Is it Possible to Experience God?

[YmirGF]

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

Okay, I'm tired of finding fault.

A veritable "tour de force" critique, Patty. Well done. One thing that rubbed me the wrong way that you don't seem to touch on is that "All mystics" claim such and such. The point being that if a personality does not go with the alleged heard mentality, or group narrative, if you will, then by default, that robs them of being labeled a "mystic". I find that unseemly. It's a neat way to rope off the appellation but it also runs perilously close to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy for those who do not agree.

Likewise, I take issue with the term "ultimate reality". Why not just term it as an unknown part of reality and be done with it? Why is there always this need to denigrate physical reality, or for that matter, the penchant for minimizing the importance of personal reality?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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 find that those who cannot grasp the thought of something, generally have nothing of value to offer regarding that something.

I also find that not being able to express something in words, generally points to nothing more than a deficiency in verbal skills.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

I find that those who cannot grasp the thought of something, generally have nothing of value to offer regarding that something.

I also find that not being able to express something in words, generally points to nothing more than a deficiency in verbal skills.

How do you express something completely outside of someone's experience? How describe what the sun looks like to a blind person? Can you ever hope to give the blind man a similar understanding of what the sun looks like as someone who can just look at it? I don't think so. Is this due to a deficiency in verbal skills? This is what us mystics are saying. We CAN'T express adequately with words something completely outside of the realm of experience.

If I had no sensation of pain, how would you explain it to me?
If I had never tasted anything sweet (unlikely, but possible) how would you describe that to me?
If I had never experienced God (allah, brahman etc...) how would you describe it to me?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

As a "mystic," one of the most fascinating things is that the pattern of truth and, I dunno, "higher reality" that one begins to unearth as they dig through their respective religious archaeological sites is the same. Those who really search, in any given religion or belief system, they tend to come closer and closer to the same profound universal principles. It is quite exhilarating.

Jesus taught (the LDS believe) this:

That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

All of us have an inherent ability to sense truth. I think it is because we have already learned it in a past existence. We are unable to recall the truth we knew before, but we are able to recognize it. It's almost a sense of huh... ya know? I already knew this, I just never realized it before. "That which is of God is light."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We CAN'T express adequately with words something completely outside of the realm of experience.

Indeed - we can't experience it either.

 

[waitasec]

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.

thank you sunstone.

i guess the reason mystics interpret god similarly would be because mystics/people are basically the same except for about 1/100th of 1 percent as far as our genetic sequence is concerned...

it is in that 1/100th of 1 percent where we define ourselves and where our understanding of the world around us is subjected to interpretation, imho.

 

[Vansdad]

Hebrews 11:6 (New Living Translation)

6 And it is impossible to please God without faith. Anyone who wants to come to him must believe that God exists and that he rewards those who sincerely seek him.

For some people they feel that God does reveal Himself to those who honestly seek Him.

 

[YmirGF]

For some people they feel that God does reveal Himself to those who honestly seek Him.

So, it's an "invitation only" club?

 

[Vansdad]

So, it's an "invitation only" club?

Anyone can seek Him. I'm sure there are other ways to know God...as many as there are people.

 

[Willamena]

I find that those who cannot grasp the thought of something, generally have nothing of value to offer regarding that something.

I also find that not being able to express something in words, generally points to nothing more than a deficiency in verbal skills.

"Grasped in thought" and "grasp the thought of" are two different things (to the 'mystic').

 

[Kilgore Trout]

"Grasped in thought" and "grasp the thought of" are two different things (to the 'mystic').

Certainly helps to explain their confusion with expressing things.

 

[JohnOB]

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?

If you enough pray, you will experience God, promised.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

Indeed - we can't experience it either.

