BIG BEINGS - Do they exist? Are you one?

[degraded being]

It's probably more important to consider Shape of a Being.
There have being some truly nicely shaped beings who have contributed a lot to humanity. Gandhi was obviously a wonderfully shaped being, as was Mother Theresa, although sometimes I couldn't figure out if she was square or triangular. Thomas Jefferson was undoubtedly oblong but the corners were rounded which explains his postulates. The octagonal ones are kind of special but most beings you see in the street are just kind of lumpy and lollipy; obviously not achieving much in the world.
It's lovely to see a being's shape developing as they go up the bridge.

 

[GoNuclear]

Oh, you're such a big being

Big Beings???????? Of COURSE there are Big Beings and I'm sure YOU ARE ONE OF THEM. That is why you are going to make it go right, and tell the man down at the bank EXACTLY what I told you to tell him, keeping your TR's in while you express this acceptable truth, and you will have TONE 40 INTENTION WITH NO RESERVATIONS, and he will give you that second mortgage on your house. Oh, BTW, tomorrow is Thursday, so have the check in here before 2, OK?

Pete

 

[lkwdblds]

There's a misduplication here.

As with all things the devil is in the definitions. By defining what constitutes a big being or a small being one creates them. You therefore are the creator, proprietor and major domo of HOTEL BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGG, Lakey.

I hope you like the hospitality industry.

I am sorry but I believe you mis duplicated me. I am not certain as to whether the concept of a Big Being is valid and if it is, what the definition should be. My first post was to mention how much wisdom is out there on ESMB, introduce the subject, kick it around a bit and do a survey as to what ESMB members thought.

Not very many people have taken the survey which I provided. However, a lot of good information has been posted along with a few excellent surveys. Yes, I like what your buddy Good Twin had to say which was summed up as "There are no small beings." Though that may be true, a being can perceive himself to be small or decide that he is small. The being then goes around operating as a small being, which is mute testimony to their actual power by virtue of the postulate that the being is small sticks.

I gave my current take on the subject and my definition of the term, yesterday in my post to Natascha. I notice of lot of responders do not read the Opening Post or most of the responses first and just jump in with off the cuff comments, often ignoring what has already been covered on the thread. On a thread such as this which is a survey asking others for their opinions and definitions of a term, just jumping in without reading the previous posts usually is of little or no value. The evolving discussion taking place has rendered the "jump in without reading poster's" response non applicable.

Nexus, in your system as outlined in your book, it is easy to define a Big Being in my opinion. In your "look - create" model of the Universe, it would simply be a Being who can look deeper into reality and as a result create better affects that an ordinary being.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

Yes, very true

Maybe you read part 2 of my story (Next Stop, Hubbardville) where I said that my sis in law said she was a Big Being and I thought it was ridiculous.

I lied. When she said it to me, I was such a collapsed ruin (to use the technical term) that I was intimidated and awed and whatever. Then I got regged and was told I :wink2: was a Big Being. That's when I thought it was ridiculous.

I try not to believe in invisible stuff anymore (I see dead delusions), but
I guess if I had to answer "is anybody a Big Being?" I would say that some human beings do Big things that the rest of us benefit from.

Yes, consider Rosa Parks, the black lady down South during the Jim Crow period in U.S. history who refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man. This was a very Big thing to do by Ms. Parks. If I read you correctly, you would say that she was an average person who did a Big Thing which the rest of us befefited from. That is one way to look at it. An equally valid way to look at it is to ask why, out of the millions of black people riding busses in the South over many years, Ms. Parks was the only one who had the greatness to do what she did and challenge an insane law? Her deed could be proof that she was a Big Being and that would be my take on it.
Lakey

 

[lkwdblds]

A valid answer to the question!

Size of a being is a completely subjective reality for each one and cannot be extrapolated into a generally valid definition.

The "Big Being" of today is the "Con Man" of tomorrow.

It always depends what your current perception is.

