A student asks Francis Lucille to clarify his statement that being perceives itself in the absence of all perceptions. Lucille explores what consciousness is like in dreamless sleep and deep meditation, arguing that awareness does not require an object to illuminate itself.
Transcript
At some point we don't sleep any longer. We are conscious all the time. Francis, I'd like to tie up some loose ends from our dialogue yesterday. I feel... Okay. So one of the things you said was that in the absence of perceptions, Being perceives itself. Would it be fair to say, with your definition of Consciousness, that Consciousness perceives itself? Yeah. Okay. But I'm not sure if I have that experience. For example... How do you know you're conscious? Right now I can say that there is an experience of Knowing that Being is Knowing-Being. So I am self-aware right now of Consciousness. So there is an experience whereby Consciousness is aware of Consciousness. Except that that experience from my current vantage point is intermittent because, in the experience of deep sleep, the perception of self-awareness does not continue. Let's not bring deep sleep into the equation. You can bring it later if you want, but we are not sleeping right now. So everything we say is not going to be experiential. It's going to be based upon memory, and since in deep sleep we don't have memory of it, what can we say about deep sleep? We can say that I can infer that — Oh, infer what? I can infer that Being persisted during that period despite the temporary absence of any phenomenal awareness. How do you infer that Being existed? Because there is a sense of continuity. How could you have a sense of continuity if there is no consciousness of this continuity? Perhaps Consciousness is a secondary quality, and Being is primary, and Consciousness requires phenomenal experience. So if you define Consciousness as consciousness of human-like perceptions, yes, that's your definition of Consciousness. Then you find as a conclusion what you have put in the first place in the definition of Consciousness. Your definition of Consciousness is consistent, right? You define Consciousness as consciousness of human perceptions, and fine. I define Consciousness as the reality which is hearing these words right now, very different. The reality which is hearing these words right now. As I said yesterday, is not limited to "hearing", is not limited to "right now". A priori, there is no limitation to it. It's not limited to sense perceptions. It's not limited to thoughts. It's not limited to any kind of perception. I define it as the reality that is perceiving. If Consciousness arises... Sorry, let me back up. If Consciousness cannot be differentiated from Being, meaning that they are—what was this mathematical—well, so if they are unalterable or you can't partition them, then the existence of Consciousness as primary is contingent on Consciousness continuing in the absence of perception? Yes. Which you said would be the experience of Consciousness perceiving itself. Yes. And you also said that that would need to be... that that could be verified firsthand, except that it appears that there are times where it cannot be verified, like in deep sleep. That's your saying, because you're not in deep sleep right now, so you don't know, right? But let's talk about the question I asked from you: Are you conscious? And you can say yes from memory because of past experience of Consciousness, just as if I ask you, are you a man? You say yes. You see that from memory, but you could also see that from experience, right? In the same way, when I ask you, are you conscious? I'm not asking you to answer from memory but from experience, and you can do that. You can ask yourself the question: Is it possible for me not to be conscious? Am I conscious right now, yes or no? So then you get an answer to this question which is efficient because it is not from memory. If it is not from memory, where does it come from if not from the direct experience of Consciousness by Consciousness? If it is not from memory, where does it come from? It comes from the present, self-evident. Yeah. Because some people say, most people believe—and so I'm going to play the devil's advocate here—some people say, "Oh, I know that I am conscious because I perceive perceptions. I perceive the flower; therefore, I am conscious." And they believe that this argument is a rational and logical argument. Sorry, what? Can you say that again? They say, "I believe I know that I am conscious because I have perceptions, phenomenal perceptions." Right? Yeah. That gives them an escape which enables them to deny the experience of pure Consciousness by Consciousness in the absence of perceptions, right? Yeah. So they say, "I am conscious because I perceive the flower, but I never perceive pure Consciousness." You ask me the question, are you conscious? My answer is yes. Why? Because I perceive the flower. Okay, so let me debunk this argument. It can be debunked for two reasons. One is relatively easy, the other one is a little more technical. The first one is because there are two possible experiences. One, I experience a flower; it's a white orchid, and through the sense of sight, it's one experience. The other experience: I am conscious of the flower. Two different experiences. I see the flower; I am