Taking Mystical Experiences Seriously

[Windwalker]

The scientific method is founded on falsifying claims and dismissing unreliable "alternate ways of knowing." What on earth are you talking about? It's called "critical" thinking for a reason.

Be careful not to confuse critical thinking, with cynical thinking. Also, I think you are overestimated what the scientific method is good for. When it comes to doing science, it is the best we have. When it comes to understanding relationships, for instance, is that really the best tool of knowing you can reach for?

There are in fact different modes of knowing different things in different aspects of human life. My critical reasoning mind recognizes that an "Epistemological Pluralism" is better suited to arrive at truth from multiple perspectives, rather than a simply myopic, reductionist lens through which to translate and interpret reality.

When it comes to understanding the human mind, you don't use the tools of a scalpel and a microscope examining brain matter and conclude this is what it is. You also use the tool of introspection, for instance. If you want to understand the experience of human spirituality, you don't just use the tool of researching meditators brains with MRI scans. While useful to see that something is happening, it tells you nothing of the experience itself. The correct tool to use is meditation. And so forth.

New Age sites are the ones that I've seen promote these studies the most. It's also not a dirty word, but refers to a specific movement that grew out of Theosophy and New Thought.

Ok, so a New Age site gloms onto valid research, and this makes the research New Age? So, when any cult quotes science in support of their wacky ideas, that makes the science they are quoting in support of that wacky cult, wacky science? Clearly, there is a flaw in the logic of this kind of argument.

And yes, New Age when thrown in to a conversation in order discredit the science being presented, it is being used a tainted word in order to discredit something. I've encountered the same thing multiple times with Christian fundamentalists who call meditation "New Age".

Not only is this a straw man and you're putting words in my mouth, but it's also a false equivalency to compare cuts healing to meditation.

You were saying that the "healing properties of the universe" has no evidence. How is talking about the body healing itself, a strawman? And it is not a false equivalence to compare the healing of the body to meditation. Healthy mind, healthy body.

Natural healing can be aided and enhanced through cultivating the mind. It's all interconnected. there is a direct correlation. I can attest to that through personal practice, and I can argue for it quite easily with just logic alone, let alone other evidences. Immune systems are affected by the mind.

Modern science is recognizing this more and more. Negativity leads to depressed immune systems. Simple Google search and you get this, from a Non-New Age site. How do our emotions affect our immune response?.

 

[Secret Chief]

Tell that to the caste system

I gave what I think is the correct transliteration of the word.

 

[Ella S.]

Be careful not to confuse critical thinking, with cynical thinking. Also, I think you are overestimated what the scientific method is good for. When it comes to doing science, it is the best we have. When it comes to understanding relationships, for instance, is that really the best tool of knowing you can reach for?

Yeah, that's called social psychology, a sub-discipline of science.

There are in fact different modes of knowing different things in different aspects of human life. My critical reasoning mind recognizes that an "Epistemological Pluralism" is better suited to arrive at truth from multiple perspectives, rather than a simply myopic, reductionist lens through which to translate and interpret reality.

That's completely irrational.

When it comes to understanding the human mind, you don't use the tools of a scalpel and a microscope examining brain matter and conclude this is what it is.

You sure do in neuroscience.

You also use the tool of introspection, for instance. If you want to understand the experience of human spirituality, you don't just use the tool of researching meditators brains with MRI scans. While useful to see that something is happening, it tells you nothing of the experience itself. The correct tool to use is meditation. And so forth.

No, introspection is not a reliable method for obtaining a general understanding of psychology. Freud and Jung both tried that and they're rightfully considered quacks by today's standards.

Ok, so a New Age site gloms onto valid research, and this makes the research New Age? So, when any cult quotes science in support of their wacky ideas, that makes the science they are quoting in support of that wacky cult? Clearly, there is a flaw in the logic of this kind of argument.

And yes, New Age when thrown in to a conversation in order discredit the science being presented, it is being used a tainted word in order to discredit something. I've encountered the same thing multiple times with Christian fundamentalists who call meditation "New Age".

New Age sites exaggerate the evidence because it supports their narrative. Noticing this is called source criticism. It's the exact opposite of bias; it's one of our best tools for recognizing and avoiding bias. So this is another straw man.

