Mystical Experience ! ! !

[nirotu]

Hi All:

Does mysticism relate to a pure and homogeneous experience? If so, are all the mystics of this world really talking about the same thing?

Here is an interesting extension to Sudarshan’s posting sometime back. The title of his thread was:
“Mystical Theology” (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=555) where the author describes a particular mysticism based on Christian view. Sudarshan concludes that it is no different than Hindu Vedanta. Perhaps, we can ponder over this a little deeper.

Definition:

Sources that I used in reading:
Donald Bishop (ed): Indian Thought
S.Radhakrishnan – Hindu Philosophy
John Renard – Response to 101 Questions on Hinduism.
I have based arguments by taking excerpts from these authors.

Mysticism, as described, is the common ground where all religions, traditions come together very happily. Unlike “self-realization” that demands focused and well disciplined approach with a passionate longing, the mysticism is an unmediated encounter with God. It is derived from the direct knowledge or immediate insight. True mysticism encompasses all paths of “self-realization”. A common view purports that all religious differences seem to vanish in the fiery crucible of ultimate experience! It is said that in the mystic experience the soul finds itself in the presence of the highest.

In very broad terms there are many common features of such an experience among mystics from all faiths. They are heightened awareness, bewilderment, apparent loss of personal identity, ecstasy in God, encounter with ultimate reality and the conviction that all religious differences are meaningless. Regardless whether it is unitive mysticism (Shankara) or dualistic mysticism (Christian, VA), it is noted that the experiencer feels the same way.

Problem:

Having said that, I think, the view that all the world’s mystics are really talking about the same thing is as misleading as it is seductive! I have problem understanding mysticism in two fundamental ways.

1. There is a sense of ambiguity in the way mysticism is expressed. There is no evidence that any mystic achieved such a goal. The evidence of such absorption into God is impossible. Because, any created being who has become God cannot return to tell us of his experience; he who narrates his story has not become God!

2. If mystics live to tell you, what I wonder is the language and imagery they use are drawn from the tradition they belong to. That cannot simply be described as homogeneous and amenable to adherents of other traditions. Since all mystical experience can be organized by religious language and symbolism, when a Hindu or Christian talks about oneness with the absolute, he or she is talking about the oneness from an identifiable perspective that strictly comes from his/her (Hindu, Christian or Islamic) tradition.

Questions:

Given this, can a mystic claim to have experienced oneness and still be a mystic? Is there such a thing as “pure experience” that cares not a whit to what faith community he/she belongs to?

Do you agree with the assessment above? If not, jump in and let us know why or why not?

Blessings,

[sm78]

In very broad terms there are many common features of such an experience among mystics from all faiths. They are heightened awareness, bewilderment, apparent loss of personal identity, ecstasy in God, encounter with ultimate reality and the conviction that all religious differences are meaningless. Regardless whether it is unitive mysticism (Shankara) or dualistic mysticism (Christian, VA), it is noted that the experiencer feels the same way.

Hell, this happens when one has taken a overdose of drugs. I'm not getting what point you guys are driving at. Religions are things of written in various books ~ and they are different.

Actually very very few "realized" people in Sanatana were convincted that religious differences are meaningless. Acharyas of all schools of thought never said such non-sense stuff and all acharyas were mystics by any sense of the oterm.

Are the authors saying that because a smartha hindu and a christian "mystic" were shivering in the same manner while speaking means they had the same experience ?? [:?] Ha Ha...

Finally trying to answer hypothetical questions of what's happeing in someone else's head is a futile exercise.

Truth is beyond all names and forms ... no religion can express truth, some try to guide us in a way so that it shines in us. Some do the opposite.

[atanu]

Hi All:

------

Having said that, I think, the view that all the world’s mystics are really talking about the same thing is as misleading as it is seductive! I have problem understanding mysticism in two fundamental ways.

-----

Hi,

Do I then suppose that different mystics are really talking about different Gods --- Christian God, Moslem God, Jew God, Hindu God etc. etc., notwithstanding the fact that no two experience can be the same, even for the same one mystic?


Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

Hi All:

1. ------- The evidence of such absorption into God is impossible. Because, any created being who has become God cannot return to tell us of his experience; he who narrates his story has not become God!

Hi,

So God himself should not be able to come down and tell the stories, (though it is a separate issue that beings probably do not become God).

Om

[nirotu]

Dear MG:

Thank you! Thank you for the clarity of thought that is well written. I agree with you regarding the source being the same. Sometimes, I wonder if my “HIM” is the same as a Hindu “HIM” we are talking about! I sure would like to know!

[size=2]

What do you mean by problem 1-becoming God? You could have a mystical experience of Oneness and come back, no? Why not?

Yes, that is my question. Take for example the sage Shankara. His drive is to know God in your self through union. And this union comes to pass when God grants the soul this supernatural favor that all the things of God and the soul are one in transformation; and the soul seems to be God rather than a soul. At the point of contact there is a complete cognitive transcendence. And what’s more, there is a complete personal annihilation. When that occurs, can he ever come back to tell us? Is there any evidence to that?
[size=2]

But, yes, I have wondered about the specific religious experiences, such as Catholics who see visions of specific Catholic imagery or grief experiences which reflect comfort from the perspective of the specific faith, such as parents who say an angel told them their child is in the arms of Jesus, etc. Does God take different forms to speak? And, does God have widely varying paths? How can two different after-life scenarios be revealed to different people? Why would the Divine reveal different dogma to different people to the extent they war about it? Or is that human meddling in the message? See, just more questions, I have no answers for this

Me too! I do not have a complete understanding other than to believe that dogma may be the reason for imagery.

Blessings,


]

[nirotu]

Hell, this happens when one has taken a overdose of drugs. I'm not getting what point you guys are driving at.

Dear sm78:

Reread my post carefully. Besides getting high on drugs, I would like to know the drug that can lead you to God! We are not talking of drug intoxication but God intoxication here.

While it is true that a person who is on drug and a mystic might appear same externally at the point of their peak experience but they are poles apart internally. The difference is when the effect of drug wears off the drug user is left with an empty hangover and thirsty for more with no transformation what so ever! Whereas, the mystic forever carries with him/her some degree of illumination (transformation) because he/she has tasted and now knows the truth.

The other thing to watch for is the ego that comes back with even stronger punch in a drug user. I mean his conflicts within himself leads to a “duality” that is much higher leading to violent outbreaks and mood swings. Where as now, mystic is ever closer to “unity” experience, his “duality” has decreased as he is much more at peace within himself.

You look for external events in the two and see the same while I look for inner events which truly are poles apart and cannot be compared. A fire that is produced with chemicals can never have the smell of natural fire, even though they appear the same.

Religions are things of written in various books ~ and they are different.

That is precisely the point. If religions promote different ways, is there homogeneity in that final experience? Are they talking about the same? You seem to think they are not. Is it because they use different books, approaches, practices?

Actually very very few "realized" people in Sanatana were convincted that religious differences are meaningless. Acharyas of all schools of thought never said such non-sense stuff and all acharyas were mystics by any sense of the oterm.

Let me ask you here which Acharya are you talking about? Is it Shankara? I am curious to know as to how you know he was a mystic or do you just assume? The mystic always seems to be on a different realm, which is far above human realm. Would you agree with the statement that if a mystic jumps back and forth to tell you who he is, simply put, not a mystic!

Are the authors saying that because a smartha hindu and a christian "mystic" were shivering in the same manner while speaking means they had the same experience ?? [:?] Ha Ha...

They did not have the same experience, as far as I can tell. The inner event is what I am talking about in this topic.

Finally trying to answer hypothetical questions of what's happeing in someone else's head is a futile exercise.

Truth is beyond all names and forms ... no religion can express truth, some try to guide us in a way so that it shines in us. Some do the opposite.

To know something shines in us, we must know what that something is. If it is the truth then, as advaitins would put it, you must know of it. That has been the quest for all of us, my friend! To find and reach that goal of knowing the “truth” one way or the other.


Blessings,

[nirotu]

Do I then suppose that different mystics are really talking about different Gods --- Christian God, Moslem God, Jew God, Hindu God etc. etc., notwithstanding the fact that no two experience can be the same, even for the same one mystic?

