Mystical Experience and Cultural Interpretation

It seems to me most of us super-sized chimpanzees try to squeeze mystical experiences into cultural clothing. For instance, if we come from a culture that posits the primacy of deity as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of deity. However, if we come from a culture that, say, posits the dao as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of the dao.

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Moreover, humans are known to be lousy witnesses. If twenty people witness the same accident, there's an appreciatable chance that not more than five or seven of them will agree on the colors of the cars involved. Why should we suppose that mystics are any better witnesses than other folks? All else being equal, it seems to me a Chinese mystic who is convinced he experienced the dao is just as likely to be a poor witness as an American who is convinced she experienced Jesus. There may be a few exceptionally accurate witnesses among mystics, but how are we to differentiate them from the average or poor witnesses?

Just some thoughts.

But what do you think? And why?

Sunstone said:

It seems to me most of us super-sized chimpanzees try to squeeze mystical experiences into cultural clothing. For instance, if we come from a culture that posits the primacy of deity as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of deity. However, if we come from a culture that, say, posits the dao as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of the dao.

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Moreover, humans are known to be lousy witnesses. If twenty people witness the same accident, there's an appreciatable chance that not more than five or seven of them will agree on the colors of the cars involved. Why should we suppose that mystics are any better witnesses than other folks? All else being equal, it seems to me a Chinese mystic who is convinced he experienced the dao is just as likely to be a poor witness as an American who is convinced she experienced Jesus. There may be a few exceptionally accurate witnesses among mystics, but how are we to differentiate them from the average or poor witnesses?

Just some thoughts.

But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

I think i was your muse for this thread and im flattered.

There was this time, when I was praying, and asked God to be present with me at that moment so that I would be comforted, and a raccoon came around the corner and just starred at me, and I freaked out thinking he was gonna attack me and scared him off.

Sunstone said:

But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

I think there is tremendous value in listening to what mystics have to say. I think you can see similarities across cultures and they certainly seem to agree that words fail. It doesn't seem to me the most respected mystics bandy about with specific cultural terms the way the OP implies.

My thought is that consciousness is infinite and One. When it shines through finite forms it takes the limitations of those forms. People that can quiet the mental noise of their finite form can experience consciousness closer to its source. They see more of the 'real' than we can in our normal consciousness.

Sunstone said:

It seems to me most of us super-sized chimpanzees try to squeeze mystical experiences into cultural clothing. For instance, if we come from a culture that posits the primacy of deity as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of deity. However, if we come from a culture that, say, posits the dao as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of the dao.

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Moreover, humans are known to be lousy witnesses. If twenty people witness the same accident, there's an appreciatable chance that not more than five or seven of them will agree on the colors of the cars involved. Why should we suppose that mystics are any better witnesses than other folks? All else being equal, it seems to me a Chinese mystic who is convinced he experienced the dao is just as likely to be a poor witness as an American who is convinced she experienced Jesus. There may be a few exceptionally accurate witnesses among mystics, but how are we to differentiate them from the average or poor witnesses?

Just some thoughts.

But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

If you never had a pizza, would you be able to "differentiate" between a "average" or "poor" one?

Sunstone said:

It seems to me most of us super-sized chimpanzees try to squeeze mystical experiences into cultural clothing. For instance, if we come from a culture that posits the primacy of deity as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of deity. However, if we come from a culture that, say, posits the dao as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of the dao.

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Moreover, humans are known to be lousy witnesses. If twenty people witness the same accident, there's an appreciatable chance that not more than five or seven of them will agree on the colors of the cars involved. Why should we suppose that mystics are any better witnesses than other folks? All else being equal, it seems to me a Chinese mystic who is convinced he experienced the dao is just as likely to be a poor witness as an American who is convinced she experienced Jesus. There may be a few exceptionally accurate witnesses among mystics, but how are we to differentiate them from the average or poor witnesses?

Just some thoughts.

But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

You're talking right up my alley here. I think you are mistaking this as being eyewitnesses. That's not what a mystical experience is. As my Wilber quote in my signature says well, "A mystic is not one who sees God as an object, but is immersed in God as an atmosphere." That's radically different. An "eyewitness" is not the same thing in this context. But to your point, why is it that people from different cultures speak of mystical experiences in the symbolic languages of their culture? I think the question is the answer itself. It's the language of their culture. A Buddhist having a subtle-level mystical state experience will see a thousand-armed avalokiteshvara, whereas a Hindu will see a blue Krishna, a Christian the Virgin Mary or Jesus, and so forth. It's not a matter of being a "bad eyewitness", but a matter of the transcendent symbol set that the mind "puts a face" on the experience of the transcendent.