conscious that I see the flower; two different. So if these are two different experiences, you cannot argue that you know that you are conscious because you are conscious of the flower, you see? One thing is the flower. There is a flower here as a conclusion. The other one is there is consciousness here; two different conclusions that should refer.... It gives us a hint that they refer to two different experiences. For us, one experience is clear: there is a flower. It takes time to recognize that it is white, that it is an orchid; it's a phenomenal experience. The other one, I am conscious. How long does it take? It's more like an understanding, you see? It's instantaneous. Now, they would say, yes, there is this experience of the flower, and the fact that there is consciousness of the flower is inferred from the presence of the flower. There is a flower that appears, therefore I infer the Consciousness from this experience. But the process of inference doesn't work in this case, because if I infer Consciousness from the perception of the flower in order to be able to infer, for instance, fire from the presence of smoke, it requires numerous prior events in which I experience the fire and the smoke. So next time there is only the smoke, I think, oh, if there is smoke, there is fire because of my prior experience of fire. But if the contention is the experience of fire—in the case in point of Consciousness—is denied, of pure Consciousness is denied, then the inference explanation doesn't work because in order to infer the existence of Consciousness from the presence... from the experience of the flower, it would require prior experience of Consciousness directly, which is precisely that which is denied. You see? And we have this deep knowledge that we know that we are conscious. Another argument is this: everything we perceive phenomenally, we could have doubt about its reality because when we dream, we are not aware that we are dreaming, right? Therefore, what we perceive in the dream, everything we perceive phenomenally, we cannot be 100% certain because right now we are not certain that we are not dreaming. Right now, we could be in some kind of a dream, you know, like the Matrix, from which we're going to wake up at some point. So if we are rational, we cannot be 100% certain that right now we are not dreaming. However, we can be 100% certain that there is consciousness and that there is something rather than nothing. That we can be 100% certain of. You see? So this difference on the level of certainty that there is a flower here and on the level of certainty that there is consciousness, one less than certain, albeit pretty much certain but less than 100%, the other one absolutely certain, points at two different experiences. One that leads to quasi-certainty and the other that leads to absolute certainty. You see? And that's why there is this other channel, the direct channel, through which Consciousness experiences itself, which is the only 100% certain channel. So it has different qualities: instantaneous, no time elapses. I am very much present in this moment because, for instance, I'm the one who knows that I am conscious. So meaning I, Consciousness, is present in this moment just as Consciousness is present in the moment of understanding, because it is not somebody else who understands a joke. It is very much I who understands the joke, and it is the same I who perceives the punchline, the phenomenal perception, and the laughter after that. The same I is the continuity, is the background of all perception. It's the background of reality, you know? So I still feel like there's an equally plausible inference which is that Consciousness might stop in the absence of perception and that being will be the only quality that we can legitimately say remains. And that's why deep sleep is the thing that feels, for me, like I infer that Being continues in deep sleep, but I have no valid way to legitimately infer that Consciousness experiences in deep sleep are equally as likely as the inference that Consciousness just stops in deep sleep. Yes, but you cannot deny the possibility that Consciousness is present during deep sleep. Absolutely, yeah, can't deny. So you cannot claim that the absence of Consciousness in deep sleep is experientially verified. I cannot. Can you say that one more time? You cannot claim that the absence of Consciousness in deep sleep is experientially verified. Yes, absolutely. Yeah, would not be able to. Therefore, you make a claim which is unsubstantiated experientially. I would say it's more of an ambiguous claim because there's an equal likelihood that it is experiential and that Consciousness just stops and that Being is the... — No, you cannot claim either way. No, you cannot. Wait a minute, you cannot claim that you have the experience of the absence of Consciousness in deep sleep. Yes, I cannot. I cannot claim or disclaim. Yeah, so you cannot claim that... All you can say is that, as far as you know, Consciousness is continuous. Yeah, it's equally as likely as Consciousness stopping. No, because... Do you deny that in the absence of—because earlier on, we have moved to your recognition that in the absence of perception, there is Consciousness in the case of understanding or in the case of the experience through which we know that we are conscious. Well, actually, I