The difference between me and a Christian fundamentalist is that I'm actually logical and know what I'm talking about. So the more you try to approach me like I'm a fundamentalist, the more your own flaws of reasoning are going to rip your terrible arguments apart, whether you have the critical thought to notice it or not.

You were saying that the "healing properties of the universe" has no evidence. How is talking about the body healing itself, a strawman? And it is not a false equivalence to compare the healing of the body to meditation. Healthy mind, healthy body.

The body is not the universe. And of course it's a false equivalence to compare the healing of cuts to meditation. One is an unconscious physiological process that's well-documented. The other is an intentional mental exercise that does not have conclusive evidence supporting its supposed benefits.

You're trying to make the latter as obvious as the former when it isn't. So it's a false analogy.

Natural healing can be aided and enhanced through cultivating the mind. It's all interconnected. there is a direct correlation. I can attest to that through personal practice, and I can argue for it quite easily with just logic alone, let alone other evidences. Immune systems are affected by the mind. Modern science is recognizing this more and more. Negativity leads to depressed immune systems. Simple Google search and you get this, from a Non-New Age site. How do our emotions affect our immune response?.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're discussing whether specific meditative exercises produce reliable health benefits and whether those benefits are due to supernatural causes or psychological ones.

Of course, I agree that improving mental health can improve physiological health, which is something I've already repeated several times at this point. I can only think that the reason you're harping on this is because you have some false notion of what everyone who disagrees with you thinks and you aren't actually paying attention to anything I'm saying. That would certainly explain your multiple straw man attacks.

 

[Ella S.]

I gave what I think is the correct transliteration of the word.

A good translation keeps in mind the cultural context of the phrases and words being translated. Yours completely butchered that. Karma is heavily loaded with supernatural implications in dharmic religion.

What you did here is basically equivalent to a Pantheist translating "God" into another language and using that language's word for "universe." You've added your own naturalistic interpretation of the word to the translation and, in doing so, you've distorted the meaning.

 

[Secret Chief]

A good translation keeps in mind the cultural context of the phrases and words being translated. Yours completely butchered that. Karma is heavily loaded with supernatural implications in dharmic religion.

What you did here is basically equivalent to a Pantheist translating "God" into another language and using that language's word for "universe." You've added your own naturalistic interpretation of the word to the translation and, in doing so, you've distorted the meaning.

Good grief, I gave the standard accepted meaning. I've added nothing. Perhaps the fuller "intentional action" is ok? Or is that too woo for you? You may think it loaded, I was not talking about implications, I was simply providing the usual definition to illustrate your error of referring to it as a supernatural notion.


"The definition
"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." "
- Intentional action: kamma (Skt: karma)

 

[Windwalker]

The difference between me and a Christian fundamentalist is that I'm actually logical and know what I'm talking about.

Funny story I enjoy recounting over the years. A friend of mine and I had both left a fundamentalist church years earlier, and ran into each other by chance at a store some years later. We were both atheists now in life. When we were out at lunch and talking about the past, he commented to me about his new views about these things saying in a shared solidarity of views. "I'm so glad we have the truth now!"

I chuckled a little to myself hearing him say this and then remarked. "Funny thing is, I remember both you and I saying that exact same thing to each other back when were Bible college together!" He stopped dead in his tracks, paused with a little confusion and then responded, "Yeah, but the difference is now I really DO have the truth."

I'm a little less rigid with truth than this. He didn't understand that fundamentalism is not a belief, but a way of thinking itself. It's not what you believe, but how you believe. It how you hold your beliefs with such cynical rigidity that makes someone a fundamentalist.

BTW, regarding logic, I like this quote. "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence". Or as my friend so put it, "But now I really DO have the truth".

The body is not the universe.

You see your body as separate from the universe? You're not made of the universe? Are you from another universe then?

And of course it's a false equivalence to compare the healing of cuts to meditation. One is an unconscious physiological process that's well-documented. The other is an intentional mental exercise that does not have conclusive evidence supporting its supposed benefits.

There are unconsciousness results that follow the intentional practices. You aren't consciously talking to your immune system with you cognitive thoughts! But thinking positively, has a factual trickle down effect to the body.

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. We're discussing whether specific meditative exercises produce reliable health benefits and whether those benefits are due to supernatural causes or psychological ones.

"Supernatural causes". You are the only one introducing supernaturalism into this thread. I'm not. The OP wasn't. You are projecting your fears into the conversation that no one is actually suggesting here. Why is this? Why are you continually doing this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, are you saying that the placebo effect is not real? That there are no actual benefits to the body and mind, because the healing is caused by "only the mind"?

