A Dialogue With Francis Lucille Regarding Teaching and Life Coaching
This post is a record of first, a written question-and-answer dialogue between the Advaita (non-duality) teacher Francis Lucille (Rupert Spira's teacher) and a student that was posted online a number of years ago (no longer available, so it is posted here as a service). Second, it follows with an email dialogue I had with Francis. I later talked with him in person (very briefly) and he said he got my email response and found it interesting because he wasn't aware of what was going on online. After that I lost interest in the topic, as it seemed resolved to my mind.
The Old Q & A Post
What makes one qualified/ready to guide others on the Direct Path? - Francis Answers - 169
Beloved Francis,
A short while ago I asked the following question:
When one is established in the impersonal Awareness, having gone beyond the distinction of teacher and student, but at the same time acknowledging the importance of it on the relative plane, what makes such a one qualified/ready to guide others on the Direct Path, as there isn't really a formal transmission involved, as far as I understand it?Without a shadow of a doubt (as you like to say :-)) this Consciousness is recognized as Truth and Beauty itself, 'my' true nature.
This realization spontaneously stabilizes itself more and more in daily life.
However, when the duality of teacher/student and seeking/realizing (or unfolding) gradually falls away with it, maybe I first have to ask if there exist the possibility of ignorance or delusion in this process?
Then, there is the further curiosity about when, according to your experience, someone can genuinely and without self-delusion guide others on the Direct Path?
You already mentioned speaking from own experience, and to be totally honest and earnest. I think there is a lot to share on this topic, but maybe you can point out some other important aspects? As it is sometimes confusing what teachers say and do concerning this, and it therefore is certainly not without reason why Dennis Waite wrote the book 'Enlightenment, Path through the Jungle'.I understand you have a lot of questions coming to you and may have limited time and availability, but as I find your clear understanding and explanations highly valuable, it would be most supporting to stay in touch by email or skype to be able to ask you a question.
With patience and gratitude I am looking very much forward if you can clarify some of which I wrote, in order to shed all ignorance away!Most affectionately,
Jerome
Dear Jerome,
Don't think you are the only one asking this question. Many ask the same question, and many more don't, because they want to start teaching to satisfy their ego, and they are afraid that my answer would demonstrate their unpreparedness. So they start teaching and join the increasing crowd of half-baked teachers teaching half baked truths.
You can guide others no farther than to where you are. If you are not established in peace and happiness, guiding others will be a distraction preventing further progress, unless you do so under the umbrella and the guidance of a karana guru. I did this for fifteen years in France and in California, conducting meditation sessions, answering questions, but my friends were always send to my teacher to become his disciples. That's how I learned how to teach.
Many sages are not teachers, and an even more teachers are not sages. What do you want to be? a teacher or a sage?
How would you prefer to be: happy, fulfilled, without teaching, or unhappy and teaching? Think about this: because a sage has mastered the fulfillment of his desires, there is no need for him to teach to make a living. Therefore teaching is not a profession in the usual sense, although it may appear to be the case.Don't count on teaching to make you happy. Get happy first, no matter whether you teach or not. Then teach, if you want to, out of this happiness.
You could ask: how do I know that I am unshakably established in peace and happiness?. Well, in case the meaning of these words is not clear enough to you, here are a few hints:
You should at least have mastered the following issues:
1. relationships with friends, supervisors, employees, clients, parents, children and spouses should be harmonious.
2. there should be financial abundance due to the discovery of the universal law of infinite supply. Any professional activity should be performed not out of the necessity to make money, but out of the joy it brings about.
3. more generally speaking, all desires should spontaneously materialize due to the absence of attachment.
4. fear of death should be absent.In addition to these absolute prerequisites, teaching requires the following;
1. A vocation: the love, the enthusiasm, the passion for teaching (also an absolute prerequisite)
2. Highly developed communication skills, both at the intellectual and at the feeling levels. (Intellectual skills are required only for the path of knowledge).
3. Pedagogical skills acquired (among other things) through many years of steady attendance of the teaching sessions of a karana guru.