You gave a valid answer here. There is no grounds to argue anything that you say. I was hoping for more speculation and more elaboration but when someone gives a correct answer, they should be acknowledged.
Lakey

 

[paul.spiritualquest]

Big beings without PR and False Data

First of all, I would like to say that there is a LOT of exclusivity button pushed by LRH on the subject of Big Being, it is something he used a lot, to get people´s loyalty "you are the ONLY ONE". So we all get flattered when we hear we are Big Beings...


Is there such a thing as Big Beings?

Yes. But there more I´m out, I believe it is the invisible which makes one big, like the Gandhi, that from his simplicity changed a country. With true bigness comes earnest humbleness. Otherwise this BIG is EGO. And when it´s Ego, it is no true bigness, but true BIG EGO, hahaha.

Is everyone a Big Being?

Every SINGLE ONE OF US, has a unique and TRUE TALENT. The problem is that most of us, haven´t uncovered those, so those people that have unconvered their talents to THEMSELVES shine through as the big beings, although everybody has one such true talent that makes him/her unique.

I believe one of the meanings of life is to find and DEVELOP this UNIQUE TALENT. That´s one of the main missions in life.

Does everyone consider themselves a Big Being?

The true big ones don´t care, they are so passionate and dedicated to their true mission, to concern about such things.

The one´s who concern about this, are driven by EGO. It is part of a true path, to get rid of Ego, not necessarily and easy task.

Ask Echart Tolle what he things about Big Being, he won´t care? LRH? He cared to be the Biggest Being of all, and needed and HAD to demonstrate it ALL DAY LONG. Sign of not being a true "big" being.

Are you a Big Being?

I´m trying to work on my Ego. Ive made important steps, but not done yet. Who knows if there is an end of the road to this or just gradient constant improvements. Before I was concerned about imprinting my name in history, and fame and such things. Life, thanks God hit me so hard, that I had to look into myself and also my "cancer" developing involvement with Scn. (mentally speaking, as Scn. nourishes the Ego a lot, and the concept of getting "bigger", but not in heart terms, in conquest of MEST terms...)

If you believe someone is a Big Being, what is the criteria you used to decide that?

Misson, Passion, Conscience and Humbleness.

Tolle and Gandhi had all 4. LRH and Hitler, had only the first 2. Self-Importance was supposed to be trait number 13 of the anti-social personality, I would have included it. Probably LRH didn´t include it, as he was so self-important himself.

Is being a Big Being based on having a large amount of theta force or elan vital?

I believe it is based upon the unfolding of one´s true qualities. You can be aware of your true mission in a lifetime, and be passionate about it, and in another lifetime, be totally lost and not even know where is your "North" so to say.

Is it based on not the total amount of theta but only the amount of free theta available to the person?

Maybe yes. If the person has unearth his mission and is passionate about it, a lot of life force will be present. A lot of drive, and therefore accomplishment.

Is the amount of free theta available to the person finite or infinite?

Infinite as he/she goes to higher spiritual dimensions, 5th and so on. On the 3rd dimension there is so much that can be done, in all aspects.

Can the amount of free theta available to the person be increased through some sort of processing or meditation?

What will do most is UNEARTHING the true purpose, the mission of this person to be HERE. This is not what Ron will say it is, and probably not some simple Admin Scale stuff, like my purpose is...

I call it the WALLS OF WALLS. Let me explain. I underwent a very heavy crisis this last year. It was in all aspects of my life, personal, professional, etc... There is a very good parallel to goals and leadership. The leader you walk up is the administration of your goal, the steps you need to do. But WHERE the ladder is put against, THE WALL, is decided by leadership. We normally tend to confuse leadership with administration. Leadership is much more important, we need to decide on WHICH WALL, we will put the ladder and all our efforts.

I found, I was running on another WALL, the Churches wall, LRH´s wall, though I was a public...