I don't understand. If there is a benefit, then why are you downplaying it or dismissing it? Why not instead embrace it as wonderful and miraculous? We don't need drugs! We just need our minds! That's the whole point!

No.
What I meant is:

Is it actually the act of X that produces the effect
vs
Is it just you believing that it works that makes it work.

The latter would be a placebo.
In both cases, it works.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is something exceptionally special about it beyond those other activities, such as playing tennis. It focuses on the mind and the interior landscapes of one's own being and existence. You don't use a screwdriver to cut through a piece of wood, do you? Meditation is a specific tool that has a wide-range of benefits.

The reason why it's such a big deal, is because that part of our lives is woefully neglected. And the result of that is increases in stress and ill-health. There is a body-mind connection that if your mind is just fed garbage and junk food all day, the body will in fact suffer from it. So mediation is for the mind, what exercise is for the body. Nothing New Age about that, is there?

I include mental health in "health".
And I am not convinced that there is something "exceptional" about meditation in terms of mental health that can't be accomplished by other means.

This is why I for example included masturbation and having sex in my list.
It was half a joke, but I included it because those things are well known stress relievers.

Mental health is very much individualistic. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another.

I tried meditation back in the day. It was not my cup of tea at all. More often then not, I just tended to fall asleep.
People who do meditate, when they describe the effect it has on them, then I very much can relate to the same effect but by playing the drums.

I'm a long time drummer. For a few years now I no longer play in bands, barring the occasional project left and right. Just don't have the time. But going a week or two without playing has a very negative effect on me. Or otherwise put: playing has a very positive effect on me.

I enter that room, close the door, darken the room, put on those head phones (I play a roland e-kit), close my eyes and I'm off on a 45-minute journey. During those 45 minutes, it's like nothing exists. I call it being "in the zone". After a few minutes, it's like I go on auto-pilot. I just let it flow out of me. There's only rhythm. It's awesome. Afterwards, I literally need a few moments to come back to my senses and "enter the real world" again. I leave the room and feel reborn.

I can't explain it. Don't need to explain it either.

But it's experiences like that, and how it seems to match the experience of people I talk to that meditate, which makes me say that it's just a means to an end.

So no, I disagree that there is something "exceptional" about meditating. I feel like the same can be accomplished by other means also. And what works for one person, doesn't seem to necessarily work for another.


Playing the drums is what I would say is how I experience my "spirituality".
In a sense, I'm not against calling my drum sessions a form of meditation either.

 

[Windwalker]

No.
What I meant is:

Is it actually the act of X that produces the effect
vs
Is it just you believing that it works that makes it work.

The latter would be a placebo.
In both cases, it works.

But what you said was, "While your own experience certainly can have a positive effect on you, you yourself aren't able to distinguish objective real results from say a placebo effect."

Isn't improved health objective real results? Isn't the placebo effect, objective real results? While a placebo make not be some actual medicine, the "placebo effect" is real. The placebo effect is a term to describe the healing that occurs due to one's beliefs. Those are objective real results, aren't they?

 

[Windwalker]

I include mental health in "health".
And I am not convinced that there is something "exceptional" about meditation in terms of mental health that can't be accomplished by other means.

I can see I should clarify that meditation can take many forms. There are many ways to practice meditation, not just sitting in a corner staring at a blank wall.

This is why I for example included masturbation and having sex in my list.
It was half a joke, but I included it because those things are well known stress relievers.

I knew you were joking, but I'd distinguish meditation from just stress relivers. Drinking booze and watching NetFlix can be a stress reliever too, but it's hard the same as meditation, let alone has the benefits of legitimate meditation, in however one approaches that. Meditating in a bottle of whisky, really isn't meditation. It's escapism.

Mental health is very much individualistic. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another.

I agree, to some extent. The tools we may find helpful are individualistic, but the symptoms of ill-health are common. Depression is depression. Apathy is apathy. Etc.

I tried meditation back in the day. It was not my cup of tea at all. More often then not, I just tended to fall asleep.
People who do meditate, when they describe the effect it has on them, then I very much can relate to the same effect but by playing the drums.