Skills 2 and 3 are not absolutely mandatory, since they can be developed "on the job". The efficiency of the teaching will improve as these skills improve.And, yes, last but not least, since you can only teach what you are, you can only teach from your own experience, not from hearsay, not from memory, and, of course, always with absolute honesty
Love,
Francis
My Email and His Response
7/24/18
Francis –
I ran across something online a couple years ago that I saved on my computer (see above):
Do you still stand by this answer or would you modify it now? I'm not interested in being a teacher myself at the moment, but friends in the spiritual psychology community often ask this question concerning requirements because they want to be a "life coach" (this is akin to being a therapist without a license) and make money that way. But to my mind, unless they are happy themselves, love teaching, and meet some of the "mastery" elements you list; and unless people are coming to them asking questions or for help already – what business do they have setting it up as a their work or calling (leaving aside the question of spiritual teaching as a business)?
Francis replied:
Yes, these are the requirements for a spiritual teacher. The bar is lower for a therapist, or a life coach, because the stated goal is not to take one to wisdom. I would suggest in this case absolute honesty and teaching (sharing is perhaps a better word) from the actual, current experience.
With love,
Francis
I replied:
Hi Francis –
Thank you for the reply and my apologies for the slow reply.
There seems to be a range of life coaches, all the way from entirely psychological and technique-based, up to what could justifiably be called wisdom teachers (friend Garrett Kramer is an example of one of the latter – he's sounding like a Rupert Spira these days http://garretkramer.com/articles/). However your comment about the “bar being lower” for life coaches is relevant, as is of course the suggestion to honestly share from current experience.
Right now there are schisms, divisions and debates going on in the spiritual psychology field that I was involved in (Three Principles Psychology), between those who are more Thought-based in their approach , who are pointing out how all that we experience is a projection of thought, thus supposedly helping to free clients to be more detached and see the relativity of their feelings and perceptions (but don’t really offer a good way to transcend thought-prisons in their self-proclaimed “paradigm” other than giving lip service to a vague and grandiose brand of “evolution “ – unconscious echoes of Hegel and Marx perhaps). They attack those who talk about oneness or consciousness, or anything absolute, etc.
And then there are those who are pointing to universal Consciousness/Mind, more in tune with the epiphanies, teachings and original intent of the mystic, Sydney Banks, that launched the now-worldwide movement. I see the latter folks as helping to free clients absolutely and be happy, if and when the teacher actually understands the teaching, which is quite variable, not unexpectedly.
It’s as if the separate self is playing itself out in the field, in defense of a sense-mind-based ("ego") versus a Reality-based view. But it's not surprising given the worldview embedded in our culture, and what happens when a wisdom teaching spreads and become diluted, and re-interpreted by the mind.
Unless I’m deluding myself (which is quite possible), I'm afraid I may be partly responsible for creating or helping to fan some of the flames of this stupid religious-political “war”, in my unabashed love for Truth (planting seeds of the non-dual virus) and offerings of insights, and philosophical comments in response to questions and confusions in the community. A loose cannon... [ed: this was a joking reference to what he called his teacher, Jean Klein]
The vast majority of these folks are not very philosophically sophisticated, and so a lot of what goes on is wheel-spinning. However it’s been interesting to see how people think, and what "self" they are coming from, their confusions, and it gives me material to write about, at minimum.
At this point I’ve backed away from much involvement in this community, as it takes a great deal of time and energy to respond to questions or comments, and while some of my essays seem to be highly appreciated and helpful for some, I have nothing to defend or invested per se, and it feels like trying to bail out an ocean of ignorance with a teaspoon. When it starts to feel "serious", I know it's time to back off, and follow my enthusiasm, as you often say...
Those who are from the non-dual/perennial wisdom camp in that community are still friendly towards me, but I'm not so much interested in the ego games and political turf wars of the rest. In any case I’m not a “practitioner” (I don’t take on clients or do verbal teaching for money), I’m more like a writer and philosophical gadfly, who sometimes sits in on online meetings. At this point my focus is more on transcending the whole mess and writing material that will make its way into a book (around a philosophy of non-duality).
As I see it now, the best way to help the world is to realize true Self, so deepening one's understanding of reality (yours and Laura's guidance is greatly appreciated, as are all expressions of the One teacher), and allowing a natural process is the way to go (or go away ... :).
It’s become more obvious where true happiness lies [not in the world but within the invisible Self] … and besides, your dialogues are a lot of fun. :)
With Love & Gratitude,
Eric
This was followed by a brief in-person conversation where he mentioned getting my email, and found it interesting because he didn't (is not interested, really) in what's going on online (in the spiritual communities).
