The Mystical Experience and Its Interpretations

[Sunstone]

Many kinds of experiences are called "mystical", but for the purposes of this thread, I wish to focus on only one sort of mystical experiences -- the kind in which subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while some sort of experiencing continues.

By almost all accounts, when subject/object perception ends, there is no longer an Observer, an ego, an I. Instead, there is only a sense or perception of unity -- a sense of oneness, or a perception of the One.

So, for instance, if I experience a vision of Jesus Christ, then that may be a mystical experience of some sort, but it is not the sort of mystical experience discussed in this thread -- since "I" am still present and hence subject/object perception has not come to an end.

Again, if I experience a premonition of the future or episode of clairvoyance, that may be a mystical experience of some sort, but it is not the sort of mystical experience discussed in this thread -- since "I" am still present.

In this thread, I wish to discuss only those experiences in which the "I", the Observer, the Censor, the ego, the psychological self is absent.

My question is, if one has such an experience -- an experience in which subject/object perception has come to an end -- then isn't it only after the experience itself has ended that one (that is, the "I", the Observer, etc) becomes aware of having had such an experience? Furthermore, if that is the case -- if it is only after the experience itself has ended that one becomes aware of having had such an experience -- then is not everything that one thinks about the experience no more than interpretation? No more than a commentary on the experience?

So, for instance, if one says, "I have experienced god", is that not mere commentary on, mere interpretation of, what might or might not have happened?

Last, does that have any consequences for how we should view our recollections of a mystical experience? If so, what would those consequences be?

 

[atanu]

So, for instance, if one says, "I have experienced god", is that not mere commentary on, mere interpretation of, what might or might not have happened?

Assuming that I understand the question properly.

When we come out of sleep saying, "I had a terrible disturbed sleep" or "I had a most blissful sleep", are we giving some mere commentary?

In the experience you are talking about, the experience is of absolute fullness -- wherefrom time and universe sprout. And the experience is also about the birth of I.

I think (and as per my scriptural studies) that this is the only true mystical experience, experiencing the experiencer itself.

 

[Sunstone]

When we come out of sleep saying, "I had a terrible disturbed sleep" or "I had a most blissful sleep", are we giving some mere commentary?

Hi Atanu! Good to see you again!

Perhaps coming out of sleep and coming out of a mystical experience are different in that the Observer can still be present while dreaming? At any rate -- and this is only my opinion -- I think that anything we say or think about the past is commentary on it, rather than a continuation of it. But when we comment on a mystical experience, we are commenting on an experience in which the Observer was not present. At least, that's how I understand it.

In the experience you are talking about, the experience is of absolute fullness -- wherefrom time and universe sprout. And the experience is also about the birth of I.

Again, this is only my opinion, but I think the I is born moments after the mystical experience -- as the mystical experience comes to an end, the I is born.

I think (and as per my scriptural studies) that this is the only true mystical experience, experiencing the experiencer itself.

I'm not sure I understand what "experiencing the experiencer" refers to. Would you please elaborate?

 

[atanu]

Hi Atanu! Good to see you again!

Couldn't stay away long from Papa Sunstone

Perhaps coming out of sleep and coming out of a mystical experience are different in that the Observer can still be present while dreaming? At any rate -- and this is only my opinion -- I think that anything we say or think about the past is commentary on it, rather than a continuation of it. But when we comment on a mystical experience, we are commenting on an experience in which the Observer was not present. At least, that's how I understand it.

But I had included both the bad dream type and deep sleep type of sleeps. In the latter there is no I/experiencer. Yet somehow we know that "I slept peacefully". In fullness of consciousness (without subject-object division) nothing objective can be known yet.............

Again, this is only my opinion, but I think the I is born moments after the mystical experience -- as the mystical experience comes to an end, the I is born.

I agree.

I'm not sure I understand what "experiencing the experiencer" refers to. Would you please elaborate?

I meant the same as 'birth of an I'.

 

[Valjean]

The English language, or any language, for that matter, does a fine job of describing the ordinary, subjective, 3-D world. It falls flat on its face, however, trying to describe a quantum or mystical Reality.

Then there is the problem of memory. If a flatworm were to suddenly grok reality as Steven Hawking sees it, or even as a mentally challenged or Republican human experiences it, could it retain the experience once it regressed to its everyday, flatworm consciousness? Could it communicate the experience to its fellow flatworms?

The Buddhists have the good sense not even to try to describe enlightenment. We Hindus, on the other hand, twist ourselves into pretzels in futile efforts to describe every detail of the experience.