Sorry, by "outside of the realm of experience" I mean "outside of the realm of a person's collection of experiences to date." Just because I haven't experienced something, doesn't mean that I can't. What is an everyday experience to some, lies completely outside of the realm of experience for another. Like seeing. Believing in God requires a different way of knowing, of experiencing than a lot of people are familiar with. Because they are not familiar with it themselves, the reject it as folly, as hallucinations and the incredible effect of wanting to believe something so badly that you come to believe it. I can understand this perfectly. It does make some sense. How else do we explain all of these people believing in things they have never even seen? Normally when people exhibit this kind of behavior, we call them crazy. When enough people seem to share the same delusions and hallucinations, we call them a religious movement. What is fascinating, truly fascinating, is that there seems to be some common threads that run throughout this entire collection of human mysticism. It really is incredible. Perhaps it is just a manifestation of the commonalities of the human psyche. What do I think it is? I think it is God. And I am so convinced that it is God that I would stake my life on it. In fact, I have. The core of my belief system, my entire world-view, all of my decisions, thoughts and actions are predicated on my understanding of existence, an understanding that God is, and that we may learn from Him. Remarkable isn't it?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

If you enough pray, you will experience God, promised.

How do you pray to someone you don't believe in? You really can't can you? There has to be at least a spark of belief that comes from somewhere. Where does one come up with that?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

So, it's an "invitation only" club?

No. God is no respector of persons. The problem is, there are a lot of strange ideas about God floating around. Many people who do not (or think they do not) want to come to know, feel this way because they see God as something absurd, ignoble, and not really worth their time. Religion may strike them as something interesting, as a commentary on the human mind, but as something to take seriously? You gotta be kidding. It takes experiencing something noble, inspiring, and profound before it becomes worth further investigation. That is why those of us who believe in the devine have a responsibility to live our beliefs. When we actually allow ourselves to be transformed by our beliefs, people notice. They can see a power moving in us, and changing us. That is what Jesus was talking about when he said "Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and hide it under a bushel, but on a candlestick that it might give light unto all who are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your father which is in heaven." Also, in another scripture he explains "I am that light that ye should hold up." When people live higher principles of light, they become higher beings of light. People see this, and it becomes walking talking evidence of the devine, of enlightenment. To quote someone "I have never believed in God in my life, until this moment. It isn't anything you've said that has convinced me, it's who you are. Because of who you are, I know that there must be a God in heaven."

I am not yet the kind of person who has that effect. But I can be if I am willing to pay the price. I will be one day (I hope ).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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."

Hi Willamena,

Yes that's the difference you see, the mystic understands that these types of expressions about the unkowable, ungraspable, indescribable Ultimate Reality are only a temporary expedient to convey a truism, not an actual claim of knowledge of the Ultimate Reality. Like a raft to cross the river, once the other side has been reached the raft is no longer required, so once it is understood that never in all eternity will a mortal mind grasp the non-dual Absolute Reality, the rest of their life is not wasted on mental conceptualization attempting to do so.

Now it is true that extraordinary cosmic insights, experiences, visions, etc.,, are inevitable in the life of the religious mystic, but they mean little and are generally not spoken of, for all phenomena are seen as dualistic maya.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Remarkable isn't it?

Nah, it's actually rather pedestrian.

 

[YmirGF]

Certainly helps to explain their confusion with expressing things.

Just so.

Nah, it's actually rather pedestrian.

It IS rather instructive to consider that some think it remarkable.

 

[YmirGF]

Yes that's the difference you see, the mystic understands that these types of expressions about the unkowable, ungraspable, indescribable Ultimate Reality are only a temporary expedient to convey a truism, not an actual claim of knowledge of the Ultimate Reality.

I remain unconvinced that they do. If indeed something is unknowable, how - exactly - could one ever know it, in order to even allude to it however indirectly. The idea makes no sense.

Like a raft to cross the river, once the other side has been reached the raft is no longer required, so once it is understood that never in all eternity will a mortal mind grasp the non-dual Absolute Reality, the rest of their life is not wasted on mental conceptualization attempting to do so.

And that kind of thinking is exactly what keeps us at the mercy of the driveling accounts from much vaunted "mystics" that we have chosen to believe.

Now it is true that extraordinary cosmic insights, experiences, visions, etc.,, are inevitable in the life of the religious mystic, but they mean little and are generally not spoken of, for all phenomena are seen as dualistic maya.

Is this supposed to make sense, Ben? How do you reconcile "extraordinary cosmic insights" with "but they mean little"? Either something is extraordinary or it is not. Something is either very meaningful or not. The twain do not meet at some mediocre halfway point.

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

What is the point of trying to know something that is unknowable? Can't we put things that do not exist and things that are unknowable in the same category of being not worth bothering about?