The God of the Mystical Experience...

[Sunstone]

For the purposes of this thread, "the mystical experience" refers to a kind of experience that occurs cross-culturally, is not confined to any one religion or group of religions, and which, at the very least, involves a radical transformation of consciousness -- and perhaps even a suspension of consciousness as it is usually known.

To be more precise, the mystical experience seems to occur if and when normal consciousness involving a perceptual separation of subject and object comes to an abrupt end. In its place, arises a kind of consciousness (or perhaps, other words for it would be an "awareness", an "experiencing", or a "perception") in which there is no separation between subject and object, no sense of a divide between "I" and "other than I", and in which there is a sense of the oneness of all things, or a perception of all things as an undifferentiated One.

Now, the question I would like to put forth here is this: What is the ontological and/or epistemic status of this sense of oneness or this One? And I believe there are at least four possible answers to that question.

First, many people would assert that the oneness or One experienced during the mystical process is an hallucination of some strange sort. Strange because, if true, it does not follow the pattern typical of other kinds of hallucinations. For instance, most hallucinations involve a single sense -- one hears something, for instance, but does not see, feel, taste, or smell it. Or one smells something, but does not hear, see, feel, or taste it. While this "hallucination" violates that for a full range of senses can be involved in it.

Second, many mystics would assert that the oneness or One experienced during a mystical process is deity. Almost always or always a deity they are already familiar with from their religion or culture.

Third, some mystics would assert that the oneness or One is the world as it really is, but not an experience of deity.

Fourth, there is the possibility that the oneness or One is analogous to color perception. That is, colors are what we see when our brain is stimulated by electromagnetic energy. But electromagnetic energy does not have any intrinsic color. Instead, color is created by the brain itself. By the same token, the oneness or One of mystical experiences might be the product of the brain somehow being stimulated by an outside influence. Yet, the oneness or One is not a property of that influence, but rather merely how the brain represents that influence.

So, to recap, we have four notions of what the oneness or One experienced during the mystical process is:

(1) In this view, the experience is not of deity, but is an hallucination of some new and unusual sort.

(2) In this view, the experience is of deity, and -- perhaps more importantly -- accurately represents deity. That is, the oneness or One is an actual property of deity.

(3) In this view, the experience is of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality is not identified with deity.

(4) In this view, the experience might or might not be prompted by deity, but whatever prompts it, the oneness or One is no more a property of what prompts it than color is a property of electromagnetism.

Of course, there might be other possibilities too. So what do you think? What is the most likely nature, in your opinion, of the oneness or One typically experienced during the mystical process?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Of course, there might be other possibilities too. So what do you think? What is the most likely nature, in your opinion, of the oneness or One typically experienced during the mystical process?

It seems to me to simply be a particular neurological and brainwave state characterized by reduced level of conscious awareness, particularly of external stimuli and senses, as well as directed or focused thought. This type of state results in a distinct sense of loss of ego/identity, as well as a disconnection from normally experienced temporal and spatial senses. I would classify it as an altered state of consciousness which is native/natural to our neurological structure and wiring, rather than as a "hallucination."

 

[Vinayaka]

I go with #2, but you already knew that.

 

[Sunstone]

I go with #2, but you already knew that.

For all I know, you could be right.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me to simply be a particular neurological and brainwave state characterized by reduced level of conscious awareness, particularly of external stimuli and senses, as well as directed or focused thought. This type of state results in a distinct sense of loss of ego/identity, as well as a disconnection from normally experienced temporal and spatial senses. I would classify it as an altered state of consciousness which is native/natural to our neurological structure and wiring, rather than as a "hallucination."

This is very close to my understanding of the neurology of it, although I remain an agnostic of some sort about whether or not there is anything behind it other than brain states -- that is, about whether or not anything outside of the brain provides a stimulus for the experience. It seems unlikely to me, but who knows?

 

[Vouthon]

The father of psychology Sigmund Freud called it the "Oceanic Feeling" in his books The Future of an Illusion (1927) and Civilization and Its Discontents (1929/1930).