What you're not looking at objectively here, is not "what" they see or how they talk about it, but the underlying experience itself. That is common. They see a transcendent figure. That's common, not the form it takes. The form it takes is relative, of course, influenced by culture, just as you speak in English words instead of Chinese words. You don't describe your experiences of the normal mundane reality in Chinese, so why would your mystical experiences being the language of another culture? That's not that hard to understand.

I can go much further with this, but I'll leave it here for the moment to see if this makes sense to you.

Sunstone said:

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Click to expand...

I agree, and I think people often read far too much into the experiences they have, sometimes projecting a very personal experience out on to the world. Personally I think it's better to keep an open mind about such experiences, allowing for possibilities, not attempting to pigeon-hole them or make unfounded assumptions.

I don't think that the 'cultural clothing' is a bad thing, nor I do I think that it in any way devalues the experience itself.

True mystics are never self-serving ecstatics. They are supposed to share their enlightenment with the world at large, with their compatriots, their countrymen. The 14th century Flemish mystic Bl. Jan van Ruysbroeck expressed this point so very well (and yes in his own theistic, Catholic, Flemish way):



In other words, the mystic must "come down from the heights" of rapture and enter the "common" world, speak the language of his countrymen: which in Jan van Ruysbroeck's case was medieval Catholicism.

Interpreting their experiences according to the sacred myths, values or structures of their own tradition/native land makes their mysticism capable of ennobling that culture and reaching out to the community.

It is the only way for the 'message' to be heard. Moreover, diversity is a good thing. The fact that their are essentially a million and one different ways of explaining the same experience, in terms comprehensible to distinct cultures, is a remarkable aspect of human nature and a testament to humanity's ability for innovation and originality.

Panikkar described a way of thinking about this problem that I find helpful. He wrote that the mystical experience had four distinct but inseparable moments:

1) The Pure experience, the instant of pure life, the immediate experience
2) Memory of the moment, which permits us to speak of it, but which is already no longer pure, since it passes through the mediation of recollection.
3) Interpretation, which leads us to describe it as painful, sensitive, spiritual, loving, an experience of Being, or of God, and so on. The interpretation we give of the experience is linked intimately to memory, language, and our personal cultural preconditions
4) Reception within the wider cultural world that we inhabit, which bestows on the experience a special resonance, but which, outside of that culture, the interpretation and resonance may not be of value

He emphasizes further the interdependent relation of culture and language, religion and culture, and the inability to grasp directly the pure experience of others. That is the problem of inter-religious dialogue

well named said:

Panikkar described a way of thinking about this problem that I find helpful. He wrote that the mystical experience had four distinct but inseparable moments:

1) The Pure experience, the instant of pure life, the immediate experience
2) Memory of the moment, which permits us to speak of it, but which is already no longer pure, since it passes through the mediation of recollection.
3) Interpretation, which leads us to describe it as painful, sensitive, spiritual, loving, an experience of Being, or of God, and so on. The interpretation we give of the experience is linked intimately to memory, language, and our personal cultural preconditions
4) Reception within the wider cultural world that we inhabit, which bestows on the experience a special resonance, but which, outside of that culture, the interpretation and resonance may not be of value

He emphasizes further the interdependent relation of culture and language, religion and culture, and the inability to grasp directly the pure experience of others. That is the problem of inter-religious dialogue

Click to expand...

Never heard until now of Panikkar, but he certainly seems to me spot on there. Thanks so much for sharing that!

I'm not sure why Raimon Panikkar is not better known. I think anyone with an interest in mysticism, comparative religion, Hindu-Buddhist-Christian dialogue, or dialogue between a modern scientific worldview and ancient religious thought should check him out. Just his story is fascinating: Spanish Catholic mother, Indian Hindu father, Catholic Priest, PhDs in philosophy, chemistry, and theology, lived in India part time for many years while also teaching at UCSB, wrote an enormous volume on the Vedas as well as numerous books from a Christian perspective. And besides all that, you can get a pretty immersive feel for a bunch of world religious traditions just by following his citations and footnotes.

Sunstone said:

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Click to expand...

the only way we can interpret mystical experiences is through 'cultural' terms.

what is culture? it is the way people live.

only in life, through life, can we interpret experiences that belong to the realm of the mystery. there is no mystery that does not come in the form of culture.

furthermore, i do not like to talk about cultural clothing, as if we could divest ourselves of culture as easily as we could strip down in the solitude of our own homes. we cannot scrape away who we are that easily, if at all. it is like trying to scrape off our own skin. culture does not belong to the outside. the way we live is not exterior to us, nor even interior. it is who we are.