 

[Sunstone]

Couldn't stay away long from Papa Sunstone

I'm flattered! I missed you!

But I had included both the bad dream type and deep sleep type of sleeps. In the latter there is no I/experiencer. Yet somehow we know that "I slept peacefully". In fullness of consciousness (without subject-object division) nothing objective can be known yet.............

That strikes me as a good point. But I wonder, when we say that our sleep was peaceful, are we referring to the actual sleep, or are we referring to how we now feel -- and deducing from how we now feel that our sleep must have been peaceful?

Again, when we say that we experienced oneness or the One, are we referring to what we actually experienced, or to what we now believe must have been the case based on what we now think or feel?

Once the mystical experience is over, does the lingering notion we have of having experienced oneness or the One re-present what we experienced, or is it an interpretation of what we experienced?

I meant the same as 'birth of an I'.

Ah! That makes perfect sense now. Thank you!

 

[atanu]

---

Then there is the problem of memory. If a flatworm were to suddenly grok reality as Steven Hawking sees it, or even as a mentally challenged or Republican human experiences it, could it retain the experience once it regressed to its everyday, flatworm consciousness? Could it communicate the experience to its fellow flatworms?

Hi Seyorni

I intuitively feel that experience (of 'I') might always be the same -- always at the centre of the so-called universe -- for flatworms or for humans. The shapes are of no consquence.

 

[Sunstone]

The English language, or any language, for that matter, does a fine job of describing the ordinary, subjective, 3-D world. It falls flat on its face, however, trying to describe a quantum or mystical Reality.

I think that's because language largely relies on some degree of shared experience. It can overcome that reliance to some extent through metaphor, but only to some extent. When your experience is radically different from anything that your audience has itself experienced, even metaphors break down.

Then there is the problem of memory. If a flatworm were to suddenly grok reality as Steven Hawking sees it, or even as a mentally challenged or Republican human experiences it, could it retain the experience once it regressed to its everyday, flatworm consciousness? Could it communicate the experience to its fellow flatworms?

I think those are excellent points.

 

[YmirGF]

My question is, if one has such an experience -- an experience in which subject/object perception has come to an end -- then isn't it only after the experience itself has ended that one (that is, the "I", the Observer, etc) becomes aware of having had such an experience?

No, not really. In order for the experience to emerge, a necessary expansion of consciousness first occurs. Ordinary consciousness is simply not equipped to handle the seemingly infinite array of data that besets "senses" one was unaware of prior to the event. As best as I can put it, the ordinary self, the "I" we normally operate under, takes a back seat to this different aspect of consciousness, to which, the Oneness is its native mode of experience. There is a near instantaneous "intuitive grasp" of the Oneness, as it dawns, which propels this aspect of consciousness to the foreground of the psyche.

Furthermore, if that is the case -- if it is only after the experience itself has ended that one becomes aware of having had such an experience -- then is not everything that one thinks about the experience no more than interpretation? No more than a commentary on the experience?

In as much as this is a "timeless" experience, in some respects, once ignited, the experience never really ends, per se, although our perception of the experience, necessarily fades. The reason it fades, in my view, is due to our inability to hold the expanded sense of awareness and so consciousness contracts to its normal stage. Meditation is an excellent way to get used to "holding" this expanded awareness.

So, for instance, if one says, "I have experienced god", is that not mere commentary on, mere interpretation of, what might or might not have happened?

It is a common enough assumption to think one has experienced "god" because the mind is limited due to the nature of plausibility. It really depends on the psychological maturity and stability of the person involved.

Last, does that have any consequences for how we should view our recollections of a mystical experience? If so, what would those consequences be?

Regardless of how one defines said experience, there will be probable consequences. The main thing to remember, even with the experience of Oneness, is things are not necessarily how they seem.

I'm rushed right now, so that will have to do.

 

[atanu]

I'm flattered! I missed you!

Flattered too.

That strikes me as a good point. But I wonder, when we say that our sleep was peaceful, are we referring to the actual sleep, or are we referring to how we now feel -- and deducing from how we now feel that our sleep must have been peaceful?

Again, when we say that we experienced oneness or the One, are we referring to what we actually experienced, or to what we now believe must have been the case based on what we now think or feel?

Once the mystical experience is over, does the lingering notion we have of having experienced oneness or the One re-present what we experienced, or is it an interpretation of what we experienced?

One can depend on you to bring up unanswerable questions.

