Is it Possible to Experience God?

[waitasec]

Is it possible to experience god? Would you be able to know whether that question had a definite answer without having experienced god? Why or why not?

no.
because no one has experienced god empirically.
people can only experience god subjectively.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Well, I did mean what I said that I was quite taken with your descriptions of the water, sky etc... They do rekindle some rather fond memories of transcendence.


Ohhh... I watched "A Perfect Murder" with Michael Douglas, Viggo Mortensen and of course, your cherished Gwyneth the other night and I have to admit she does have a rare charm.

Yay! My Gwynnies! :disco:

Oh... sorry.

 

[Sunstone]

no.
because no one has experienced god empirically.
people can only experience god subjectively.

Isn't all experience subjective? And if not, what makes an experience subjective? What makes an experience non-subjective?

 

[waitasec]

Isn't all experience subjective? And if not, what makes an experience subjective? What makes an experience non-subjective?

an objective experience is- you get wet when swimming.
a subjective experience is- i enjoy swimming.

 

[Sunstone]

an objective experience is- you get wet when swimming.
a subjective experience is- i enjoy swimming.

How is an experience of god a subjective experience by your definition? Wouldn't it be an objective experience by your definition?

 

[Erebus]

I would say yes it is possible to experience god(s) though I do think that anybody who does should first be sure it wasn't simply hallucination before they accept whatever their god had to say.

 

[ellenjanuary]

an objective experience is- you get wet when swimming.
a subjective experience is- i enjoy swimming.

Hey! Not bad! That works for me!
Objectively - experiencing god brings insanity.
Subjectively - experiencing god brings crazy talk.
That might be it right there!

 

[waitasec]

How is an experience of god a subjective experience by your definition? Wouldn't it be an objective experience by your definition?

no. because not everyone understands god in the same way.
which is why there are so many religions. and funny enough every monotheistic religion (christianity, islam and judaism) claims to be the one true religion which can't be true if everyone experienced god objectively.
christianity has many sects so does islam and judaism.

 

[waitasec]

How is an experience of god a subjective experience by your definition? Wouldn't it be an objective experience by your definition?

also...
i think that people have a need to feel comfort.
and they feel they need to understand why humanity exists.
'we can't be here by mere chance, there has to be a reason.'
that would be the subjective experience the search for an answer.

 

[Sunstone]

no. because not everyone understands god in the same way.

So, if I understand you, you are saying that an objective experience is an experience everyone -- or most everyone? -- understands in the same way.

But aren't humans notoriously poor witnesses? Doesn't all the psychological literature on the subject point to the fact that, when there are a dozen witnesses to a car accident, it is typical for there to be a dozen different versions of what happened?

So, if a dozen people experienced god, shouldn't we reasonably expect a dozen versions of what happened? Or, if we should expect only one version of what happened, then why should we expect more uniformity about what happened than we can reasonably expect from such ordinary experiences as witnessing a car accident?

In other words, is there any reason to expect people who experience god to be in more or greater agreement than people who experience witnessing a car accident?

Last, aren't mystics the world over in much greater agreement about their experiences of god than are non-mystics about their experiences of god? Put differently, aren't non-mystics, when describing their experiences of god, all over the board while mystics tend to be in greater agreement about these things?

 

[Sunstone]

also...
i think that people have a need to feel comfort.
and they feel they need to understand why humanity exists.
'we can't be here by mere chance, there has to be a reason.'
that would be the subjective experience the search for an answer.

Interesting, but I don't see the relevance here.

 

[Sunstone]

First show that He or whatever exists in order for people to experience Him or it!

That's silly. Experience is definitive of existence.

 

[waitasec]

So, if I understand you, you are saying that an objective experience is an experience everyone -- or most everyone? -- understands in the same way.

yes.

But aren't humans notoriously poor witnesses? Doesn't all the psychological literature on the subject point to the fact that, when there are a dozen witnesses to a car accident, it is typical for there to be a dozen different versions of what happened?

the difference is point of view.
when someone claims to experience god it was based on their point of view. this we have established.
but it is when a religion gives god attributes that are contradictory to objective reasoning. for example.
if a religion claims god is benevolent...then why would god allow suffering?

So, if a dozen people experienced god, shouldn't we reasonably expect a dozen versions of what happened? Or, if we should expect only one version of what happened, then why should we expect more uniformity about what happened than we can reasonably expect from such ordinary experiences as witnessing a car accident?
In other words, is there any reason to expect people who experience god to be in more or greater agreement than people who experience witnessing a car accident?

because it is subjective.
if i experience a car accident that would be my subjective experience because my point of view just as viable as you witnessed it. however we know there was a car accident objectively.
the more subjective experiences that are put together the better the idea of what caused the accident. right?
and what type of picture has religion painted for the world?
uneven, inconsistent and chaotic textures.
they are not consistent or even or in any type of order (unless they stem from the the same source)

Last, aren't mystics the world over in much greater agreement about their experiences of god than are non-mystics about their experiences of god? Put differently, aren't non-mystics, when describing their experiences of god, all over the board while mystics tend to be in greater agreement about these things?

i don't think how that can be possible. if a buddhist experiences enlightenment it wouldn't be any where near what a christian would experience, from what i gather. can you give me an example of how they are similar?

