• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Are Mystical Experiences Like?

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The funny thing is, it is claimed that my talking about my mystical experiences is an obstacle, or an avoidance of actually having any. Yet, why is it I do then? That notion must be misguided. I not only describe my mystical experiences to others, but I have them unimpeded by this. When I am meditating I don't try to describe them, of course! :) That would in fact be being stuck in my thoughts about what is going on, rather than simply being absorbed by the experience of what is going on. I've learned long ago, in fact probably within the first few days of meditation, the importance to not be engage in trying to "figure things out" in meditation, to not "think about them", because doing so pulls one back into themselves. You're looking at your thoughts "about" the Light, rather than being "in" the Light.

That's was my first, most fundamental and basic realization. Along with that is to not "seek" for that Light, because if you are seeking, your focus in on yourself, again. You are looking to your "needs", and that is ego-facing. I learned, in those first few days of meditation that the seeking you do is to "seek Love for Love's sake", not for your own. The seeking we do is to abandon our seeking, to abandon ourselves to that Light. And when we do, we find our True Self. Who we are beyond all our thoughts about ourselves, and our thoughts about the nature of truth and reality. Those are all illusions. We learn from this illumination that we should not place an over-reliance on what we think about something as the truth of it.

But we of course continue to think and have thoughts in life, as we need to in order to function as a human. We know however, or begin to learn at the least, that we should not hold to and place our sense of Peace in those ideas of who we are or what is truth. We rest in our Being, we find that Center, that Ground and rest in that as our Self, our identity, which is in fact beyond thought itself. This is how we live with an Enlightened mind, to not lose ourselves, our center in illusion, but at the same time not dissociating from ourselves into the illusion that no-thought is the end. This is the nature of nonduality. It is not to sever one from mind, but to expand mind to include form and formlessness. This is a process of awakening, not escaping.

These basic truths of meditation, and there are a few very basic fundamental truths such as realizing the illusory nature of thoughts, are something we come back to again and again, like a spiral ascending over the same points. We dismay that we're "back here again" when we thought we understood this basic truth, assuming we have now left it behind us! Very common to do this. I speak from experience, of course. But there are layers of unfolding of this deeper and deeper within us like layers of an onion. We hit the same basic truth again, finding we are looking to the mind again, but it is at a deeper level now. The Spiral is not just a flat circle, but includes lessons learned before it. So now, we find that once we "thought we got it!", we were in fact only just beginning. To insist that we have "figured it out", is in fact to betray we are avoiding the next layer of that onion. To go preaching to others "All you need to do is this!", is in fact stuck in an idea, and not actually using it as a tool to peel back further into true Self Awareness.

It's progressive. A peak experience of Ultimate Reality, is just the invitation!! I have learned. It's the bell to call you Home. All the rest is work. State experiences are easy. Growing in that Light and becoming a fully Realized human is a matter of death and resurrection, over and over and over again, learning to integrate that Light into your person as a human being. Enlightenment as an escape from this world, is not Enlightenment, it's another form of illusion.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
It's progressive. A peak experience of Ultimate Reality, is just the invitation!! I have learned. It's the bell to call you Home. All the rest is work. State experiences are easy. Growing in that Light and becoming a fully Realized human is a matter of death and resurrection, over and over and over again, learning to integrate that Light into your person as a human being. Enlightenment as an escape from this world, is not Enlightenment, it's another form of illusion.
As stated, I find your ramblings to be very eloquent and it saves me so many keystrokes. THANK YOU (for that)!

Besides, if no one spoke of the nature of mystical experience very few would actually consider trying to learn more about themselves and their inner reality. If we are all sitting here, smiling, in mute silence, who would ever think there was something afoot other than perhaps something that was added to our tea?


Another aside: I am also greatly annoyed by folks who dismiss the thought process as if it is something icky that we have to get over. It isn't and has never been.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Besides, if no one spoke of the nature of mystical experience very few would actually consider trying to learn more about themselves and their inner reality.
There is that, of course. Part of the reason to talk about it is to also support someone on their paths. If you never heard anyone else speak of it you might otherwise consider yourself gone mad. "Is it normal for someone to experience a state of utter timeless and bliss?" Why yes!, resounds the answer. It is perfectly normal. There isn't anything wrong with you. In fact, you should seek to cultivate this in your life! Good golly, isn't this what communication and community is all about? Isn't this the nature of Sanga? The three jewels, Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.