What i note below is my personal understanding.

The divisionless substratum is true here and now, although superimposed by a picture of subject-objects playing and thus also superimposed by a sense of passage of time. Since only now is the reality, the bliss is experienced now. Never in past or in future.

But as Seyorni says: hindus twist ourselves into pretzels .............

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ss,

Frubals for the Thread. So far all your threads [mostly] are questions of those you mostly have the answers. This one appears a real inquiry. gr8 as it brings RF in focus!

Again whatever is mentioned is only a personal understanding as cannot prove it, cannot quote someone or scriptures but since can only share what passes through at THIS moment!
The birth of the*I*.- Possibly what you have mentioned could be the original point for all that exists in existence.
Now let us take the word *AHAM BRAHMASMI* [sanskrit meaning I AM THAT] now the individual is only the REVEALER, the person himself is absent. The origin of the Vedas is similar or matter of fact most scriptures are. But AHAM also means *I*. Now when the revealer becomes the revealed the the *I* creates that cloud/illusion/doubt and corruption starts.When the revealer and the revealed are in Oneness, its fine, No complication arises.
Words always gets coloured from the point of the perceiver depending on his own background. Now what has to be done? Can a tree stop growing its fruits that is available to everyone in existence [HERE-NOW or there at the right time]. One speak about it and get rewarded by getting body parts chopped off like Mansur Al-Hallaj, sufi saint: Mansur Al-Hallaj - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or crucified like Jesus. Words are always understood/perceived wrongly, cannot be helped.
The way is to experience oneself and sharing as pointers which zen masters have perfected. As God is only a concept we humans have devised like that *I* for our own understanding and that needs to be applied in life for others to follow the concept and carry on and so
mountains are mountains [only mind at work]
mountains are not mountains [on being consciousness of the mountains to being alive]
mountains are mountains [self itself becomes the light that by its own presence enlightens everything else

Love & rgds

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Many kinds of experiences are called "mystical", but for the purposes of this thread, I wish to focus on only one sort of mystical experiences -- the kind in which subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while some sort of experiencing continues.

By almost all accounts, when subject/object perception ends, there is no longer an Observer, an ego, an I. Instead, there is only a sense or perception of unity -- a sense of oneness, or a perception of the One.

So, for instance, if I experience a vision of Jesus Christ, then that may be a mystical experience of some sort, but it is not the sort of mystical experience discussed in this thread -- since "I" am still present and hence subject/object perception has not come to an end.

Again, if I experience a premonition of the future or episode of clairvoyance, that may be a mystical experience of some sort, but it is not the sort of mystical experience discussed in this thread -- since "I" am still present.

In this thread, I wish to discuss only those experiences in which the "I", the Observer, the Censor, the ego, the psychological self is absent.

My question is, if one has such an experience -- an experience in which subject/object perception has come to an end -- then isn't it only after the experience itself has ended that one (that is, the "I", the Observer, etc) becomes aware of having had such an experience? Furthermore, if that is the case -- if it is only after the experience itself has ended that one becomes aware of having had such an experience -- then is not everything that one thinks about the experience no more than interpretation? No more than a commentary on the experience?

So, for instance, if one says, "I have experienced god", is that not mere commentary on, mere interpretation of, what might or might not have happened?

Last, does that have any consequences for how we should view our recollections of a mystical experience? If so, what would those consequences be?

It seems you have nailed it Sunstone with the way you have phrased the question, well done! :clap

And you have already answered it correctly when you say..."then is not everything that one thinks about the experience no more than interpretation? No more than a commentary on the experience?"

As for the last question, dwelling on recollections or interpretations involves a return to subject - object perception (one who recollects and the recollections) and so long as the mind is in this dualistic state, all is vanity relative to the Real. Actually this applies to the duality implied to one who experiences and the experience itself, and so it can't rightly be said that the "I' even experiences the non-dual state.

The Tao/God that can be spoken of is not the Eternal Tao/God.

 

[sandandfoam]

My question is, if one has such an experience -- an experience in which subject/object perception has come to an end -- then isn't it only after the experience itself has ended that one (that is, the "I", the Observer, etc) becomes aware of having had such an experience?

I think so.

Furthermore, if that is the case -- if it is only after the experience itself has ended that one becomes aware of having had such an experience -- then is not everything that one thinks about the experience no more than interpretation? No more than a commentary on the experience?

I think so.

So, for instance, if one says, "I have experienced god", is that not mere commentary on, mere interpretation of, what might or might not have happened?

