What Is Authenticity? Does It Even Exist?

[HereNowThisMoment]

What is authentic, especially about personality? 

Personality is largely a conglomeration of pre-programmed behavior patterns. The personality that is outwardly visible as actions and demeanor is largely based on holding certain beliefs above others i.e. "I am this way but not that way." These beliefs of who someone is causes them to react in certain situations in a way that "feels" authentic to him or her. But realizing that beliefs about the egoic "I" are false causes a collapse to the structure of personality. So then how does one determine which actions are authentic? Where does one draw the line between being aware of thoughts and acting on certain thoughts?

If someone is enlightened, meaning he/she has transcended thoughts by realizing that the objects of the mind are illusory, that person could respond in any way that "feels right" in the moment (those "the universe is acting through me" type of statements). It seems to me that if I act on anything in particular that has to come from a deep, possibly unconscious, emotional response or belief that leads to the preference of one action over another. Action can only occur due to the preference of one thing over another. Of course, no choice is also a choice, so are we just puppets in this grand charade without any semblance of authenticity? Can authenticity even exist if it is always grounded in something that is not real?

 This post was fueled by some of the statements that Leo made in this post so reading that might help with the discourse here: 

 

[Leo Gura]

Personality is NOT a function of ego.

Personality is the natural, authentic mannerisms and tendencies of the organism once all the SHOULDS, fears, neuroses, repressions, and affectations are removed.

Without ego, personality gets STRONGER. In the same way that a diamond ring shines brighter once you clean off all the dust and gunk on it.

You have a natural personality in the same way that a baby or a cat or a dog has a unique personality.

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Leo Gura Thanks for the clarification! 

Well... I guess in that case I'm naturally more of a dick (not intentionally mean but very straightforward) than I previously thought because that's what started coming out as I stopped always telling myself that I should be nice/sugarcoat things. But then I started second-guessing whether that was authentic or if I was just using this work as an excuse to be that way. I should probably re-watch all of your enlightenment videos so that I can stay on track because right now I think I'm just piling up misconceptions and misinterpretations. Thanks again. 

[HereNowThisMoment]

Follow up: If all things are existentially the same awareness how can it take so many different forms both in physical objects and in intangible objects like personality? 

Am I intellectualizing everything too much? That's a trap that I can't seem to escape... 

[Matthew Lamot]

@HereNowThisMoment

Don't think about it too much.  If you want some feedback?  (Why you're here I guess?)

You're going into ego mode with all that wondering, trying, second guessing, attempting to manufacture authentic personality.

Become enlightened, then the control and neurotic factor won't be there, all there will be is the Self expressing itself via your unique and original finite mind.

 

[Matthew Lamot]

5 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

Follow up: If all things are existentially the same awareness how can it take so many different forms both in physical objects and in intangible objects like personality? 

Am I intellectualizing everything too much? That's a trap that I can't seem to escape... 

Nisgargadatta, Ramana Maharshi and Papaji were all Self-Realized, but they had different personalities.  

The Self never enters the stream of time.  It would not be the infinite Self if it did.  I guess it informed these men in some way?

Edited August 10, 2016 by Matthew Lamot

[Travis]

UG Krishnamurti too! He had an electrifying personality, and he was truth-realized. Check out his YouTube videos. They're a joy to watch  

Until you have an enlightenment experience there will be no direct distinction between authentic and inauthentic, but you can sort of bridge the gap by moving towards authenticity, if you listen to what's inside. Move closer to that each day. Let it guide you. Be stone cold honest with yourself in contemplation and be as open as you can to having a direct experience of the truth during meditation. Let these things guide you.

[Lynnel]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Personality is NOT a function of ego.

Personality is the natural, authentic mannerisms and tendencies of the organism once all the SHOULDS, fears, neuroses, repressions, and affectations are removed.

Without ego, personality gets STRONGER. In the same way that a diamond ring shines brighter once you clean off all the dust and gunk on it.

You have a natural personality in the same way that a baby or a cat or a dog has a unique personality.

Wait. Are basically saying that personnality is innate and comes before the ego ?

Is it like like the natural expression of consciousness that shines trough the form ( diamond = and diamond being of different shapes meaning that personnalities are different) , but not a series of thoughts and mental stuctures/feeling ?

 

A video on authenticity would be really helpful.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Lynnel

[Eelco1981]

I am also still confused about what personality is. I always thought it was shaped by society and experiences. It would be helpful if someone explains more about what character, temperament and personality is. What is the difference? What is formed by experiences? How is a personality shaped? Or are we born with a personality?

