Lefkoe Method Video (Blog)

[Velorien]

Originally Posted by HeartWing

(1) Life has a meaning. Our spiritual purposes are to firstly transcend our false senses of self, and then to find out what our own truths are. Thousands of years of spiritual and religious teachings across the world ech this point. Energy pracitioners would talk about attaining detachment in the mind (6th chakra activation), but that's just one of the many steps...

Yet this is also a belief. Meaning isn't written into reality. If it was, you'd be able to perceive it directly, instead of trying to work it out based on other people's insights.

Originally Posted by HeartWing

(2) Beliefs and feelings are products of attribution: Again, I would have to disagree. People from different backgrounds, cultures, races, ages, etc. have experienced at some point in their lives a sense of ‘universal truths’, often breaking their own (false-sense) of limiting beliefs. Such life-changing experiences can occur whether or not a person is religious, or performs spiritual practice. To say that all beliefs and feelings are products of the mind limit severely the spiritual senses inherent in all human beings.

Truth =/= belief. Universal truths are accessed directly through perception, whereas beliefs are formed by the mind through interpretation.

Originally Posted by HeartWing

Also as I explored in the examples of violence above, certain beliefs and feelings may be in accordance with an innate sense of morality that would be detrimental for any human being to lose. Certain experiences of beliefs and feelings — in my opinion — transcend the mind and actually signify the presence of a much grander, broader universal existence – they represent Truth. (with a capital T)

Truth with a capital T has nothing to do with morality. It does not judge, evaluate or prioritise. Only minds can do that. The Truth simply is.

[HeartWing]

I'd like to respond your responses above. They're catchy statements, but taken together contradict themselves. Whilst they may be true for you (and that's great), they're not particularly applicable to the context of discussion.

(1) That life has meaning is a belief and not a reality. My counter argument would be that ... well.. surely one can just as viably believe that it has no such meaning. And to the claim that I would not be quoting others to establish meaning in life, well I can just say that citing a tradition is to me a far more convincing way of trying to express particular viewpoint to another person than simply saying 'I feel this, or that'. There are very few human feelings that haven't already been felt by another, and that repetitiveness is the basis of sharing empathy. So really... that's a non-response.

(2) Universal truths are accessed through perception, beliefs are through interpretation. See comment above. I suspect these are your own accessed personal truths, rather than anything that can generate common understanding. Which isn't wrong, but it's not applicable to the point I was making in the context of a system which attempts to teach a certain set of principles to a large mass of people, claming a status of truth.

(3) Truth with a capital T has nothing to do with morality. That's a strange statement to make if one believes (as in response 2) in universal truths. Unless you're adopting a very unique, individually accessed intepretation of morality (in which case conversation is futile).