Dear Atanu:

That has been my question. Are all mystics talking about the same “HIM”? If the experiences do differ then they cannot be referring to the same God. Because, truth perceived by one can be totally different compared to the other. If they refer to the same, why then is there different imagery? MG has pointed out the same referring to dogma.

So God himself should not be able to come down and tell the stories, (though it is a separate issue that beings probably do not become God).

No! That is not what I meant. It is the mystic whose soul is one with the divine cannot come back to tell us. According to Shankara at the very instant you become self-realized (mystics are all self-realized), cognitive inferences/differences vanish because of transcendent nature of the soul and also there is a sort of personal annihilation (you are one with God and there is no duality – Advaita). If that happens, what possibility is there for that mystic to return to tell us the story?

Blessings,

[Znanna]

Namaste,

Any notion of "Him" or "HEr" or "Her" is altered by the translation of experience into some sort of symbology, I think. Therefore, whether or not it is the "same HIM" is somewhat irrelevant, in that the act of labeling of "same HIM" creates a difference.

(Perhaps it is this desire to label that makes "one and the same" so hard to grok?)

With respect to imagery, to my eye, there are vast similarities much more so than differences, and these seem to be innate to godz. The colors associated with planetary influences are quite similar across traditions, and sheesh, even the Pope carries a crook/goad to herd with!

There have been many mystics who took time out to write, over the ages. Their experiential references also have much in common with each other, regardless of tradition.

The bottom line always seems to be a process of eliminating an ego-based point of view in favor of entwining (yoking) so as to be able to see in the reflection the other which is One and the same, regardless of process.

As always, YMMV


Love,
ZN

[atanu]

Namaste,

Any notion of "Him" or "HEr" or "Her" is altered by the translation of experience into some sort of symbology, I think. Therefore, whether or not it is the "same HIM" is somewhat irrelevant, in that the act of labeling of "same HIM" creates a difference.

(Perhaps it is this desire to label that makes "one and the same" so hard to grok?)

With respect to imagery, to my eye, there are vast similarities much more so than differences, and these seem to be innate to godz. The colors associated with planetary influences are quite similar across traditions, and sheesh, even the Pope carries a crook/goad to herd with!

There have been many mystics who took time out to write, over the ages. Their experiential references also have much in common with each other, regardless of tradition.

The bottom line always seems to be a process of eliminating an ego-based point of view in favor of entwining (yoking) so as to be able to see in the reflection the other which is One and the same, regardless of process.

As always, YMMV


Love,
ZN

Nicely said.

What Anil Antony is saying refers to ego perceptions which are bound to have certain differences -- inherent as well as of perception.


To understand or perceive we expend some brain energy in form of different energy waves, which themselves create a picture of their own (la Uncertainty principle). Absolute silence of the mind however, makes the truth known to it as itself.

Om Namah Shivayya

[atanu]

Dear Atanu:

That has been my question. Are all mystics talking about the same “HIM”? If the experiences do differ then they cannot be referring to the same God. Because, truth perceived by one can be totally different compared to the other. If they refer to the same, why then is there different imagery? MG has pointed out the same referring to dogma.


No! That is not what I meant. It is the mystic whose soul is one with the divine cannot come back to tell us. According to Shankara at the very instant you become self-realized (mystics are all self-realized), cognitive inferences/differences vanish because of transcendent nature of the soul and also there is a sort of personal annihilation (you are one with God and there is no duality – Advaita). If that happens, what possibility is there for that mystic to return to tell us the story?

Blessings,

And No. That is not how I understand Shankara.

Turiya is freedom and not bondage. One does not become God. One attains Yuktatma state.


Absence of I (total egolessness) and absence of sankalpa (as also in deep sleep) can only reveal the Turiya. One established in Turiya will not say "I am Ramana the teacher". But onlookers may say: That is the body of Ramana the teacher".

Moreover, as per prarabdha karma a jivan mukta may be required to teach or to sit idle, till the body lasts. Jivan Mukta has no sankalpa and no I sense. So, he does not teach anyone.


Om Namah Shivayya