Vouthon said:

I don't think that the 'cultural clothing' is a bad thing, nor I do I think that it in any way devalues the experience itself.

True mystics are never self-serving ecstatics. They are supposed to share their enlightenment with the world at large, with their compatriots, their countrymen. The 14th century Flemish mystic Bl. Jan van Ruysbroeck expressed this point so very well (and yes in his own theistic, Catholic, Flemish way):

OF THAT COMMON LIFE WHICH COMES FROM THE CONTEMPLATION AND FRUITION OF GOD​

The man who is sent down by God from these heights into the world is full of truth and rich in all virtues. And he seeks not his own but the glory of Him Who has sent him. And hence he is just and truthful in all things, and he possesses a rich and a generous ground, which is set in the richness of God: and therefore he must always spend himself on those who have need of him; for the living fount of the Holy Spirit, which is his wealth, can never be spent. And he is a living and willing instrument of God, with which God works whatsoever He wills and howsoever He wills; and these works he reckons not as his own, but gives all the glory to God. And so he remains ready and willing to do in the virtues all that God commands, and strong and courageous in suffering and enduring all that God allows to befall him. And by this he possesses a universal life, for he is ready alike for contemplation and for action, and is perfect in both of them. And none can have this universal life save the God-seeing man; and none can contemplate and enjoy God save he who has within himself the six points, ordered as I have described heretofore. And therefore, all those are deceived who fancy themselves to be contemplative, and yet inordinately love, practice, or possess, some creaturely thing; or who fancy that they enjoy God before they are empty of images, or that they rest before they enjoy. All such are deceived; for we must make ourselves fit for God with an open heart, with a peaceful conscience, with naked contemplation, without hypocrisy, in sincerity and truth. And then we shall mount up from virtue unto virtue, and shall see God, and shall enjoy Him, and in Him shall become one with Him, in the way which I have shown to you. That this be done in all of us, so help us God. Amen.
​

In other words, the mystic must "come down from the heights" of rapture and enter the "common" world, speak the language of his countrymen: which in Jan van Ruysbroeck's case was medieval Catholicism.

Interpreting their experiences according to the sacred myths, values or structures of their own tradition/native land makes their mysticism capable of ennobling that culture and reaching out to the community.

It is the only way for the 'message' to be heard. Moreover, diversity is a good thing. The fact that their are essentially a million and one different ways of explaining the same experience, in terms comprehensible to distinct cultures, is a remarkable aspect of human nature and a testament to humanity's ability for innovation and originality.

Click to expand...

"The mystic must "come down from the heights" of rapture and enter the "common" world." Vouthon, I really love those words! For every true mystic that comes down from the heights of rapture to attempt to interact with the "common" world, there are hundreds that don't. And the heart of Sunstone's OP is why . "Why should anyone take them seriously?" Or even, "How can anyone take them seriously?" Plato's "Allegory of the Cave" comes to mind . That little piece of ancient writing really hits the nail on the head. Cultural and religious bias is a part of the cave, personality programming is a part of the cave, education and what kind of education is a part of the cave, the ecconomic level that one exists in is a part of the cave, the political environment that one lives in is a part of the cave, language is a part of the cave, and the list goes on. I suppose with God in play , "The incredible we do instantly, the impossible takes a little bit longer." Many are called, but only a small few answer that call. And that is ok .

Sunstone said:

It seems to me most of us super-sized chimpanzees try to squeeze mystical experiences into cultural clothing. For instance, if we come from a culture that posits the primacy of deity as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of deity. However, if we come from a culture that, say, posits the dao as ultimate reality, then we tend to think of mystical experiences as experiences of the dao.

So far as I can figure it out, however, mystical experiences transcend all cultural constructs, very much including religious ones. In fact, I consider any interpretation of mystical experiences in cultural terms to be immediately suspect.

Moreover, humans are known to be lousy witnesses. If twenty people witness the same accident, there's an appreciatable chance that not more than five or seven of them will agree on the colors of the cars involved. Why should we suppose that mystics are any better witnesses than other folks? All else being equal, it seems to me a Chinese mystic who is convinced he experienced the dao is just as likely to be a poor witness as an American who is convinced she experienced Jesus. There may be a few exceptionally accurate witnesses among mystics, but how are we to differentiate them from the average or poor witnesses?

