> On Aug 5, 12:47 am, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> On Aug 4, 3:17 pm, ta nc.rr.com> wrote:

>

>>> Because definitions (by definition) rely on language, which is thought-
>>> based. And so how could something that is based in thought communicate
>>> the essence of something that is beyond thought?

>

>>> Language and reason are not to be discarded in the realm of
>>> spirituality though, obviously (although many "religious" folk do make
>>> that mistake). They provide signposts and pointers, but the signposts
>>> by themselves are insufficient for understanding. They are only useful
>>> after-the-fact in talking about the subject, and they provide
>>> meaningful context, but they can never capture the essence.

>

>>> And this is where so much confusion and conflict arises when trying to
>>> speak about the "unspeakable truths".

>

>>> Spirituality, in it's truest sense, is beyond systems and reason and
>>> analysis and thinking -- which is why science will always fall short
>>> of uncovering the great mysteries.

>

>> If how you consider things and try and describe them is really all
>> that a large part of science is, then you are not entitled to claim
>> science cannot so something and then turn around and give us a science
>> of it; "spirituality is beyond systems and reason" is a scientific
>> explanation.

>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand your point.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -