How to determine the reality of mystical experiences?

[Rade]

I don’t know, but I definitely do not think what happens is a brain state. However, I wouldn’t doubt there is some corresponding brain/chemical action, (which physicalist believers will surely interpret as the brain causing my experience).

I am confused by this comment--that is, that you do not think that what happens to you during meditation is a "brain state". If not, exactly what type of "state" do you hypothesize the experience to be ? Where exactly in space-time is this experience being experienced by you if not within your brain ? Not trying to be difficult, just confused. Also, you are aware are you not that bight light phenomenon you experience during meditation can also occur during other activities--that is, it is not limited to process of meditation, thus I see no special import to its occurrence.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am confused by this comment--that is, that you do not think that what happens to you during meditation is a "brain state".

I was saying that the brain likely has a state that corresponds to union experience, but that state is triggered by consciousness attaining union. Physicalists interpret the observation of a brain state just the opposite, as the brain causing the associated conscious experience.

. . . exactly what type of "state" do you hypothesize the experience to be ?

It is a consciousness state first, and the brain follows with its own state.

Let me try an analogy to illustrate the concept. Imagine the Pacific ocean as a whole is conscious. It decides it wants to make various positions, or "points," on it individually conscious. To individuate any given point on/in the Pacific ocean, it must isolate it from the ocean whole. It does that by freezing a spot on the ocean and then containing the ocean point within the ice structure.

The structure of the ice has many compartments, each with specialized functions so that when that point of water encased in the ice enters a compartment, that makes the ocean point think or remember or feel . . . in other words, that ice structure not only isolates the ocean point, it also teaches it consciousness skills.

However, the ocean point went into the ice structure already conscious; it just wasn't individually conscious, only generally conscious (having always been merely part of the great ocean). So it is proper to say the ice structure develops the point's consciousness, but it isn't proper to say the ice structure creates consciousness.

The point that's within the structure is clueless about what it is. It first "woke up" as an individual within the structure, so as far as it knows, it is that structure. When it experiences union meditation the point learns to experience its "essence" as consciousness and sees it has a nature deeper and more abiding than the structure it is now entwined in.

Where exactly in space-time is this experience being experienced by you if not within your brain ?

Well, it is taking place positionally within the brain, but that doesn't mean the brain is causing it.

Also, you are aware are you not that bight light phenomenon you experience during meditation can also occur during other activities--that is, it is not limited to process of meditation, thus I see no special import to its occurrence.

If light is the substance of consciousness, then it might very well manifest in other situations. In meditation one recognizes its import.

 

[RVBuckeye]

It is a consciousness state first, and the brain follows with its own state.

I doubt it. Explain why conciousness goes away under anesthesia then.

Well, it is taking place positionally within the brain, but that doesn't mean the brain is causing it.

If light the substance of consciousness, then it might very well manifest in other situations. In mediation one recognizes its import.

I have no reason to doubt that you experience exactly what you say you do. The numerous accounts and consistancy of said acounts give credence to its validity. I did need some time to think on it for a while to formulate an adequate response, since you've been so kind enough to share your experience with us. (I've been stuck inside most of the winter and was going a little stir-crazy there). I think you explain the phenomenon in your description of it. The key is that you "see" or "feel" or "hear" things while you're in the meditative state. I don't take this to mean you actually hear things with your ears, or see with your eyes, or feel with your skin. Those things are effectively tuned out while meditating. Without me trying to present a new theory...I will try and keep this concise and any further point you want me to expand on later, I'll try to do so.
First, as I understand it, when you meditate, you try to eliminate any external sensory input into, as a Zen might say, a “blank slate” state of mind. What you may be unaware of (or haven't stated in your posts) is that most neurons emit impulses or action potentials even while nothing external is happening. (base rate of firing). So my hunch is that while you are meditating, your conscious mind, which normally filters out this "noise", is being deprived of the external stimulus. Which makes perfect sense when it is interpretted as being "real". In doing so, what you are actually doing is conditioning your mind to give more importance to this noise, and later integrating it into your "normal" state of conciousness. (post-meditation)
So what does that tell us about reality? Well, to me, it tells me that you have acquired an ability to physically sense the things that your average person conciously doesn't pay attention to. This internal sensory data has now become part of your acquired self. Which I must say is also remarkable to me. But no, if you and I look at the same object, I don't think you are picking up on more of the reflected light of the object than I am. I would be stunned if meditation actually improves the eyes ability to percieve more of the visual spectrum.
I know there have been many claims as to the benefits of meditation, specifically with the improved functioning of the brain. I don't deny that that could be true. I still would be intersted to see if the same effects aren't seen with people who read more books, or get more sleep than your average person.
This is not intended to mock in any way your beliefs. I just think you might be hoping it means something more than it actually does.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I doubt it. Explain why conciousness goes away under anesthesia then.

First let's make sure you get my concept. I claim that consciousness may enter the body as "general" consciousness, without identity or intellectual skills, and that the brain teaches it to segment, specialize, and compartmentalize parts of itself. Meanwhile, a central core remains "pure" consciousness, and that is both the "me" or self-aware part which is aware of its own existence, and what one accentuates in union meditation.

Since that tiny point of consciousness is made self-aware by the separation from its Source the brain provides, since it is dependent on all the segmenting and compartmentalizing the brain does for it, and since it is fully entwined in the brain's architecture, that consciousness is fully dependent on the brain to function in the physical setting.

So if you put the brain to sleep, the consciousness follows; if you stimulate part of the brain, consciousness follows; if you destroy part of the brain, consciousness loses whatever part of the brain that was contributing to its development (at least while still living in the body).

So my hunch is that while you are meditating, your conscious mind, which normally filters out this "noise", is being deprived of the external stimulus. Which makes perfect sense when it is interpretted as being "real". In doing so, what you are actually doing is conditioning your mind to give more importance to this noise, and later integrating it into your "normal" state of conciousness. (post-meditation).

The problem with your theory is that the meditative state isn't noise. Why should one become utterly calm? Why should one's breath disappear? Why should one feel like one has separated from the body? Why should one's conscious picture seem so vast (compared to before)? Why should one feel love more deeply? Why should one smile more readily? Why should one experience a sense of unity with the whole universe?

Why should "noise" do any of that?

So what does that tell us about reality? Well, to me, it tells me that you have acquired an ability to physically sense the things that your average person conciously doesn't pay attention to. This internal sensory data has now become part of your acquired self. Which I must say is also remarkable to me.

There have been great union meditators who've been deaf and blind. How do you explain that? You are really on the wrong track here, it isn't sensory data that one is experiencing; that is exactly why one withdraws from the senses . . . so one can experience this not-sensual thing.

But no, if you and I look at the same object, I don't think you are picking up on more of the reflected light of the object than I am. I would be stunned if meditation actually improves the eyes ability to percieve more of the visual spectrum.