[30secs]

hmm..I think Leo pointed out personality like for example a 'baby"(which no have lot of experience yet) having a unique personality , simply because he/she have unique complex biological structure..maybe Im not sure, but again like for example animals like dogs, cats, having no concept of ego, but they have different personality too, I think because of the unique instincts, damn this universe creates his own many brains.

Edited August 11, 2016 by 30secs
second thought

[HereNowThisMoment]

On August 10, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Matthew Lamot said:

You're going into ego mode with all that wondering, trying, second guessing, attempting to manufacture authentic personality.

It's not so much that I'm trying to manufacture an authentic personality, it's that I'm wondering if my personality is innate or if it feels innate due to programming and social conditioning. It's a subtle distinction but enough to make me wonder. 

On August 10, 2016 at 8:26 PM, Matthew Lamot said:

Become enlightened, then the control and neurotic factor won't be there, all there will be is the Self expressing itself via your unique and original finite mind.

The response I wrote below is for your quote and Travis's below. 

On August 10, 2016 at 0:27 AM, Travis said:

Until you have an enlightenment experience there will be no direct distinction between authentic and inauthentic, but you can sort of bridge the gap by moving towards authenticity, if you listen to what's inside. Move closer to that each day. Let it guide you. Be stone cold honest with yourself in contemplation and be as open as you can to having a direct experience of the truth during meditation. Let these things guide you.

Honestly, I'm stuck with my contemplations at "I am aware." I have experienced that I am not my thoughts, perceptions, sensations, emotions, etc. But I still view my body as inseparable from awareness. I get that it is out of awareness that I am aware of my body, but I also think that if I were to incapacitated somehow then I am no longer aware. If I were knocked unconscious, awareness of the universe still exists, but my awareness of reality does not. I still view it as something separate from my experience, even though awareness is the totality of experience. I guess a part of me is still expecting some grand awakening based on what I've heard and another part is saying "I am already awake and this is as good as it gets." That's the inner conflict that I can't seem to resolve. 

[Matthew Lamot]

2 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

It's not so much that I'm trying to manufacture an authentic personality, it's that I'm wondering if my personality is innate or if it feels innate due to programming and social conditioning. It's a subtle distinction but enough to make me wonder. 

The response I wrote below is for your quote and Travis's below. 

Honestly, I'm stuck with my contemplations at "I am aware." I have experienced that I am not my thoughts, perceptions, sensations, emotions, etc. But I still view my body as inseparable from awareness. I get that it is out of awareness that I am aware of my body, but I also think that if I were to incapacitated somehow then I am no longer aware. If I were knocked unconscious, awareness of the universe still exists, but my awareness of reality does not. I still view it as something separate from my experience, even though awareness is the totality of experience. I guess a part of me is still expecting some grand awakening based on what I've heard and another part is saying "I am already awake and this is as good as it gets." That's the inner conflict that I can't seem to resolve. 

You need some proper teachings.  This is why nobody gets enlightened, because the wrong information is being put out there.  I made the analogy that if I want to create a Michelin Star meal, I go find a Michelin Star chef who can teach me the real things.  I don't go into Mac Donnalds expecting a gourmet 10 course meal.  This is relative reality and these are the rules.

The rules are set in stone, humanity is very fickle and it has its secret societies and teachings.  Do you really think Papaji and his mingions are able to prepare you for the Self? No, becuase the dont have a background education in Adviaita, and Adviata is the one true statement that is true for everyone.

Try James Swartz, Ramana, et all.  This here in the mainstream is the introduction to the idea of Self Relaization, but its not the path.  The egos decided that they knew more than the collective body or knowledge and this is why we get the Satsang hoppers and the Byron Katie enthusiasts who treat it like a religion.

Come on, serious students dont stop here at this.

[cetus]

41 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

 

Honestly, I'm stuck with my contemplations at "I am aware." I have experienced that I am not my thoughts, perceptions, sensations, emotions, etc. But I still view my body as inseparable from awareness. I get that it is out of awareness that I am aware of my body, but I also think that if I were to incapacitated somehow then I am no longer aware. If I were knocked unconscious, awareness of the universe still exists, but my awareness of reality does not. I still view it as something separate from my experience, even though awareness is the totality of experience. I guess a part of me is still expecting some grand awakening based on what I've heard and another part is saying "I am already awake and this is as good as it gets." That's the inner conflict that I can't seem to resolve. 

@HereNowThisMoment What Mooji shares @ 56:00 may help, Very insightful.

Edited August 11, 2016 by cetus56

[HereNowThisMoment]

17 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

You need some proper teachings.