So I believe the most important process is to unearth your WALL OF WALLS, the higher wall, the most important wall for yourself. I´m kinda developing some own processes to do that on my own...

Should you just look at ones production and products to decide?

If you have the ladder on the WRONG WALL, who cares!!! You can make as many eggs as you want but they are ALL WORTHLESS, and you will NEVER BE SPIRITUALLY SATISFIED, AND FEEL the plenty.

There has to be a balance between the production facility, the HEN, and the EGG. As Scientology is so EXCLUSIVELY egg oriented, (they don´t give a damn about the hen at all), one has to readjust, and first balance the spirit, the HEN, BIG TIME.

After you have your wall, you can produce eggs, but ALWAYS BALANCING THE HEN WITH THE EGGS, THE PRODUCTION FACILITY and the PRODUCTS.

Do intangibles such as charisma and style play a part?

Once you have found your talent and mission in life, believe me, you will have all the charisma in the world, but it will be your style! Not LRH´s or anybody else´s-

 

[Gadfly]

As with all things the devil is in the definitions. By defining what constitutes a big being or a small being one creates them. You therefore are the creator, proprietor and major domo of HOTEL BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGG, Lakey.

I hope you like the hospitality industry.

That's what I meant in my initial response. The whole discussion is loaded, because there are SO many hidden "meanings" and "significances", along Scientology lines, having to do with the idea. And, the concept has been inextricably wrapped up with "ego", because Hubbard pushed THAT button hard, and repeatedly, just as paul.spiritualquest aptly pointed out:

". . . exclusivity button pushed by LRH on the subject of Big Being, it is something he used a lot, to get people´s loyalty "you are the ONLY ONE". So we all get flattered when we hear we are Big Beings".

This idea, and all related notions about it, exists for the most part in your head. There is little "out there" that correlates to this significance, mocked up and held onto by you, the mocker-upper, by the idea "big being". The idea of "big being", was just another of Hubbard's tools, used to manipulate YOU. He created MANY such tools, in the form of IDEAS, that were accepted, adopted, believed and "thought about using your own energy". It is you who supply the energy that keeps the bars of any prison cell intact for you. Where in this case the "prison cell" is a metaphorical prison cell, held in place by and through the IDEAS you keep alive solely with your OWN mental energy.

Scientology is such an insidious trap. Hubbard well explains, in certain ways, how YOU are the one who puts yourself into your own condition, whatever that condition may be, through postulates, considerations and agreements, and THEN he ably tricks you into accepting a whole convoluted set of Hubbard-created postulates, considerations and agreements THAT directly acts to TRAP YOU. He actually tells you ALL about it, the mechanics of it all, smiling at you the entire time, and then he DOES it to you! Bad Hubby Dub!

 

[nozeno]

Snippity snip

I feel like I am a Beijing, don't you?

No.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1559540561?bctid=59905567001

 

[lkwdblds]

We seem to have 2 categories here!

Paul - This is the most thorough response anybody has made so far. Thank you for taking the time to answer. Notice that I only said most thorough and not necessarily the best. It is also among the best, and you have hit on a couple of excellent points which I would like to acknowledge and also to comment on. Before doing so, I would like to comment that there seems to be TWO SEPARATE TOPICS being discussed here. #1 is the subject of BIG BEINGS as a whole (both in an out of Scientology) #2 is the subject of how LRH created the term and corrupted it to compliment beings so as to better lure them into his trap. I had no interest or intention of taking up #2 but since at least half the responses immediately zero in on #2 and ignore #1, I will comment on #2 as well and bring it under our umbrella of BIG BEINGS.

First of all, I would like to say that there is a LOT of exclusivity button pushed by LRH on the subject of Big Being, it is something he used a lot, to get people´s loyalty "you are the ONLY ONE". So we all get flattered when we hear we are Big Beings...


Is there such a thing as Big Beings?