I think of it as an attempt to make a metaphor that works for me. Nothing literal can describe it - yet I am driven to understand myself. 'What am I?' is the question at the centre of my being. Tha answer is there at the fringes of my consciousness and I need to interpret it. But I am faced with a problem. The thing I wish to observe is disturbed by my observation of it - it disappears when I am about to see it and exists only in memory.

Last, does that have any consequences for how we should view our recollections of a mystical experience? If so, what would those consequences be?

I think it should move us beyond literalism and teach us to embrace poetry and laughter.

 

[roger1440]

Many kinds of experiences are called "mystical", but for the purposes of this thread, I wish to focus on only one sort of mystical experiences -- the kind in which subject/object perception comes to an abrupt end while some sort of experiencing continues.

By almost all accounts, when subject/object perception ends, there is no longer an Observer, an ego, an I. Instead, there is only a sense or perception of unity -- a sense of oneness, or a perception of the One.

So, for instance, if I experience a vision of Jesus Christ, then that may be a mystical experience of some sort, but it is not the sort of mystical experience discussed in this thread -- since "I" am still present and hence subject/object perception has not come to an end.

Again, if I experience a premonition of the future or episode of clairvoyance, that may be a mystical experience of some sort, but it is not the sort of mystical experience discussed in this thread -- since "I" am still present.

In this thread, I wish to discuss only those experiences in which the "I", the Observer, the Censor, the ego, the psychological self is absent.

My question is, if one has such an experience -- an experience in which subject/object perception has come to an end -- then isn't it only after the experience itself has ended that one (that is, the "I", the Observer, etc) becomes aware of having had such an experience? Furthermore, if that is the case -- if it is only after the experience itself has ended that one becomes aware of having had such an experience -- then is not everything that one thinks about the experience no more than interpretation? No more than a commentary on the experience?

So, for instance, if one says, "I have experienced god", is that not mere commentary on, mere interpretation of, what might or might not have happened?

Last, does that have any consequences for how we should view our recollections of a mystical experience? If so, what would those consequences be?

The observer does not come to an end. It is the point of perception that comes to an end. The distinction between the observer and the observed becomes blurred. The observer is no longer apart from the observed. They are joined together because of a lack of a focal point. Take a look at someone’s face. We see the face as a whole. It is not made up of separate body parts stuck on a head. It is only when we focus upon a specific body part we see the face as made up of separate things. Remove the focal point then we remove the separateness or division. The very thing we call I or ego is nothing more than a reference point or focal point. It brings division because the ego creates a distinction between itself and everything else.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well explained roger1440, and welcome to RF.

 

[lunamoth]

I have exPerienced the sudden falling away of the I/other divide. I think there are many valid and helpful ways to interpret such an experience, and the Christian spin of The Kingdom of God is Among Us and God is Love are two such valid interpretations.

 

[roger1440]

I have exPerienced the sudden falling away of the I/other divide. I think there are many valid and helpful ways to interpret such an experience, and the Christian spin of The Kingdom of God is Among Us and God is Love are two such valid interpretations.

Please keep in mind Christians do not have a monopoly on mystical experiences. All the major religions have a branch of mysticism to them. You might find “The Collective Works of Saint John of the Cross” helpful in your quest. Another author I would suggest is Saint Teresa of Avila. Her book, “The Way to Perfection” is excellent. Please do not dwell on interpretations. To truly embrace God, one must let go of everything else one possesses. This includes concepts, ideas and interpretations. When Adam and Eve stood before God in the Garden of Eden, both of them were naked. They possessed nothing, not even clothes. They possessed only one thing before the fall, God.

“Let nothing disturb you;


Nothing frighten you.


All things are passing.


God never changes.


Patience


obtains all things.


Nothing is wanting to him


who possesses God.


God alone suffices.”


Saint Teresa of Avila​

 

[Sunstone]

Would it be an interpretation to say that the mystical experience was an experience of god?

 

[roger1440]

Would it be an interpretation to say that the mystical experience was an experience of god?

Yes it would be an interpretation. The believe in god is not a prerequisite. Buddhist mystics do not believe in god yet some of them have had mystical experiences. Christian mystics attribute their mystical experience to god because the experience is viewed through there believe system. Saint Teresa of Avila used the term “union with god”. A Buddhist monk would never use that term. There are different paths a mystic may take but all lead to the same destination.

 

[Student of X]

Agreed...many paths leading to the same mountaintop.