Sure. No problem. I'm a musician myself and writing music is a deeply meditative and spiritual experience for me. So is my practice of T'ai Chi. I used to do a sitting meditation, but gradually found I preferred movement, so now I practice T'ai Chi. I can also meditate swimming in a lake. Riding my bike. Walking. Etc. Some people are more successful staring at a blank wall. That's not me.

But going a week or two without playing has a very negative effect on me. Or otherwise put: playing has a very positive effect on me.

I hear you!

I enter that room, close the door, darken the room, put on those head phones (I play a roland e-kit), close my eyes and I'm off on a 45-minute journey. During those 45 minutes, it's like nothing exists. I call it being "in the zone". After a few minutes, it's like I go on auto-pilot. I just let it flow out of me. There's only rhythm. It's awesome. Afterwards, I literally need a few moments to come back to my senses and "enter the real world" again. I leave the room and feel reborn.

I can't explain it. Don't need to explain it either.

You don't need to explain it to me! I know this.

But it's experiences like that, and how it seems to match the experience of people I talk to that meditate, which makes me say that it's just a means to an end.

That is true. It's a means to an end. That's why even things like a petitionary prayer, is a form of self-guided meditation. It's a means to an end. But the end is the meditative state itself.

Funny story I heard a few years ago. Some young monk comes to the master and said, "Master, I practice meditation for several hours every day!". The master answered him, "That's great. Soon you may stop practicing and actually begin to meditate."

So no, I disagree that there is something "exceptional" about meditating. I feel like the same can be accomplished by other means also. And what works for one person, doesn't seem to necessarily work for another.

What I meant by saying it was exceptional, is that it is different than just stress relief. It has has a different effect on our being, than just blowing off steam, or pumping up the energy through rigorous exercise. It changes the mental state to one of greater, more expansive states of consciousness itself. And that has a massive, overall effect on all the systems of the body beyond just typical exercises. It's in a class of its own, in a way.

Playing the drums is what I would say is how I experience my "spirituality".
In a sense, I'm not against calling my drum sessions a form of meditation either.

I would certainly recognize it can be. I think of drum circles, for one easy example.

 

[danieldemol]

I think you are confused about the difference between mystical experiences, and claims of miracles and religious beliefs. In the former, we are talking about qualitative, interior subjective experiences. It's not like the mystical experience differs in type from other mystical experiences. They all are saying pretty much the same thing.

They aren't making specific claims to "Our prophet is the final Messenger from God," sort of thing. Those are religious belief claims. Mysticism quite literally in all cases, transcends beliefs, so they aren't claiming anything. The only claim being made is, "This is how I experience reality". The only way that can be proven subjectively, is for you to have a subjective experience yourself.

But researchers can in fact show quantitative data that it's not just some personal delusion. The experiences are similar to each other. They can map out these types of human experiences as something that is actually happening and is common across all cultures.

What is it you think it is exactly that mystics are claiming, that is no different than any other religious claim? Some cognitive belief? Some religious idea? What might that be exactly?

I think you are asking the wrong person your question. The OP appears to have referenced unspecified other claims of Hinduism and Buddhism. I would suggest you ask the OP if you are interested to know what the other claims referred to are.

Also when one consumes marijuana one will have a real experience of laughter that will be similar to other marijuana users across cultures. It doesn't make the world any objectively funnier. So the question remains is the altered state of conciousness - real as it may be - reflective of something objective in the world external to the self? Or is it just a common illusion across cultures produced by psilocybin induced altered state of conciousness?

In my opinion

 

[rational experiences]

If human scientific theists realise they own sexually created human baby life human within baby only DNA.

Never are you the two humans owning the micro cells inside their bodies as your life beginnings.

Within our body teaching...you own your own human god self...human DNA.

An exact teaching.

The first science mind was a lost conscious concept of a mans mind type. And men like him. Brain changed. It's chemistry.

Meaning DNA was baby born owned by a healthy the same human DNA of parents origin. Same tribal membership everywhere on earth.

Origin human type.

Lost mind means brain got sacrificed hurt only.

Then his machine transmitting constant changed earths natural heavenly responses. Attacked DNA of all things.

Told.

Science mind says I realise you are conscious as compared to your thoughts I observe. Your behaviours. I think about it and I compare. Just human the whole time.

Rational advice in your life is how you think behave...you aren't going to obtain what I own naturally. As you have to see it to recognise it. As an observer imposing the subjects.

Human to human.