think that there's a counterargument to that too, which could just be that those experiences happen so fast that they are below the perceptual domain of recognition. So it could happen at such a fast rate that there's no way to... is like—instantaneous, is one millionth of a second, is not instantaneous. Like, what if the getting of the joke or the recognition that I am aware happens very fast but not instantaneous? So you mean, what you're telling me is that there can be a half understanding of the joke but not complete. No, a full understanding, but the joke is understood at a very fast subconscious level, that I'm able to subconsciously understand the joke in a very short period of time but not instantaneous. Well, either you understand it or not. Okay, maybe I don't understand. What is a joke which is—okay, let's take another example. The proof of the Pythagorean theorem,. a² + b² = c²? Yeah. Take one proof, can you understand it half? Okay, yeah, I don't think I understand what you mean. How does understanding... Okay, let's take another example. Let's take a proposition: babies are found in cabbage plants. Okay? Okay. It's a logical proposition that can be either true or false. That's what I was taught as a kid. Mom, where do babies come from? They are found in cabbage plants. So later on, I discovered that they were cabbage plants of a special shape. But yes, where was I? Yes, so this statement, right? You would agree that it is either true or false, right? At some point, in my life, I understood that really babies were not born, were not found in cabbage plants. So at some point, I understood that this statement was false. Before this understanding, I thought it was true. Can it be half true? No. Right. I know we could have to—it would mean that sometime, right? But how does that—what is—I guess I don't understand the connection. How is that proof of Consciousness? Because we are talking about the process of understanding, the process of truth. And truth is the appearance of self-evidence, and it is not a continuous process. That's my contention. It's not progressive. That which leads to it is progressive, but there is a moment when there is a collapse of the wave function, if you will. There is a moment when it's yes or no. So, in other words, there is... before, there is an "I don't know" yet. But then we move from I don't know to yes or no, and there is nothing between I don't know and yes or no. That's the point. The point that you can make saying a woman cannot be half pregnant. Okay, I think I understand what you're saying. So you're saying that this is—I would definitely agree that I am in the "I don't know" stage of that process, and at some point this understanding occurs in which it's either yes or no. Yes. And that it's a sudden collapse. You see what I mean? There is no room for time there. Yeah, that makes sense. The process that leads to this, then there is a thought, and it can last for years. I'm not that smart. It takes me years to understand the proof of the Pythagorean theorem. But when I get it, it's instantaneous. Right, so it's almost like you can't prove it. You can't prove it on its own. You can only not disprove it. But what I am alluding to is something we all know. It's this, because we are all able to understand. We are all able to suddenly become aware of something. And so, although in hindsight it seems that perceptions are continuous, when we take a closer look, we notice these gaps. And perhaps there are many more gaps than the ones we notice. Perhaps the perception processes are not continuous. Perhaps they are discrete. They are like we watch a movie and we see continuous movement, but in fact there are 24 still frames per second, and between each still frame there is a black screen. There is no movement. There is moving from one still frame to another still frame with a black screen in between. That's what the old-fashioned motion pictures were. So the continuity of the movie is an illusion, right? That's the way the nervous system works to establish this continuity, but it was not really in our experience. And there is an argument that could be made, which relies on the fact that the nervous system activity is made through the firing of neurons. It's not my field of expertise, but I got that from a psychiatrist. And a neuron either fires or doesn't fire. So if we see the neuronal activity as the foundation of perceptions, at its very foundation it's discrete—zero and one, like a computer, a little bit. But at least, although we are not aware of all these intervals, at least there are some we are aware of, like in understanding, "Am I conscious?", answering this question. But there is not nothing in this interval. I am conscious because I'm the one who understands. So that gives us a hint. It's an intuition. An intuition that, in fact, the continuity of perceptions is the continuity of Consciousness. And if we are open to this possibility—and that's something else that I can only vaguely hint at—but at some point it becomes our experience that we never sleep. Then it may seem shocking to you, and I'm not asking you to take my word for it because that doesn't make any sense, but to remember it possibly for one day when you say, "Okay, Francis said that. Now I see what he meant." And at some point, when we become interested in this