Well, I would say it isn't the eyes that are perceiving more, it is that consciousness has become more sensitive to information the eyes were providing all along. This is another reason why your "noise" theory is wrong. One of my hobbys is music and stereo systems that can reproduce it accurately. What do you think an amplifier's noise contributes to the reproduction of a signal? It interferes. The ideal amp is one that provides the cleanest possible power.

Likewise, consciousness in union elimimates noise and so makes the conscious field more sensitive to information.

I know there have been many claims as to the benefits of meditation, specifically with the improved functioning of the brain. I don't deny that that could be true. I still would be intersted to see if the same effects aren't seen with people who read more books, or get more sleep than your average person. .

You are really showing your lack of experience with meditation now. I read plenty, and sleep well. Meditation is nothing like this. Why are you trying so hard to discredit the experience? Isn't it because you don't want to allow that it might be anything extraordinary?

%his is not intended to mock in any way your beliefs. I just think you might be hoping it means something more than it actually does.

I don't "hope" anything. I don't care what it "means." I merely practice, experience, and enjoy the benefits. I attach no meaning to it. I speculate in these discussions, that's true, but not because I care whether the experience means anything beyond what it gives me.

 

[RVBuckeye]

I'm not trying to discredit the experience at all. I absolutely believe you speak the truth. I've never been more certain of it. I just wanted to be clear about that before I continue. The OP is about the reality of the experience. Meditation was brought up (not by me) as a topic for discussion. Since I don't currently practice it, I wanted to get an accurate picture of it, (from a credible, respectable source...You, Les). I've gone out of my way to be courteous, and thankful for your input. I'm still not opposed to it, even though it could be another one of the mysterious functions of the bio/chemical interactions of the brain. I would think that just the possibility of experiencing something similar might entice someone to try. Even if the former is true.

First let's make sure you get my concept. I claim that consciousness may enter the body as "general" consciousness, without identity or intellectual skills, and that the brain teaches it to segment, specialize, and compartmentalize parts of itself. Meanwhile, a central core remains "pure" consciousness, and that is both the "me" or self-aware part which is aware of its own existence, and what one accentuates in union meditation.
Since that tiny point of consciousness is made self-aware by the separation from its Source the brain provides, since it is dependent on all the segmenting and compartmentalizing the brain does for it, and since it is fully entwined in the brain's architecture, that consciousness is fully dependent on the brain to function in the physical setting.
So if you put the brain to sleep, the consciousness follows; if you stimulate part of the brain, consciousness follows; if you destroy part of the brain, consciousness loses whatever part of the brain that was contributing to its development (at least while still living in the body).

As always, you give excellent replies. No doubt from the many years of contemplating/rationalizing your experience.

The problem with your theory is that the meditative state isn't noise. Why should one become utterly calm? Why should one's breath disappear? Why should one feel like one has separated from the body? Why should one's conscious picture seem so vast (compared to before)? Why should one feel love more deeply? Why should one smile more readily? Why should one experience a sense of unity with the whole universe?
Why should "noise" do any of that?

Noise is just a metaphor. Let me explain a little bit further, as I was correct to assume my summary in my last post might lead to confusion. Let's take the sense of sight as an example. First, perception is defined as the process by which the brain constructs an internal representation of the outside world. This internal representation is what we experience as reality.
So how do we see with the organs we call the eyes? Since we know that even in complete darkness the ganglion cells constantly send signals back to the brain, in order for light to be detected, this activity must change enough to be noticed. This is a two-step process. (and yes, conciousness does play a role) First is the sensory process which creates the visual experience by interpretting the change in activity of the ganglion cells. The decision process (conciousness) chooses whether or not the visual experience resulted from the light being absorbed by the retina or the random activity of the ganglion cells. In normal sight, imo, this random activity is filtered out by the decision process, and the resulting visual experience is perceived as reality. When all that your conciousness is given access to is the random activity, it ultimately becomes perceived as reality while you're in this state. Afterwards, after many years of dedicated conditioning, this random activity (noise) which would normally be filtered out of your perception of reality, is now incorporated into your new perception of reality. But now, the noise isn't seen as noise, or interference at all. It's all integrated into the experience. (You are right, I've never achieved union. But to think of me as a gross-beginner in the mysterious world of psycological experiences, you're not giving me enough credit)
To address your many questions, it would be impossible to explain your subjective experience. It's not all biological either, the body produces several intoxicating chemicals too. (I'm sure you're familiar with DMT?)

There have been great union meditators who've been deaf and blind. How do you explain that? You are really on the wrong track here, it isn't sensory data that one is experiencing; that is exactly why one withdraws from the senses . . . so one can experience this not-sensual thing.

As for your first question, I don't know. I really would be guessing. Do they claim to experience a perception of sight or hearing in the meditative state? As for your statement, if you remain conscious as you seem to be, you can't withdrawal completely from your senses, only from the external stimuli.

Well, I would say it isn't the eyes that are perceiving more, it is that consciousness has become more sensitive to information the eyes were providing all along. This is another reason why your "noise" theory is wrong.

I think I explained what the noise is above. I could be wrong. Like Socrates, at least I know that I know nothing.

I read plenty, and sleep well. Meditation is nothing like this.

I was not trying to suggest they are alike in any way. I was merely trying to explain that I have seen no study regarding the better mental functioning between different types of people. I have seen research conducted on test subjects who practice Zen meditation which suggests this to be the case. No dis-respect intended. In fact, I think that supports the idea of meditation being good for you.

I don't "hope" anything. I don't care what it "means." I merely practice, experience, and enjoy the benefits. I attach no meaning to it. I speculate in these discussions, that's true, but not because I care whether the experience means anything beyond what it gives me.

OK, this isn't the point. No matter.

 

[Rade]

...If light is the substance of consciousness, then it might very well manifest in other situations. In meditation one recognizes its import...

But, what if the "light" within the space-time location of the brain (which it would appear from above comments is the location where you agree that the light exists) is the substance of the un-consciousness (which is where all the chemical evidence points), and thus the light as a thing is prior to the consciousness that claims to know it. It would then appear that this line of evidence thus falsifies your hypothesis on the priority of consciousness over existence--true ?

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm not trying to discredit the experience at all.

Yes, very poor choice of words on my part. I was really asking why you seemed determined to characterize it as something physical.

I've gone out of my way to be courteous, and thankful for your input.

Yes you have, please excuse my testy responses . . . my frustration with the effort to physicalize everything that exists (which goes on a lot around here) was showing.

We are in a physical universe and in a physical body, there is no question about that. The question ultimately is if consciousness is only physical. I’ve been claiming for some time (more in other threads than here) that our models lack something important. I’ll use my favorite analogy again, water. Let’s say you want to know what water is, but you only study its frozen forms. You study snowflakes, hail, ice on lakes, sleet, etc. Because of this all your models for water describe the structure and properties of crystals. Then someone comes along and suggests looking at water itself.