His opinion:

Oceanic feeling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freud argues that the "oceanic feeling", if it exists, is the preserved "primitive ego-feeling" from infancy. The primitive ego-feeling precedes the creation of the ego and exists up until the mother ceases breastfeeding. Prior to this, the infant is regularly breastfed in response to its crying and has no concept that the breast does not belong to it. Therefore, the infant has no concept of a "self" or, rather, considers the breast to be part of itself. Freud argues that those experiencing an oceanic feeling as an adult are actually experiencing a preserved primitive ego-feeling. The ego, in contrast, comes into existence when the breast is taken away, and involves the infant's recognition that it is separate from the mother's breast, and therefore, that other persons exist. Freud argues that it would not necessarily contradict psychoanalytical theory for this primary ego-feeling to coexist along with the ego in some people. The main argument for this is that psychoanalytical theory holds that all thoughts are preserved in a conservation of psychic energy. Therefore, the "oceanic feeling" described as a oneness with the world or a limitlessness is simply a description of the feeling the infant has before it learns there are other persons in the world.

In other words, while Freud never having experienced this sensation was not as sympathetic towards it as modern psychologists and neuroscientists generally are, he basically agreed with what Sunstone and Kilgore Trout have already argued.

 

[YmirGF]

An interesting thread, Phil. Let's see if I can answer without embarrassing myself too much.

(1) In this view, the experience is not of deity, but is an hallucination of some new and unusual sort.

I don't think human animals should ever completely rule this one out. It's not like post-experience understanding is perfect.

(2) In this view, the experience is of deity, and -- perhaps more importantly -- accurately represents deity. That is, the oneness or One is an actual property of deity.

I've certainly held this view and in some respects it is... but with prolonged exposure one begins to see something a bit more interesting... In essence, the individual is projecting their expectations onto a valid experience. By default, the experience molds itself to their understanding.

(3) In this view, the experience is of ultimate reality, but ultimate reality is not identified with deity.

Again, Binder Dundat, however once one is being honest with themselves they begin to realize that there is no possibility they are able to judge if something is either "Ultimate" or "Absolute". This one, we can toss on the scrap heap of the dead ideas of the delirious.

(4) In this view, the experience might or might not be prompted by deity, but whatever prompts it, the oneness or One is no more a property of what prompts it than color is a property of electromagnetism.

This one is interesting. For example, after a few excursions into this realm it occurred to me that the Oneness was an artifice of sorts. No, not a trick of the light, but neither was it what it seemed - at first.

Of course, there might be other possibilities too. So what do you think? What is the most likely nature, in your opinion, of the oneness or One typically experienced during the mystical process?

Though I'm no expert, by any measure, I tend to think of it as being simply a state of consciousness that is fairly common once the individual encounters expansions of consciousness beyond their normal framework. The kicker is that there are only so many words to describe this non-dual experience.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It seems to me to simply be a particular neurological and brainwave state characterized by reduced level of conscious awareness, particularly of external stimuli and senses, as well as directed or focused thought. This type of state results in a distinct sense of loss of ego/identity, as well as a disconnection from normally experienced temporal and spatial senses. I would classify it as an altered state of consciousness which is native/natural to our neurological structure and wiring, rather than as a "hallucination."

After thinking about it a bit more, I synthesized a more descriptive process by which the sense of "oneness" arises through the act of meditation.

Broadly speaking, people are either conscious, or in an unconscious state (e.g., sleep). While in our conscious state, we are generally experiencing a host of stimuli, both internal (thoughts/feelings/sensations), as well as external (sounds/sights/sensations). These stimuli interact in a complex web of feedback and interaction. This "stimuli soup," gives us a constant, muli-layered sense of "busyness."

Now, with the continued practice of meditation, one can eventually learn to shut down awareness of these stimuli, both internal and external, while still retaining a state of consciousness. This disconnect of our consciousness from its normal immersion in stimuli gives the distinct impression that the kernel of our core consciousness alone exists - a sense of "oneness" or "completeness."

I think it is natural for people, after experiencing this unusual state, to apply interpretations/labels/explanations after-the-fact to help them contextualize this experience as significant/profound in some larger way, in order to reflect the significance they feel after experiencing this sense of "oneness."