Just some thoughts.

But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

Personally I think that mysticism goes both ways. I agree that it transcend all cultural constructs as you say due to the fact that many mystics have an idea of God so different from the traditional idea the people around them have of God. Even when a Christian mystic experience Jesus, he experience Him in a way that is unacceptable to most other Christians. I once read about a Muslim mystic who saw himself in Allah and was killed by his Muslim contemporaries. Thus it is outside culture but immediately merge with culture again in that this is the symbols the mystic understand. This is why I agree with Windwalker:-

Windwalker said:

why is it that people from different cultures speak of mystical experiences in the symbolic languages of their culture? I think the question is the answer itself. It's the language of their culture. A Buddhist having a subtle-level mystical state experience will see a thousand-armed avalokiteshvara, whereas a Hindu will see a blue Krishna, a Christian the Virgin Mary or Jesus, and so forth. It's not a matter of being a "bad eyewitness", but a matter of the transcendent symbol set that the mind "puts a face" on the experience of the transcendent.

Click to expand...

The mystic understand that there isn't many religions but only One. The symbols is that which is many - the ways we use to describe our experiences. It is mystics who see God in a certain way and unable to fully explain they use symbols. The non-mystic disciples, unable to understand the symbols, build the religion... or so it seems to me.

SpentaMaynu said:

Personally I think that mysticism goes both ways. I agree that it transcend all cultural constructs as you say due to the fact that many mystics have an idea of God so different from the traditional idea the people around them have of God. Even when a Christian mystic experience Jesus, he experience Him in a way that is unacceptable to most other Christians. I once read about a Muslim mystic who saw himself in Allah and was killed by his Muslim contemporaries. Thus it is outside culture but immediately merge with culture again in that this is the symbols the mystic understand. This is why I agree with Windwalker:-



The mystic understand that there isn't many religions but only One. The symbols is that which is many - the ways we use to describe our experiences. It is mystics who see God in a certain way and unable to fully explain they use symbols. The non-mystic disciples, unable to understand the symbols, build the religion... or so it seems to me.

Click to expand...

Hi SpentaMaynu and welcome to the message board ! It is nice to see the presence of another mystic. I look forward to reading what you post, you seem to have been up the creek a bit as an experienced mystic.

Based on my life time experience as a mystic, one eventually reaches a point where the mystic experience transends both culture and religion. "The non-mystic disciples, unable to understand the symbols, build the religion,,," I like what you have said there. . To me the object is to create a reality where disciples have nothing to anchor to and religion building becomes impossible. Yes, one never has any disciples, but at the sametime one never creates a religion either . Just out of curiosity SpentaMaynu, do you think that that might be the wrong attitude for a mystic to have? I use to have a following and disiples from all over the world both as a yogi and as a mystic, but I ducked it because I didn't want to be the father of a new religion. And the path of a mystic is an individual path that loses something when it starts to become a group following with rules. You have to do this and you have to do that or it will never work. To me there are not any rules, you just step out into the "unknown" and from there you just attempt to survive the experience. And if you do survive the experience, you become a little bit rogue and a little bit saint and a whole lot addicted to playing with the "unknown" because that is where it is all happening .

Sunstone said:

It seems to me most of us super-sized chimpanzees try to squeeze mystical experiences into cultural clothing. ........
But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

I think usually mysticism transcends religion, but that's dependent on how you define both terms: mysticism, and religion. Religion, at least in some cases, has both external and internal components. Yes mysticism goes beyond the external portions. Not so sure about the internal portions.

As for the term 'mysticism', I see a lot of intellectual analysis of mysticism, as being seen as mysticism itself. A book about sight is not sight.

Sunstone said:

But what do you think? And why?

Click to expand...

I've touched on this topic before and in my view it all comes down to how good a communicator a given mystic is prior to the event(s) of their fascination. In other words, if one is a lousy communicator prior to this type of experience, the experience will not make you a better communicator. The problem is trying to relate non-dual experience into normal everyday terms. That, in and of itself, is a feat daunting enough to make most shy away from making any comments, let alone making grandiose proclamations, as there is precious little that can be conveyed in direct terms.

That said, as Windwalker nudged my thinking, the clever mystic may very well intentionally decide to use specific terms to be understood by his/her audience, following a theme or narrative, with the understanding that the map is not the territory and that the words are not often meant literally. To be fair, one would also need to hear what the mystic was saying, rather than reading the words of a page or a computer screen. For example, I once heard a talk given by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his hilarious pauses, facial expressions and giggling put a very unique twist on WHAT he was saying.