In consciousness studies, everything examined is the “forms” consciousness assumes or participates in, like thinking, memory, perception, emotion, and so on, and how those conditions are related to brain states. The union meditator says that to understand the nature of consciousness you need to experience consciousness apart from all the structure and activities it gets bound up in; i.e., experience it directly. Now, all the brain guys who are determined to see consciousness as structure only, typically dismiss the union meditator’s point because they are already convinced consciousness is physical. The only way they can check out his point is to learn union and see for themselves, which they may not be inclined to do.

Think about it. If there are qualities to consciousness which can only be experienced within one’s own consciousness, then any model lacking that information is going to be incomplete. What else can researchers who refuse to look at it going to do but find a way to “dismiss” it or explain it as some sort of brain state?

Noise is just a metaphor. Let me explain a little bit further . . . after many years of dedicated conditioning, this random activity (noise) which would normally be filtered out of your perception of reality, is now incorporated into your new perception of reality. But now, the noise isn't seen as noise, or interference at all. It's all integrated into the experience.

I think I understand your idea, but I don’t think it explains anything but the heightened sensitivity to sense data, and that is not the most impactful aspect of the experience. People who do peyote et al report similar things, and some people do get “wowed” by that. After years of meditation one goes deeper into the feeling realm to discover a richness and unity that is very satisfying. As you say, I cannot communicate with words and you can’t grasp with concepts what the experience is and how deeply it can be developed.

As for your first question, I don't know. I really would be guessing. Do they claim to experience a perception of sight or hearing in the meditative state? As for your statement, if you remain conscious as you seem to be, you can't withdrawal completely from your senses, only from the external stimuli.

The blind find it an advantage for once to be blind when it comes to seeing the inner light. I myself do better in absolute darkness. When I first started meditating I used to go into a closet. Now I know what to look for so I can practice anywhere, though I do prefer to practice before dawn.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But, what if the "light" within the space-time location of the brain (which it would appear from above comments is the location where you agree that the light exists) is the substance of the un-consciousness (which is where all the chemical evidence points), and thus the light as a thing is prior to the consciousness that claims to know it. It would then appear that this line of evidence thus falsifies your hypothesis on the priority of consciousness over existence--true ?

I would say that the light is indeed individually unconscious. It is part of my makeup as consciousness, but all of me is required to be conscious as an individual.

I would agree too that the light is more basic and therefore in one sense "prior to," as you say, the consciousness experiencing it. However, I am suggesting that a type of light, I call it illumination, is the "essence" of consciousness, and that illumination has found a way to experience itself. Most of us are using the brain only to experience whatever the senses and intellect send or produce. All I am saying is that the light that is consciousness not only can experience "outside" info, it can also learn to experience it's own essence as light, and that doing so has a profound effect on that consciousness . . . i.e., it joins with a vast plane of light that is its source. That is what union is.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Yes, very poor choice of words on my part. I was really asking why you seemed determined to characterize it as something physical.

I actually think I'm being rather open-minded about the whole thing. It just depends on your burden of proof. It can be a rather personal thing. Is it "more likely than not" or "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Should we take it all on faith? Philosophers figured out long ago that logic alone is inadequate to explain reality. Isn't that what lead to science??

Yes you have, please excuse my testy responses . . . my frustration with the effort to physicalize everything that exists (which goes on a lot around here) was showing.

No problem. But step back a second before you look down on the physicalists, I think you'll see you can be just as stubborn. I can understand your frustration though.

I think I understand your idea, but I don’t think it explains anything but the heightened sensitivity to sense data, and that is not the most impactful aspect of the experience.

That's all I was trying to do. I was merely offering it as a theory pertaining to the OP, the "reality" of it all. It might not be the most impactful aspect of the experience to you, personally. You really have no idea how the rest of us would feel about it. Nor do I.

After years of meditation one goes deeper into the feeling realm to discover a richness and unity that is very satisfying.

And how is that not sense data again?

As you say, I cannot communicate with words and you can’t grasp with concepts what the experience is and how deeply it can be developed.

I'll state it again, I don't question the significance it has to you individually. Not to be an alarmist or anything, but I think it is worth at least mentioning. This type of meditation can lead someone down a road they might not be mentally capable of travelling. There is also little data on how much of a role the "community" plays in keeping one from developing a psycological disorder. Again, not trying to be an alarmist.

The blind find it an advantage for once to be blind when it comes to seeing the inner light. I myself do better in absolute darkness. When I first started meditating I used to go into a closet. Now I know what to look for so I can practice anywhere, though I do prefer to practice before dawn.

I could see that to be true. Ever tried a sensory deprivation chamber or one of those brain wave generators? As for the blind man seeing the inner light, I would be out of my skeptical nature to not ask whether he was blind from birth, or the like.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I actually think I'm being rather open-minded about the whole thing. It just depends on your burden of proof. It can be a rather personal thing.

It definitely is a totally personal thing! You can’t look inside me, I can’t look inside you. What’s wrong with coming to “know” things like that?

Is it "more likely than not" or "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Should we take it all on faith? Philosophers figured out long ago that logic alone is inadequate to explain reality. Isn't that what lead to science??

“Is it more likely than not" to whom? Take what on faith? I am not talking about faith, I am talking about becoming sufficiently experienced in something until you KNOW.

You imply I should prove it to others when I have repeatedly explained that when it comes to self knowledge each person must prove it to themselves. You seem to blindly accept the Western standard that an externalized proof is the only path to knowledge. Well, that’s how Western conditioning clamps one by the balls. There are external proofs, for which science is the standard, and there are internal proofs. I am talking about internal proofs.

But step back a second before you look down on the physicalists, I think you'll see you can be just as stubborn.

There is stubborn, and there is ignorantly stubborn. I have experienced the physical side of things as much as the next guy. I look at it, I study it, I know it exists, I want to understand it. But I have also experienced something else. What am I supposed to do, ignore my experience, or the fact that there is a 3000 year history of others experiencing the same thing?

If I deny there is such a thing as an ocean, and you offer to show me where I can find it, and then I refuse to even look while steadfastly maintaining there is no ocean, who is being stubborn?

No, ignorant stubbornness is the narrowly-educated physicalist (or any other "believer") who looks ONLY at physical factors and then claims there is nothing else. He may not want to know anything but the physical, which is fine, but that is a different matter than pretending to be objective to the world and saying “there is no evidence” of anything other than physical when he refuses to look at anything but that which supports his pet theory.

And how is that not sense data again?

It is possible to feel sans senses; that’s what I have been saying all along. We have a feeling/sensitive nature which can be accentuated. We can then use our heightened sensitivity to feel more subtle things. Some of what one feels is through the senses, some of it (the best stuff IMO) isn’t.

I'll state it again, I don't question the significance it has to you individually. Not to be an alarmist or anything, but I think it is worth at least mentioning. This type of meditation can lead someone down a road they might not be mentally capable of travelling. There is also little data on how much of a role the "community" plays in keeping one from developing a psycological disorder. Again, not trying to be an alarmist.

I don't know what are you talking about. If you don’t know anything about “this type of meditation,” how can you speak of such things? Maybe you should study the history of this before you start speculating. It starts with the Buddha and goes on from there.