Pretty basic what nasty minded forum users think pretending they are detailing spirituality.

To get the power of God by humans conscious contacts and any advice they believe will assist science.

We aren't science. Science looks at natural mass any type first.

It was only burning gases heating cooled water that removed coloured water reflections away in heavens. Conditions that hurt your brain as now lying men science theists.

It wasn't the power of suns sciences.

Father also said some truthful science reviews about the men who never listened to what is spirituality.

It's a human as their natural self. Natural original the human. Not any other review.

It's not practices. It's not advice you detail to then claim hence I can now find it.

Father...a water memory was never any Clouds scientists man imaged machine caused life sacrifice imaged in clouds.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Karma, as you may know, is simply the English word equated to "action."

Newton’s third law of motion; To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[sayak83]

I agree with this quite a bit. Spiritual practice is, in general, often highly beneficial to one's psychological well-being. It doesn't really matter what the practice is because it's more about the individual's contextualization of the practice.

So...I am going to directly refute this. Meditation (and a quite wide variety of them) literally changes the mind and its not about individual beliefs or contextualisation. It changes the mind hardware and the structures that get activated in the brain when the mind operates.

In all of us, regardless of our distinct life histories...the mind structures that get activated in our wakeful brain is quite similar. It's called the default mode network. Our understanding of ourselves, our models of the world etc etc all are constrained by this network.
Default Mode Network
Meditation specifically changes the mind by partially decreasing the activity of the default mode network and expanding the ordinary brain activity patterns into other regions. Thus when a mediator says that his praxis makes him more connected, more concentrated, less driven by I based ruminations and fears...it can be shown that this is precisely how his brain has been reconfigured through meditation.
Here is a PNAS paper that demonstrates this

Google Scholar

Many philosophical and contemplative traditions teach that “living in the moment” increases happiness. However, the default mode of humans appears to be that of mind-wandering, which correlates with unhappiness, and with activation in a network of brain areas associated with self-referential processing. We investigated brain activity in experienced meditators and matched meditation-naive controls as they performed several different meditations (Concentration, Loving-Kindness, Choiceless Awareness). We found that the main nodes of the default-mode network (medial prefrontal and posterior cingulate cortices) were relatively deactivated in experienced meditators across all meditation types. Furthermore, functional connectivity analysis revealed stronger coupling in experienced meditators between the posterior cingulate, dorsal anterior cingulate, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortices (regions previously implicated in self-monitoring and cognitive control), both at baseline and during meditation. Our findings demonstrate differences in the default-mode network that are consistent with decreased mind-wandering. As such, these provide a unique understanding of possible neural mechanisms of meditation.


I see this as yet another example that subjective reports from meditation experiences are objectively trustworthy.

 

[Windwalker]

Also when one consumes marijuana one will have a real experience of laughter that will be similar to other marijuana users across cultures. It doesn't make the world any objectively funnier.

This is an interesting example. First setting laughter aside as that is an emotional response that not everyone has to smoking pot. So it's not universal in nature. But let's say this instead, smoking pot, or drinking alcohol, or any other mind-altering substance has the effect of shifting one's perceptual reality. Reality looks different to them, and it affects how they relate to it and themselves in it. I can go with that understanding here.

So the question remains is the altered state of conciousness - real as it may be - reflective of something objective in the world external to the self? Or is it just a common illusion across cultures produced by psilocybin induced altered state of conciousness?

Here's the dirty little secret. All of our ideas of what constitutes "objective reality", is directly tied into how we perceive reality, through whatever cultural or linguistic lens we filter our experience of reality through. As above, in "altered states" of consciousness, or ASC to abbreviate it, there is a perceptual shift that occurs. That lens we see reality through, is altered. It can become more distorted, like a funhouse mirror that makes you laugh, or sharpened and more focused and crystal clear that heightens your awareness and perceptions.

Enlightenment, is not an ASC, per se. Rather it is a permanent shift that happens either gradually or over time, or instantaneously. If it becomes ones normal state of consciousness, it is not longer an "altered state". In fact "normal" consciousness, becomes recognized as comparable to being asleep. The Enlightenment, or Awakening experience, is to recognize normal consciousness, as the altered state, the same way we may not realize while we are dreaming that we are asleep, but when we wake up, then we know we were asleep.