Yes. But there more I´m out, I believe it is the invisible which makes one big, like the Gandhi, that from his simplicity changed a country. With true bigness comes earnest humbleness. Otherwise this BIG is EGO. And when it´s Ego, it is no true bigness, but true BIG EGO, hahaha.

I feel it is an arbitrary to exclude a BIG BEINGS from the ranks of such and put him in a separate category called BIG EGO. You have every right to hold this opinion but to me it is more honest to state that the person is a BIG BEING who has develooped a big ego. Having a big ego would be used as an adjective or modifier, not as a separate category. LRH himself is a prime example of such a being. Another Big Being who was like this in a more pleasant way was Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) the boxer. His ego was nearly as big as Hubbard's but was not in the least used to trap beings.

Is everyone a Big Being?

Every SINGLE ONE OF US, has a unique and TRUE TALENT. The problem is that most of us, haven´t uncovered those, so those people that have unconvered their talents to THEMSELVES shine through as the big beings, although everybody has one such true talent that makes him/her unique.

I believe one of the meanings of life is to find and DEVELOP this UNIQUE TALENT. That´s one of the main missions in life.

This is interesting! I tend to go along with this as a theory. You have the right to assert it boldly as you do but the assertion is only your opinion. If this were to be true, it presupposes a Creator who designed the game of life and decided to create no being who did not have at least one TRUE TALENT. While an extremely interesting concept, I feel it is a little presumptious of you to assert it as a truth. Why don't you start a thread on this? I think it would be a hot button and would generate some great discourse.

Does everyone consider themselves a Big Being?

The true big ones don´t care, they are so passionate and dedicated to their true mission, to concern about such things.

EXCELLENT POINT - I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT

The one´s who concern about this, are driven by EGO. It is part of a true path, to get rid of Ego, not necessarily and easy task.

Ask Echart Tolle what he things about Big Being, he won´t care? LRH? He cared to be the Biggest Being of all, and needed and HAD to demonstrate it ALL DAY LONG. Sign of not being a true "big" being.

All the above is so true and nicely stated.

Are you a Big Being?

I´m trying to work on my Ego. Ive made important steps, but not done yet. Who knows if there is an end of the road to this or just gradient constant improvements. Before I was concerned about imprinting my name in history, and fame and such things. Life, thanks God hit me so hard, that I had to look into myself and also my "cancer" developing involvement with Scn. (mentally speaking, as Scn. nourishes the Ego a lot, and the concept of getting "bigger", but not in heart terms, in conquest of MEST terms...)

TR 4 - Your comments are pertinent and interesting but do not actually answer the question being asked. so please answer the question.

If you believe someone is a Big Being, what is the criteria you used to decide that?

Misson, Passion, Conscience and Humbleness

ABSOLUTELY GREAT ANSWER! I love the art of condensing major thoughts into few words. I was trying to devise a pnemonic so as to try and remember these. The first letters of each word could be arranged as CH then MP. If we remembered Conscience, Humbleness and Mission, Passion, we could remember the word Champ, if the person also had Ego he would be recatatorized as a Chump. Besides the brevity, I like the words themselves as being the essence of a Big Beingness. The only thing is that I believe one needs a carrier wave of charisma, style or grace to get people's attention. You take that up below, saying that it will automatically be present if the 4 major components are present.

Tolle and Gandhi had all 4. LRH and Hitler, had only the first 2. Self-Importance was supposed to be trait number 13 of the anti-social personality, I would have included it. Probably LRH didn´t include it, as he was so self-important himself.

Is being a Big Being based on having a large amount of theta force or elan vital?

I believe it is based upon the unfolding of one´s true qualities. You can be aware of your true mission in a lifetime, and be passionate about it, and in another lifetime, be totally lost and not even know where is your "North" so to say.