Besides, no matter what you offer as a “path” there are those who are incapable of mentally handling it. There are people ready to make a cult out of anything you can dream up, including science. What are we supposed to do, not explore human potentials for fear of how the mentally incapable might pervert it? Is science responsible for pseudoscience?

 

[Rade]

I would say that the light is indeed individually unconscious. It is part of my makeup as consciousness, but all of me is required to be conscious as an individual. I would agree too that the light is more basic and therefore in one sense "prior to," as you say, the consciousness experiencing it. However, I am suggesting that a type of light, I call it illumination, is the "essence" of consciousness, and that illumination has found a way to experience itself. Most of us are using the brain only to experience whatever the senses and intellect send or produce. All I am saying is that the light that is consciousness not only can experience "outside" info, it can also learn to experience it's own essence as light, and that doing so has a profound effect on that consciousness . . . i.e., it joins with a vast plane of light that is its source. That is what union is.

Thank you for the explanation. I have often experienced your "illumination", yet never during meditation. And I agree with your experience that the illumination events have always make me aware not only of myself but of the other (not just other humans but the source of the illumination essence as the ultimate other). And for me, this essence reduces to a philosophic statement that I believe can be grasped by your concept of "illumination"--and that statement is: "existence exists". That is, the source (your concept of the vast plane of light) of what exists (your concept of illumination) is existence, and understanding is obtained when the two merge as one (union) within the consciousness. Perhaps a bit abstract, but this is how I see it.

 

[RVBuckeye]

It is totally a personal thing! You can’t look inside me, I can’t look inside you. What’s wrong with coming to “know” things like that?

Nothing at all.

“Is it more likely than not" to whom? Take what on faith? I am not talking about faith, I am talking about becoming sufficiently experienced in something until you KNOW.

I was talking about the comment you made about why I seemd so determined to believe the phsicalists on this one. Those were personal questions I asked myself to determine which side of the fence I was on on this issue. You say conciousness is not all physical. Should I take you at your word with no further investgation? Absolutely not, and that's my decision. Is it more likely than not conciousness is a physical phenomenon of the brain? Of course it is. If you don't agree, that's your perrogative. Does that mean I'm closed minded to your ideas? Nope.

You imply I should prove it to others when I have repeatedly explained that when it comes to self knowledge each person must prove it to themselves. You seem to blindly accept the Western standard that an externalized proof is the only path to knowledge. Well, that’s how Western conditioning clamps one by the balls. There are external proofs, for which science is the standard, and there are internal proofs. I am talking about internal proofs.

Again, you spend so much time looking inward, I'm starting to doubt your ability to look outward. Constantly saying I "seem" to be this or that. At least in this case, you're being a poor judge of character. Of course there are internal proofs, but they only have to meet the "standard of proof" of the individual. Thales of Miletus deduced that of the 4 elements (air, fire, water, and earth), all things were composed of water. You "seem" to imply that from that point, the case is closed, no further investigation needed to take place. As you can see, it is possible to logically conclude something, and be wrong. Deny that if you want.

There is stubborn, and there is ignorantly stubborn. I have experienced the physical side of things as much as the next guy. I look at it, I study it, I know it exists, I want to understand it. But I have also experienced something else. What am I supposed to do, ignore my experience, or the fact that there is a 3000 year history of others experiencing the same thing?

Yeah, I agree there is a 3000 yr history of others experiencing the same thing. But you can say that about every other religion as well. What you fail to acknowledge, or hand-wave away, is the psychological phenomenon of secondary reinforcement. This is well documented in medical journals, even in regards to meditation. People tend to “see” what they are told they should “see”.

If I deny there is such a thing as an ocean, and you offer to show me where I can find it, and then I refuse to even look while steadfastly maintaining there is no ocean, who is being stubborn?

How can I deny there is no ocean when I’ve been swimming in it all along? When did I deny your offer? I made an effort, in good faith, but was unable to comply with the terms of the program at that point in time. (I even qualified that it could be possible in the future) That’s not being stubborn either. If I made no attempt at all to look into the requirements, you’d been well within your rights to criticize my decision as stubborn. I assure you this isn’t the case.

No, ignorant stubbornness is the narrowly-educated physicalist who looks ONLY at physical factors and then claims there is nothing else. He may not want to know anything but the physical, which is fine, but that is a different matter than pretending to be objective to the world and saying “there is no evidence” of anything other than physical when he refuses to look at anything but that which supports his pet theory.

Ok, enough already. Stop making personal attacks and assuming I made no effort to even get the most basic understanding about your type of meditation. That simply is not the case. For someone who has so much control of his emotions, you keep showing your lack thereof. I'm assuming you're just venting because I've never claimed there was nothing else. I've presented a theory, which happens to be a physical one. (and acknowledge the possibility it is incorrect. Something you have yet to do, BTW). You and I have exchanged PM's so I think you know where I'm coming from. I realize however, even though I am certain of there being a something else, I could be wrong as to what “it” is and how “it” works. That's not stubbornness, that’s open-mindedness. We really just possibly disagree on those key issues.

It is possible to feel sans senses; that’s what I have been saying all along. We have a feeling/sensitive nature which can be accentuated. We can then use our heightened sensitivity to feel more subtle things. Some of what one feels is through the senses, some of it (the best stuff IMO) isn’t.

All right. That's an awfully big leap of faith for someone to take to devote that much time and energy to reach a point they don't believe is possible. Can't you at least aknowledge that as a valid concern any rational individual would have? And yes, the physicalist in me doesn't believe it. Only because that is how our physical bodies operate.

I don't know what are you talking about. If you don’t know anything about “this type of meditation,” how can you speak of such things? Maybe you should study the history of this before you start speculating. It starts with the Buddha and goes on from there.

I've already addressed this above and you're the one who's speculating. Claiming there are no possible negative side effects is just plain nievity. Even the simplest google search offers a wealth of information on the subject. Even medical studies. And again, I'm well aware of the history of this type of meditation. Ask my wife or anyone who knows me what I've been doing since you showed me your path. Stop claiming you have the monopoly on the truth.

Besides, no matter what you offer as a “path” there are those who are incapable of mentally handling it. There are people ready to make a cult out of anything you can dream up, including science. What are we supposed to do, not explore human potentials for fear of how the mentally incapable might pervert it? Is science responsible for pseudoscience?

I don't disagree with you on this either.

Now, can we get past this and move on, please? Just don't try to categorize me or assume you know me. I have the ability and will look at anything you present objectively. I will even assume, for arguments sake, that your premise of sans senses is true. However, it makes it hard to talk about these things when any time evidence is presented to the contrary, you resort to personal attacks or fail to concede any points by simply saying, I couldn't possibly understand. That has been my problem when discussing anything with religious overtones with anyone that claims his conclusions are undeniable. If that's how you want to operate, then what's the point?
I'm interested on your feelings concerning this universal conciousness and how it operates. As I have stated in other threads and in my PM's with you personally, this is an area I'm most interested in. I just don't know if this is consistant with the OP of this thread and is the main reason why I have failed to address it or discuss it here. Not because I think you're deluding yourself. You're obviously knowledgeable about the subject and I have stated over and over and over my feelings about that.

