What is the meaning of mystic experience?

[Orbit]

Given that they exist, and are real, what meanings does mystic experience have for you? Do you connect your mystic experience to a traditional religious framework? How does that help you?

Personally, I see traditional religious frameworks as symbols, so in meditation I might meditate on Kuan Yin or Saraswati or Jesus as symbols of compassion. In that particular kind of meditation, the meaning for me is to embody, experience, and deeply understand compassion. There are other kinds of meditation, where the goal is the experience of the ineffable, of the Absolute, indescribable. The meaning of that for me is to give insight and larger perspective on whatever issues or thoughts come up. The meaning for me varies based on the purpose of the meditation. I think the biggest benefit is a larger perspective and a general calm.

 

[YmirGF]

It wouldn't occur to me to attempt to squeeze my existential reality into the intellectual coffins of understanding known as religions. That some folks do does not greatly impress me.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I was tempted to answer that I am Zeus, but I'm not so I didn't. I answered "no" because while I have looked at some religions' ideas about mystical experiences, I have also considered non-religious ideas about those experiences, and I would not use any of those frameworks to try to make my experience fit into the religion or other philosophical system, or the religion/philosophical system into the experience. The experiences I've had that might be "mystical" form the ground upon which I measure religious and philosophical ideas.

 

[Windwalker]

It wouldn't occur to me to attempt to squeeze my existential reality into the intellectual coffins of understanding known as religions. That some folks do does not greatly impress me.

Do you have no metaphors?

 

[Windwalker]

Given that they exist, and are real, what meanings does mystic experience have for you? Do you connect your mystic experience to a traditional religious framework? How does that help you?

I like religious language when I set it free from the First Congregational Church of the Dead Metaphor. I think there is plenty of value in the symbolism, so long as you're past being hung up on it not be a definition of facts. And that is exactly what I mean by dead metaphors. When the words become descriptors of facts, they are useless in spiritual development. But when they function as metaphor, they are open to the imagination, the heart, and the soul's reaching for itself in the limitless possibility of the infinite. One should never take religious language and turn it into descriptors of factual terms. It's like urinating on a living plant. It burns it to death. The problem isn't religion and its languages The problem is its administrators who have never tasted the waters of life on their tongues.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you have no metaphors?

Indeed, out of necessity I do use metaphors to describe symbols that are well beyond linear thought patterns, however I draw the line at adding to entrenched religious symbols as that will only further the credibility of those ideas. I'm not keen on giving the faithful more fuel to keep their imaginary fires burning brightly.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I've mostly used a Buddhist framework because I like the practices. In recent years my focus has been on developing tranquillity ( samatha ) and insight ( satipatthana ), these work well as stand-alone practices and you really don't need to surround them with beliefs, assumptions and concepts.
I explored Paganism but didn't find anything that really suited me. I have some Quaker friends and join them in "silent worship", I appreciate the quality of the stillness that develops.

There are many different paths, though increasingly I trust my own sense of direction. I used to do a lot of hill-walking, and I found that the most interesting discoveries were invariably well off the beaten paths.

 

[Windwalker]

Indeed, out of necessity I do use metaphors to describe symbols that are well beyond linear thought patterns, however I draw the line at adding to entrenched religious symbols as that will only further the credibility of those ideas. I'm not keen on giving the faithful more fuel to keep their imaginary fires burning brightly.

Yes, I know the argument about avoiding words like that for that reason. I've always been stubborn about not doing that for the following reason. It gives the power of the words away into the hands of children and the uneducated. It falsely empowers them as the owners of God. You allow them to disallow you access to the sacred words because they have staked a claim on them and called them theirs. It's like refusing to use the word love because porn addicts use it to describe getting off to nudie pictures. Let them use the words that way. It just reflects where they are at, not what the metaphors are more than capable of saying.

If someone hears the same words which should mean something transcendent actually being used that way, they'll be smart enough to figure out that the person using the words as exclusivist language isn't using them right. But if they only ever hear that way, then to them it can actually be a hinderance to them because what symbols are available to them then. They have what then to relate their own inclinations toward with? This is what reclaiming the language is about, rather than just giving the power of them away to the undeserving.

You say, "I'm not keen on giving the faithful more fuel to keep their imaginary fires burning brightly." I'd rather approach it this way. Let them play with their lighters and sparkler sticks holding them up in a large crowd at a rock concert. I'd rather let the same flame spoken from the place of actual experience overpower the multitude of their collective flames with a single solar flare. Which flame do you think is going to cast more light? How meaningful are the flames from their Bic lighters at that point when they can barely be seen if at all? Now, how's that for a metaphor?