This is an extremely engaging point! Had Hitler been born in any country but Post World War I Germany or Austria, WWII never would have happened based on your observation and I believe that is 100% true. He had to come from a German Speaking country who lost in WWI or he never would have got to where he did. Also, Germany had to get screwed by the peace settlement the victors imposed after WWI and then the Great Depression had to happen to weaken the Weimar Republic's chances of succeeding in Germany. If any of these things didn't happen, Hitler would have lived out his life in obscurity.

Is it based on not the total amount of theta but only the amount of free theta available to the person?

Maybe yes. If the person has unearth his mission and is passionate about it, a lot of life force will be present. A lot of drive, and therefore accomplishment

This is also a theory which you have which you are asserting to be true. I hope it is true and like the concept but again it presupposes a huge resevoir of elan vital, lying dorman in every person and while a valid theory, there is not proof of that whatever.

Is the amount of free theta available to the person finite or infinite?

Infinite as he/she goes to higher spiritual dimensions, 5th and so on. On the 3rd dimension there is so much that can be done, in all aspects.

Can the amount of free theta available to the person be increased through some sort of processing or meditation?

What will do most is UNEARTHING the true purpose, the mission of this person to be HERE. This is not what Ron will say it is, and probably not some simple Admin Scale stuff, like my purpose is...

I call it the WALLS OF WALLS. Let me explain. I underwent a very heavy crisis this last year. It was in all aspects of my life, personal, professional, etc... There is a very good parallel to goals and leadership. The leader you walk up is the administration of your goal, the steps you need to do. But WHERE the ladder is put against, THE WALL, is decided by leadership. We normally tend to confuse leadership with administration. Leadership is much more important, we need to decide on WHICH WALL, we will put the ladder and all our efforts.

I found, I was running on another WALL, the Churches wall, LRH´s wall, though I was a public...

So I believe the most important process is to unearth your WALL OF WALLS, the higher wall, the most important wall for yourself. I´m kinda developing some own processes to do that on my own...

Should you just look at ones production and products to decide?

If you have the ladder on the WRONG WALL, who cares!!! You can make as many eggs as you want but they are ALL WORTHLESS, and you will NEVER BE SPIRITUALLY SATISFIED, AND FEEL the plenty.

There has to be a balance between the production facility, the HEN, and the EGG. As Scientology is so EXCLUSIVELY egg oriented, (they don´t give a damn about the hen at all), one has to readjust, and first balance the spirit, the HEN, BIG TIME.

After you have your wall, you can produce eggs, but ALWAYS BALANCING THE HEN WITH THE EGGS, THE PRODUCTION FACILITY and the PRODUCTS.

Do intangibles such as charisma and style play a part?

Once you have found your talent and mission in life, believe me, you will have all the charisma in the world, but it will be your style! Not LRH´s or anybody else´s-

Your last statment is again a nice theory which I hope is true but my gut instinct is that it is not. I can easily conceive of person who has found his talent and mission in life but lacks the power and the charisma to attract a large following. Some such people have succeeded anyway by linking up with others who have the quality. If what you say is true and everyone has charisma on demand if only they discover their TRUE TALENT and their MISSION then I can only hope that you are right about this but doubt that you are.
Lakey

PS - That large body of data you wrote above your last paragraph would make a nice thread on its own. I do not feel qualified to comment on that.

 

[lkwdblds]

I agree that LRH used Being Being destructively

That's what I meant in my initial response. The whole discussion is loaded, because there are SO many hidden "meanings" and "significances", along Scientology lines, having to do with the idea. And, the concept has been inextricably wrapped up with "ego", because Hubbard pushed THAT button hard, and repeatedly, just as paul.spiritualquest aptly pointed out:

". . . exclusivity button pushed by LRH on the subject of Big Being, it is something he used a lot, to get people´s loyalty "you are the ONLY ONE". So we all get flattered when we hear we are Big Beings".

