While there are multiple ways to define truth, the most common is that something is true if it corresponds to something in the real world. So far you haven't established that this spirituality of yours corresponds to anything in the real world. Knowledge itself? Improvements of the frontal lobe? What are you actually tying all this nonsense to? Moreover the things you have tied it to, consciousness, are approachable via reason. Edmund Husserl did ground-breaking work on the structure of consciousness. He revealed things that centuries of navel gazing had failed to clarify. This is because these spiritual approaches ply their trade through intuition, which, besides not being transparent, and having no way to verify it, is well-known to be unreliable as a path to knowledge. It sounds to me like you're just vaguely describing unfounded ideas as if they corresponded to something real. Though despite being prodded to do so in this and other threads, you continue to fail to produce anything substantive.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)


