Are Mystical Experiences Considered Possible in Your Religion?

[Sunstone]

Is it considered possible in your religion for a person to have an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality? That is, is it possible in your religion for a person to have a mystical experience?

Or, if you lack any religion, then is it possible in your view for a person to have an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality?


Please note: This is posted in a discussion section, not a debate section.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Is it considered possible in your religion for a person to have a direct, unmediated experience of Ultimate Reality? Why or why not?
Please note: This is posted in a discussion section, not a debate section.

Could you give a definition of ""Ultimate Reality"?

And what exactly is a "mystical experience" in your view?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Most definitely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

St. Francis of Assisi, the dude in my avatar, is one of the most famous mystics in history. So is St. Joan of Arc. Both of them are my patron Saints.

 

[Sunstone]

Could you give a definition of ""Ultimate Reality"?

Ultimate Reality is a pretty self-explanatory term. It's whatever you (or your religion) considers to be the ultimate reality in this world. For some that's God, for others, the Tao, for still others, material or physical reality, and so forth.

And what exactly is a "mystical experience" in your view?

For the purposes of this thread, a mystical experience is defined in the OP as an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality.

 

[Laika]

Is it considered possible in your religion for a person to have a direct, unmediated experience of unity with Ultimate Reality? Why or why not?

Please note: This is posted in a discussion section, not a debate section.

In Marxism, basically no. An overwhelming majority will deny mysticism as opposed to materialism and naturalistic explanations. However, you can say mysticism does "exist" in a limited sense such as altered states of consciousness and approach it scientifically to understand it in naturalistic terms. It's a taboo subject though and I think it's only really confined to footnotes in most Marxist literature where it is mentioned at all. The Soviets resisted the idea of intuition and psychoanalysis as a form of "mysticism" because they did not believe that the mind could itself be access to knowledge, only objective reality and practical interactions with it could be a basis for knowledge.

Freudian-Marxism (which uses psychoanalysis) along with the god builders (who were Marxists that were agnostic rather than atheist trying to treat Marxian socialism as a substitute for religious belief) are probably the only areas mysticism could be treated in this way to study consciousness and the psychology of religious belief, the paranormal, etc. because it focuses on the subjective nature of experience rather than simply natural and objective causes. These were minor currents in Marxist thought so it's a pretty heretical approach.

 

[Aštra’el]

A harmony between the objective universe and the subjective universe is of profound importance within my spiritual-religious system.

 

[Sunstone]

A harmony between the objective universe and the subjective universe is of profound importance within my spiritual-religious system.

Harmony may be one thing, but I'm more interested in whether, within your spiritual-religious system, it is possible for a person to experience unity with Ultimate Reality, whatever that is to you.

 

[Sunstone]

In Marxism, basically no. An overwhelming majority will deny mysticism as opposed to materialism and naturalistic explanations. However, you can say mysticism does "exist" in a limited sense such as altered states of consciousness and approach it scientifically to understand it in naturalistic terms. It's a taboo subject though and I think it's only really confined to footnotes in most Marxist literature where it is mentioned at all. The Soviets resisted the idea of intuition and psychoanalysis as a form of "mysticism" because they did not believe that the mind could itself be access to knowledge, only objective reality and practical interactions with it could be a basis for knowledge.

Freudian-Marxism (which uses psychoanalysis) along with the god builders (who were Marxists that were agnostic rather than atheist trying to treat Marxian socialism as a substitute for religious belief) are probably the only areas mysticism could be treated in this way to study consciousness and the psychology of religious belief, the paranormal, etc. because it focuses on the subjective nature of experience rather than simply natural and objective causes. These were minor currents in Marxist thought so it's a pretty heretical approach.

How are you defining "mysticism"?

 

[Tumah]

In a limited sense, maybe. Complete unification, in the sense of being united with one's source, would cause the person to cease to exist, not so different from dropping a cupful of water into the ocean. In that respect, its necessary for there to be division in order for unity to be attainable in a constructive way. A bottle of water always remains a bottle of water. That's part of the purpose of the body. But it is theoretically possible to reach an elevated dimension, where the division is thinner than it is in our state.

 

[Sunstone]

In a limited sense, maybe. Complete unification, in the sense of being united with one's source, would cause the person to cease to exist, not so different from dropping a cupful of water into the ocean. In that respect, its necessary for there to be division in order for unity to be attainable in a constructive way. A bottle of water always remains a bottle of water. That's part of the purpose of the body. But it is theoretically possible to reach an elevated dimension, where the division is thinner than it is in our state.

