-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How would you define mystical experience?
- Thread starter roger1440
- Start date
Actually, it would mean it is beyond concepts, not beyond meaning.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
The mystical experience is one that has many shades and varieties. There is, in a very real sense, no single "one size fits all" mystical experience. Normally, or in most cases, the mystical experience is one that takes one beyond the ordinary confines of self, expanding perceived reality in its wake. Likewise, sense of self is also enhanced, but not in egotistical terms. There is also, almost always, a sense of rekindled connection with All That Is, which may or may not condense into familiar religious terms, but is imbued with an inherent sense of spirituality, whatever spirituality happens to mean to a given individual.
There are many different things that are lumped together as "mystical experiences". For instance, such distinct things as telepathy, psychokinesis, and clairvoyance are all called (by at least some people) "mystical experiences". But there is one kind of mystical experience that seems to in some ways stand out from the rest. That kind of mystical experience has been studied by W. T. Stace and others.
The signature mark of the mystical experiences studied by Stace is that a person experience either a sense of oneness to reality, or experiences reality as One. The difference between those two aspects of the mystical experience is this. When a person experiences "a sense of oneness to reality" he or she still experiences their environment. For instance, if they are sitting on a porch looking out over their yard when they experience a sense of oneness, then they will still have within their field of sensation the trees, grasses, squirrels and dog poop that are in their yard. All these different things will seem to them to be in some sense or way unified; in some sense or way, the same thing. But they will be able to distinguish between them, to distinguish between, say, a butterfly and dog poop.
But if a person experiences reality -- not merely as a sense of oneness to it -- but as One, then a very different thing happens. The field of sensation drops away or dissolves into an unitary experience of a single reality -- a One, or an All, of which everything is an indistinguishable part. The butterfly and the dog poop are now no longer distinguishable.
Stace considered the experience of a sense of oneness to be in some vague way lesser to the experience of a One. He notes that the former experience has not had nearly as much influence on the world's religions and cultures as has the latter experience.
Now, so far as I can figure out, what is actually happening in both aspects of the mystical experience as described by Stace, is that subject/object perception abruptly ends while experiencing in some sense continues. That is, experiencing continues without the "experiencer". Since there is no longer a perception of a distinct subject (an experiencer) and a distinct object (a thing experienced), things either take on "a sense of oneness" or -- in more radical episodes -- things become One.
I hope this helps.
The signature mark of the mystical experiences studied by Stace is that a person experience either a sense of oneness to reality, or experiences reality as One. The difference between those two aspects of the mystical experience is this. When a person experiences "a sense of oneness to reality" he or she still experiences their environment. For instance, if they are sitting on a porch looking out over their yard when they experience a sense of oneness, then they will still have within their field of sensation the trees, grasses, squirrels and dog poop that are in their yard. All these different things will seem to them to be in some sense or way unified; in some sense or way, the same thing. But they will be able to distinguish between them, to distinguish between, say, a butterfly and dog poop.
But if a person experiences reality -- not merely as a sense of oneness to it -- but as One, then a very different thing happens. The field of sensation drops away or dissolves into an unitary experience of a single reality -- a One, or an All, of which everything is an indistinguishable part. The butterfly and the dog poop are now no longer distinguishable.
Stace considered the experience of a sense of oneness to be in some vague way lesser to the experience of a One. He notes that the former experience has not had nearly as much influence on the world's religions and cultures as has the latter experience.
Now, so far as I can figure out, what is actually happening in both aspects of the mystical experience as described by Stace, is that subject/object perception abruptly ends while experiencing in some sense continues. That is, experiencing continues without the "experiencer". Since there is no longer a perception of a distinct subject (an experiencer) and a distinct object (a thing experienced), things either take on "a sense of oneness" or -- in more radical episodes -- things become One.
I hope this helps.
Sunstone, I would respectfully suggest that the lasting benefit from "no difference between subject and object" is the process philiosphy/systems thinking/holism that results--reductionism can only go so far--and often throws the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.
<edit to add> The inabilty to distinguish between the dog poop and the butterfly is only the finger pointing at the moon, imo. This will pass once you develop the process thinking.
<edit to add> The inabilty to distinguish between the dog poop and the butterfly is only the finger pointing at the moon, imo. This will pass once you develop the process thinking.
Last edited:
I didn't go into the subject of what benefits, if any, there may be from a mystical experience, but I do agree with you that one of them may be holistic thinking.
I think you may have misunderstood what I what I was trying to convey there.
Please pardon my lack of verbal ability. I'll quote others who can convey my meaning much more effectively than I can:
Mountains are Mountains
The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin):
Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. 13
13 Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)
"Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters." (Essays in Zen Buddhism First Series 24)
The famous saying of Ch'ing-yüan Wei-hsin (Seigen Ishin):
Before I had studied Zen for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and waters as waters. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and waters are not waters. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and waters once again as waters. 13
13 Ch'uan Teng Lu, 22. (The Way of Zen 126)
"Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters." (Essays in Zen Buddhism First Series 24)
-source-
I'm familiar with those writings. If you want to apply them to what Stace was saying about a sense of oneness and an experience of the One, that is your business.
The mystical experience is like trying to describe what the wind looks like.
You really can't. You can only see what it does, but you can never see the wind itself.
The mystical experience, like the wind, can be felt and it's presence can be known.
And like the wind, you can see what it's effects.
You really can't. You can only see what it does, but you can never see the wind itself.
The mystical experience, like the wind, can be felt and it's presence can be known.
And like the wind, you can see what it's effects.
We all breathe the same air. A given molecule of oxygen than we breathe in may have also been breathed in by any number of other beings through time.
Sort of blows up reincarnation to a monumental plain doesn't it?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Sounds good to me, although I would not have chosen the word "blurred" --- but maybe that's just a matter of style.