 

[Sunstone]

i don't think how that can be possible. if a buddhist experiences enlightenment it wouldn't be any where near what a christian would experience, from what i gather. can you give me an example of how they are similar?

I don't agree with every one of the nine points mentioned here, but they are a start towards understanding what mystics tend to have in common.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Hi Sunstone,

Yes, that's an excellent start for those who are ready to enter 'deeper waters'.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't agree with every one of the nine points mentioned here, but they are a start towards understanding what mystics tend to have in common.

Neither do I, Phil. I would be quite intrigued with what you disagree with.

 

[AntEmpire]

Tried a handful of times since denouncing my chrisitianity. Never worked. :|

 

[AntEmpire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m72iWC-0UpU

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Man, you are such a brilliant skeptic Sunstone. It's awesome.

I don't think it is possible to find a definitive answer unless you have experienced it yourself in some way. It's like the allegory of the cave. How do you something is real unless you can in some way experience it yourself? The FSM is a favorite example. If our only experience of "the devine" is through the words of others, that deity (or state of enlightenment etc...) may as well not exist.

 

[Willamena]

Neither do I, Phil. I would be quite intrigued with what you disagree with.

If I may (though not speaking for Phil, of course), this is my uninformed, amateur-mystic thoughts. ("Amateurmystic"—I like that word!)

1. All mystics agree that Ultimate Reality—whether It is called Allah, Brahman, Buddha-nature, En-sof, God, or the Tao—cannot be grasped by thought or expressed in words...

I wouldn't express this concept that way, as it would make grasping that Ultimate Reality beyond everyone's reach, which I don't believe it is—but then, I suppose it depends on your image of what is "grasped." While it is so that "the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao," that in itself is an indirect means of expressing, and hence grasping, the eternal Tao (famously brilliantly so, in my opinion). Rather, I would word it "—is only indirectly grasped in thought and expressed in words."

2. The reason Ultimate Reality cannot be grasped by thought or communicated in words is that thoughts and words, by definition, create distinctions and, hence, duality. Even the simple act of naming something creates duality because it distinguishes the thing that is named from all other things that are left unnamed. However, the mystics of all the great traditions agree that all distinctions are imaginary and that the Ultimate Nature of Reality is non-dual.

The implication of these words is that the Ultimate Reality, by virtue of "the word," is both something beyond reach and existing eternally unreachable, which creates that image of the Ultimate Reality that upholds duality by keeping us separate from the Ultimate Reality. This is a valid image that points at unity and that is supported by many, but this wording presents only this dualistic image and not the other, the united, image. I'm of the mind that that monistic image, essential to the mystic, is not "grasped" (to borrow the context they use) in dualism—or, ultimately, expressed here in #2 (pun intended).

Though perhaps that is with a certain intent, and it will all be covered later.

3. Although mystics cannot define Ultimate Reality in words, they still use words to point to That which is beyond words. For instance, all mystics agree that, while Ultimate Reality constitutes the true nature of everything, in itself It is nothing.

True; but still housed in the dualistic image. That is, of course, not A Bad Thing, but ignoring more monistic images seems more a means of holding the uninitiated as separate from the mystic as this image of the mystic is from its Ultimate Reality.

4. Although mystics say Ultimate Reality is not a thing, they also agree that this emptiness or no-thingness is not a mere vacuum. It is radiant with the Light of Pure Spirit, Primordial Awareness, Buddha Mind, or Consciousness Itself.

Perhaps not a helpful image (I can only take it metaphorically). It doesn't succeed in an essential shift in perspective that conveying this idea would entail.

5. Mystics of all traditions also agree that when distinctions created by imagination are taken to be real—especially the distinction between 'subject' and 'object', 'I' and 'other', 'self' and 'world'—we lose sight of the Ultimate Nature of Reality and fall into delusion. This is the cause of all our suffering.

I get what they're trying to say, but again take issue with the wording. First, it says that we can see an Ultimate Nature of Reality that stands in constrast to the distinctions we create with our words, which are unreal. Putting aside for the moment that while the Ultimate Nature of Reality is wordless and its image "most certainly" is not, if the distinctions are not real, they could leave no impression on us (this is where Dogen's images are more pleasing)—at least, that is implied in how I define "real". Yet, the impression and its consequence is upheld in these words. Rather, I would say that we indulge the distinctions, which are a product of imagination, and lose (invest) ourselves in the story of our own words (from #2 above). What can—I say I like the movies (i.e. "life is good").

What "we" "invest" is belief.

6. The fact that distinctions are not ultimately real means that we are not truly separate selves. In Reality, all mystics declare, our True Nature is God, Brahman, Buddha-Nature, the Tao, or Consciousness Itself.

Again, I take issue with this: if "no separation" is real, a distinction is made.

Okay, I'm tired of finding fault.