Fascinating. Thanks!

 

[Laika]

How are you defining "mysticism"?

I think I define it in two ways:

I) A claim to knowledge based primarily on intuition and introspection. E.g. The use of Meditation in Zen Buddhism for example or arguably psychoanalysis and dream interpretation based on identifying unconscious associations.

II) a way of attributing causes to phenomena as the result of a form of consciousness which exist outside the brain and isn't a person. So a God is not mysticism nor would miracles attributed to a god because God is a sort of "person". A sort of animism or paganism maybe? The way a person feels connected with nature as a spirit world as if nature possessed consciousness in its own right.

 

[Sunstone]

I think I define it in two ways:

I) A claim to knowledge based primarily on intuition and introspection. E.g. The use of Meditation in Zen Buddhism for example or arguably psychoanalysis and dream interpretation based on identifying unconscious associations.

II) a way of attributing causes to phenomena as the result of a form of consciousness which exist outside the brain and isn't a person. So a God is not mysticism nor would miracles attributed to a god because God is a sort of "person". A sort of animism or paganism maybe? The way a person feels connected with nature as a spirit world as if nature possessed consciousness in its own right.

Interesting. Thank you.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe that the Mystical experience is beyond any religion.

 

[Sunstone]

I believe that the Mystical experience is beyond any religion.

Do you believe it is possible for a person to experience unity with Ultimate Reality?

 

[Terese]

Pranam Sunstone ji. Yes it is possible! And some people have it all the time!

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For the purposes of this thread, a mystical experience is defined in the OP as an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality.

Personally I don't find it a useful paradigm, there are too many assumptions and preconceptions involved.

It is putting the cart before the horse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it considered possible in your religion for a person to have an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality? That is, is it possible in your religion for a person to have a mystical experience?

Or, if you lack any religion, then is it possible in your view for a person to have an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality?


Please note: This is posted in a discussion section, not a debate section.

By the definition of "Ultimate Reality" you gave, my "Ultimate Reality" is just reality.

When a person's brain function is impaired in certain specific ways, the sense of a distinction between "self" and "other" breaks down. This state can be achieved by drugs, brain injury, or - I've been told - certain techniques.

In that sense, sure: it's very possible to break down the distinction between ourselves and everything else to have an experience of unity with the rest of reality.

However, besides giving a new perspective that might lead to a different appreciation of things, I don't consider these mystical experiences to be insightful about reality. Generally, when we talk about mystical experiences, we're talking about an impairment of brain function, and IMO an impaired brain is less reliable than a healthy brain.

 

[Madhuri]

My religion is all about mysticism, as you probably know.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In that sense, sure: it's very possible to break down the distinction between ourselves and everything else to have an experience of unity with the rest of reality. However, besides giving a new perspective that might lead to a different appreciation of things, I don't consider these mystical experiences to be insightful about reality.

People experience altered states of mind/consciousness, and interpret them in different ways. You can read all kinds of things into these subjective experiences, and generally the way people interpret them is shaped by existing preconceptions and assumptions. So for example a Buddhist might experience a particular meditative state and call it jhana, while a Christian mystic might experience something very similar and call it "God". I used to do "silent worship" with the Quakers, and have seen this for myself.

So while "mystical" experiences can be a source of personal insight, they are inherently subjective, and therefore I don't see them as a valid basis for making ontological claims about the nature of "reality" or the cosmos.

In the Buddhist suttas there is an emphasis on developing insight into "my world" rather than "the world", avoiding metaphysical speculation and concentrating on immediate experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Did you want us to define ultimate reality ourselves? Some of us don't see reality as Ultimate others define ultimate reality as a force or universe while others as god entity or person. I don't use the word ultimate reality because it implies hierarchy.

Is it considered possible in your religion for a person to have an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality? That is, is it possible in your religion for a person to have a mystical experience?

In my practice, I guess you can say ultimate reality is the connection I have with the spirits and family. It's is the bond between my environment and other people and myself as equals and divine in our own rights and differences. I don't like the word ultimate. It says that something has to be grand or more divine than us and/or creation. It puts a wedge between our relationship with the world.

I don't know what the term for my religion would be. Pagan can have many definitions. Neopagan sounds off. However, my practices is basically defined by mystical experiences, if one likes. It's based on what people call superstition and results of practices that are not symbolic. We believe actual things we use with our goals create specific actions. This makes that mystical experience become reality. I wouldn't call it ultimate. Maybe "cool"? And it works; so, the experience is awesome!