 

[YmirGF]

Yes, I know the argument about avoiding words like that for that reason. I've always been stubborn about not doing that for the following reason. It gives the power of the words away into the hands of children and the uneducated. It falsely empowers them as the owners of God. You allow them to disallow you access to the sacred words because they have staked a claim on them and called them theirs. It's like refusing to use the word love because porn addicts use it to describe getting off to nudie pictures. Let them use the words that way. It just reflects where they are at, not what the metaphors are more than capable of saying.

If someone hears the same words which should mean something transcendent actually being used that way, they'll be smart enough to figure out that the person using the words as exclusivist language isn't using them right. But if they only ever hear that way, then to them it can actually be a hinderance to them because what symbols are available to them then. They have what then to relate their own inclinations toward with? This is what reclaiming the language is about, rather than just giving the power of them away to the undeserving.

You say, "I'm not keen on giving the faithful more fuel to keep their imaginary fires burning brightly." I'd rather approach it this way. Let them play with their lighters and sparkler sticks holding them up in a large crowd at a rock concert. I'd rather let the same flame spoken from the place of actual experience overpower the multitude of their collective flames with a single solar flare. Which flame do you think is going to cast more light? How meaningful are the flames from their Bic lighters at that point when they can barely be seen if at all? Now, how's that for a metaphor?

I like this very much and it reminds me of a time I suggested that people seize the word "gay" and use it as a positive adjective rather than it's common use as a pejorative. The problem with doing as you suggest is that human animals may very well imagine that you are actively supporting their ideas as you are using their common symbols and terms.

 

[Orbit]

It wouldn't occur to me to attempt to squeeze my existential reality into the intellectual coffins of understanding known as religions. That some folks do does not greatly impress me.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not out to impress anyone. I don't squeeze my meditation into a "religion". I use religious symbols, from many traditions. That's a different thing entirely. I'm not interested in dogma in the slightest. I think the symbols speak to the human psyche and are useful, so I use them. It's freeing, not constraining.

 

[Orbit]

I was tempted to answer that I am Zeus, but I'm not so I didn't. I answered "no" because while I have looked at some religions' ideas about mystical experiences, I have also considered non-religious ideas about those experiences, and I would not use any of those frameworks to try to make my experience fit into the religion or other philosophical system, or the religion/philosophical system into the experience. The experiences I've had that might be "mystical" form the ground upon which I measure religious and philosophical ideas.

What philosophical framework do you use? How do you think about the meaning of your experiences?

 

[YmirGF]

It's freeing, not constraining.

So is using crayons to fill in a colouring book with any combination you feel inclined to use.

 

[Orbit]

So is using crayons to fill in a colouring book with any combination you feel inclined to use.

Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" sums up my views on this. I also refrain from judging other people's spiritual practice, which is a habit of the religious.

 

[YmirGF]

Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" sums up my views on this. I also refrain from judging other people's spiritual practice, which is a habit of the religious.

Hehe. Although I absolutely detest Alan Watts, I suppose that once I "got the message" I really did hang up the phone.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

What philosophical framework do you use? How do you think about the meaning of your experiences?

Well, I'm a skeptic in the original sense of the word; that is, I don't believe it's possible (although I also believe it's not impossible) for humans to have "real" knowledge about "reality." To a large degree, I'm a pragmatist: if it seems to work, use it, but be ready to drop it if something more useful comes along.

Thus, as I consider my experiences (remembering that EVERYTHING, including reading posts here on RF, is an experience), I see how they fit and don't fit with my other experiences, and with what I've learned of the models of reality expressed by others (that is, the sciences, the religions, philosophy, etc.). The "meaning" of my mystical experiences--and many of my other experiences that I wouldn't classify as mystical--suggests to me that I exist as a temporary and unique pattern of matter and energy in a material universe that also has another subtle component that others might call spirit or unity or God. I use my experiences to orient my rational cognitive models (I think the word "map" is also appropriate) of reality as I understand and experience it. I would say the mystical experiences are the primary reference points for making my maps of reality.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Isn't mystical experience already set within the framework of symbols of the religions you're familiar with? Someone brought up with christianity will automatically colour an experience with God and Jesus as they interpret the experience as it's happening. No need to then reframe it into that concept, as it's likely already been done. The trick would be to view it outside the established framework, rather than box it into one, no?

 

[Windwalker]

I like this very much and it reminds me of a time I suggested that people seize the word "gay" and use it as a positive adjective rather than it's common use as a pejorative. The problem with doing as you suggest is that human animals may very well imagine that you are actively supporting their ideas as you are using their common symbols and terms.

I think context reveals it's not the same thing. What language do you use to speak of the transcendent? How do you communicate with those who are on their path towards realization? How do you hang your own understanding on anything? But what is more, in reality no matter what you say about it coming from a place of experience that others do not have, your words are in fact going to be interpreted downward into whatever active framework it is that the person using them is only able to hear. No matter what you say, people are going to think you mean some dastardly thing that they are only capable of imagining. Just look what they do with Jesus' words? You think Jesus meant anything Ted Cruz or Donald Trump thinks he meant?