PEACE

 

[Les Sleeth]

You say conciousness is not all physical. Should I take you at your word with no further investgation?

I would never expect that of anyone. In fact, if they did I’d be critical since I believe each person must learn through his/her own personal experience.

Is it more likely than not conciousness is a physical phenomenon of the brain? Of course it is.

I am suspicious of such “more likely” conclusions when someone only studies one variety of evidence, and then concludes all things derive from the type of evidence they study. My expectation of an objective mind is to be undecided because of the limited evidence we have.

Again, you spend so much time looking inward, I'm starting to doubt your ability to look outward.

I don’t think you’ll find me ignorant of how the world/universe works. I “look inward” an hour or so each morning and spend the rest of my time trying to understand the “outer” world.

A Of course there are internal proofs, but they only have to meet the "standard of proof" of the individual. Thales of Miletus deduced that of the 4 elements (air, fire, water, and earth), all things were composed of water. You "seem" to imply that from that point, the case is closed, no further investigation needed to take place. As you can see, it is possible to logically conclude something, and be wrong. Deny that if you want.

I would not deny that, but I am not logically concluding anything except that it is premature to decide on a physicalist explanation for consciousness. There is evidence to the contrary, and physicalness cannot yet be shown to have what it takes to even self-organize into life much less create consciousness.

It is physicalists who are jumping the gun, not me. They are the “believers,” not me. I remain unconvinced of any explanation right now. My position is . . . nothing known explains consciousness or the origin of life.

Also, it isn’t a sound argument to use Miletus’ (or anyone’s) poor empirical and logic skills to discredit the entire notion of inner knowing. There are bad inner skills just like there are bad outer skills, and there are good skills with both too.

Yeah, I agree there is a 3000 yr history of others experiencing the same thing. But you can say that about every other religion as well.

Not so, and this is a constant source of frustration for me; that is, to hear people offer under-informed opinions on the inner subject. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with union meditation. What does someone have to believe, belong to, accept, etc. to turn one’s attention inward? It isn’t a mental or psychological thing, it is an experiential thing. You can just experience and withhold all beliefs and opinions; indeed, that is exactly what I have found to be the best way to proceed.

What you fail to acknowledge, or hand-wave away, is the psychological phenomenon of secondary reinforcement. This is well documented in medical journals, even in regards to meditation. People tend to “see” what they are told they should “see”.

If you want to know what upset me in my last post, it was a allusion like this. It is you and I talking, not you and the general public. Nobody has reinforced anything I am saying, you are hearing me speak straight from my personal experience. I have practiced alone for 32 years without accepting anyone else’s opinions about what I am experiencing; in fact, I’ve been rather fiercely protective of my mind in this respect. The ONLY opinion I’ve been open to is how to take the experience deeper. So the implication of brainwashing can be upsetting.

How can I deny there is no ocean when I’ve been swimming in it all along? When did I deny your offer? I made an effort, in good faith, but was unable to comply with the terms of the program at that point in time. (I even qualified that it could be possible in the future) That’s not being stubborn either. If I made no attempt at all to look into the requirements, you’d been well within your rights to criticize my decision as stubborn. I assure you this isn’t the case.

Sorry, I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to the general attitude I encounter from physicalist believers. As you say, you’ve been open minded.

Ok, enough already. Stop making personal attacks and assuming I made no effort to even get the most basic understanding about your type of meditation. That simply is not the case. For someone who has so much control of his emotions, you keep showing your lack thereof. I'm assuming you're just venting because I've never claimed there was nothing else. I've presented a theory, which happens to be a physical one. (and acknowledge the possibility it is incorrect. Something you have yet to do, BTW). You and I have exchanged PM's so I think you know where I'm coming from. I realize however, even though I am certain of there being a something else, I could be wrong as to what “it” is and how “it” works. That's not stubbornness, that’s open-mindedness. We really just possibly disagree on those key issues.

Again, I apologize for not being clear I wasn’t referring to you, but to “believers.” And it isn’t just physicalist believers I am disapproving of, it is any and all beliefs that are premature (i.e., lack enough evidence to be accepted as “most likely”). If you read all my posts you will find me just as critical of religious belief.

I've already addressed this above and you're the one who's speculating. Claiming there are no possible negative side effects is just plain nievity. Even the simplest google search offers a wealth of information on the subject. Even medical studies. And again, I'm well aware of the history of this type of meditation. Ask my wife or anyone who knows me what I've been doing since you showed me your path. Stop claiming you have the monopoly on the truth.

But there really isn’t much on the internet about the history of union meditation. The word is thrown around sloppily, and I’ve yet to read anything really informed online (in the sense of a solid historical study). Lots of self-proclaimed experts, of course, are ready to offer their unstudied theories. And there are absolutely NO medical studies I’ve found.

Just because two practices both apply the word “meditation” doesn’t mean they are the same. To some people, thinking is meditation. I have not been talking about anything other than union; personally I think it would better to drop the term "meditation" in reference to union, but it's too late for that. In any case, it’s a very unique practice descending from the Buddha’s realization, and kept alive by a few people through the centuries.

 

[Royce]

You say consciousness is not all physical. Should I take you at your word with no further investigation? Absolutely not, and that's my decision. Is it more likely than not consciousness is a physical phenomenon of the brain? Of course it is

This is not a personal attack nor criticism. It is merely an observation.
Logically statements such as the one above, "it is more likely than not..."
without proof or support are meaningless statements that only reveal the mind set or bias of the author.

I could, and often do, say that it is more likely than not that consciousness is the cause and the physical universe is the resultant effect as in intelligent design. This statement without evidence, proof or support is just as meaningless and invalid.

Your conclusion, "Of course it is" is totally unfounded and again only evidence of your physicalist mind set. You say that you have an open mind yet your statements indicate just the opposite that you are biased toward physicalism.

To me this is, and too physicalism, illogical as physical matter is clearly an effect and not a cause of anything as it is reduce-able to still simpler forms, the simplest still unknown at this time.

Too assume, and it is only an assumption, that physical matter is the cause and origin of consciousness and life is as yet unsupported and only held as there is no physical evidence to the contrary. As they and you only look at physical evidence and discount and/or ignore all of the "inner" or metaphysical evidence that has been observed, experienced and reported, that is repeatable and validated time and time again, it is obvious that physicalism must be the cause because there is no other physical explanation at hand. This is circular reasoning and proves nothing except shortsightedness and unwillingness to look of causes other than physicalism.