interval, in Consciousness without objects as an experience and the connection of it with Reality, at some point we don't sleep any longer. We are conscious all the time. And then your argument according to which, "Well, I'm not aware of Consciousness in deep sleep,"... False because, yes, you're aware all the time. We are aware all the time. It's just that when you are in ignorance, we don't discriminate between Consciousness and the perception of Consciousness. We are kind of hypnotized by that which is in front of us, so to speak, by the phenomenal perception, and we kind of lose sight of the perceiver. When we begin to become interested in the reality that perceives, in Awareness, then things change, and we become simultaneously, if you will—whatever that means—aware of the background and aware of the objects. Yeah, that works. I appreciate that answer. That's very helpful. I have another short question. This one will be short, I think. Doesn't mean the answer is short. The other thing I think about Consciousness and Being is that if Consciousness is the substratum, then solipsism is logically valid and possible. Then what? Solipsism, just the view that only my Consciousness is real, or that only I am. "This is the only perspective which is actually perceiving." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes, that's interesting. That's an interesting question. And my answer to this is this: In order to be satisfied, we cannot be merely satisfied... I mean, because the goal of life is to find satisfaction. We cannot be solely satisfied in terms of Truth. There are two more elements we have to be satisfied, two other terms. We have to be also satisfied in terms of Love and also in terms of Beauty. It's a way to say we are to be satisfied conceptually, but we have to be satisfied also in terms of feelings, and we have to be satisfied in terms of sense perceptions—Truth, Love, Beauty. Solipsism could potentially be satisfying in terms of Truth as one of the possibilities, but what solipsism is, is: "Only my mind, my human mind, is. You don't exist. You are just a projection of my mind, of my limited, my limited human mind. You don't exist." So it is possibly experientially satisfactory, but something is missing because I'm denying your existence. I'm denying your Consciousness. By denying your Consciousness, I am identifying Consciousness and Reality with my limited human mind. You see? So in terms of Love, there is no satisfaction here because I deny your Consciousness. By doing so, I deny also my Consciousness. I reduce my Consciousness to the cage of a human mind. Yeah, it seems like solipsism doesn't defeat the death anxiety, like the annihilation anxiety, because if I'm the only one here, then if I die, then I still truly face annihilation. Yeah. So, and that gives me also the opportunity to address another question, which is idealism. And unlike solipsism, idealism says "There is no reality out there, there is only mind." And: "The world out there is simply a projection of our mind. And there is no problem with that. You and I, we agree that this is an orchid because there is a universal intelligence, a universal mind that projects your perception and my perception of the world in a way which is consistent with this being a white orchid." Right? So, and the argument in favor of idealism versus realism, according to which there is a world out there which is not mind-like, the argument in favor of idealism is Occam's Razor. There is no need to posit an external world because we have a plausible explanation using only minds. Now, this is not an argument which is convincing to me for the following reason. It uses Occam's Razor. And the argument is that I don't need to posit an external world because I don't perceive it directly. I perceive only perceptions which are mind-like. So the argument is I don't perceive directly the external world. But if we have to be consistent, we have to say I don't perceive your mind either. So Occam's Razor applied in this case would lead me to I don't need your mind as a hypothesis, and then I am down to solipsism. So Occam's Razor as a justification for the idealist perspective doesn't work because then it reduces... t would be more logical to reduce it to solipsism. You see? So that's why, in fact, both hypotheses—we don't have to choose between idealism and realism. Both are simply human man-made theories of reality. You know, perhaps there are two ways to look at it, just as a particle can be a wave or a little ball of granite. So there are two ways to look at it that are complementary, or perhaps there are many ways to look at it that our limited human mind has no access to. So we have to be humble, you see? And actually, from the vantage point of what we are talking about here, Non Duality, it doesn't matter. Why? Because in both cases, everything is one thing. In one case, everything is mind. In the other case, everything is reality. It doesn't matter. Ultimately, the only thing that matters is Non Duality, that there is only one thing. Whether we call it mind or whether we call it reality, who cares? You see? That's why I call Consciousness the reality which is hearing this words right now. Now, there is something else also—a homework for you, which is this: what is experientially the reality of Consciousness? For you. Thank you.