What Is Authenticity? Does It Even Exist?

[HereNowThisMoment]

48 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

You can take a chance with those guys

For what it's worth, Rupert Spira comes from advaita school of thought and his teachings were what prompted me to write my first post where you commented "You need some proper teachings." 

 

[Matthew Lamot]

37 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

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. 

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... 

OK.  Well, I gave you my advice, you posted here, perhaps my delivery was not suited to your open minded palette, but a sincere seeker reads between the lines and is looking for what is there that is of value rather than playing word games and subtely defending themselves against the violation of some unresolved value.

Its there if you want it, I apologise that my delivery was ineffective.

If you are open for sincere discussion then you can message me.  If not, then that fine also

[HereNowThisMoment]

38 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

OK.  Well, I gave you my advice, you posted here, perhaps my delivery was not suited to your open minded palette, but a sincere seeker reads between the lines and is looking for what is there that is of value rather than playing word games and subtely defending themselves against the violation of some unresolved value.

Its there if you want it, I apologise that my delivery was ineffective.

If you are open for sincere discussion then you can message me.  If not, then that fine also

As I said before, I am completely open to discussion, and I also apologize if my response seemed defensive, that was not my intent. My response was intended to keep the discussion moving forward, you made your statements and I made mine to question your premise. In an endeavor that is based on finding what is true, questions and disagreements are bound to happen, especially if the participants are thinking critically rather than simply accepting what is being said. 

[Matthew Lamot]

3 hours 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.

OK, I will try to be more helpful.  I dont want to come across as a teacher, just a guy who knows a bit of stuff and can offer a pointer to complete sources that will actually help you, because this statement here says that you have not experienced nirvikalpa samadhi yet.

This is vital information.  I need to know what enlightenment is, I need a road map, because then I wont be on Actualized.org asking about it, I'll be with my teacher who knows the system inside out and who can help me with these things.

You have not experienced your independence of the world yet.  You need to experience that before you can be sure that you cannot be destroyed.

Youre still identified as mind and matter.  The teaching is that consciousness gives rise to mind and matter by projecting itself outward as an appearance.  This is not a belief, but an instruction to contemplate.  And inquiry for want of a better word.

So this is the first hurdle.

If you had a decent teacher you would know this, because you know it theoretically and when you stumble upon NKS there will be absolutely no doubt that you are not this body.

I don't follow Adya, but if he's not giving you this teaching then it's because A) he does not know B) Hes a Buddhist, therefore he is not Self-Realized, he's still trying to realize emptiness which is still an appearance inside the illusion.  

See where Im going with this?

[Matthew Lamot]

41 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

As I said before, I am completely open to discussion, and I also apologize if my response seemed defensive, that was not my intent. My response was intended to keep the discussion moving forward, you made your statements and I made mine to question your premise. In an endeavor that is based on finding what is true, questions and disagreements are bound to happen, especially if the participants are thinking critically rather than simply accepting what is being said. 

By the way , I am all for critical thinking.  It is much needed in this world right now, and I'v spent years myself doing the same.  Teachings however, right teachings, are not debatable.  This defeats the object.  The teachings are there to be internalized through experience.  

Endless debate of teachings is not the road to Realization.  So open mindedness is appt in one situation but not others.  If I approach the non dual teachings with criticism I am setting myself up for failure.

I'm happy to critique crap like The Power Of Now, because it is obviously a false teaching.  That much is obvious when you scratch the surface and begin to see that Satsang with Mooji is just for the masses, even his own master said Mooji was not Self Realized.  

Apologies to whomever follows Mooji, my intent is not to offend (much), but 97% inform and encourage critical thinking about who has the real sources of info.

 

[HereNowThisMoment]

1 hour ago, Matthew Lamot said:

The teaching is that consciousness gives rise to mind and matter by projecting itself outward as an appearance.

Yes, I've heard Rupert Spira talk about that before but haven't contemplated it enough on my own. 

1 hour ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Hes a Buddhist, therefore he is not Self-Realized, he's still trying to realize emptiness which is still an appearance inside the illusion.