Further Notes and Reflections (Summer, 2018)
https://www.michaelneill.org/the-three-principles/
I’ve seen evolutions in the field over the last 21 years or so (the length of my involvement), as it’s grown to worldwide movement and become diluted often, and split into roughly 4 camps or schools (this is purely conceptual and for educational or reflective purposes, to be taken with a grain of salt):
1. The Puritans. The old-school and originals, who learned directly from Syd Banks, or early on, and/or those trying to stick to the original teachings, methods, form, and “purity” of the message of Syd Banks realization and what they think/feel/perceive/intuit he was wanting to convey, be that in Universal Mind, Consciousness and Thought, out of belief, loyalty, or it’s what makes sense to them, or not wanting to dilute the message, or the brand if you will (even if, like Christine Heath they concede that like Mr. Banks said, no one “understands” the 3P because of their infinite depth). These folks get upset if they hear others “mixing” the 3P with anything else.
2. The Newcomers, True Believers, Sellers. Those who never got it as an experience, still seeing it outside-in, often relatively new to it, or see it as a business opportunity, who have a whole range of understandings, from a mere technique, or valuable brand, or conceptual understandings, and mixing it with other things, to “getting it” to some degree as a universal message of a spiritual nature, or who “get religion” and are on a mission, defend it, want to change the world, etc. It’s more or less conceptual or new belief system or technique, rather than an actual experience.
3. The “Principles as a Paradigm” or “Single Paradigm” teachers. This relatively new formulation sees itself as a refinement and appears to be focusing on Thought in the context of the 3 principles, as they key to a shift to an inside-out understanding of life. “This psychological paradigm establishes that we are constantly experiencing our life through the principle of thought… we are only feeling our thinking in the moment about what we are thinking about”. This is arguably focusing on what is variable and changing — the phenomenal: thinking being an element of the "mind" along with perception and sensation — as a quasi-constant, when in truth Universal Consciousness (&Universal Mind, same unity) is the real, unchanging, eternal "constant" Reality. This view often leads to relativism unfortunately. (https://threeprinciplesparadigm.com/home/welcome/)
4. The Non-dualists. Those who have gone in a broader or deeper fundamental non-dual understanding direction, similar to, cleaving to, or realizing what the classic wisdom teachings on nonduality, Advaita and so forth, are pointing to, and seeing that as the real content or pointing of the 3P experience. Some were already naturally very "Zen" or non-dual and picked up the 3P as a beautiful teaching, or tool to help people, or who used the model for a time, then more or less dropped it as they evolved.
“The nondual understanding has to be tailored to the audience. But it’s free of formula, sensitive, alive, responsive to the moment.” – Rupert Spira
Last Word
Wisdom isn’t something one gains, but what is revealed. There is nothing to achieve.
“2. there should be financial abundance due to the discovery of the universal law of infinite supply. Any professional activity should be performed not out of the necessity to make money, but out of the joy it brings about.”
This is pretty shocking to hear from Lucille. It puts him firmly in the shallow neolib New Age camp, and is utterly ignorant about reality. There is no ‘law of infinite supply’, in fact for many of us there is only struggle for shelter and food. It’s obvious from some things Lucille says about women and taxes that he’s pretty right-wing, but perhaps he’s hidden it as he’s become more popular on Youtube.
What a dolt, and a nasty one. Stick with Nisargadatta and Ramana, who would never have uttered such smug middle-class imbecilities.
Hi Bob –
This whole issue is a good question. I would not be so quick to judge. Francis has been very critical of New Age thinking.
His view is different from New Age materialism, in subtle but significant ways, as he sees it as “impersonal desire” or “clear intention” (of an impersonal nature, like the dawning of a Realization that something is coming). Whether he is truly detached in regards to wealth though, is an open question, and ultimately irrelevant, being not just his personal business, but an issue where one must see the truth for oneself, as a character being dreamed in this dream, and not worry about other apparent bodyminds.
He talks about being detached (spiritually) from outer conditions, while “maintaining the body” and “celebrating”, and lives an affluent life (as a bodymind). But is there anything wrong with that? Taking vows of chastity or poverty are irrelevant to non-duality, and stupid if your preferences and enjoyment are otherwise.
