Have They Experienced God or Not?

[LuisDantas]

As someone who has experienced neither, I would be hard pressed to say that I see any difference.

 

[Windwalker]

As someone who has experienced neither, I would be hard pressed to say that I see any difference.

Or hard pressed to say that there is no difference either, to be clear. The only way to say anything would be to speak with those who have experience and hear what they say. But at best it would be a very partial attempt at modeling something out as a reality that one has no experience in themselves. It comes out looking very little like the real thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Or hard pressed to say that there is no difference either, to be clear.

Only if I truly want to be politically correct. I have no problem whatsoever saying that I see no difference and doubt there is any.

People can become convinced with certainty fairly easily.

That is one of the reasons why I oppose drugs fiercely, including entheogens. They are not reliable. Attaining certainty with a self-regulating organism is something far more defensable.

The only way to say anything would be to speak with those who have experience and hear what they say.

That might be helpful, but not necessarily. It would take knowing them for a while at least, I think.

But at best it would be a very partial attempt at modeling something out as a reality that one has no experience in themselves. It comes out looking very little like the real thing.

I assume so.

Then again, the same can be said of describing an ordinary dream. Perhaps for very different reasons, but who can tell?

 

[The Bullfrog]

I think of consciousness as like an optics or lens through which the world is focused and viewed.

More specifically, it seems to be involved in dividing our perception of the world into subject and object. And if that's the case, then it is involved in the creation of the ego, the "I", the psychological self -- however you want to describe the "subject" in subject/object division.

Now, according to accounts from all places and ages of history, it is possible for consciousness to come to an abrupt end while some form of experiencing or awareness remains.

Apparently, when that happens, subject/object perception comes to an end, the "I" comes to an end, and there is a sense or perception of all heretofore seemingly discrete things actually being one. Often enough, along with this new found sense of one or oneness, there are overwhelming feelings of love, acceptance and bliss.

That one or oneness is sometimes identified as deity.

But that identification seems to come later on -- after the experience of it has ended, and not simultaneous with the experience of it. In other words, it might not be so much an actual identification as it is an interpretation after the fact. For during the experience of this one or oneness, it seems normal conscious thinking has ceased. Moreover, not everyone who has this sort of experience of one or oneness comes away from it thinking they have experienced god.

So my question is: Have they experienced god or not? How would they know? How would you know?

And if they have experienced god, what, if anything, does the experience say about the nature of god?

"How would they know? How would you know?"

To be honest, I don't see what gods have to do with it. By adding gods you are you are making assumptions beyond what is needed.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think calling such "god" is just a way for some people to put their feelings about an experience into words. I view "god" as being more of a concept that people use to describe numinous experiences and concepts as well as the unknown.

 

[Sunstone]

Is there any difference beyond a lasting emotional impact, though? From your description it would seem that there is not.

And in that case, it is not a significant difference for our purposes in this thread.

No, there are actually several distinctions between these experiences of oneness and what psychologists have found are characteristic of hallucinations. I only recall the one offhand, though. But I do remember there are others.

 

[Sunstone]

I love your entire OP. It is right into the arena of my thoughts and asks very valid good questions.

First to lay some distinctions may help focus this more. Consciousness is what underlies all perceptions, all awareness. It is awareness itself, and the rest are simply forms of awareness. Subject/object dualities are a feature of the 'normal' perceptual awareness of mind. The mind 'thinks' in terms of created mental objects. One begins with the raw experience that simply hits you, and then immediately the mind attempts to interpret that experience in terms of subject/object distinctions; "What was that? (objective), and "What does that mean? (subjective).

It happens so instantly, so invisibly to us that it for all intents and purposes creates the flavor of what the world is. Reality is duality to us. Reality is our thoughts, the lens or set of eyes we perceive the world with. And then something can happen, where for a moment of time we cease all such mind activities, these processing patterns and simply "see". That activity ceases and the world comes flooding in, raw, and pure and unfiltered into awareness. These experiences can happen spontaneously, or deliberately through the practice and discipline of meditation.

When we let the world come in in such a way, what we see and experience initially may cause great joy! We may weep as we let ourselves go into this bliss. This is the ego in a way saying, "Thank you! Oh, thank you, thank you!", to us as we allow ourselves to be freed from this contraction of mind into Simple Being. And what is experienced can so overwhelm us, that later as we try to understand the magnitude of this with that thinking mind we rely on day to day, it find no adequate word sign to call it, and so it applies a symbol, "The Absolute", "The Infinite", "God", and so forth.

In time, as through a disciplined practice of meditation when encounters this state of consciousness liberated from mental processing in dualitist terms, that joy, that sense of unbounded release become normalized. It is joy, but the tears have ceases, and there is nothing but pure awareness and sense of being connected and true. It can be called the divine mind. One can rest in this emptiness, and then move from that emptiness into the world of form, the world of subject/object dualities and experience those as they are, and see and experience in all of these that Infinite Emptiness. This is the nondual reality. It sees that "all is One", but also sees that "One is many", simultaneously.


Yes, and no. I myself use the term God to point to this, but God itself is a dualistic term. I call it the Face we put upon the Infinite. To someone that does not encounter this Infinite, God does not exist, except maybe in some metaphysical model of speculative theologies which they interact with, or reject because there's "no evidence" to support these speculations. That is entirely different than speaking about God from a place of encountering this Depth in personal experience.

