Talk:Assist (Scientology)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 July 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assist (Scientology) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article states many contentious claims as fact and lacks citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumguy90 (talk • contribs) 12:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
It's wrong to say "The idea is to reach ... the person's Thetan." because a person doesn't HAVE a thetan, he or she IS the thetan! Further explanation from: http://www.scientology.org/gloss.htm#t
"thetan: an immortal spiritual being; the human soul. The term soul is not used because it has developed so many other meanings from use in other religions and practices that it doesn’t describe precisely what was discovered in Scientology. We use the term thetan instead, from the Greek letter theta (Theta), the traditional symbol for thought or life. One does not have a thetan, something one keeps somewhere apart from oneself; one is a thetan. The thetan is the person himself, not his body or his name or the physical universe, his mind or anything else. It is that which is aware of being aware; the identity which IS the individual." Johnalexwood (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- And so we see the problem of creating articles interpreted directly from primary sources. We (as editors) should look for secondary sources for correct interpretation. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- The statement "The idea is to reach not only the person's subconscious mind, but the person's Thetan." doesn't seem to be supported directly by the citation, but I've been wrong about these things before. I propose the sentence be removed, unless some other citation is found. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)