Zhenren: The Authentic Person

[Geof Nanto]

Although his is not conventional Daoist usage of the term Zhenren (真人), there's much I like in these thoughts on authenticity from Scott Bradley...... 
 

Zhenren: The Authentic Person  

 

Zhenren, a term apparently coined by Zhuangzi himself, signifies the fully realized human being. It is variously translated as "True Man", "Genuine Man", or "Real Man". Roger Ames prefers "Authentic Person" (Wandering at Ease in the Zhuangzi; Introduction). Among his reasons, is his belief that it more faithfully conveys the root meaning of zhen which implies authorship and transformation. In other words, the Authentic Person is someone in the continual process of creative self-disclosure (ziran) in relation to the ever-transforming world. "That is", he writes, "whatever the exemplar might be, he or she is one who is able to express personal integrity and uniqueness in the context of a transforming world."

 

If there were more than one Authentic Person in the world, they would be very different expressions of the same authenticity. This is because such a person would not have realized some pre-existent, fixed and ideal 'original nature' common to all, but the unique expression of her own particularity. And not only this, her expression would also be a consequence of her transforming along with her particular and unique environmental context. Human authenticity is not static, but ever-dynamic. It is not conformity to some ideal norm, but the creation of an absolutely unique, entirely self-specific norm. Nor is it accomplished in a self-contained vacuum, but in relation to the world of personal experience.

 

We are called upon to emulate and aspire to Authentic Personhood. To do so is not to imagine being like someone else, but to apprehend the dynamic — creative and relational — that facilitates that transformation. The test of authenticity is integrity with respect to one's own particular expression of personhood.

 

The Authentic Person, moreover, has not "arrived", but is ever-evolving. Authenticity is ever-dynamic; if we can speak of possession, then this person is in possession of this dynamic, not of some imagined, fixed 'state of being'.

 

Yes, there are common, normative precipitants that manifest from this authenticity. Chief among these is freedom from the egoic identity, a presumption of a static, insular, and fixed self which must be protected from the transforming world at large. And this manifests as freedom from the fear of loss, there being nothing to lose, and freedom from the acquisitive desire for merit and name (thinking oneself and being thought to be someone special), there being no aspect of self requiring support. These are the signs of authenticity because they are also what make it possible.

 

Authenticity is always possible just as and where we are. No ideal is required. To be honestly engaged with the mess that we are, to be sincerely at work in the process of self-cultivation, is itself authenticity. Being human is authenticity, where that humanity realizes itself as self-creative and dynamic.

 

(from http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/zhenren-authentic-person.html )
 

[rene]

That was really nice, Yueya; thanks for posting it.

 

This part -

 

1 hour ago, Yueya said:

"That is", he writes, "whatever the exemplar might be, he or she is one who is able to express personal integrity and uniqueness in the context of a transforming world."

 

If there were more than one Authentic Person in the world, they would be very different expressions of the same authenticity. This is because such a person would not have realized some pre-existent, fixed and ideal 'original nature' common to all, but the unique expression of her own particularity.

 

- pretty much reflects the idea of Te, imo. Rather than a 'moralistic' virtue - the highest Te would be when the authentic self is most present. Integrity=being true self.

 

Does that make sense? Sorry, words aren't working right now.

 

Warm regards.

[Geof Nanto]

1 hour ago, WuDao said:

  - pretty much reflects the idea of Te, imo. Rather than a 'moralistic' virtue - the highest Te would be when the authentic self is most present. Integrity=being true self.

 

Does that make sense? Sorry, words aren't working right now.

 

Warm regards.

 

Hi WuDao. 

 

Yes, that makes sense to me.  And I particularly like the second paragraph you quoted....

 

Quote

If there were more than one Authentic Person in the world, they would be very different expressions of the same authenticity. This is because such a person would not have realized some pre-existent, fixed and ideal 'original nature' common to all, but the unique expression of her own particularity.

 

I've just been outside clearing some of the saplings encroaching on my cabin. I very much don't like cutting them down but forest fire is an ever present danger here and I have forest virtually right up to my house. No rain for well over a month and the land is fast drying out.  Although it's still winter, compared to where you live I suspect it's as warm as your summer. (Today and yesterday high 20's deg C; that's low 80's F.) 

 

Best regards

 

.

 

[Marblehead]

I liked that very much as well.  It is very Chuangist.  But then, I am a Chuangist.