All that to say this. Objective reality. It's the same reality that is there for everyone. But everyone is seeing it though a "glass darkly", through a filtered reality. The Enlightenment condition, is seeing that same reality, except with most if not all of those filters pulled aside. So what is "objective reality", really but the experience of reality through different perceptual lenses. The Enlightenment state, would be considered to the be highest state of human conscious reality available to us.

I find this verse from the Bible to express that realization well, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." That's the Enlightenment state. It is the same reality we were seeing before, it's just now seen with the veil lifted from our eyes. So, "objective" has as much if not even more to do with how we see, than it does with what it is being seen.

 

[Vinayaka]

Be careful not to confuse critical thinking, with cynical thinking. Also, I think you are overestimated what the scientific method is good for. When it comes to doing science, it is the best we have. When it comes to understanding relationships, for instance, is that really the best tool of knowing you can reach for?

There are in fact different modes of knowing different things in different aspects of human life. My critical reasoning mind recognizes that an "Epistemological Pluralism" is better suited to arrive at truth from multiple perspectives, rather than a simply myopic, reductionist lens through which to translate and interpret reality.

When it comes to understanding the human mind, you don't use the tools of a scalpel and a microscope examining brain matter and conclude this is what it is. You also use the tool of introspection, for instance. If you want to understand the experience of human spirituality, you don't just use the tool of researching meditators brains with MRI scans. While useful to see that something is happening, it tells you nothing of the experience itself. The correct tool to use is meditation. And so forth.


Ok, so a New Age site gloms onto valid research, and this makes the research New Age? So, when any cult quotes science in support of their wacky ideas, that makes the science they are quoting in support of that wacky cult, wacky science? Clearly, there is a flaw in the logic of this kind of argument.

And yes, New Age when thrown in to a conversation in order discredit the science being presented, it is being used a tainted word in order to discredit something. I've encountered the same thing multiple times with Christian fundamentalists who call meditation "New Age".


You were saying that the "healing properties of the universe" has no evidence. How is talking about the body healing itself, a strawman? And it is not a false equivalence to compare the healing of the body to meditation. Healthy mind, healthy body.

Natural healing can be aided and enhanced through cultivating the mind. It's all interconnected. there is a direct correlation. I can attest to that through personal practice, and I can argue for it quite easily with just logic alone, let alone other evidences. Immune systems are affected by the mind.

Modern science is recognizing this more and more. Negativity leads to depressed immune systems. Simple Google search and you get this, from a Non-New Age site. How do our emotions affect our immune response?.

I take my own seriously, as experience has taught me that's the wise move. But what others do is up to them. I also take my own process of buying a car seriously. But again, what others do is up top them.

 

[sayak83]

This might surprise you, but I actually agree. In fact, most meditation practices in general have specific religious and spiritual functions. They're not about health in the clinical sense at all.

It makes me wonder why people keep trying to invent or imply health benefits to these practices when that was never the point of them to begin with. Most Eastern meditative practices are focused on obtaining liberation from samsara, not creating an alternative medicine for mental illness!

Treating them as an alternative medicine is not only irresponsible and unscientific, but it seems like profaning the sacred by reducing it to pseudoscience, too.

As noted in my previous replies to you...the strong and beneficial impacts of meditative practices like mindfulness, dhyana, yoga etc has been shown by scientific publications in the most reputed journals (nature, PNAS etc). While neuro science today is still quite primitive, they have at least uncovered the fact that they do really impact the activated mind networks in very distinct and beneficial ways. If you still consider this to be pseudoscientific....then you are departing from reason.
Second you have claimed that it was never the point of these practice to improve the health of the body-mind but rather to gain liberation/enlightenment which is entirely different thing. So to use their currently discovered benefits in no way justifies these ancient traditions.
This points to a fundamental misunderstanding of what people considered liberation and bondage to be. Buddha said it most succinctly. He said:-
A person who is subject to suffering is bound and person in whom suffering has ceased to exist is liberated.

Where do you think suffering is located? In this body mind complex only. So all goal of all these practices has always been towards ending the various gross and subtle forms of suffering that a body-mind is subject to.

Here is the definition of yoga from the second line of patanjali's yogasutra.

"Yoga is restraining the mind-stuff(Chitta) from taking various forms/deformations(Vrittis)."

https://patanjaliyogasutra.in/samadhipada1-2/

A very simple claim of what yoga is for and this is precisely what current science is showing to be true.