But God itself is not adequate to describe this, except initially as the mind encounters this back on itself, and as the mind reaches to move beyond itself into this Absolute. God is a symbol of our transcendent Self, our own true Infinite Nature existent in the body, and in all that is. At a point of connection with this, God gives way to That which is beyond that Face, into Godhead, the Ground, the Source, and so forth.


It may very well be simultaneous with the experience of it. Or it may not.


Or during, as the mind is still functioning actively in dualistic terms, encountering transcendental illumination which overwhelms the mind. The mind reaches for mental objects to call it as it comes face to face with That its first time(s). And you are in fact right, it is not an "actual identification", as that would assume "it" is an object. In Reality, it is neither subject nor object, so the mind attempts to relate itself to That in those terms. But, this does not mean "God doesn't exist", in the sense an Atheist would say it! Not at all. To one who encounters this, such questions are completely moot. The only question that remains is, "How we talk about it? How do we attempt to describe what cannot be defined by any words?" The Atheist mind points to the world of words and says it doesn't see God within them. They are closer to the Truth of it, but stop at words.


Yes, they have experience what people call God. Notice I said what people call God, and not God itself, as God is neither the subject nor the object, and yet is both, all at the same time? "God" is simply that which IS, and we experience that in all manner of conscious awareness, from the literal concrete realities of subject/object dualism, to abstract visions of higher reasoning, to states of nonduality. All of it is encountering "That" which IS at all levels and all perceptions, but with different eyes. The nondual awareness is perhaps the highest perceptual awareness of mind we have encountered, seeing Face to Face, as it were.

How do you know? How do you know you are awake right now and not in a dream? Same way. You awaken from 'normal' consciousness awareness into a new awakened conscious reality. It's just like that.


What does it say about us, is the real question!

You're doing a good job twisting my words and concepts to fit your own ideology and beliefs. And you've come pretty close to preaching. Other than that, nice post.

 

[Sunstone]

They have, if they feel that they did.

I could rephrase the question as "have they encountered a preternatural deity?", if that would help.

 

[Vinayaka]

I personally believe some have and others who claim they have haven't. Those whom I have met who I believe have, have never claimed they have. But it's what I feel emanating from them.

 

[Sunstone]

I personally believe some have and others who claim they have haven't. Those whom I have met who I believe have, have never claimed they have. But it's what I feel emanating from them.

I have a very similar take on it. I'm not sure that anyone actually experiences preternatural agency, or deity. About that I'm not sure. But about that experience of one or oneness, there seems to be something you can at least sometimes get a sense about someone that they have experienced it. Very rarely do such people, in my experience, ever claim to have experienced it, however. Those that do claim to have experienced it, often don't give off the same "vibe" as those who make no claims about having experienced it, but nevertheless seem for some reason to have done so. Strange, eh?

 

[LuisDantas]

I could rephrase the question as "have they encountered a preternatural deity?", if that would help.

Then I suppose no one can tell.

 

[Sunstone]

Then I suppose no one can tell.

I agree. I find it interesting that such experiences of one or oneness are often accompanied by a sense that they are real -- that what is being perceived is actually more real than what is perceived during normal conscious awareness. But I see no way for that -- in itself -- to tell us whether they actually are accurate perceptions.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have a very similar take on it. I'm not sure that anyone actually experiences preternatural agency, or deity. About that I'm not sure. But about that experience of one or oneness, there seems to be something you can at least sometimes get a sense about someone that they have experienced it. Very rarely do such people, in my experience, ever claim to have experienced it, however. Those that do claim to have experienced it, often don't give off the same "vibe" as those who make no claims about having experienced it, but nevertheless seem for some reason to have done so. Strange, eh?

Accurate assessment, in my opinion.

The last part is not that strange to me, but I won't go there.

 

[Sunstone]

Accurate assessment, in my opinion.

The last part is not that strange to me, but I won't go there.

This is just a speculation, Vinayaka, but I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with a sense of uncertainty that one finds in people who've had genuinely profound experiences of one or oneness? They often enough seem to me reluctant to label their experience(s), to define them, to wrap them up in neat little intellectual packages.

But those who seem to either have had somewhat less profound experiences, or perhaps some other kind of experience, often enough seem to veritably leap to define their experience, to interpret it, to declare it.

Have you noticed anything like that? Or am I way off the mark here, as usual?

 

[Vinayaka]

They often enough seem to me reluctant to label their experience(s), to define them, to wrap them up in neat little intellectual packages.

I don't think it's their reluctance to, but rather their inability to. (No words for it.) There is a story of my Guru's Guru's Guru meeting with the famous sage Hindu Ramana Maharshi. The pair sat together for an hour or so. Afterwards a devotee asked, "But Swami, why didn't you talk?"

"Nothing to say," was the response. But I'm sure those that were there enjoyed the vibe of the place. For me it is totally in the vibes, whether the being is talking or not.

 

[fantome profane]

.....
​

 

[Sunstone]

.....
​

If you posted something, it's not showing up for me.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't think it's their reluctance to, but rather their inability to. (No words for it.)

Good point.

 

[Vinayaka]

If you posted something, it's not showing up for me.

I took it as humour relating to the discussion.

 

[Sunstone]

I took it as humour relating to the discussion.

I see now. I was wondering because sometimes people post pics that don't show up in my browser for some reason.