 

[Sunstone]

It's not like post-experience understanding is perfect.

That's a fascinating topic in and of itself, Paul. It seems the experience so often comes with a sense of certainty -- and that this sense of certainty, realness, authenticity or whatever you want to call it -- it convinces so many people that their interpretations of it must be infallible.

 

[YmirGF]

I think it is natural for people, after experiencing this unusual state, to apply interpretations/labels/explanations after-the-fact to help them contextualize this experience as significant/profound in some larger way, in order to reflect the significance they feel after experiencing this sense of "oneness."

I agree so much. That said, after the event, there is often a strange sense of an almost evangelical nature to get others interested in the experience. My thought is that it is in this period that the fabrications occur(ed) in order to "sell" the "product" to others.

 

[Vouthon]

In furtherance to what I have just quoted from Freud, it always interested me that he associated the 'oceanic' or mystical feeling of 'oneness', 'nonduality' and 'boundlessness' with infancy and the state prior to the child's separation from the breast. Why?

Because in the Gospel of Thomas, a saying attributed to Jesus records him arguing exactly the same thing:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas/gospelthomas22.html

27 [22]. Jesus saw some infants who were taking the breast. He said to his disciples: "These little ones who suck are like those who enter the Kingdom." They said to him: "If we are little, shall we enter the Kingdom?" Jesus says to them: "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the upper like the lower! And if you make the male and female one, so that the male is no longer male and the female no longer female, and when you put eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in the place of a hand, and a foot in the place of a foot, and an image in the place of an image, then you will enter [the Kingdom!"]

'Jesus' is clearly equating the Kingdom of God with a mystical state of primordial oneness in which all differentiation and distinctions - between inside and outside, multiplicity, up and down, male and female - are transcended. He states that this state is like an infant sucking at the mother's breast.

This verse has parallels with other verses in the Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament concerning believers learning from infants and children:

GThom 46, GThom 114, Luke 9:46-48, Luke 18:15-17, Matt 18:1-4, Matt 19:13-15, John 3:1-10, Mark 9:33-37, Mark 10:13-16, DialSav 7, GEgy 6,

This saying was recorded not just in Thomas but by orthodox Church Fathers such as St. Clement of Alexandria (such that it was known about before the Gospel of Thomas was discovered at Nag Hammadi).

I tend to think that Freud and whoever came up with that widely dispersed Jesus saying (perhaps Jesus himself given its very wide attestation outside of the Bible) were on to something.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is very close to my understanding of the neurology of it, although I remain an agnostic of some sort about whether or not there is anything behind it other than brain states -- that is, about whether or not anything outside of the brain provides a stimulus for the experience. It seems unlikely to me, but who knows?

Oh, I certainly don't claim to know much. I only try to make the most sensical observations and interpretations based on my intuition and understanding, such as it is. I have no problem thinking that there might be something "else" involved in this experience. However, as a skeptic, I don't see it any different from anything else which is unevidenced. As you say, I am agnostic about it.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree so much. That said, after the event, there is often a strange sense of an almost evangelical nature to get others interested in the experience. My thought is that it is in this period that the fabrications occur(ed) in order to "sell" the "product" to others.

Why the very thought that some humans would exaggerate the truth about something is outrageous! Are we not the world's most honest apes? Since when did our species ever tell a fib?

 

[Sunstone]

In furtherance to what I have just quoted from Freud, it always interested me that he associated the 'oceanic' or mystical feeling of 'oneness', 'nonduality' and 'boundlessness' with infancy and the state prior to the child's separation from the breast. Why?

Because in the Gospel of Thomas, a saying attributed to Jesus records him arguing exactly the same thing:

Gospel of Thomas Saying 22 - GospelThomas.com



'Jesus' is clearly equating the Kingdom of God with a mystical state of primordial oneness in which all differentiation and distinctions - between inside and outside, multiplicity, up and down, male and female - are transcended. He states that this state is like an infant sucking at the mother's breast.