I say, use what words speak for you and don't worry what someone might interpreted them into mangled garbage could do with them. I think of it like this, "Those who have ear to hear, will hear". Those who don't, won't. No matter what avoiding of words you try to accommodate for them so they don't judge you wrongly. Speak Truth, and let it fall where it may. If that's what words work for you, you should use them. If they don't, they don't. But it shouldn't have anything to do with how idiots puke all over them.

 

[YmirGF]

Isn't mystical experience already set within the framework of symbols of the religions you're familiar with?

Yes, due to what I come to see as psychological "qualifiers", one does tend to focus on aspects outside themselves in order to get a handle on said experiences. The ramifications of it being purely internal is a bit much for most to handle and so one will often look to the prominent religious figures to help make sense of it all. That, in itself, has its own pitfalls, but no one is ever promised a bed of roses.

Someone brought up with christianity will automatically colour an experience with God and Jesus as they interpret the experience as it's happening. No need to then reframe it into that concept, as it's likely already been done. The trick would be to view it outside the established framework, rather than box it into one, no?

Human animals have a tendency to minimize the role that imagination has in these experiences. When comprehension is dwarfed where else is there for a mind to go? The problem there is taking it all literally....

 

[Windwalker]

Yes, due to what I come to see as psychological "qualifiers", one does tend to focus on aspects outside themselves in order to get a handle on said experiences. The ramifications of it being purely internal is a bit much for most to handle and so one will often look to the prominent religious figures to help make sense of it all. That, in itself, has its own pitfalls, but no one is ever promised a bed of roses.

That is insightful and I agree. This is what archetypes do, after all, and why they are so effective in what they do. It is very difficult to accept you are God. We don't know how to see ourselves like this. That "face of the divine" one touches, is in fact their own that they just haven't quite learned how to accept yet. Yes. It's a process of integration, I believe.

But this comes back to what I've mentioned before several times. I think this "face of the divine", the 2nd person approach has benefits that are missed when one bypasses it and goes straight for the brassring. That, to me has far greater pitfalls as the ego hides out and is never brought to light face to face to deal with it. In a 2nd person I-Thou approach, the ego has nowhere to hide! It gets brought into the light and you are forced to come to terms with who you are before you can go further. Just denying all that, shutting it out, can in fact lead to a great deal of issues, mistaking how "advanced" someone is in mystical states with a fully developed and integrated spirituality. Many "advanced mystics" have giant egos. I don't say any of that lightly.

So what pitfalls do you see with it where skipping over all that or minimizing it is preferable? I'm sure there are some, such as turning it into a dependency and never growing into yourself as you should, for example.

Human animals have a tendency to minimize the role that imagination has in these experiences. When comprehension is dwarfed where else is there for a mind to go? The problem there is taking it all literally....

100% agreed. A literalized metaphor is a dead metaphor.

 

[mystic64]

Given that they exist, and are real, what meanings does mystic experience have for you? Do you connect your mystic experience to a traditional religious framework? How does that help you?

Personally, I see traditional religious frameworks as symbols, so in meditation I might meditate on Kuan Yin or Saraswati or Jesus as symbols of compassion. In that particular kind of meditation, the meaning for me is to embody, experience, and deeply understand compassion. There are other kinds of meditation, where the goal is the experience of the ineffable, of the Absolute, indescribable. The meaning of that for me is to give insight and larger perspective on whatever issues or thoughts come up. The meaning for me varies based on the purpose of the meditation. I think the biggest benefit is a larger perspective and a general calm.

Interesting topic Orbit ! Humm? I am like no other mystic that anyone has ever met, I am like no other yogi that anyone has ever met, and I am like no other Christian that anyone has ever met. "...what meanings does the mystic experience have for you?" What an awesome question ! I have reached a point in the mystic experience where I have absolutely no idea how to answer that question ! Which is funny because I always have an answer for everything. I just ask the intuitive mind or sometimes God for something to say and then just right down what I am given to say . And it always works. I don't know. There has to be something that I can write here, I have been gone for a few days and I am in a posting mood .

"Do you connect your mystic experience to a traditional religious framework? I use to connect it with Hindu and Christian traditional frameworks, but not anymore, traditional framework has gone down the pike.

"...where the goal is is the experience the ineffable, of the Absolute, indescribable." After over forty years and thousands of hours of meditation experience I don't meditate anymore because I am just there all of time. I use to fall out of it, but I don't anymore.I do the life extension meditations before I go to sleep at night, but that is about it.

Orbit, I like the way that you approach meditation , there is no way that you can lose with that approach!