When I hear others speak of their experiences, it encourages me. It doesn't create a stumbling block because I realize it's not a "just do this and be enlightened" thing. We're not seeking for easy answers, Buddha in a Box, Five Easy Steps to Enlightenment for $19.95 in the checkout lanes of WalMart. If anything, telling someone "just quit thinking" is such an "easy answer". That's a simple truth, to be sure, but it can take a life-time to learn if you are bent on escaping yourself. It is easy, actually. Just die to everything you self-identify with. Simple. Now go do it! :)

If we are all sitting here, smiling, in mute silence, who would ever think there was something afoot other than perhaps something that was added to our tea?
Silence shared among those who are awake is a language that is understood. For some, silence is deafening. And then to try forcing silence on others, pounding the pulpit about it, is not a sign of Enlightenment, but rather a religious zealotry as a substitute for stillness. There are times to speak when it illuminates other to come to the Silence. Those that know Silence understand words that are spoken from Silence. What's in the words? What's communicated in the words? Is there Silence in the words? I think of the Logos of John 1 when I think of this.

Another aside: I am also greatly annoyed by folks who dismiss the thought process as if it is something icky that we have to get over. It isn't and has never been.
It brings to mind, on top of your Shakespeare quote about protesting too loudly a verse from the Bible where Paul was struck down off his horse, "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks". It's what I hear when anyone becomes insistent on their way as the only way. They are avoiding that which they seek to promote. The preaching becomes the near-enemy mentioned in Buddhism. The far-enemy is obvious, the exact opposite. The far-enemy of Compassion is indifference. But the near-enemy masquerades itself as the sought after quality. The near enemy of Compassion is pity. If you preach the one true way to enlightenment, It looks like you're acting in service of it, while you abysmally fail to be that. The near-enemy allows the person doing it to deceive themselves. "By their fruit you shall know them", not by their doctrines.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
"By their fruit you shall know them", not by their doctrines.
In that spirit, perhaps we should create a thread for folks to offer suggestions on how to experience that nifty silence within. :)
I can think of a few, right off the top of my head. It might be very interesting to hear what others have to offer that I have not thought of.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In that spirit, perhaps we should create a thread for folks to offer suggestions on how to experience that nifty silence within. :)
I can think of a few, right off the top of my head. It might be very interesting to hear what others have to offer that I have not thought of.
Orbit just started a new topic in the Mysticism DIR called Meditation Routines. That might not be a bad place to explain everything about mystical experience in full. Just, talk, talk, talk about it. Seriously though, it might not be a bad place to talk about it. Damn! I can't quit talking. I'll never get to Nirvana this way. :)

BTW, you said, "It might be very interesting to hear what others have to offer that I have not thought of". Notice what I bolded here? I think you should reconsider your experience if you have a thought about it.
 

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
***Mod Post***

This is the Mysticism DIR.

"So what Quagmire?"

So this:

Rule 10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums/Same Faith Debates/"Only Sections"

The DIR subforums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. DIR areas are not to be used as cover to bash others outside the faith. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.
 

Typist

Active Member
The participants on this forum are quite right to turn to the "nanny mods" as you so insultingly refer to them, when you violate the rules under which this forum operates.

For the record, my use of the word "nanny" is not an insult to the mods, but to the holy man children who feel the need to hide behind their skirts. Thanks for helping me correct the record.

Participants are surely within their rights to contact the mods, agreed there. And the fact that they feel the need to is directly relevant to the subject of mysticism, so it can be reasonably labeled helpful. Participants feel the need to defend some mystical beliefs, that's what they are showing us.

It works like this:

1) had an experience
2) converted experience in to belief
3) attached ego to belief
4) now belief must be defended at all costs.

That is the process of religion, where somebody has an experience, and then the experience is converted in to ideas, and the pile of ideas is built ever higher and nicer, and eventually becomes a huge dogma temple which must be defended at all costs from the horrific heretic hordes.

And as we can see throughout the New Age realm, once a pile of mystical ideas is built high enough and popular enough it becomes a business, with the latest ancient mystical insights going on sale for the low, low price of only $29.99!!

Mysticism is the opposite of religion and philosophy.

The opposite.

It's not building a big glorious thought pile.

It's knocking such piles down.

That's why the word "mysticism" was invented, to refer to something different than what the word "religion" already pointed to.

Draw two big circles on a piece of paper.

CIRCLE ONE: Write the word "philosophy" inside of the first circle. Within the philosophy circle draw a smaller circle called "religion". Within the religion circle draws lots of smaller circles. Within each of the smaller circles draw some even smaller circles. Within the smallest circles scribble as many holy sounding words as will fit.

CIRCLE TWO: Leave this circle empty.

Do you see the difference between Circle 1 and Circle 2?
 

Typist

Active Member
It seems reasonable to wonder if the mystical experiences and explanations etc being discussed in this section of the forum provide users with tangible psychological benefits, or whether it's mostly just a collection of glorious sounding talk. Wouldn't such a question likely be on the minds of newcomers to these topics?

So far, it seems those assembled in the gated community of this mod patrolled DIR are more than a little concerned with being protected from the rowdy rhetorical rabble, a concern that we don't see much of in say, atheist communities, where the attitude towards challengers is typically more one of "bring it on".

Does the mysticism being discussed here somehow make one more vulnerable to the words of anonymous strangers on the Internet? Or are mystics perhaps just naturally more delicate than other forum users for some reason?

I get that the purpose of this DIR is to protect the mystic community from challenge and controversy etc. Shouldn't this raise the question of why mystics need protection? What is it that it being protected? Wouldn't knowing what is being protected inform us further on the nature of the mysticism being discussed here?

Which of the new age holy men giving sermons here is willing to emerge from this police protected monastery and put whatever they've learned about enhancing human psychology to work in the other sections of the
forum where it's more difficult to hide behind the moderators?

I can't challenge you further here, per the rules.

But there's nothing stopping you from coming out of hiding, right?

It seems a discussion of mysticism might be advanced by finding out whether expert mystics need to hide or not.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
It seems reasonable to wonder if the mystical experiences and explanations etc being discussed in this section of the forum provide users with tangible psychological benefits, or whether it's mostly just a collection of glorious sounding talk. Wouldn't such a question likely be on the minds of newcomers to these topics?

So far, it seems those assembled in the gated community of this mod patrolled DIR are more than a little concerned with being protected from the rowdy rhetorical rabble, a concern that we don't see much of in say, atheist communities, where the attitude towards challengers is typically more one of "bring it on".

Does the mysticism being discussed here somehow make one more vulnerable to the words of anonymous strangers on the Internet? Or are mystics perhaps just naturally more delicate than other forum users for some reason?

I get that the purpose of this DIR is to protect the mystic community from challenge and controversy etc. Shouldn't this raise the question of why mystics need protection? What is it that it being protected? Wouldn't knowing what is being protected inform us further on the nature of the mysticism being discussed here?

Which of the new age holy men giving sermons here is willing to emerge from this police protected monastery and put whatever they've learned about enhancing human psychology to work in the other sections of the
forum where it's more difficult to hide behind the moderators?

I can't challenge you further here, per the rules.

But there's nothing stopping you from coming out of hiding, right?

It seems a discussion of mysticism might be advanced by finding out whether expert mystics need to hide or not.
If you want to debate so bad, go to "General Religious Debates" and have at it. This is not the place to challenge anyone to a debate. I'm tired of your trolling and I'm tired of the name calling.

Signed,
One of the "children of the New Age holy men, hiding behind the skirts of the nanny mods"
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If you want to debate so bad, go to "General Religious Debates" and have at it. This is not the place to challenge anyone to a debate. I'm tired of your trolling and I'm tired of the name calling.
Actually I don't believe that sort of behavior is tolerated anywhere on this site. That is not debating at all, it's preaching and harassment of members, name calling, insults, and whatnot. Here's the thing, I'm always interested in alternative points of view and I welcome challenges. But once the points have been discussed and a disagreement is reached, it's time to let it go and not follow the persons who disagreed with you around trying to convince them and everyone else that your'e right, preaching and trying to be the "heretic" hunter against those who disagreed with you. That's not debate. That's something entirely different. That's bullying, and I refuse to engage in responding to that as it is not rational and nothing more than about winning and being on top. That is the reason for my silence. The debate was over a long time ago.
 
Last edited:

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
So far, it seems those assembled in the gated community of this mod patrolled DIR are more than a little concerned with being protected from the rowdy rhetorical rabble, a concern that we don't see much of in say, atheist communities, where the attitude towards challengers is typically more one of "bring it on".

I get that the purpose of this DIR is to protect the mystic community from challenge and controversy etc. Shouldn't this raise the question of why mystics need protection? What is it that it being protected? Wouldn't knowing what is being protected inform us further on the nature of the mysticism being discussed here?
Apparently you don't; if you looked at this site, you would realize that virtually every religions type is provided with a DIR so that the members who are of that "faith" can discuss to their heart's content without trolls like you sliming their way in, denigrating the members, challenging their beliefs, preaching at them about other faiths, etc. And you would notice that the Atheists also have their own DIR, where those of other belief structures are not allowed to do anything more than ask polite questions. The purpose of this "protection" is to allow people who follow a religious belief, or nonbelief, to be able to express themselves among similar thinking people without having to worry about being attacked, regardless of their beliefs.

For those members of the forum who wish to debate, there are debate forums clearly marked and located elsewhere on this forum. While fairly open, there are still limits on what participants can say (see rules 1, 2, and 3, for example).

For those members who wish to attack the beliefs of others, those other members have the ability to choose to defend themselves and engage in repartee, witty or otherwise, or they can put the offender or "ignore," or they can call the attention of the mods, by directly communicating with them or using the "Report" button.

Why do people need to be protected in the DIRs? So this forum doesn't degenerate into anarchy, which seems to be what you would prefer. Instead, like any civil society, it has rules to be followed, and those who fail to follow them end up outside of the society. So good luck in all your future endeavors.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
True mystical practices bring about Peace. It does not produce religious zealotry bent on stamping out all others who don't believe like you. The test of a true mystical practice is the fruit it bears.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
Alright. I have a theory I've been thinking about in the context of my curious style of transtheistic mysticism.

Mysticism is consciousness driven by uniting and finding an appreciation of commonalities, connections, and holism. (Akin to Buddhist "thusness or suchness.") Once you even start to try to speak about it, the connective process is hindered, as language and words are primarily about defining separation and differences: highlighting and naming something and drawing attention away from its connections, which leads to reductionism.

As human beings, all of us have the capacity for both reductionist and holistic cognition. Some give preference to one process over the other, which is fine. Both processes are needed and valuable. However, failure to recognize and honor personal boundaries can be a hallmark of narcissism. Failure to be able to discern and appreciate individualities, even if they remain unnamed, is the other side of the undesirable narcissistic coin. Overly reductionist thinking often leads to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," can lead to nihilistic tendencies, and the value of holistic mysticism experience is lost.

What do you think? Does this resonate?
 

roger1440

I do stuff
If you were to give an approximate description of how a mystical experience felt like, how would you describe it? I'm saying "approximate" because I can't think of any description that would fully convey how my own experience felt. It was, quite literally, an ineffable feeling.

Waiting for your answers.


It’s the awareness of where we fit within the scheme of things. How can it possibly be explained that the world is not wrapped around us? We are part of the world, not apart from the world. The very thing you call yourself is no more than a focal point or perspective.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I can't challenge you further here, per the rules.

But there's nothing stopping you from coming out of hiding, right?

It seems a discussion of mysticism might be advanced by finding out whether expert mystics need to hide or not.
Challenge accepted. Did you want to do this in the One-on-One section?

This might actually be fun.
@Typist
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Mysticism is consciousness driven by uniting and finding an appreciation of commonalities, connections, and holism. (Akin to Buddhist "thusness or suchness.") Once you even start to try to speak about it, the connective process is hindered, as language and words are primarily about defining separation and differences: highlighting and naming something and drawing attention away from its connections, which leads to reductionism.

It does seem that labelling creates separation. What I sometimes do is consciously label things, which paradoxically leads me to look at them more closely. I have an idea that the problem is not labelling itself, but the fact that we usually do it unconsciously and automatically. It becomes a habitual glancing over of our experience, so that we don't really see and don't really connect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Mysticism is consciousness driven by uniting and finding an appreciation of commonalities, connections, and holism. (Akin to Buddhist "thusness or suchness.") Once you even start to try to speak about it, the connective process is hindered, as language and words are primarily about defining separation and differences: highlighting and naming something and drawing attention away from its connections, which leads to reductionism.
I hear the differences you are speaking to but I think it needs to be understood a little differently. First let's call to goal of mystical states "Unitive Consciousness". That is what actually motivates the mystics, to Unite with the Divine, to be One with the world, with All that is, to return to Source, to rest in Emptiness, to be complete, and so forth. The mystical experience is not a cognitive exercise, seeking commonalities through beliefs, cultural connections, or understanding systems theory. The mystical experience is a state of consciousness, and in that Unitive Consciousness it sees past and beyond the surface structures of others to Spirit itself. It goes beyond finding commonalities.

This is one of the reasons that Interfaith dialogue do not truly bring people together, as the mind is still looking at what divides in seeking what unites. What would truly bring people together would be a shared practice where each speaks out in their own uniqueness from that place of Silence. Words spoken from Silence are understood by those whose home is in Silence. Then we see and hear each other.

I'm going to share something I posted elsewhere here yesterday as it directly relates and will go to the rest of your points you are bringing up. When we speak from Silence with words, that is wholly different that when we speak from separation seeking a way to Unite. When we use words as a way for our mind's to try to grasp the Divine, we are in fact looking to the mind itself. We are stuck in thoughts. But to speak from Silence is not the mind seeking answers or connections or commonalities. It does not lead to reductionism, because it begins from Unity. The mind is already there. So this one member rightly said that if we say "God is love", isn't that putting a definition on the Absolute. My response was as follows:

It depends on which side of the Absolute you are speaking from, I suppose. I will say this about "God is Love", that is true in the sense of how it is experienced in the relative. In the highest expression of form, there is an infinite expression of Love, which itself arises from Formlessness, which itself has no defining quality. The Formless is not a thing, or has attributes, or a qualities, but from this the highest expressions of the world of form arise. I would say this is the realm of subtle light, pure form, in the relative side, "approaching lightspeed" as it were from my earlier analogy. The Hindus speak of this as Satcitananda, "being, consciousness, bliss". It is the, "sublimely blissful experience of the boundless, pure consciousness is a glimpse of ultimate reality". So "God is Love", is true, experienced at the highest state of the relative. And I will add this, this is not just abstract ideas. These are actual realized states of being. I have, and do experience Satchitananda myself. It's not a logical abstraction which has "no evidence". These are words to describe experience.​

So when we speak of the qualities or attributes of the Divine, it is not meant that one should trying to understand God with the mind. What it real says is that when you experience the Absolute, this is how it will be experienced by you. It is not saying "This is what God is", it is saying this is what the experience of God is as a human at the highest states of Realization. The key is not not seek an understanding, nor to seek this as an experience. But to seek Unity with Divine, letting go of all seeking for the self. When we speak of the Divine, we speak from that place of Realization. It is not attempting to map out God. It maps out the highest states of human awareness, the condition of them, and how it affects what the mind sees.

Words do not need to hinder the path, as long as one understands from which place they are coming from. Does the person speaking have experience, or is it all simply hypothetical and theoretical? Is it metaphysical speculations, or is it descriptive language from one who has actual experience? This is where the watershed point of words go into either reductionist thoughts, or into illuminative Wisdom. The same words can be used, but grasped either by the seeking mind, or heard with the spirit intent on freeing itself into Unity.

One last quote to underscore this. I came across this recently by Sri Aurobindo which I immediately connected with.

The intellect must consent to pass out of the bounds of a finite logic and accustom itself to the logic of the Infinite. On this condition alone, by this way of seeing and thinking, it ceases to be paradoxical or futile to speak of the ineffable: but if we insist on applying a finite logic to the Infinite, the omnipresent reality will escape us and we shall grasp instead an abstract shadow, a dead form petrified into speech or a hard incisive graph which speaks of the Reality but does not express it. Our way of knowing must be appropriate to that which is to be known

~Sri Aurobindo, Life Divine, pg.293​

This is what those who are hung up on the idea of "One right way!", fail again and again to hear and understand. You can, and should, speak from a place of Silence. Not just be silent, end of story. That is itself, hung up on an idea and not seeing beyond it into Silence. It is speaking from outside of Silence. It is speaking from the mind. We should seek to speak. But we should seek Silence in order for our words to have meaning about that Silence.
 
Top