Insight About Honesty Worth Contemplating

[DocHoliday]

The degree to which one can be perfectly honest and therefore, authentic, is directly correlating to what he hangs on to and is afraid to lose.
The preservation of oneself and the capability to be honest are opposing factors. 

Edited March 3, 2018 by DocHoliday
Formation

[Faceless]

12 minutes ago, DocHoliday said:

The preservation of oneself and the capability to be honest are opposing factors. 

The contradition of fear and sincerity 

[Joseph Maynor]

I define authentic as no Ego.  Ego is the sense of controlling, doing, or conceptually-knowing.  So, once you give Ego up, that's where authenticity begins.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[DocHoliday]

@Joseph Maynor Yes, that's exactly what I meant with the second statement. As long as you want to preserve "yourself", you can neither be authentic nor honest about all the things that would destroy one's self image. EDIT: But when you're ready to give yourself up, or respectively the concept that you have of yourself, then you can be truly authentic. But still, this gives rise to another question (especially for you Joseph): Is character (including personal preferences and likes and dislikes) now equal to ego or are they two different things?

Edited March 3, 2018 by DocHoliday

[DocHoliday]

24 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

I define authentic as no Ego.  Ego is the sense of controlling, doing, or conceptually-knowing.  So, once you give Ego up, that's where authenticity begins.

@Joseph Maynor Well, first of all I'd define ego as the primary sense of separation - the notion that you're an somehow individual being that is detached and differnt from other beings, especially other human beings. Beyond that, there's surely the relinquishment of control, an active doership and other things as well.

[Joseph Maynor]

31 minutes ago, DocHoliday said:

@Joseph Maynor Yes, that's exactly what I meant with the second statement. As long as you want to preserve "yourself", you can neither be authentic nor honest about all the things that would destroy one's self image. EDIT: But when you're ready to give yourself up, or respectively the concept that you have of yourself, then you can be truly authentic. But still, this gives rise to another question (especially for you Joseph): Is character (including personal preferences and likes and dislikes) now equal to ego or are they two different things?

No.  The best way to think of this is like this.  You have no Ego.  The Dream is the dream.  You are aware of the dream but do not control, do, or conceptually know anything in the Dream.  The Ego is what you falsely believe is controlling, doing, and conceptually-knowing.  What you are is Atman, unchanging Awareness.  And that's what everybody else is too, Atman.  Thus we have, Atman = Brahman.  Brahman = Atman.  It's that simple.  Ego is what is false!

Edited March 3, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[dorg]

So what is authentic then? If inauthentic is gone, then does authenticity have any meaning? IOW, does the word "authentic" point to anything?

Do any words actually authentically point to anything?

Don't we need the inauthentic in order to refer or point to the authentic? Can they in fact be separated?

[Joseph Maynor]

7 minutes ago, dorg said:

So what is authentic then? If inauthentic is gone, then does authenticity have any meaning? IOW, does the word "authentic" point to anything?

Do any words actually authentically point to anything?

Don't we need the inauthentic in order to refer or point to the authentic? Can they in fact be separated?

Authenticity = BE-ing.  It's funny, at the advanced stages, this material can be expressed in such simplistic ways.  It's very paradoxical.  Things are really very simple.  The Ego doesn't want things to seem simple.  But things are very simple at the advanced stages of this work.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[DocHoliday]

23 minutes ago, dorg said:

So what is authentic then? If inauthentic is gone, then does authenticity have any meaning? IOW, does the word "authentic" point to anything?

Do any words actually authentically point to anything?

Don't we need the inauthentic in order to refer or point to the authentic? Can they in fact be separated?

No, of course authenticity and inauthenticity is a valid and still applicabale relative duality. Inauthenticity can be defined as neurotic behaviour or other types of behaviour that hide your true intentions and/or needs and desires. So, deceiving, lying and refusing to acknowledge facts and truths are examples of inauthenticity, therefore, authenticity is the opposite of that, meaning it is being honest and direct about what you want and about what you mean without holding back, as you don't have to protect anything anymore when you're truly being authentic. That's what it is essentially, not needing to hide or white-wash anything is being authentic. Yes you can also say that authenticity = Being, but almost nobody will actually understand what that means if they haven't had the direct experience of it.

Edited March 3, 2018 by DocHoliday
Grammar

[dorg]

@DocHoliday @Joseph Maynor thank you for your responses.

[Nahm]

@DocHoliday That is truth man. Not a word shy to boot. Thanks! 

[DocHoliday]

@Nahm Thanks too. The harsher it (subjectively) comes across the truer it probably is That's why I like it rough, I guess...