Authentic Self?

[Anton Rogachevski]

Hello everyone,

I would like to hear your expirience in implementing that concept in your life.

Lately I have been wondering wether I got it right.

Sometimes it feels like I want to speak out, but then I ask myself, is it worth the possible arguments?

What if the lower self wanted to make trouble.

How can you tell between a lower self and higher self opinion?

[ALGUIMAR]

hmm... I have to say I also had the struggle of knowing which one is the higher self and which one is the lower self, and if this last one is trying to 'trick' on me. In the end I found that most of the times the lower self seeks conformity for the ego and mostly just benefits yourself. When you start to see the difference between that concept and the opposed to it which is most of the times self-less, noble and most likely 'the hard way' so to speak, it becomes clear where each of them stand.

 

I hope I shot some light and that I was able to help  

[Guest]

@Actualizer Just keep posting. Eveyone will tell you when you are speaking from your higher self.

 

[Isle of View]

@Actualizer

I like the Higher Self / Lower Self model, but realise that this is one and the same presence. The true Self is just "overshadowed" by ... well ... all kinds of self inflicted, not yet resolved, "shadows".

Keep on shining. Self-doubt is just another shadow. (-:

 

 

[Consept]

In my opinion when you're trying to be something, even if it's trying to be what you think is yourself then that's not your true self. Your true self emerges when you don't try and be anything, you give up trying. Meditation is a practice of this, it gets your brain used to be non reactive 

[Guest]

@Consept Then there's the jungian model, where the true self is the naturally talented expert leader and the sub-selves are the team working in harmony and working together to resolve inner conflicts.

[jip]

the word "authentic" is kinda misleading imo, everything within manifestation is basically inauthentic in the sense that it is illusory. it's all just language but from my current understanding there is only false self (ego) and no-self/true self (empty awareness), and it's not really possible to act from no-self, since it has no qualities.

[30secs]

as I understand "authentic self" is the highest result when you self-actualized. We know that self-actualization has not limits but atleast you developed yourself this so far:)

[vizual]

Haha so many different opinions and interpretations of these concepts.

My take on it: Your higher self are the parts of you which are aligned with the "Eternal divine". It's the part of you that:
-Sees no difference between you and other
-Loves everything and everyone unconditionally
-Does not take itself too seriously, nor does it play itself down
-Does not cling to the material
-Welcomes constant change in its experience/going with the flow
-Wants to explore all the possibilities life has to offer

 

Now your lower self wants to put life as an organism into stone. It wants to freeze time and matter so it can indulge itself in it. When the lower self can put things into stone it feels a sense of power and control over it. The lower self is stone itself, so it tries to turn its environment into stone as well so it can feel safe. The lower self is:
-It sees itself as a separate entity
-Wants to amass as much as "stuff" as possible for himself
-Wants to feel safe by shielding itself off from the rest of experience
-It does not care about your future plans or desires, only if it endangers his beingness in the present may it come into action.

 

Now the Authentic Self might be the healthy balance between the Higher and the Lower self. We all need a bit of selfishness to be someone in this world, we simply can't demonize everything the lower self has to offer. It might be wreaking havoc in a lot of people lives but there is a lesson to be learned in it. Someone said our life is a spiritual being that is having a human experience, in that light it makes sense that the manifestation of it shows both human and "eternal" qualities. Like the devil and the angel on our shoulders, except the devil on our shoulder isn't necessarily all bad. It just needs to find its right place. 

[Jawor]

Guys, what you are talking about has no use in real life whatsoever.

To my mind, higher self is when you are peaceful and mindful to some extent. The more peaceful are mindful you are, the "higher" the self is

[Anton Rogachevski]

2 hours ago, Jawor said:

Guys, what you are talking about has no use in real life whatsoever.

To my mind, higher self is when you are peaceful and mindful to some extent. The more peaceful are mindful you are, the "higher" the self is

Exactly! The mindfulness is allowing you to see the ways in which the lower self tricks us into unconsciousness. 

We should also consider that mindfulness alone without understanding the subtle ways in which the ego tricks us might not be enough.

[Anton Rogachevski]

3 hours ago, vizual said:

We all need a bit of selfishness to be someone in this world

Now riddle me this, how can one be selfish without knowing one's true nature.

Who is selfish?

[Consept]

I guess it could only be the ego that's selfish as it sees itself as seperate

[Anton Rogachevski]

What if the true self were selfish?  then you are selfish in an unselfish way ; )

We must accept our selfishness, it's an inseparable part of us, but at the same time ask what is this self we are selfish about. (we don't/can't know)

[abrakamowse]

I really don't have still clear all that myself, but I found an interesting article that my shed some light on the " real self - no self " debate.
:-)

 

"No-self teachings directly counter the sense that there is a separate watcher, and that this watcher is an “I” that is in control, observing reality or subject to the tribulations of the world. Truly, this is a useful illusion to counter. However, if misunderstood, this teaching can produce a shadow side that reeks of nihilism, disengagement with life and denial. People can get all fixated on eliminating a “self,” when the emphasis is supposed to be on the words “separate” and “permanent,” as well as on the illusion that is being creating. A better way to say this would be, “stopping the process of mentally creating the illusion of a separate self from sensations that are inherently non-dual, utterly transient and thus empty of any separate, permanent self.”

Even if you get extremely enlightened, you will still be here from a conventional point of view, but you will also be just an interdependent and intimate part of this utterly transient universe, just as you actually always have been. The huge and yet subtle difference is that this will be known directly and clearly. The language “eliminating your ego” is similarly misunderstood most of the time."

More here:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+No-self+vs.+True+Self/en

[SkyPanther]

On 3/16/2016 at 4:07 PM, abrakamowse said:

I really don't have still clear all that myself, but I found an interesting article that my shed some light on the " real self - no self " debate.
:-)

 

"No-self teachings directly counter the sense that there is a separate watcher, and that this watcher is an “I” that is in control, observing reality or subject to the tribulations of the world. Truly, this is a useful illusion to counter. However, if misunderstood, this teaching can produce a shadow side that reeks of nihilism, disengagement with life and denial. People can get all fixated on eliminating a “self,” when the emphasis is supposed to be on the words “separate” and “permanent,” as well as on the illusion that is being creating. A better way to say this would be, “stopping the process of mentally creating the illusion of a separate self from sensations that are inherently non-dual, utterly transient and thus empty of any separate, permanent self.”

Even if you get extremely enlightened, you will still be here from a conventional point of view, but you will also be just an interdependent and intimate part of this utterly transient universe, just as you actually always have been. The huge and yet subtle difference is that this will be known directly and clearly. The language “eliminating your ego” is similarly misunderstood most of the time."

More here:

http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dharma-wiki/-/wiki/Main/MCTB+No-self+vs.+True+Self/en

There is a booklet you should check out called "Concept and Reality" by a Buddhist Monk, It is available free here:

http://www.dhammasukha.org/uploads/1/2/8/6/12865490/concept_and_reality.pdf

It pretty much expands on this topic, and points out that "concepts" are the prisons that one has to free themselves of.   And this is what the Buddha taught. Nibbana is the "concept free" state, which you cannot describe because as soon as you do, you apply language to it, which is a concept.  So the only way to "get it" is to experience it.    Meditation (Any of the Jhanas, but especially 4 and up) get you to directly experience it.  Because it slowly strips away part of the ego/perceptual/language mind.   Until all you have is "awareness", but not "consciousness", that is concept free. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by SkyPanther

[abrakamowse]

Thank you very much @SkyPanther  I will check that book. Thanks for sharing!!!