Once again, shoveling s**t against the tide, it has been observed and reported over the ages and across cultures by thousands of practitioners of union and or meditation that consciousness is a prime characteristic of the One universe, there is only one universal consciousness and this consciousness may well be the universe itself and we and the physical observable universe are merely a part of and a result (or creation)of that one consciousness.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Royce do you just ignore all the cerebral event explanations for the union experience? Les simply disregards them because he "knows better", but what is your take? To me they seem so much more convincing than large variations in our understanding of the universe, such as intelligent design.

And before anybody comes in describing this as a physicalist predjudice, let me say it is a sufficient reason predjudce. Somebody else's internal certainty is not so convincing to me as something I can in principle check for myself.

 

[Royce]

selfAdjoint,
No I don't ignore nor disregard them. I assume, or better presume, that such would be a given. If consciousness and the mind are involved then obviously the physical brain is too and there would be physical signs or evidence of the events occurring. It would also be a given, to me at least, that similar physical events, such as artificial stimulation of areas of the brain or oxygen deprivation, would trigger similar results.

If it occurs and we experience and observe it, anything, in our consciousness and/or minds then our brains and bodies are involved and we must be wired for the event to occur or we would not be able to sense, feel, observe or perceive it. This is just common sense to me. Consciousness, our minds and our brains as well as our bodies are inexorably entwined, inseparable. Except under unusual conditions one cannot and does not work without the other and effect the other.

 

[RVBuckeye]

This is not a personal attack nor criticism. It is merely an observation.
Logically statements such as the one above, "it is more likely than not..."
without proof or support are meaningless statements that only reveal the mind set or bias of the author.

I didn't take that as a criticism. First, before you judge me too harshly, Les and I unintentionally were talking about 2 different topics (one public and one taking place in private). We cleared it up privately and in retrospect, I can understand your confusion. We were confused ourselves to be honest. Don't take it as a criticism of your method to explore your consciousness, it wasn't. I totally respect it. Maybe we have a different definition of reality. I use the physical world as the one reality we all seem to share.

You speak of a universal consciousness. I've yet to read your theory on how it works. I'm of the opinion that at some point, there has to be a way it influences the physical world (or reality) that would theoretically be measureable in some physical way. How do you suppose this happens? My concern is justifying why should I spend the time to experience it (as in learning union), if it doesn't lead to any plausible theories as to its influence that can be logically or physically tested to determine it's validity. I recognize my bias, but that does not mean I'm not receptive to new ideas. Got any? (I do).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Royce do you just ignore all the cerebral event explanations for the union experience? Les simply disregards them because he "knows better" . . .

If some new age flake tries to tell you science is a total illusion, don't you believe you "know better"? If so, why is that ? I would say it's because you are so experienced with science that you know it "works" in the sense of producing observable results. That observation on your part is conscious experience. The new age flake, on the other hand, is offering a concept without having ever tested science; that is, he offers no conscious experience to back up his opinion. So why should you abandon all your experience with how science works and adopt his opinion?

Well, here we have the exact same situation. You and others who only put your faith in sense experience, who only believe in science, who only look at physcial factors and have never taken the time to first learn union, and then develop the skills required to actually become experienced sufficiently where you can say "I know," are trying to convince us that your theory, sans experience, is the most logical one.

It is most logical to you based on your experience, and those others who agree with your chosen epistomology, but to me you are very much like the new age guy. You are talking about something you know nothing about, and without proper respect for what people like the Buddha have achieved through it.

Just from my little spot here, what it looks like me is that you want your theory of reality to be without God so badly that you don't care what you have to dismiss and ignore, and how inadequate physical theory is for explaining certain things.

To me they seem so much more convincing than large variations in our understanding of the universe, such as intelligent design.

First of all, who's understanding of the universe are we talking about? You mean, the understanding of those who ONLY look at mechanics and matter, and refuse to look at anything else without the science filter in place? As I"ve argued so many times, you can explain all the mechanical relationships between things, but you cannot account for how everything got organized as it did. Sure, the mechanists have explanations alright, but they cannot demonstrate the explanations are true.

So what we have is a group who already are convinced the universe is a certain way, clawing and scraping for the slightest sign, no matter how insignificant, that (in the end) matter can self-organize. You don't have to look far into complexity or chaos theory, or the Miller-Urey experiment, or even evolution theory (you have to look further there) to see how inadequate they are as the basis of organization for life and consciousness.

Why can't the mechanists/physcalists simply admit there is absolutely no proper organizing principle known in physcialness to produce the levels of organization found in life and consciousness?

And before anybody comes in describing this as a physicalist predjudice, let me say it is a sufficient reason predjudce. Somebody else's internal certainty is not so convincing to me as something I can in principle check for myself.

You can't seem to allow there might be epistomologies that will forever escape science. So what if science can't explan everything. What is the big deal?

Besides, you got it all wrong. No one is asking you to accept someone else's certainty. You absolutely must check it for yourself, you are the only one who can! It is a simple point that certainty is produced by each person for himself. As I have asked you before, do you know you experience love? Do you need to prove it to anybody else that you do? If no one else is convinced, are you going to start doubting your experience of love?

Certainty with union is realized exactly the same way as all other certainty . . . through repeated experience. True, it's nice that with external situations you can rely on other's to help you confirm that your experience is real. But with internal situations, it is just you alone. Now, the externalists claim that is reason deny the reality of internal experience but it is only because they are lacking, or ignoring, the sort of inner experience that can be trusted. So their opinion isn't objective, it is derived from insufficient self-development to actually know what they are talking about.

Once Tom gave a link to an article (I wish I had it now) where they discussed how the undeveloped lack the skills to evaluate how competent they are in something, and so often believe they are fully qualified when really they aren't. I know it happens in racquetball all the time; somebody claims to be an "A" player and wants to play with other A players, but really he is a C player. You can't convince him of it because he doesn't even realize what he doesn't know.

I am sorry to be so blunt, but all the otherwise brilliant minds one finds in science, or any intellectual circle, are wholly inadequate to evaluate union experience. Yes the intellect part of their consciousness is highly developed, but they are so inexperienced in the inner area of conscious development they don't realize what they don't know, or how futile it is to try to grasp union experience with the intellect.

How would you view some deeply intuitive artist trying to learn physics with his intuition alone? His intuitive skills might be just the thing for his art, but it isn't the way one develops science skills. What if you went to a planet where there were only such intuitive people so that everything you said about math etc. was translated into some intuitive poem or work of art or music . . . And when you try to explain how to use the intellect to think scientifically, they laugh at you and call you deluded. When you produce a scientific work, they evaluate as art and so always find it lacking.

That's what is happening here. It is a culture of mechanists, physicalists, and scientismists who have agreed only certain beliefs are acceptable, only a certain epistomology is effective, only a certain class of information is relevant, and that all of it must fit into a 100% physical model. With those filters in place, each member of this culture evalutes. Now, guess what sort of conclusions they come to every single time. You guessed it, that the universe is only physical-mechanical, and science is the only "Way" to truth. Is it any surprise to hear that, or that you say, "To me they [physical factors] seem so much more convincing"?