The teachers who influenced me the most are Peter Ralston, Leo, Rupert Spira, Jiddu Krishnamurthi, Suzuki, Kapleau, and a bit of Adyashanti. I read/watch things by other people sometimes but not much. I was under the impression that those teachers knew what they were talking about. I will look up James Swartz and Ramana. 

20 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

The rules are set in stone, humanity is very fickle and it has its secret societies and teachings.

What are the rules? 

22 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Adviata is the one true statement that is true for everyone.

Isn't that a bit dogmatic...? 

23 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Come on, serious students dont stop here at this.

Don't worry, I'm not quitting until I find the truth.  

[Matthew Lamot]

Just now, HereNowThisMoment said:

The teachers who influenced me the most are Peter Ralston, Leo, Rupert Spira, Jiddu Krishnamurthi, Suzuki, Kapleau, and a bit of Adyashanti. I read/watch things by other people sometimes but not much. I was under the impression that those teachers knew what they were talking about. I will look up James Swartz and Ramana. 

What are the rules? 

Isn't that a bit dogmatic...? 

Don't worry, I'm not quitting until I find the truth.  

You can call it dogma, but just be aware that its you who is labelling it that.

Dogma is not what I'm seeing.  You can take a chance with those guys, it might be your karma.  

[HereNowThisMoment]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

You can call it dogma, but just be aware that its you who is labelling it that.

I'm not trying to label it, but I can't help but question it when someone points to a teaching and says that it is absolutely true. As Krishnamurthi said "truth is a pathless land." 

18 minutes ago, cetus56 said:

What Mooji conveys @ 56:00 may help, Very insightful and nicely put.

Thanks @cetus56

[cetus]

@HereNowThisMoment Experiencing what he is saying is amazing.  "What is infinite experiences itself through what is finite" Mooji

Edited August 11, 2016 by cetus56

[Matthew Lamot]

5 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

I'm not trying to label it, but I can't help but question it when someone points to a teaching and says that it is absolutely true. As Krishnamurthi said "truth is a pathless land." 

Thanks @cetus56

Its not Absolutely true.  This again is you and your mind.

Have I ever said that Advaitia Vedanta is the Absolute Truth?  It's not.  There are many aspects to the net we call consciousness.  If you want to fix up the identity then try Maslow and huamnistic psychology.  If you want expansion in to the no-ospehere then go for a Buddhist path.  If you want to Realize the ONE Self that then you need Adviatia.

This is relative existence.  There is a difference between McDonnalds and Gordon Ramsay.  If you want Mac Donnalds go there.  It works for that aspect of consciousness.  If you want Liberation you must go to the guys who specialize in liberation.

Have you even considered the belief that all these paths lead to the same goal might even be bullshit?

Being non- dogmaitc is a belief like any other, but one that fucks you over because when you want Gordons 3 star Michelin foie gras and instead you get a soggy Subway and you wonder what happened?

 

[Matthew Lamot]

12 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

As Krishnamurthi said "truth is a pathless land." 

Its quite clear to me that you have absolutely no understanding what Krishnamurti meant by this statement.  This is why we need to stick to specific theologies to get specific issues handled.

The pathless path IS Adviata Vedanta, because it says you are already the Self, but there is also a path involved to liberation.  Pathless path does NOT mean everything and anything works.

It could work, but you could leave it to chance for a few thousand lifetimes until your karma is good enough to manifest the real Guru

 

[HereNowThisMoment]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Have I ever said that Advaitia Vedanta is the Absolute Truth?  It's not.

I didn't mean to imply that you did either, but your statement "Adviata is the one true statement that is true for everyone" sounds very absolute. To say it is the one true statement and that it is true for everyone is what I would interpret to be an absolute statement. This is similar to using words like always, never, etc. But that being said, I don't want to get lost in semantical discussions, that's not important to me. 

I'm completely open to giving it a chance, I'm definitely not discounting it, but the statements you make make it seem as though the only enlightened people are those who come from that school of thought and that's not true. 

9 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Its quite clear to me that you have absolutely no understanding what Krishnamurti meant by this statement... Pathless path does NOT mean everything and anything works.

I never said that anything and everything works. But in saying that I "need Adviatia" is the same as saying that that is the only "path." My only point in quoting that statement was that different schools of thought seem to be similarly successful. Several widely accepted enlightened people such as Krishnamurti and Adyashanti renounced their ties to any specific teaching. Krishnamurthi's teaching was basically to observe oneself, which is essentially the same teaching that every other sect also touts. And my understanding of why it is pathless is because the inner workings of each person is different. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but just casting a blanket statement saying I have "absolutely no understanding" does nothing to help me understand...