If you honestly don't see how dogmatic this view is then I don't even know what to say. There is simply no evidence for this assertion but if you have some feel free to share it. This logic is the same as saying he's short therefore he can't like cotton candy, there is no basis or evidence for causation. Assuming that the Buddha was real, just about everyone would agree that he was enlightened... so to say "he's a Buddhist, therefore he cannot be enlightened" seems like an unfounded argument. Again though, feel free to prove me wrong, I welcome it, but I'm not open to simply accepting something because someone told me that I should. 

1 hour ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Teachings however, right teachings, are not debatable.  This defeats the object.  The teachings are there to be internalized through experience.

Have you ever considered that those teachings may be confirmed as correct because those who follow them and hold them as authority simply seek to confirm it in their experience? If they are truly correct then shouldn't other people also come upon those truths without hearing about them first? This to me sounds kinda like the placebo effect... wanting something to be real and so it becomes real for that person. 

1 hour ago, Matthew Lamot said:

If I approach the non dual teachings with criticism I am setting myself up for failure.

No, you are setting yourself up for believing something because you were told that you should believe it. This is no different than accepting any other religious teaching just because an authority figure told you to. 

[Matthew Lamot]

6 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

Yes, I've heard Rupert Spira talk about that before but haven't contemplated it enough on my own. 

If you honestly don't see how dogmatic this view is then I don't even know what to say. There is simply no evidence for this assertion but if you have some feel free to share it. This logic is the same as saying he's short therefore he can't like cotton candy, there is no basis or evidence for causation. Assuming that the Buddha was real, just about everyone would agree that he was enlightened... so to say "he's a Buddhist, therefore he cannot be enlightened" seems like an unfounded argument. Again though, feel free to prove me wrong, I welcome it, but I'm not open to simply accepting something because someone told me that I should. 

Have you ever considered that those teachings may be confirmed as correct because those who follow them and hold them as authority simply seek to confirm it in their experience? If they are truly correct then shouldn't other people also come upon those truths without hearing about them first? This to me sounds kinda like the placebo effect... wanting something to be real and so it becomes real for that person. 

No, you are setting yourself up for believing something because you were told that you should believe it. This is no different than accepting any other religious teaching just because an authority figure told you to. 

LOL

[HereNowThisMoment]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

LOL

So I guess you have no evidence or reason to believe what you're saying other than because you said so? Look, I have nothing against you or what you're trying to say, and again, I am open to it, but openness doesn't mean blindly accepting, especially because you made some very bold claims. 

[Matthew Lamot]

2 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

So I guess you have no evidence or reason to believe what you're saying other than because you said so? Look, I have nothing against you or what you're trying to say, and again, I am open to it, but openness doesn't mean blindly accepting, especially because you made some very bold claims. 

You blindly accept Mooji, Adyashanti and Eckhart Tolle.

So whats the big deal here?  Im not interested in convincing you.  I know what Im saying works, because it actually works, meditation did not work for me, and I decided to undertstand the intricacies of what is an essentally dumbed down manistream spiritual movement now.

Instead of spending energy debating with people I could not care less about, and you trying to strawman my strawmen while,we get into a conceptual tug of war while you attend to your next £3000 Adyshanti 10 day retreat, you could actually go research it yourself.  Dont shoot the messenger 

[HereNowThisMoment]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

You blindly accept Mooji, Adyashanti and Eckhart Tolle.

So whats the big deal here?  Im not interested in convincing you.  I know what Im saying works, because it actually works, meditation did not work for me, and I decided to undertstand the intricacies of what is an essentally dumbed down manistream spiritual movement now.

Instead of spending energy debating with people I could not care less about, and you trying to strawman my strawmen while,we get into a conceptual tug of war while you attend to your next £3000 Adyshanti 10 day retreat, you could actually go research it yourself.  Dont shoot the messenger 

Although I don't actually follow Mooji, Tolle, and barely follow Adyashanti, I do understand the argument that you're making. You're right, I am blindly following some teachers like Ralston and Krishnamurthi but I've been quick to discount what you're saying. I apologize for being hypocritical. I'm open to hearing what you have to say, where do we start? 

[Matthew Lamot]

@HereNowThisMoment Most people involved in this know that Mooji is not Self Realized.  Papaji, went on record saying that he only ever met 2 jhanis in his life.  Neither of them was "the leech" he had to get rid of.

What you are doing is accepting teachers who have no credibility, and rejecting info that is pretty much common knowledge in the scene.