 

[Royce]

You speak of a universal consciousness. I've yet to read your theory on how it works. I'm of the opinion that at some point, there has to be a way it influences the physical world (or reality) that would theoretically be measurable in some physical way.

The simplest and most obvious demonstration of consciousness, in the form of will, as in free will, effecting the physical word is simply willing your finger to move. If your finger does actually move due to you willing it to it does so under the influence of consciousness with the mind, brain and body involved and effected. There is no other explanation nor is one needed. We consciously, willfully decide to move our bodies and make our bodies effect the physical world around us in ways that we mentally plan ahead to do. Thus we build bridges, skyscrapers and colliders. It isn't magic and it doesn't happen all by itself nor is it the result of physical reality effecting physical reality. It is nothing more than mind or consciousness over matter. It is so familiar and such an every waking moment experience and taken so much for granted that we forget what it actually is. It is our, the consciousness, intentionally effecting physical matter in a willful and meaningful way. How it actually does this is beyond me and science at the moment.

The reason that I hold that consciousness and the mind are not all the effect of the physical brain is because of what I and other have experienced while meditating. The state of pure consciousness, of pure being, the state of no-mind, as well as the ability of our minds to control and alter the functions of our brains and bodies, the cases of verified and documented out of body experiences reported showing that consciousness and the mind can and do function and remember events while the body, the brain, is totally unconscious or anesthetized. All of this type of empirical evidence it on hand, well documented and verified and available via the internet if you care to look it up.

Whenever I meditate, whether deeply or not, I feel, sense another's presence, another consciousness greater than mind but one of which I am part and is part of me. It is ever-present. I am never alone. I, probably due to my Christian background, take this to be God. There is also another present that is also one with the other that I take to be Jesus Christ. And there is alway me, my identity that is individual and unique yet still apart of the One.

I have questioned these experiences and doubted them, my grasp on reality, my rationality and sanity. Yet the more I meditate and the more that I experience the more sure of their, its, reality I am, the more I understand and the more that I comprehend. My understanding changes as I grow and experience, observe and feel. Thus my understanding that there is one reality, one universe, one consciousness and that it is all the identical One.

My concern is justifying why should I spend the time to experience it (as in learning union), if it doesn't lead to any plausible theories as to its influence that can be logically or physically tested to determine it's validity. I recognize my bias, but that does not mean I'm not receptive to new ideas. Got any? (I do).

Buddha spent his entire adult life searching for enlightenment yet did not know that that was what he was searching for. Einstein spent the last 40-50 years of his life vainly searching for a unified theory. This is not something that can be or needs to be justified. It isn't going to make you richer or smarter. It will make you become a better, healthier, wiser person but not if that is why you try to do it. We do it or rather we let it happen and we become better and wiser. We know.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, here we have the exact same situation. You and others who only put your faith in sense experience, who only believe in science, who only look at physcial factors and have never taken the time to first learn union, and then develop the skills required to actually become experienced sufficiently where you can say "I know," are trying to convince us that your theory, sans experience, is the most logical one.

This assumes that only sense experience is susceptible of objective verification. I don't assume that, but neither you nor anyone else has shown me that union is an objective condition. You blame the messenger by saying that we "haven't taken the time to first learn union." It is up to you who make extreme claims - that your experience justifies a complete boulversment of our understanding of the world is indeed an extreme claim - to present evidence. Teaching scientists how to achieve union and going under the functional MRI scanner while in union are ways to begin. Just sitting on your laurels and preaching will never convince any critical thinker you are correct.

 

[Rade]

All the talk in this thread about the "mechanists, physicalists, and scientismists" vs the "mystics" I find very strange. Reality is a mixture of the physical (matter) and non physical mystic (energy), we know this from Einstein now in exact form. When one meditates it makes sense that one would experience the two aspects of reality (e.g., the physical and mystic) in different proportions, as opposed to a person that does not meditate. The same can be said of the person that takes mind alternating drugs, or the mentally ill that hallucinates. In my view, neither physical nor mystical can take primacy, because the two are co-mingled from the start. Thus, when one mediates one does not somehow move outside the physical--not possible--not even if one reaches a state of experiencing pure energy in the form of light. Because E = Mc^2, without the physical (M) the non physical (E) light experience cannot exist (e.g. pure light is not possible to experience unless some quantum of matter is moving very fast indeed). Thus I hold that reality is a neutral monism of the physical + mystical and thus can never be experienced in pure form at either end of the E <----> M continuum. Meditation is but one of many ways to reach such union, but it is not a stairway to heaven. How can I say this ? Because I have experienced the union without mediation (nor drugs), thus mediation is sufficient but not necessary. The Buddha and Timothy Leary spent time on mediation and drugs to experience what was always available to them via rational thought as a system where the totality of the communal past is by volition brought forth to form the communal present.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Reality is a mixture of the physical (matter) and non physical mystic (energy), we know this from Einstein now in exact form.

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has alnmost no definite properties.

 

[Les Sleeth]

This assumes that only sense experience is susceptible of objective verification. I don't assume that, but neither you nor anyone else has shown me that union is an objective condition.

What do you mean by an objective condition? I hope you mean that union is actually occurring as it is reported, and not being colored by subjective bias or delusion. If you mean “objective” in the sense of being able to make it an object of scrutiny for external observers, I must believe you haven’t understood a thing I’ve said.

You blame the messenger by saying that we "haven't taken the time to first learn union." It is up to you who make extreme claims - that your experience justifies a complete boulversment of our understanding of the world is indeed an extreme claim - to present evidence.

First of all, what have I said that indicates bouleversement? There is nothing about union that can’t fit perfectly with what is actually known to be true of our universe. I have never denied the reality of physicalness, I have only said it may not be all there is.

Secondly, I haven’t made the extreme claims, it seems to me you have when you take the extreme position that only physicalness exits before there’s enough evidence to warrant that belief. It is extreme in my opinion to close the door on everything but one’s pet theory when one don’t know if it is true. At least I am trying to reconcile what is known with what I experience, and I haven’t closed a single door.

Third, I have presented evidence. Look at the history of my posts and you will see I have cited again and again those reports of accomplished union practitioners. Whether you like it or not, that is evidence.

You merely choose to dismiss reports of individuals like the Buddha, or Jesus, or Kabir, or Rumi, or Meister Eckhart, or Nanak, or Joshu, or Teresa, or the Baal Shem Tov, or Sheikh Farid, or Bernard, or Sengtsan, or Laotse, or Cassian, Pinhas of Koretz, or Brother Lawrence, or Kobo daishi, or Jakob Boehme, or Sarmad, or Sri Sarada Devi, or Maximus, or Milarepa, or Shah Nimatullah Wali, or Baha'ullah, or Richard Rolle, or Meher Baba, or Dov Baer, or Blessed Theodore, or Mira Bai, or Isaac of Syria, or Namdev, or Dogen, or Jerome, or Karaikkal Ammaiyar, or Catherine of Siena, or Rabia, or Benedict, or Mahadevi, or John of the Cross, or Patanjali, or Julian of Norwich, or Dhanna, or Julian of Norwich, or Lalleswari, or Angela of Foligno, or Bonaventura, or Suso, or Thomas à Kempis, Mother Cabrini, . . . all of whom would likely understand Hildegarde’s report, “. . . my soul has always beheld this Light; and in it my soul soars to the summit of the firmament and into a different air . . . the brightness which I see is not limited by space and is more brilliant than the radiance round the sun. . . . . sometimes when I see it . . . I seem a simple girl again, and an old woman no more!”