 

[Stosh]

I found myself in a conflict , and I am not sure what to do

, just to be 'authentic' would be to charge forward with blinkers on.No? .... Or would it be, to consider the situation and modify my behavior to a preexisting standard? 

Free from the concern that I am going to mow someone over, makes the equation simple, right ? , I just mow them down,  crush their self esteem , burst the bubble, and let them deal with the internal conflict. Is that how it works? That's Chuangist? 

[Stosh]

.. Yep ,difficult question there  Just look at everybody jumpin in to explain how riding roughshod over peoples feelings isn't the result of this Chuangist  'authenticity'.

 

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
(Woo woo, who who)

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint
(Who who, who who)

Edited August 17, 2017 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Well, here we are again, talking about being true to one's self.  Being authentic.  what is in your heart?  Do you feel this other person needs to be destroyed?  Why?  What right do you have to even judge that other person?  Hw would you feel if that person did the same thing to you?

 

Being authentic does not remove us from the responsibility of our thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

Do what thou will but harm none.

 

Ha!  There's the trick.  Be authentic but be respectful of others as well.  We can't always do that, can we?

 

Respect has to be earned, does it not?

 

 

 

 

[cold]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Well, here we are again, talking about being true to one's self.  Being authentic.  what is in your heart?  Do you feel this other person needs to be destroyed?  Why?  What right do you have to even judge that other person?  Hw would you feel if that person did the same thing to you?

 

Being authentic does not remove us from the responsibility of our thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

Do what thou will but harm none.

 

Almost if not completely impossible, maybe do what one thinks is least harmful?

 

Ha!  There's the trick.  Be authentic but be respectful of others as well.  We can't always do that, can we?

 

We can start from a base of respect and continue until it is no longer appropriate?

 

Respect has to be earned, does it not? 

 

The fastest way to lose my respect is to treat me with disrespect.

 

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

  Do you feel this other person needs to be destroyed?  Why?  What right do you have to even judge that other person?  Hw would you feel if that person did the same thing to you?

 

Almost instant judgement friend or foe?

Happens in an instant by all involved in initial meetings

 

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stosh]

5 hours ago, Marblehead said:

Well, here we are again, talking about being true to one's self.  Being authentic.  what is in your heart?  Do you feel this other person needs to be destroyed?  Why?  What right do you have to even judge that other person?  Hw would you feel if that person did the same thing to you?

 

Being authentic does not remove us from the responsibility of our thoughts, words, and deeds.

 

Do what thou will but harm none.

 

Ha!  There's the trick.  Be authentic but be respectful of others as well.  We can't always do that, can we?

 

Respect has to be earned, does it not?

 

 

 

 

You're asking whats authentic to me? , well , I think anything one does , is an 'authentic' summary statement. It just doesn't seem to be any kind of guide. 

 

Do they need to be destroyed,, well at the time I felt I was standing up fairly for myself , Later I started wondering about this persons , personal life , the troubles they may be having , and the difficulty they may have with me simply standing strongly on my point. I really don't know what his situation is , his true feelings, or whether he feels I have been unfair ,or if he is even bothered , or if he is just thinking F you.

  That being said , my words were what they were , and they will have the effect that proceeds . 

 Not knowing so much , I don't know whether I have done a thing I approve of or not. 

Respect has to bestowed , earning it,  is another thing. 

How would I feel if the situation were reversed ? .. I could handle it any way it pivots , but I'm not sure others can. I cant expect everyone to be as thick skinned as me,  or vilify everyone who isn't. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

As the above replies show, nothing is straightforward. Stosh, perhaps Scott’s words are only meaningful for someone on a path of seeking harmony with the flow of Dao? A path that with initial effort results in transformation happening of itself, ‘self-so’.  And as Scott mention, “there are common, normative precipitants that manifest from this authenticity. Chief among these is freedom from the egoic identity, a presumption of a static, insular, and fixed self which must be protected from the transforming world at large. And this manifests as freedom from the fear of loss, there being nothing to lose, and freedom from the acquisitive desire for merit and name (thinking oneself and being thought to be someone special), there being no aspect of self requiring support. These are the signs of authenticity because they are also what make it possible.”  Humility!

 

In Daoism, becoming a Zhenren is seen as a life long journey.  Daoists traditionally don’t use the term ‘enlightenment’ or ‘awakened’, but in Daoist conceptualisation a Zhenren can be likened to an enlightened person.  However, Scott Bradley waters down this meaning and describes key aspects of the journey. And I like that, in the sense that the journey is the goal.  