This idea, and all related notions about it, exists for the most part in your head. There is little "out there" that correlates to this significance, mocked up and held onto by you, the mocker-upper, by the idea "big being". The idea of "big being", was just another of Hubbard's tools, used to manipulate YOU. He created MANY such tools, in the form of IDEAS, that were accepted, adopted, believed and "thought about using your own energy". It is you who supply the energy that keeps the bars of any prison cell intact for you. Where in this case the "prison cell" is a metaphorical prison cell, held in place by and through the IDEAS you keep alive solely with your OWN mental energy.

Scientology is such an insidious trap. Hubbard well explains, in certain ways, how YOU are the one who puts yourself into your own condition, whatever that condition may be, through postulates, considerations and agreements, and THEN he ably tricks you into accepting a whole convoluted set of Hubbard-created postulates, considerations and agreements THAT directly acts to TRAP YOU. He actually tells you ALL about it, the mechanics of it all, smiling at you the entire time, and then he DOES it to you! Bad Hubby Dub!

As I have tried to make clear above, all of your negarive writings concening LRH and how he used the Big Being concept to ensnare people were not really the aspect of Big Beingness which I wanted to discuss. Since you, Nexus and some others continually return this theme, I just want to say that I agree with all of what you write in that area and have nothing further to add to it.
Lakey

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Lovely shapes of beingness...

It's probably more important to consider Shape of a Being.
There have being some truly nicely shaped beings who have contributed a lot to humanity. Gandhi was obviously a wonderfully shaped being, as was Mother Theresa, although sometimes I couldn't figure out if she was square or triangular. Thomas Jefferson was undoubtedly oblong but the corners were rounded which explains his postulates. The octagonal ones are kind of special but most beings you see in the street are just kind of lumpy and lollipy; obviously not achieving much in the world.
It's lovely to see a being's shape developing as they go up the bridge.

I've always liked the dodecahedron, myself...also will profess a great fondness and sympathetic vibration for Fibinachi spirals wherever they are to be found in nature. You and I should dance together!

 

[A.K. Myers]

Big Beings???????? Of COURSE there are Big Beings and I'm sure YOU ARE ONE OF THEM. That is why you are going to make it go right, and tell the man down at the bank EXACTLY what I told you to tell him, keeping your TR's in while you express this acceptable truth, and you will have TONE 40 INTENTION WITH NO RESERVATIONS, and he will give you that second mortgage on your house. Oh, BTW, tomorrow is Thursday, so have the check in here before 2, OK?

Pete

Or,

NOT FEELING AS BIG AS YOU SHOULD BE?
$cientology can help you with that!

See your registrar today!
​

$cientology, bilking wanna-be gods since 1952!​

 

[nexus100]

I am sorry but I believe you mis duplicated me. I am not certain as to whether the concept of a Big Being is valid and if it is, what the definition should be. My first post was to mention how much wisdom is out there on ESMB, introduce the subject, kick it around a bit and do a survey as to what ESMB members thought.

Not very many people have taken the survey which I provided. However, a lot of good information has been posted along with a few excellent surveys. Yes, I like what your buddy Good Twin had to say which was summed up as "There are no small beings." Though that may be true, a being can perceive himself to be small or decide that he is small. The being then goes around operating as a small being, which is mute testimony to their actual power by virtue of the postulate that the being is small sticks.

I gave my current take on the subject and my definition of the term, yesterday in my post to Natascha. I notice of lot of responders do not read the Opening Post or most of the responses first and just jump in with off the cuff comments, often ignoring what has already been covered on the thread. On a thread such as this which is a survey asking others for their opinions and definitions of a term, just jumping in without reading the previous posts usually is of little or no value. The evolving discussion taking place has rendered the "jump in without reading poster's" response non applicable.

Nexus, in your system as outlined in your book, it is easy to define a Big Being in my opinion. In your "look - create" model of the Universe, it would simply be a Being who can look deeper into reality and as a result create better affects that an ordinary being.
Lakey

I read both posts, FYI.

The book does not state there are Big Beings nor imply it IMO, although I can see how someone could get that out of it with a certain viewpoint.