Yes, we are in this world but not of it. So it hardly matter whether the character is wealthy or poor. It’s a passing show. It all comes down to “what do I really want?” and being honest about it, not blaming anyone, and not playing victim or complaining, but growing up.
That being said, he was supportive once, in an online satsang of the wealthy author Rhonda Byrne of “The Secret” fame (but she may have given him and Laura, his wife at the time who is a fan, a donation, I don’t know), who he said was a friend of theirs, and claimed she was in a similar vein of thinking, or something to that effect.
She was, to my mind, very much New Age, in the way one supposedly can “set an intention” and make it happen in the world via Thought (I had an email exchange with her after meeting her at a Laura Lucille meeting, and going out with them to lunch). She did *not* make it clear it was impersonal.
Here’s a video where Lucille talks about “New Age bullshit”:
“New Age BS!” The Mind Does Not Create.
https://youtu.be/4_wCnfQheEY
Francis also posted a video many years ago about the “Law of Abundance” in answer to a question about it. It’s since been taken down, but I’ve posted a copy (as a public service), on one of my channels, since it an interesting and relevant question. (See transcript below):
“Francis Lucille Video Answer 78 What is the law of abundance”
https://youtu.be/rip9JpSc-1w
Transcript:
Question posed to Francis:
What is the relationship between spiritual and material abundance?
What is the universal law of infinite supply and how does it work?
In relation to desires spontaneously materializing, what is the source of these desires and to whom do they materialize (who enjoys them).
Most generally, is the appearance of limited resources in all cases simply a result of ignorance, of perceptions still clouded by dualistic assumptions?
A: If there is no longer identification with a separate bodymind organism, there are no longer personal desires. All the thoughts, all the activities that arise, arise directly out of this presence, out of the universal power if you will. So that which creates the desire, has the means to fulfill it.
The world that surrounds us, that in ignorance appear to be foreign to us, and hostile to some extent, becomes very friendly. All these impersonal desires sooner or later materialize. That experience of divine energies cannot be understood from the vantage point of a limited entity.
Q: What is the relationship between spiritual and material abundance?
A: There is only spiritual abundance; everything is spiritual, nothing is really material. And of course as long as you make this distinction between the spiritual and material, there will be spiritual abundance perhaps and uh, material scarcity. But the moment you understand, everything is spiritual, this compartmentalization comes to an end. And that which used to be the material aspects of your life becomes spiritualized.
And, although, as long as it was seen as being material, as long as there was this compartmentalization, there was the impression of or the belief in, a finite supply. As the material realm become spiritualized, these limitations disappear.
The law, if you will, of abundance – I could make an analogy with physics. In physics we have the law of conservation of matter and energy, which states that for a closed system, energy, and matter, is conserved. There is no increase, no decrease. The proponent of the principle often fail to see that it applies only to closed systems. If the system is open there is no longer conservation of energy, since there can be exchange of energies with the outside.
As long as you see this universe as material, you have closed it, you have put it in a box of material: in the box of matter. It is not subtle, and moreover, most importantly, it is not spiritual. And, it will behave to your eyes, uh, it will stay, uh uh, obediently within the box you have boxed it in.
But the moment you open the box, to infinity, things change. The transformation on your perspective of the world that surrounds you will bring about a different behavior, a different revelation, of the world. It will become a permanent miracle.
That’s what I wish for you.”
My notes from 2015:
In New Age thinking, it seems that generally the Law of Abundance is still implying that happiness comes from material abundance, only one is “manifesting” according to your thinking, using some outside spiritual power (and comes with the corollary that you better think positive and abundantly too, which is a lot of work and more thinking to pile on the ignorant thinking that’s already there). And behind that system is the assumption that it’s a material world and you are getting something from it, as a separate entity.
What is “material” other than a system of separate things, such as atoms, bodies and so forth?
What Francis is pointing to here is a more fundamental reality, one that releases one from that dichotomy. You become happier and more “abundant”, not as a process or sequence – “I’ll be happy when…” – but both arise from the same reality, when you are released from the illusion. No longer an alien, separate, threatening world.
