "you" experience any beings? You mistake the Self to be a being.

    Is Awareness concerned with experiences and the apparent transient experiencer? No, Awareness is not moved nor affected in any way whatsoever in what the appearance suggests it is being affected, but by what is affecting the appearance but the very appearance itself? When the appearance has changed from an apparent idea of "me" being affected by an apparent idea of the "world" (the polar opposite self-concept) where then is this appearance of being affected, negative or positive? Its apparent appearance has thus disappeared and who can say that it ever appeared at all?

    The attack on solipsism is nothing short of the ego reinforcing itself which is ALWAYS done with the thinking of concepts and mistaking them for holding truth when it is the Truth that holds the untruth that thoughts are by and of themselves.

    You cannot use Consciousness to know what the reality/nature/source of Consciousness is. You have to go beyond it by being the Self you ever are which is the source of Consciousness, Pure Consciousness without content to be conscious of.

    "Consciousness is made up of the same reality that this piano is made of." —Francis Lucille

20. The totality is inherently complete in each human form,

21. I wonder why telling her that the piano is perception/mind is incorrect. Colour is mind, surely. .?

22. Wow, piano pianissimo. Francis always plays the same tune, but so exquisitely. Brahms and Brahman, perfectly synthesized.

23. Perception is only important for the actors in the movie we call reality, consciousness couldn’t care less about perception because it is all.

24. Wonderful explanation 🙏

25. It's becoming clear that with all the brain and consciousness theories out there, the proof will be in the pudding. By this I mean, can any particular theory be used to create a human adult level conscious machine. My bet is on the late Gerald Edelman's Extended Theory of Neuronal Group Selection. The lead group in robotics based on this theory is the Neurorobotics Lab at UC at Irvine. Dr. Edelman distinguished between primary consciousness, which came first in evolution, and that humans share with other conscious animals, and higher order consciousness, which came to only humans with the acquisition of language. A machine with primary consciousness will probably have to come first.

    The thing I find special about the TNGS is the Darwin series of automata created at the Neurosciences Institute by Dr. Edelman and his colleagues in the 1990's and 2000's. These machines perform in the real world, not in a restricted simulated world, and display convincing physical behavior indicative of higher psychological functions necessary for consciousness, such as perceptual categorization, memory, and learning. They are based on realistic models of the parts of the biological brain that the theory claims subserve these functions. The extended TNGS allows for the emergence of consciousness based only on further evolutionary development of the brain areas responsible for these functions, in a parsimonious way. No other research I've encountered is anywhere near as convincing.

    I post because on almost every video and article about the brain and consciousness that I encounter, the attitude seems to be that we still know next to nothing about how the brain and consciousness work; that there's lots of data but no unifying theory. I believe the extended TNGS is that theory. My motivation is to keep that theory in front of the public. And obviously, I consider it the route to a truly conscious machine, primary and higher-order.

    My advice to people who want to create a conscious machine is to seriously ground themselves in the extended TNGS and the Darwin automata first, and proceed from there, by applying to Jeff Krichmar's lab at UC Irvine, possibly. Dr. Edelman's roadmap to a conscious machine is at https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.10461

26. Consciousness cannot not exist lol 😆 it’s great

    It is not a function of mind, it is like to Brahmin – the fabric of all manifest and the potential of the unmanifest (which is not a word lol) or should I say it is imagination – that which is to be … but we cannot know it as an absolute nothing… how can consciousness conceive of itself in lack of… it’s self? It is its own reality. Like FL says… thank you

27. I and my father are 1

28. Francis, is anahata naada ( the unstruck sound) same as consciousness???

Comments are closed.