The mind is incapable of seeing anything else beyond it’s own interpretations, and modern science is no exception. Modern science is just a method of gathering information, now once you have gathered information one has to deal with the problem of it’s interpretation. And that is when there comes a thin dividing line, almost indistinct, between science and philosophy. Even now in science, there are countless theories of the nature of existence - from parrallel universe theories, to multiverse theories, to string theory, to M theory, because what they have seen on the quantum level has been so mind-shattering, so much against the ordinary ways of logic - that such interpretations have arisen. And it is my own understanding that if one says that time and space do not exist that is just another interpretation of the mind, that is another idea that is to be emptied out. Truth is not a conclusion that you come to, it is a living experience which cannot be converted into words.
Now, don’t go explaining the philosophy of sciene to me. I did my dissertation in that subject, and I got credentials in it. And you have none 
So let the expert speak and learn something:
You are mistaking theory with fact. It is now a fact that time and space do not exist, it is not a theory. It is empirically demonstrated through the test of the Bell inequalities. It is used today to transmit information faster than the speed of light. The experiment has been repeated several times in different parts of the world.
This is not some minds interpretation. These are hard empirical facts. There is no time and space.
The problem with much that has happened in the yogic sciences is, because of the culture which it has arisen from, much of it has been combined with certain streams of Indian philosophy. And there have been those who, having come to their samadhi, continued clinging to their belief systems and interpreted the experience according to their belief systems. Some interpreted their experience according to the philosophy of Advaita, some according to Samkhya, some according to Buddhism, some were atheists, some were theists - and although they may have come to a transformation, their transformation was incompelte because their knowledge was functioning like a hindrance.
Right, and you are obviously free from these mind interpretations, because you are post-enlightenment If only you could hear what others hear on what you write 
“You never got to learn Jnana Yoga.”
You are right, I do not know much about Jnana Yoga as far as direct experience is concerned because that has not been my approach. But I am aware of what is logical according to my own understanding.
The path includes Jnana Yoga. There is no such thing as a Bhakti Yoga path, a Karma Yoga path, a Raja Yoga path and a Hatha Yoga path. Jnana, Bhakti, Karma, Raja and Hatha go hand in hand. If you are missing in one, it leads to uneven spiritual development. As it has with you.
Jnana removes avidya and gives you a clear account of reality. Raja Yoga does not immediately give you a clear account, because in Raja Yoga what level of reality you are at, depends on how cultivated you are. This is why Krishna calls Jnana the highest yoga. You first begin with clear knowledge: Jnana - then you start your Hatha and Raja practice and cultivate immense bhakti for the divine, and then when you have reached the divine you cultivate karma yoga to help your common man.
Unlike you, I have no confusion, doubts on what reality is and how it is structured, thanks to my Jnana. So I will not fall into the same trap when I begin my Raja Yoga practice of declaring I am there, before I arrive, or fall into your foolish nonsense of “post-enlightenment” I know what to expect, I know what the stages are, so I will know when I have genuinely reached a signficiant level of cultivation.
If you are living in direct communion with your original nature from moment to moment, then where does the need for negating or not negating arise ?
No, you’re not. You’re pretty darn ordinary. Hey join the club 
These are all intellectual matters.
And? How does that make it a bad thing? In case you’ve forgotten, we got an intellect - use it
And enlightenment is something experiential, not intellectual.
It is both actually. In Jnana Yoga one can reach enlightenment through the intellect by getting a clear vision of reality. Swami Dayananada, the world renowned Vedanta expert, does not see much importance to reaching mystical states. He is practical: use your knowledge to discriminate between what is true and what is false, and then apply that in your life.
it is the case with even ordinary things. Seeing the sun rise in the morning, or just tasting the sweetness of a peice of fruit - if you try to transmit the experience, no matter how you express yourself, it is never going to transmit the reality, but only a vague interpretation of it.
So this is your enlightenment eh? You can taste the sweetness of a fruit and see the sun rise in the morning Basically, ordiary things that ordinary people do. God, you are pretentious