The seeming paradox is that one needs less as one has more. You don’t need much to be happy, but you find the world being more abundant. And, desire is seen more impersonally, so that rather than being controlled by it, one allows it (as it were) to fulfill itself.
You still have to take action, do things in the world – work doesn’t happen by itself – but your actions, your will, effort (energy), come from a different place, more fulfilling in inner and outer terms (the double win), an ultimately are the will of it All, in retrospect. They start to be more often in tune with Love.
That’s how I’m seeing the situation now.
On 6/25/18 I wrote these notes:
New Age take belief or outlook on this:
The mind (personal) somehow creates, influences reality, or attracts.
Happiness comes from things.
There is material abundance that comes from spiritual.
An importance placed on feelings.
It is a belief system.
It is dualistic.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, and the video repost. I’ll watch the videos at some point. They’d make me too angry right now (as someone in extreme poverty, seeing these self-soothing middle classes justify their exclusion of the poor is more than I can take). I’ve become increasingly aware of the strand of nihilism running throughout much contemporary spirituality. Lucille is not extreme – he’s no ubermensch-lite Katie Byron – but his distaste for the poor is often evident.
As far as not judging the omnisient Teacher’s bodymind’ – but that’s exactly what Lucille in the quote I was commenting on invites us to do! He claims material affluence as one criterion of a true teacher (thereby excluding by fiat the majority of great teachers from the past). Klein’s ‘bon vivant’ lineage systematically privileges wealth – in the most egregious case (Spira’s) systematically attempting to exclude the poor from accessing his teachings – ah the lovely stately home retreats, the elegant linens, the good wines, the spiritual ‘friendship’ (anyone with rotting teeth not invited).
As for “[he] … lives an affluent life (as a bodymind). But is there anything wrong with that?”. Well, yes, there is. In an age of ecosystem collapse, ‘affluent life’ is straightforwardly a synonym for ‘global ecosystem-destroying life’. The affluent wine-bibbing classes represent, entirely literally, a frontal attack on our living world.
All this is at the ‘relative’ level of course. I may come back to you with more on the spiritual/absolute level. Short version: I think importing noumenal-referring terms into conceptual language (as opposed to poetry and art) is in religious terms ‘idolatry’, and thus strictly inadmissible in the context of linear argument. That’s the intuition behind the evident ludicrousness of the Tony Parsons and Katie Byrons of this world.
For now though, I’m too hungry to continue thinking, and I won’t be able to buy food ’till Tuesday. Must be my lack of spiritual acumen. Hmm. Meditate, or see what I can scrape up from behind the local cafe?
Hi Bob – If you read Lucille’s comments in this old posting, he doesn’t claim “material affluence as one criterion of a true teacher”. He never says that, nor would he claim that. That would obviously be silly, if one is at all familiar with what’s behind it. He wrote “there should be financial abundance … [and work] out of the joy it brings about.” It’s about freedom, full stop. “Abundance” (having enough, according to impersonal desire fulfilled) is the result, not the cause, in experience. If you think he thinks freedom comes from matter, from wealth, or from any circumstances, that’s laughable, and pure projection.
The straw man you’re setting up is the “new age stuff” he clearly rejects. You seem to want to impose an agenda on what is seen, heard, rather than listening to what’s behind the words. What is being pointed to by teachings like this is that the sense of lack and fear that is driving egoistic behavior (including the focus on others and the world) is the sense of separation (SOS). This manifests as, for example, the sense of lack and fear that you are exhibiting for us – thank you. Or as the “cancer” of human development, the overpopulation that is affecting the Earth, the crazy consumerism, both of which he’s mentioned, ultimately coming from the SOS.
And he certainly never claims to be omniscient (that also is laughable). Quite the contrary, if you actually listen to him, he vigorously rejects anyone trying to project that onto him, and gets quite loud about it, since so many try and do that in spiritual circles (the whole guru and enlightenment thing).
But none of that is here or there. You can spend your life arguing over what teacher said what and what it means. Who cares? It’s just tools. As I keep saying, “spiritual teachings are not true, they are merely useful” Or not. If the shoe fits, wear it for a while; if it doesn’t fit, go elsewhere, find a different shoe, if you want. It’s up to you.
(Speaking of caring, it’s rude to use a throw-away mail carrier like mailinator and a possible fake name, unless your intent is to spam us. Why are you hiding? Afraid of something – like the truth perhaps? A honest dialogue)
Nothing is “inadmissible” as far as what I write, but you are free to write what you want. Look within yourself and see where the need for control comes from. It’s fear. And where does the fear come from? As far as “linear argument”, well its only purpose, if any, is to deconstruct, or at least poke some holes in, whatever is being held onto. Overall, consider this all poetry. Take it or leave it.
Children will blame the world. And run from things in their imagination.
In any case, this materialism you are wanting to represent, that sees it as a matter of wealth vs poverty, as far as happiness depending on it, is not the religion I subscribe to. In fact I don’t subscribe to any religion. Not materialism, nor scientism, Christianity nor Hinduism, nor Gaia environmental end-of world eschatologies, nor anything that requires things to believe in that are not part of experience.
Now, certain bodyminds may have certain preferences, such a what kind of music they like, what’s sort of surrounding they consider beautiful and harmonious (by the way, F changed houses and now lives in a small abode in town with his new wife, no longer up on the hill – unattached, apparently, other than to practicality, haha), and what sort of friends they enjoy, what breeds of dogs they like, sports to enjoy, and so forth. That’s their business, not mine.
But none of that is fundamental. The perception of Beauty itself is fundamental however, and does not come from the world, nor does love or truth. They come for free. Read that sentence again. Another way tot put it: awareness has no requirements necessary. Not awareness •of* something, but awareness period. It doesn’t’ ven require a body.
Those are more what you could call insight (sight from within), and come direct and immediate, from who-knows-where. The Unknown. Big “m” Mind, real intelligence, the logos, use whatever word you like… you know how it goes “The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.”
I doubt you are being honest about being in “extreme poverty” or you wouldn’t be spending your time posting to a nonduality blog.
In any case, Non-duality is not a solution to anything. It’s just a pointer to not-two. At best a description of reality, by negation.
If you’re hungry, however, I would advise spending your time on finding food and finding or creating work or money, rather than posting political arguments to philosophy websites and arguing about saving the world, or whatever. Priorities, man.
And spiritually speaking, save yourself first, be happy first, find your inner resources (and what that means) then go from there. That’s how to “save the world”. Be happy, don’t play a victim.
As far as reactions, I like what Robert Adams said: “you’re only freedom is to not react”. There’s some wisdom being pointed to in that.
But if a reaction has already happened, and you’re angry for example, take a walk, or a run, until the energy dissipates. When the current fire dies down then you’l have the clarity of mind and intention to find the source of all fires, which is the belief and feeling to be separate.
Bottom line: as a great Zen master said “No one cares about your problem, so why do you?”
“I doubt you are being honest about being in “extreme poverty” or you wouldn’t be spending your time posting to a nonduality blog.”
The idea that the very poor don’t use the internet is just so clueless, it’s hard to know what to say to you. Next you’ll say kids having their legs blown off in Gaza just prove the world’s perfection. And talk about projection – casually throwing around ‘liar’ accusations is something I’ve only ever come across from the enduringly dishonest.
For what it’s worth I couldn’t sleep last night because we had a fierce storm and my shack’s roof leaks badly so I have to throw tarps over everything, including anywhere I might sleep.
I read through your reply to see if I could make any sense of it through all the obvious spitting snarling anger (the very *temerity* of the poor to use the internet rather than being out on their bikes applying for the 1000th non-existent ‘job’!). I often suspect people displaying their egolessness are the most egotistical, and the hypothesis is often confirmed. There’s little sense I can make of your words without seeing you as just another member of the self-justifying insouciant middle class. All this Advaita/Zen/nondual stuff is pure ideology (in the Marxist sense).
As for your personal attacks on me, they hit nothing because I make no claims for myself. I am *not* egoless, nor mature psychologically, and I find the world hard to survive. I have had a small, failed and unhappy life, and it will probably be short (by contemporary first world standards). I turn 61 next month, and it’s unlikely I’ll see the year out.
But one small good thing: I am almost entirely honest: with myself and others. You’ll never be able to claim that. I think there’s a good chance what we’re seeing in the middle-East now is the start of WWIII. Let’s see how your equanimity/impersonality fares if waves of horror sweep across your benighted nation and everything you know and love. I have a feeling you will be surprised, and not in a good way.
Goodbye.