PLEASE NOTE: The term 'god' in the thread title is in this context being used as little more than a convenient shorthand for what might more properly be called 'the oneness of all things' or 'the One'. The oneness of all things goes by many names, and 'god' is but one of its more common names.* That's to say, the oneness is not invariably interpreted as deity. There is inconclusive evidence that as much as a fifth (20%) of those who experience the oneness are atheists both before and after their experience. The oneness, whatever else it might be, appears to be safely in compliance with US Federal Law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of one's religious beliefs. Go oneness!
Remarkable advances in the neurosciences -- especially in brain scan technology -- over the past 30 or so years have left little doubt that humans are capable of attaining a mystical state of awareness that cannot properly be called an hallucination. However, there are yet many questions waiting for answers, and one of the hottest and most lively of those questions is...
Assuming mystical episodes impart some kind or species of knowledge, what is the precise kind or species of knowledge that they impart? And can it be monetized?
The question has profound implications for certain further questions, such as why mystics sometimes vary in their interpretations of the oneness, whether the knowledge imparted during a mystical episode can be communicated to other people (and if so, how), and especially to non-mystics, whether symbolic definitions of god are meaningful (and if so, how), and what influence, if any, the knowledge has on the mystic's life?
To be sure, I am not talking about 'knowledge' on the level of data or fact. It would not interest me in the least to discover that god wore Nike shoes, voted Social Democrat, and harbored a fondness for feminist politics. Instead, I am strictly concerned with finding out the kind of knowledge a mystical episode is likely to impart.
Specifically, are we dealing here with 'intellectual knowledge' or with 'know-how'.
Those are the options, and if the answer is 'neither' or 'both', those are fine, too. Of course, calling the two kinds of knowledge 'intellectual knowledge' and 'know-how' is a bit clumsy, so I am going to borrow two Greek words and call them, 'logos' and 'gnosis'. Broadly speaking, logos is your knowledge of a tree that you have seen photos of, read about, or studied textbooks written about it. It is knowledge communicated through symbolic means. Symbols -- such as the symbols you are now reading.
Gnosis, on the other hand, is your knowledge of a tree that you ran full-tilt into by accident while trying to reach your wine cellar in time to save it from @Jayhawker Soule's 'amorous' advances. Gnosis is imparted or communicated through directly experiencing something, and is anything but symbolic. Of extreme relevance and importance here, we need NOT be consciously aware of our gnostic knowledge. We can know in a gnostic manner without at all being consciously aware that we know.
It is my contention that the most significant and influential knowledge imparted by mystical episodes is gnosis, and that logos -- if they impart any at all -- is of generally little or no consequence. Indeed, I would argue that anyone claiming to have had important or meaningful logos imparted to them during a mystical experience is most likely confusing what their experience has taught them with their interpretation of what their experience has taught them.
Hopefully that's enough background to kick off a discussion now. I leave you with the inspiring words of Confucius:“Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it.”
*Other names might (or might not, depending on how you interpret them) be the 'Dao' of Daoism, the nirvana of Buddhism, 'The Endless One" or 'Ein Sof' of Jewish mysticism, the "Great Mystery" or 'Wakan Tanka' of the Lakota, the 'Gitche Manitou' of many Algonquian nations, and so forth.