I would equate ego with identity, not the basic nature of spirit. Identity is temporary.
Some beings are more valuable than others. The criterea for value in LRH's words=service to others.
I would value Jesus, buddha or many others over people whose contribution was lessor or negative.
Yes ultimately we are of the same nature, but on perhaps different points on a path to return to it?
I wont argue double speak to much.....my point is that the "speak" is not the truth, only vague descriptions of it, thus both to some degree true and also not true. Its value is in whether or not it serves us.
I can go with equating ego with identity. Scientology does directly address the identity (ego) more than other religious traditions. I wish I had a reference, but I remember hearing or reading that Ron said that we maintain our identities always, that we don't go back into some kind of "allness". . . if that's what he said (I'm relying on memory), then to him, identity was not temporary.
And I would also agree that some identities are more valuable than others in this physical world at any given time. But in a spiritual sense, theta is theta. The most spiritual people in history; Jesus, Buddha, Krisha, Lao Tzu, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, were known for their love, and for not valuing some people over others, because they could see past the identities/actions/wealth of people into their hearts and see "God"/Theta/love/value there.
Maybe it gets down to Scientology calling itself a religion vs. a "self-improvement" program. Because when you address the identity, but say that you're addressing the "spirit" (or theta), it leads people to believe that they are becoming more "spiritual" when in fact they are becoming more "individual".
Now, whether or not addressing the identity can lead to awareness of spirit would be a point of discussion on it's own. I'm not saying that couldn't happen, but simply by calling the identity a "thetan" (implying the spirit/theta is what's being addressed, when it's really the ego/identity is another example of "double-think" -- it's doing one thing, but saying it's another)
ego=spirit
identity=thetan
I'm totally in agreement that we are at different places in our journeys to reach enlightenment, and therefore manifest differently.
And I also agree about language being a vague description of the truth. . . words are just the symbols -- the "finger" pointing towards the truth.
I will agree that you describe one of the great traps of scientology or any system of improvement, the building up of self at the expense or neglect of others.
But not that the improvement of self is in itself bad, only the focus on self rather than outwards.
Focus outwards is key.
But most religions have specific admonitions that others are as valuable as you ("Love your neighbor as yourself" "do unto others as you would have them do unt you" "take the plank out of your own eye before you criticize the splinter in theirs" "pride goes before a fall". "the least of you shall be the greatest"). Scientology tells you that you are better than others.
Yes, being extroverted is a good thing. And of course part of the reason that I'm here is that Scientology introverted me terribly (details available but not pertinent to this thread), all the while saying that it was extroverting me. . . hey, another one:
introversion = extroversion
(That's true for me anyway; for a long time I thought I was an SP who was continuing to commit overts and that's why I was introverted; but I became more extroverted again when I left Scientology, so I don't blame myself anymore)
I am a big fan of Gangaji, who teaches that enlightenment is a silent loving awareness, that is the truth at the core of your existence.
http://www.gangaji.org/index.php?modules=invitation&op=watch
If you like love, you may enjoy her.
perhaps "discovering what is already perfect"? (on that page) or "powers of mind"...(good one!) or "who is Gangaji", where she talks about the "story" of who you are versus who you truely are....
It is not something you need to go and look for as it is where you are when you are and most of your activity just serves to conceal it.
She is quite amazing in person. I attend her satsang when ever she is near.
(a lot of her words could be described as double speak or think, but as pointers, and encouragement they are sweet)
The bolded sentence made me lol/giggle. Yes, I like love! :wink2:
I listened to the "discovering what is already perfect" and that resonates very well with me . . I do like her a lot, and have her site bookmarked. Thanks
I want to say that I admire you for posting here as a current Scientologist, and I appreciate your thoughts because they help me sort out mine.
I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind. Both of those things were issues for me when I was a Scientologist. The first one I just "believed" that my next level would make me more spiritual (it never did), and with the second, I justified the things I didn't agree with as things I was too "untrained" to understand. I'm just wondering you you see it.
1.You seem to have an understanding of spirit similar to mine. I've noticed it on other threads and on this one (certainly that link resonates well with me). Do you feel that your Scientology study and processing has helped you to arrive there?
2.Do you personally feel that LRH twists things to manipulate people? Uses "double-speak"? (I ask this because when I was in, I noticed that he did that, but justified it as the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics).
Thanks,
-TL