Human society makes the one who covers the most ground the "winner". Business and war are good examples. In the spiritual harmonic of same, the "smart" one is admired because he or she knows more, as in shamans and Stephen Hawking and such. And OT's, of course.

But we all "know" (create) exactly the same amount of stuff. Exactly the same. We're just aware of it or we are not aware of it. This is a choice we each make to play the game. One can examine choices more consciously if present circumstances aren't appealing. That means, simply, knowing what one is creating, not creating "more".

"Theta" does not exist IMO. It makes a poor model because it implies, as does the question of your post, that there is a morality to creation. "Big", is, after all, better than "small". But one does not "solve" until the idea of right/wrong big/small good/bad is left in the dust and we are all, if not equal, equivalent.

It is aggravating to see those horrid and misleading Scientology ideas kicked around on ESMB. Which of course means I have something to work through and should thank you for putting them up.
So, I will. Thank you, Lakey!

 

[lkwdblds]

Clarifications of clarifications

I read both posts, FYI.

The book does not state there are Big Beings nor imply it IMO, although I can see how someone could get that out of it with a certain viewpoint.

I never even remotely suggested that the book stated it or implied it. I purchased and read the book and just mentioned in passing that if one being could look deeper than another being at what was actually there, that could (not would but only could) make one consider the being who was able to look deeper as the bigger of two beings. This is just an idle speculation on my part. I in know way attribute this line of reasoning to you or your book.

Human society makes the one who covers the most ground the "winner". Business and war are good examples. In the spiritual harmonic of same, the "smart" one is admired because he or she knows more, as in shamans and Stephen Hawking and such. And OT's, of course.

But we all "know" (create) exactly the same amount of stuff. Exactly the same. We're just aware of it or we are not aware of it. This is a choice we each make to play the game. One can examine choices more consciously if present circumstances aren't appealing. That means, simply, knowing what one is creating, not creating "more".

"Theta" does not exist IMO. It makes a poor model because it implies, as does the question of your post, that there is a morality to creation. "Big", is, after all, better than "small". But one does not "solve" until the idea of right/wrong big/small good/bad is left in the dust and we are all, if not equal, equivalent.

Big is not always better. Take the human posterior for example, especially for females. So many women down at the gym trying to reduce the size of their ass, and shape up that ass. I for one prefer small and shapely to big in that instance and in many other instances as well.

It is aggravating to see those horrid and misleading Scientology ideas kicked around on ESMB. Which of course means I have something to work through and should thank you for putting them up.

What is a Scientology idea kicked around? To me only about 25% of Big Beingness is Scientology related, 75% relates to the world at large. In the 25% which is Scientology I share the views which you and Gadfly espouse.

Why does exploring the concept out in the world at large offend you so much? I think you answer that question well in your last paragraph.

To present my opening remarks as more than just Scientology ideas again and again and again even though I explain that I am more interested in the non Scientology side of the story, Not being duplicated is beginning to aggravate me and now I have something to work through myself. I thank you, Nexus for causing me this aggravation so that I can now run it out.

So, I will. Thank you, Lakey!

You are welcome. Thank you also for giving me something to run out!

You know, I used the Nelson Mandela Movie, that brought in the use of a Christian concept of "my soul" and I used that and I used the play, Death of a Salesman and the term "elan vital" which is non Scientology. I like the term Big Being better than the best non Scientology equivalent I could think of, "A Giant amongst Men". I then use non Scientology terms such as charisma, grace, style, savior faire, charwoman. Despite pointing this out several times, I am still mocked or trashed for kicking around horid Scientology ideas. You do not think that in the outside world some people are thought of as special? Why does the Catholic Church have Saints, on what basis do they choose the Pope, the Cardinals and Bishops? Why are Abraham Lincoln and George Washington taught in U.S. history and have national monuments and holidays in their honor?. Why aren't there similar accolades for former presidents Millard Fillmore, Martin van Buren and James Polk?. Why is Elvis remembered and not say Roy Orbison? Both had excellent voices and musical talent, but Elvis had more charisma and savoir faire, he was a Bigger Being than Orbison.