Your OP illustrates why I am less than specific on these type of discussions and am revolted by assumptions like "Ultimate Reality" and "Absolute Reality". I have been too far down the rabbit hole of consciousness to tell people such highly misleading things like those two.

YmirGF said:

That said, as Windwalker nudged my thinking, the clever mystic may very well intentionally decide to use specific terms to be understood by his/her audience, following a theme or narrative, with the understanding that the map is not the territory and that the words are not often meant literally. To be fair, one would also need to hear what the mystic was saying, rather than reading the words of a page or a computer screen. For example, I once heard a talk given by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his hilarious pauses, facial expressions and giggling put a very unique twist on WHAT he was saying.

Click to expand...

Yes, certainly being in the presence of the person will indeed communicate the subtle within the words as well, as it is coming from the person's own being, picked up by the witness on a variety of levels through a variety of subtle means. But I'll add something else too, that those who have had similar state experiences will pretty much get right away what the other person is saying, simply by reading the words themselves.

I have this experience reading the writings of say, Meister Eckhart from the 14th Century. I get his imagery and what he is saying because I have experienced the same thing. To someone without that experience, his words read rather strangely or even as blasphemous to the religious believer (which history has borne out). I think it somewhat goes to what I said recently in some other thread that to someone at a different level of experience, hearing words from a Master, are not going to be understood at the Master's level. They will be interpreted downward to their own, but with the caveat that they are mythologized as supernatural: the Rarefaction of the Enlightened Master.

I see that at its best that through that mythologizing, the effect is of actually inspiring their own faith to put an image of the Divine in front of themselves, which in fact when looked up to has the effect of evoking that higher mind from within themselves (at worst it becomes a dogmatizing, authoritarian religion). Then, once that Realization opens from within, the same words are now understood within that light, rather than "through a glass dimly", as Paul put it. It's a "face to face" encounter, and the words now are no longer understood as stating fact and defining supernatural realities, but rather are exactly like splashes of color, notes of music, and motions of dance, and all these modes of communication which express an inner reality of the subtle and the divine, which cannot be defined and quantified in definitions of words and ideas.

One should not approach the sacred looking for absolutistic Answers with a capital, but rather looking for Freedom of being. The same words can become a prison or a liberation depending on the heart and soul of the hearer. It sort of all comes together when you understand dance from within oneself. Seeing someone dance can impart that by feeling the energy within them flow from the moves, or the words of the speaker of Wisdom.

YmirGF said:

Your OP illustrates why I am less than specific on these type of discussions and am revolted by assumptions like "Ultimate Reality" and "Absolute Reality". I have been too far down the rabbit hole of consciousness to tell people such highly misleading things like those two.

Click to expand...

Yes, those words can be taken a rational absolutism. Or they can mean Absolute Freedom, which sort of destroys absolutism.

Windwalker you are putting into words that which use to not be able to be put into words. It has been a journey from the old days, hasn't it Windwalker. You are a gift now and you have always been a gift over the years. An old wine in an old wineskin creates interesting . Absolute Freedom, which sort of destroys absolutism . I love it!

mystic64 said:

To me the object is to create a reality where disciples have nothing to anchor to and religion building becomes impossible. Yes, one never has any disciples, but at the sametime one never creates a religion either . Just out of curiosity SpentaMaynu, do you think that that might be the wrong attitude for a mystic to have? I use to have a following and disiples from all over the world both as a yogi and as a mystic, but I ducked it because I didn't want to be the father of a new religion. And the path of a mystic is an individual path that loses something when it starts to become a group following with rules. You have to do this and you have to do that or it will never work. To me there are not any rules, you just step out into the "unknown" and from there you just attempt to survive the experience. And if you do survive the experience, you become a little bit rogue and a little bit saint and a whole lot addicted to playing with the "unknown" because that is where it is all happening .

Click to expand...

I agree with you that rules tend to limit our experience and put us in a place of relaxation (because we don't have to search for ourselves, others already did it and we should just follow the rules). Not that rules in itself is wrong... We just shouldn't try and force God into it. Is it wrong to create a reality where disciples have nothing to anchor to? I don't think so, but I don't think the opposite is wrong either. Most people will always be too scared or too comfortable to obsessively worship and experience God or, as you said it, get addicted to playing with the unknown. Just like that I think one of the purposes of many mystics has been to get people to experience God for themselves instead of becoming followers of said mystics. If they do, well there's nothing we can do about that except hoping that some in the masses will realize...