[Stosh]

He thinks that your authentic nature is not to have an identity , and there are expect-able consequences to that mindset.  

He thinks I feel the real world is a threat to my imagined self , and the cure is being humble. 

Humbleness equates to authenticity . 

So I have now ,   fairly summarized his words ,  in my own words,  and therefore I have shown I understand his point?  

Right? similar enough that I can go on ? 

Alright. This is the problem , Everyone still has an ego identity ,everyone still has concerns about what is going to happen to them. 

Many people have concerns about others, and have to make decisions which have consequences. And people do value themselves as having worth. 

 

Acting humble when you really have no cause to be , other than to pretend your spirituality , is a lie,

so he has twisted the meaning of authenticity to now indicate fake things. 

Humility now equates to being false, not authentic,,,  unless you feel you are in fact  worthless ( which is Still an ego position). 

 

 

 

[LAOLONG]

If i say :I am not a true man ,then
If actually i am not a true men then i
I told the true.
And if i am actually a true man then the saying  that i am not a true man ,is not true and so it is true that i am not a true men so i am a true man.☺

[rene]

10 hours ago, Stosh said:

I found myself in a conflict , and I am not sure what to do

, just to be 'authentic' would be to charge forward with blinkers on.No? ....

 

 

No.

 

10 hours ago, Stosh said:

 

Or would it be, to consider the situation and modify my behavior to a preexisting standard? 

 

 

Nope

 

10 hours ago, Stosh said:

Free from the concern that I am going to mow someone over, makes the equation simple, right ?

 

 

Not that either

 

10 hours ago, Stosh said:

 

, I just mow them down,  crush their self esteem , burst the bubble, and let them deal with the internal conflict. Is that how it works? That's Chuangist? 

 

Marblehead can speak to what is Chuangist; I'd have no idea on that.

 

What you are describing though is something different than the ideas in the OP.

 

I havent read yet past this post of yours so maybe its been cleared up. Travelling, intermittent cell service, will reply more fully when home Sat. Sending now while I can. Best regards, rene.

[Stosh]

11 minutes ago, SHINTO said:

If i say :I am not a true man ,then
If actually i am not a true men then i
I told the true.
And if i am actually a true man then the saying  that i am not a true man ,is not true and so it is true that i am not a true men so i am a true man.☺

Id say you are a true man regardless of what you say and whether it coincides linguistically. Because nothing that exists can be falsely existing.  Same conclusion I guess.

[Stosh]

 Ok Wudao, whats your affirmative assertion?  All men are humble when authentic? Or, authenticity may not be humility. Or.... 

 

" aint no sunshine when shes gone,

only darkness every day

an this house just aint no home ,

anytime she goes away... 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Stosh

[Geof Nanto]

Stosh, do you have a personal practice? I ask this because you regularly come across as if your participation here is just a way to pass the time; a game; a place to sound off lazy, half-baked opinions. Your above comments show you have no idea what this topic is about and no interest in trying to understand it. And you like to provoke disputes. Your motto could well be, “I dispute, therefore I am.” I don’t think you realise how much damage you do as the spiritual toxicity of your modus operandi of stirring up jejune contention ripples out through the web of psychic energy that connects us all.  I certainly feel it. It’s a very negative way to connect with people.  The Daodejing repeatedly advises against it for good reason. 

 

I know you’re capable of better than this. You reveal glimpses of it at times. But why do you so seldom display this side of yourself? Why do you shy away from engagement that’s constructive? I write not with animosity but with hope of some meaningful resolution. And if it doesn’t result in any resolution, my wry sense of humour tells me that my stirring up of contention should please you greatly. However, if you want to continue along the path of what I find as meaningless contention, then it's unlikely I'll reply to you.
 

[Wu Ming Jen]

I read that scott is saying authentic or the term I use is real person is not a fixed position, ego has no power to accomplish for no gain, their is no end prize. The set up is healthy psychology or balanced minded IMO.

 

being everything but mostly oneself allowing for  all with no ideal required. I enjoyed it very much.

[dawei]

19 hours ago, Yueya said:

If there were more than one Authentic Person in the world, they would be very different expressions of the same authenticity. This is because such a person would not have realized some pre-existent, fixed and ideal 'original nature' common to all, but the unique expression of her own particularity

 

I agree that this part is key... lots of interesting uses of the term in daoist writings.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhenren

[LAOLONG]

.