To me, if I can not use one or two Scientology terms on a thread on an ex Scientology website without being made sport of and being accused of kicking around horid Scientology concepts, then there is something wrong somewhere and it is not with me. Sorry, no offence to you or any one else, you have just as much right to your opinions as I do to mine. I am going to leave things right there.
Lakey

 

[degraded being]

Dead beings -do they exist, or, if you insist, meat bodies
who were live beings 2 days ago?

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Let's all be as BIG as possible in any given moment!

At risk of experiencing a virtual stoning here, I hestiate to mention the essay, "What is Greatness?"

My responses to the OP are posted elsewhere on other threads, in fact I think I may have stirred up this hornet's nest by using the term. Oy Vey ish mir!

I don't buy into the Scientology definition of being a "Big Being", too much divisiveness and arrogant power trippiness. I think we are all big, some of us just know it, experience it, and manifest it moreso than others, that's all. We are all eternal Spiritual Beings with near infinite potential, limited only by our outlook, or ability to see multiple viewpoints or a limited viewpoint, and willingness to be, do or have, moment by moment.

I think we can always be bigger, no matter how self-actualized, "together" and spiritually progressive we are. Everybody's a teacher, and everybody's a learner, all at the same time. Makes for fun experiences!

O.K. Lakey, are ya happy? I went out on a limb for ya!

 

[SweetnessandLight]

Why, I'll have you know!!!

All right Lakey, on a purely physical level, regarding this statement of yours:

"Big is not always better. Take the human posterior for example, especially for females. So many women down at the gym trying to reduce the size of their ass, and shape up that ass. I for one prefer small and shapely to big in that instance and in many other instances as well."

(God's gonna get you for that...)

Lakey, I will have you know that in some cultures, bigger is better. Human standards of beauty and comliness vary hugely (no pun intended) from culture to culture...and let's not be sexist here!

We like Men's gluts to be high and tight as well! You are such an Orange Countian!

Now I'm gonna be self-conscious every time I get in and out of the truck!!!

!

 

[lkwdblds]

What did you just ask???????

Dead beings -do they exist, or, if you insist, meat bodies
who were live beings 2 days ago?

Dead beings-do they exist, or, if you insist, meat bodies - what is your take on this profound nonsense er a question?

I guess it depends if they were mumified, as in ancient Egypt. The modern alternative would be to freeze the meat bodies but only do so if the corpse lived in a cold climate otherwise it must be mumified..

To freeze or not to freeze, that is the question. Tis better to keep the dead meat body mumified and place it in a sarcophagus in the tomb of Cheops in Egypt. Only do this for Big Beings who are direct descendants of Ramses II.
I, the mighty Tutankhamun have spoken.

 

[Good twin]

All right Lakey, on a purely physical level, regarding this statement of yours:

"Big is not always better. Take the human posterior for example, especially for females. So many women down at the gym trying to reduce the size of their ass, and shape up that ass. I for one prefer small and shapely to big in that instance and in many other instances as well."

(God's gonna get you for that...)

Lakey, I will have you know that in some cultures, bigger is better. Human standards of beauty and comliness vary hugely (no pun intended) from culture to culture...and let's not be sexist here!

We like Men's gluts to be high and tight as well! You are such an Orange Countian!

Now I'm gonna be self-conscious every time I get in and out of the truck!!!

!

I'm pretty sure the subject of big asses deserves it's own thread.

 

[Gadfly]

The only thing of value I can recall from Hubby Dub's "What is Greatness", was the line or two about, and I AM paraphrasing, "continuing to love ones fellow Man despite all reasons to the contrary". Other than THAT, nothing sticks in my mind. And, THAT aspect, which makes spiritual sense to me, was always severely downplayed in Scientology as a belief, and especially as a practice.