If you want to buy into post modern ecclectic New Ageism and run down the traditions and the people who did the real hard work then what does this say about your own critical thinking?

Not much.

Who wants to debate with someone like that?

This is about your ego, and because you didnt like my delivery.  Thats what its really about

 

[HereNowThisMoment]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

@HereNowThisMoment Most people involved in this know that Mooji is not Self Realized.  Papaji, went on record saying that he only ever met 2 jhanis in his life.  Neither of them was "the leech" he had to get rid of.

What you are doing is accepting teachers who have no credibility, and rejecting info that is pretty much common knowledge in the scene.

If you want to buy into post modern ecclectic New Ageism and run down the traditions and the people who did the real hard work then what does this say about your own critical thinking?

Not much.

Who wants to debate with someone like that?

This is about your ego, and because you didnt like my delivery.  Thats what its really about

 

This was posted at the same time that I posted my other response, but yes, you're right about that. I was so adamantly holding onto my point of view and I didn't want to let go of it, it was about my ego. To be honest I didn't even realize it before you made that other post... so that's good evidence to me that I have blindspots that I'm not noticing because of my biases. 

[Matthew Lamot]

13 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

Although I don't actually follow Mooji, Tolle, and barely follow Adyashanti, I do understand the argument that you're making. You're right, I am blindly following some teachers like Ralston and Krishnamurthi but I've been quick to discount what you're saying. I apologize for being hypocritical. I'm open to hearing what you have to say, where do we start? 

Start with Google.  

 

[HereNowThisMoment]

@Matthew Lamot Maharshi? 

[Matthew Lamot]

5 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

@Matthew Lamot Maharshi? 

It is upto you what you do.  You are not open to discussion, you want me to back up my claims, but I'll be honest, all I have is my own experience and what I have learned for myself.  I cannot possibly verify every single point.  The points I was making were generalizations to get you to look at your own teachers.  I've had criticism from somebody who advocates Teal Swan.  As soon as a person mentions Teal Swan they must surely know they are shooting themselves in the foot there.  It's not about eletism either, its about finding out what works.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Any of these teachers could give some good advice.  But if you actually find experts in serious fields and not just people who read the latest New Age offerings you are going to find that there are vast differences in the teachings.  

How can you disregard contemplation of a teaching, a teaching that has been around for 3 millenia and that has produced some of the most highly respected Self Realized people in favour of making me wrong.  Who cares f i made a belief system from it?  I havent, Im just interested in what really works.  The point is, its advice to grow up and start looking for masters who can supplement what is missing from these New Age watered down methods.

[Matthew Lamot]

17 minutes ago, HereNowThisMoment said:

@Matthew Lamot Maharshi? 

Teal Swan or Maharshi + 3000 years of distilled tried and tested wisdom?  Whats to undertsand?

[Leo Gura]

On 8/10/2016 at 6:13 AM, Lynnel said:

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.

Yup, personality is innate.

But also acquired.

Every organism, whether human or not human, is unique and behaves in unique ways. It's partially genetic and partially environmental.

A human being raised in an African village will have a different personality than one raised in New York city.

The aim of the game is NOT to remove one's personality, but to see through the falsehood of the ego.

Personality != ego.

[HereNowThisMoment]

30 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

You are not open to discussion, you want me to back up my claims, but I'll be honest, all I have is my own experience and what I have learned for myself.  I cannot possibly verify every single point.

This right here was what I was trying to figure out... I wanted to know if you were speaking from experience or from just parroting teachings. 

33 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

It's not about eletism either, its about finding out what works.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Any of these teachers could give some good advice.  But if you actually find experts in serious fields and not just people who read the latest New Age offerings you are going to find that there are vast differences in the teachings.  

How can you disregard contemplation of a teaching, a teaching that has been around for 3 millenia and that has produced some of the most highly respected Self Realized people in favour of making me wrong.  Who cares f i made a belief system from it?  I havent, Im just interested in what really works.  The point is, its advice to grow up and start looking for masters who can supplement what is missing from these New Age watered down methods.

This is a good argument, point taken, I'll look into Advaita. 

33 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Teal Swan or Maharshi + 3000 years of distilled tried and tested wisdom?  Whats to undertsand?

Never even heard of Teal Swan haha 

I'll look into Maharshi's teachings