 

[Koldo]

This is an interesting example. First setting laughter aside as that is an emotional response that not everyone has to smoking pot. So it's not universal in nature. But let's say this instead, smoking pot, or drinking alcohol, or any other mind-altering substance has the effect of shifting one's perceptual reality. Reality looks different to them, and it affects how they relate to it and themselves in it. I can go with that understanding here.


Here's the dirty little secret. All of our ideas of what constitutes "objective reality", is directly tied into how we perceive reality, through whatever cultural or linguistic lens we filter our experience of reality through. As above, in "altered states" of consciousness, or ASC to abbreviate it, there is a perceptual shift that occurs. That lens we see reality through, is altered. It can become more distorted, like a funhouse mirror that makes you laugh, or sharpened and more focused and crystal clear that heightens your awareness and perceptions.

Enlightenment, is not an ASC, per se. Rather it is a permanent shift that happens either gradually or over time, or instantaneously. If it becomes ones normal state of consciousness, it is not longer an "altered state". In fact "normal" consciousness, becomes recognized as comparable to being asleep. The Enlightenment, or Awakening experience, is to recognize normal consciousness, as the altered state, the same way we may not realize while we are dreaming that we are asleep, but when we wake up, then we know we were asleep.

All that to say this. Objective reality. It's the same reality that is there for everyone. But everyone is seeing it though a "glass darkly", through a filtered reality. The Enlightenment condition, is seeing that same reality, except with most if not all of those filters pulled aside. So what is "objective reality", really but the experience of reality through different perceptual lenses. The Enlightenment state, would be considered to the be highest state of human conscious reality available to us.

I find this verse from the Bible to express that realization well, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." That's the Enlightenment state. It is the same reality we were seeing before, it's just now seen with the veil lifted from our eyes. So, "objective" has as much if not even more to do with how we see, than it does with what it is being seen.

How do we tell apart what is enlightment and what is just another, perhaps even more blurred, lens though?

 

[Windwalker]

How do we tell apart what is enlightment and what is just another, perhaps even more blurred, lens though?

Well, for one thing if you ever have that experience, it will be abundantly clear beyond question. Do you question if you are awake when you go about your day after you get up in the morning? "Am I still asleep", is rarely if ever a question you ask yourself. It's like that but even more so. It's the other way of seeing reality, in our normal waking state, that is comparatively seen like being asleep. It's like waking up, from waking up, in other words. You know that that is in fact the higher and truer reality. It's "real reality" as it were.

Then there is the effect it has upon you. Nothing is ever the same after that. It's not a mere hallucination type thing you walk away from and know it was a trip of the mind. It's turning on the mind to what the mind has the potential to be in its highest states of consciousness. Everything after that is a drop down many many rungs of that ladder. In my own case, my entire life was changed forever by it, and my whole path spiritually has been trying to find my way back to "Home", as I call it.

So, as I said, it's unmistakable. The past 40 years of my life have been in pursuit of that. That's clearly something that has had and continues to have a life changing impact on me.

 

[Koldo]

Well, for one thing if you ever have that experience, it will be abundantly clear beyond question. Do you question if you are awake when you go about your day after you get up in the morning? "Am I still asleep", is rarely if ever a question you ask yourself. It's like that but even more so. It's the other way of seeing reality, in our normal waking state, that is comparatively seen like being asleep. It's like waking up, from waking up, in other words. You know that that is in fact the higher and truer reality. It's "real reality" as it were.

But what is the relevancy of perceiving something as the real reality in the first place? Let me explain: If our normal waking experience of perceiving a certain reality as the real reality is not to be trusted, why would the same sense of perceiving a certain reality as the real reality be considered trustworthy when we are not in our normal waking state?

Then there is the effect it has upon you. Nothing is ever the same after that. It's not a mere hallucination type thing you walk away from and know it was a trip of the mind. It's turning on the mind to what the mind has the potential to be in its highest states of consciousness. Everything after that is a drop down many many rungs of that ladder. In my own case, my entire life was changed forever by it, and my whole path spiritually has been trying to find my way back to "Home", as I call it.

So, as I said, it's unmistakable. The past 40 years of my life have been in pursuit of that. That's clearly something that has had and continues to have a life changing impact on me.

But why would it necessarily be wrong to label it as an hallucination?

It seems you are discarding this hypothesis simply because the experience was impactful. But who said no hallucinations can be impactful?