This verse has parallels with other verses in the Gospel of Thomas and the New Testament concerning believers learning from infants and children:

GThom 46, GThom 114, Luke 9:46-48, Luke 18:15-17, Matt 18:1-4, Matt 19:13-15, John 3:1-10, Mark 9:33-37, Mark 10:13-16, DialSav 7, GEgy 6,

This saying was recorded not just in Thomas but by orthodox Church Fathers such as St. Clement of Alexandria (such that it was known about before the Gospel of Thomas was discovered at Nag Hammadi).

I tend to think that Freud and whoever came up with that widely dispersed Jesus saying (perhaps Jesus himself given its very wide attestation outside of the Bible) were on to something.

I'm not much of a Freudian, but I can see how it might make sense to describe the "oceanic" feeling of the mystical experience in terms of the feelings a small, pre-conscious infant might have. After all, we don't know a whole lot about what goes through the heads of infants, but it seems safe to say that their consciousness, such as it is, is very different from that of older people.

 

[mystic64]

So what do you think? What is the most likely nature, in your opinion, of the oneness or One typically experienced during the mystical process?

And again Sunstone you create the most interesting stuff . Humm? Well, I have been a mystic for over half of a century and studying the mystic experience has occupied for the most part 90% of my time. Thus the challenge becomes how to explain things to those educated others that have never experienced (and probably have no wish to ) the mystical experience. So lets start here: I was watching a program on the History 2 channal on great white sharks the other day and guess what ... sharks have a line of sensors on both sides of their body that pick up the EMF (electro-magnetic frequencies) that living things give off. Which then not only proves that living things give off EMF signals (as a part of their biological functions), but that these signals can also be sensed. And this one piece of scientific evidence is the kicker when it comes to explaining the true mystic experience. Oneness and The Ocean are two ways of explaining the ability to sense and experience this EMF field that God and other living entities are giving off. And also as any experienced hunter knows, you never look directly at what it is that you are hunting, be it animal or man, because if you do it will, if it is at all awake, know that you are there.

Oneness and the ocean is the sensing of this EMF field that living things are creating as a whole. From there once one gets a mind address (everything has its own unique field frequency) you can then "sense" the field of a given individual animal or person if the part of one's mind that can sense the EMF that living things give off is awake and on. Most women have this ability to a more or less extent, which is why most men are constantly in trouble if they do not watch themselves around women . And most men are blind when it comes to the ability to sense the EMF fields of other living things. Which is also why those that strongly deny the possibility of sensing and processing the EMF fields of other living things are mostly men. Most women know better, they just keep ther mouth shut about it .

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I would classify it as an altered state of consciousness which is native/natural to our neurological structure and wiring, rather than as a "hallucination."

Yes, that's much the way I see it. Consciousness changes, and our perception becomes more expansive. I wouldn't assume a connection with something "out there", it's more like tapping into something "in here"....sort of!

 

[mystic64]

Yes, that's much the way I see it. Consciousness changes, and our perception becomes more expansive. I wouldn't assume a connection with something "out there", it's more like tapping into something "in here"....sort of!

Yep that is what is interesting . The out there is inside of one, because we live inside of the EMF sending and recieving unit. The neural net that is our brain and nervous system, when awake (as an example, as in the possibility of eminent danger), can be very sensitive to the EMF that other neural nets are generating as a part of brain and emotional activity. Watching the movie "Jaws" creates the mind state that a mystic is in when he/she is in an expanded mind state and listening. One is in the "eminent" listening to (feeling) the "transcendental" . Most folks think that you have to be in a quiet relaxed mind and body state to experience the true mystic experience, but that is not true. Yes one's mind is not busy, but it is quietly listening in a focused way and one's neural net is lit in the same way that is caused by the feeling of "eminent danger". Most folks are not psychic or have the mystic experience because their neural net/nervous system is on cruse control and for the most part not so much lit. Or when they are in a high stress reality that lights up their nervous system their mind is busy and not listening. "lit" and quietly listening, from there what you feel and experience is coming from somewhere else because you are not generating any thoughts or feelings. Then, from there you learn to choose what it is that you wish to listen to and things begin to get very interesting .