Edited August 19, 2017 by SHINTO

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Yueya said:

Stosh, do you have a personal practice? I ask this because you regularly come across as if your participation here is just a way to pass the time; a game; a place to sound off lazy, half-baked opinions. Your above comments show you have no idea what this topic is about and no interest in trying to understand it. And you likeisputes. Your motto could well be, “I dispute, therefore I am.” I don’t think you realise how much damage you do as the spiritual toxicity of your modus operandi of stirring up jejune contention ripples out through the web of psychic energy that connects us all.  I certainly feel it. It’s a very negative way to connect with people.  The Daodejing repeatedly advises against it for good reason. 

 

I know you’re capable of better than this. You reveal glimpses of it at times. But why do you so seldom display this side of yourself? Why do you shy away from engagement that’s constructive? I write not with animosity but with hope of some meaningful resolution. And if it doesn’t result in any resolution, my wry sense of humour tells me that my stirring up of contention should please you greatly. However, if you want to continue along the path of what I find as meaningless contention, then it's unlikely I'll reply to you.
 

You didnt reply. Youre creating a hysterical scenario of upset. Your op presents an opinion , someone elses opinion, who you appearently  .app apparently want to agree with unquestioningly.  Yes you are indeed writing with animosity.  You have an ego, you want respect and dignity and this dude told you that your salvation was humility. I say you deserve respect and are justified in expecting it, just not to the extent that I need to pretend what he said was anything more than a circular redefinition of the word airhenticity. authenticity.  You wish humility? Ok, be courteous, take back your insults, admit your hero was wrong, and promise not to do these outbursts any more. 

[Geof Nanto]

Oh Stosh, I have no desire to respond to any of that but I have read it. 

[Marblehead]

Is it time to agree to disagree and just let it go?

 

Sometimes I just stop talking.  That works pretty well.

 

[Stosh]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Is it time to agree to disagree and just let it go?

 

Sometimes I just stop talking.  That works pretty well.

 

That would have been appropriate before the personal attack , not speaking, or as I call it , 'getting off the planet' is your solution for me ,

but what I have seen of your own behavior is certainly not just to shut up and drop the whole thing once you've been insulted. 

If Yueya , who attacked my practice, values this 'authenticity' this 'humility',  there needs to be an apology. 

That's just obvious isn't it ? Without one , the prevailing attitude Yueya is displaying,  is pride arrogance and aggression with a smattering passive aggressiveness. 

Consider it an opportunity for growth. Its the right thing to do. 

[Marblehead]

Yep.  We all are different people and we each deal with life in our own way.

 

I'm not passing judgement.  Just asking us all to think and consider the ramifications of what we say in our discussions here.

 

(We shouldn't talk about how I deal with insults.  Hehehe.)

 

[Stosh]

"Yes, there are common, normative precipitants that manifest from this authenticity. Chief among these is freedom from the egoic identity, a presumption of a static, insular, and fixed self which must be protected from the transforming world at large. And this manifests as freedom from the fear of loss, there being nothing to lose, and freedom from the acquisitive desire for merit and name (thinking oneself and being thought to be someone special), there being no aspect of self requiring support. These are the signs of authenticity because they are also what make it possible.

 

Authenticity is always possible just as and where we are. No ideal is required. To be honestly engaged with the mess that we are, to be sincerely at work in the process of self-cultivation, is itself authenticity. Being human is authenticity, where that humanity realizes itself as self-creative and dynamic."

 

Fine,,,,  the implications of what was declared by Mr Scott Bradley..

 Scott says that  authentic humans  , don't desire merit , don't have egoic identity , and being human bestows authenticity.  Its circular.

( as well as just untrue , the vast majority of humans desire merit and identity) 

The implication is that those who have ego identity aren't human., which violates the "not thinking of oneself special' virtue  

since if you think  you're a humble- true human , and I differ , then I am not as special as you.  

Who the heck is he to say everyone who values pride and dignity aren't authentic humans ? what an arrogant position that is! 

I expect Yueya wont apologize for the insults , the only reason would be pride and he says Yueya isnt a true human ! 

His- theirs ,is still an ego position. 'They' are just saying they don't desire merit , but they will  label themselves as authentic if they have no identity or merit., that's not 'authentic' in the normal use of authentic. 

The conclusions are the "normative precipitants that manifest from" the statement as endorsed.