A Basic Definition of Spirituality (of True Faith)

[Angrboda]

Angrboda:
 

“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.”
 

- I’m not claiming that spirituality’s goal is to replace science here. I’ve just being watching an interview on recent advances in post-partum depression among women and on the latest discoveries in this field during the last 10 years.

   Besides me not understanding anything at this point does not mean that the sum of knowledge of our specie will not keep increasing in the coming decades and centuries.

   I’m not claiming I found some replacement to philosophy either.

   Still this “Inner Knowledge” I’m talking about has been of great support for me. I’ve come to terms with the fact that (despite being a great tool) the mind is not a goal in itself. As I become more and more established in this “Self-knowledge” I’m talking about these mind-based approaches are becoming like tools that are available for me to use in the service of the only possible “Knowledge” that is available to us humans. (And that’s the closest to how I can express this at this point
)

Aside from the fact that your subjective appreciation of this "Inner Knowledge" isn't really evidence, you haven't really answered the question. What does this so-call inner knowledge and knowledge itself that you subjectively perceive correspond to such that it should be appreciated as something valuable and what makes you believe that our access to this inner knowledge is not possible using the tools of reason or mind?

When you say inner knowledge or knowledge itself, these are just meaningless labels until you connect them to something real. Until then you might as well say that these spiritual practices bring you face to face with surfumdigious or flumox -- that's just as meaningless. The word knowledge refers to something we have good reason to believe is true, which, again, refers to something that corresponds to something in the real world. What is this inner thing that you are claiming is true, and what in the real world does it correspond to?

Perhaps a simpler way of putting this is to ask what is true about inner knowledge, what does it correspond to in the real world, and why is that thing useful or valuable? What evidence do you have for it being true and useful? And what evidence leads to the conclusion that spiritual practices provide access to it, while reasoning through mind does not?