Teaching scientists how to achieve union . . .

Well, you can lead a mule to water . . .

. . . and going under the functional MRI scanner while in union are ways to begin.

What if the MRI scanner is too crude to detect it? My experience is that the essence of consciousness is homogeneous light. How is anything dependent on particle-ness or fields generated by them going to detect something that is particle-less and more subtle than what any physical tools can spot? If there is some preexistent consciousness-as-illumination, and if it is more subtle that all that’s physical, then it makes sense that it’s only observable by each individual consciousness learning to experience itself. Know thy self may be a more profound prescription than most imagine.

But see, again you insist that the experience be made physical somehow, and you insist that the physical-detection epistemology known as science be the arbiter of this issue. As I’ve asked before, who made science the end-all epistemology of the universe? It may be the only way some know how to know, but that doesn’t mean others haven’t learned to develop consciousness in an entirely different way that gives one an additional knowing avenue. That in fact is exactly what union practitioners claim, and why they also claim their experience of reality is more “real” than those who lack the experiential avenue they’ve developed (i.e., because they are experiencing more of reality).

Just sitting on your laurels and preaching will never convince any critical thinker you are correct.

Who is sitting on his laurels? I have done the work, most critics haven’t, yet they are full of opinions about it anyway. What quality of critical thinking is that? Just scoffing at millennia of inner practitioners isn’t much of an opinion, and demanding that one submit union experience to their laboratory tests is downright egocentric. It’s like, “Oh, so you say you feel love? Okay, then show evidence of love on this big machine I’ve got here. And if you can’t make that machine give readings, then you are deluded.” Yeah, all of humanity should limit their self-knowledge to what a bunch of glorified mechanics declare is the truth. Give me a break!

I can’t tell if you really don’t understand or if you are just trying to make me dizzy from repeating myself. From all that’s been said, how would one get the notion that someone can “think” their way to certainty about the experience? I don’t know much more clearly it can be said that how one empirically (empirical=experience) confirms the reality of union isn’t through thinking.

Thinking produces thoughts, union practice produces union experience, and to get to the point of practicing one feels attracted to it. It is a feeling avenue, not a thinking avenue. I know that scares a lot of people because often they’ve shut off feeling from getting hurt, or they relied on it improperly and so got themselves in hot water. But there is a very conscious way to develop and practice feeling, and that has been the basis of this very ancient practice we’ve been discussing.

So there is no MRI to make one feel better about it, there is no test to run by any machine. If one wants to know one has to have step out of one’s scientism comfort zone and open up to the experience. That’s it, there is no other way to investigate it. Personally I have no stake in whether anyone gives union a try; my goal here has been to try to bring a little clarity about the experience, and to defend it against baseless criticisms so that if someone might be interested at least there is an informed opinion amongst all the often pessimistic and erroneous speculation.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has alnmost no definite properties.

Of course you are right that energy has nothing to do with it (and neither do photons ), but it isn't fair to lump mindless mystical speculation with the reports of serious inner practitioners. Should we lump pseudo-science and science together?

 

[Royce]

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has almost no definite properties.

This is where you are dead wrong and showing your ignorance, selfAdjoint.
What is called chi or ki, the life force, has been studied and measured and it does have objective, observable, repeatable effects.

The "light" that we see and feel does have physical effects on us but I don't know that it has ever been studied or measured.

If subjective thought can make our bodies move, change states in response to purely subjective observations or experiences as in emotions or fright and this response can be measured then it obviously must be a physical energy with physical effects and properties.

Mystics and Martial Art practitioners can do amazing, impossible, things just using their minds and wills.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Royce,
I have read plenty about NDE and OBE. I did do a quick re-check after your post to see if there was possibly some evidence I have overlooked. As far as I know, the "holy grail" of a verifiable OBE is yet to be documented. Sure there are plenty of personal accounts, but just a personal account leaves too many unknowns about the individual personal history. Same with big foot or the loch ness monster. (at least those can be scientifically analyzed). There are just as many accounts of OBE that doesn't lead the experiencer to conclude that it was "caused" by God, if you care to look those up yourself. I don't really know if there is anything I could say that could not be turned around and dismissed as me just "speaking from ignorance." I am not trying to be critical of your beliefs because admittedly, I don't know. I'm not even sure if I really want to, or can, persuade you otherwise. But we run into the same roadblock that has been impeding any honest debate on the subject, because when one side says "we know", what's the use? I really must ask you, why are you here at Physics Forum? (keyword physics). If you know, then why not be content with your knowledge? If you still have doubts, then you don't know, you only think you do.
What I'm most interested in, and I believe is in line with the OP, is how this alleged universal conciousness operates. This is also a general question not just for you, but Les as well. I have always thought of God, if it exists at all, as existing in another dimension or a reality separate from our own. As Les has pointed out to me in another thread, that point of view leads to logical flaws such as omnipotence and the like. I agree that those ill-concieved notions can be logically dismissed. But, if you want to persuade me that God, in the form of a universal conciousness, exists in this reality, than I need to know some sequence of events. Les has told me that it is natural, and in being so, is governed by the same natural laws that you and a I are. Also, earthly evolution (and the paradoxes that arise from the appearence of trial and error) leads to the logical opinion that it too has evolved from a more primitive form.
First, how can a universal conciousness arise out of the same laws that govern us, and yet physicalists are scorned because they claim that our human conciousness did just that? Why are you right?
If you have an answer for that, then give me a timeline. Is it Big Bang--> universal conciousness-->ability to create-->planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us? What do you suppose? I've always assumed it was God--> big bang--> and the rest is history. Mine would assume that God is not governed by the same laws as us, nor does it assume that he is imperfect/perfect, (who are we to judge) nor does it rule out that he doesn't interact via our conscious minds. However, it does assume that any effect of the interaction would be physically measurable or at the very least mathematically/logically possible.
All pleasurable benefits of the union experience aside, that is no longer a question for me. I don't doubt that at all. What my questions are concerning is the stance that what you are experiencing is the interaction of the 2 realities, or whether it is actually one reality, or whether it is the result of an overactive imagination. Perhaps you've ruled out the last one for yourself, fine, let's proceed from there.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I don't really know if there is anything I could say that could not be turned around and dismissed as me just "speaking from ignorance."

Sometimes people do give opinions without the slightest knowledge of what they are talking about, and in the realm of turning inward, around here it goes on all the time. But I flinched at seeing the term “ignorance” used in the same sentence with selfAdjoint who, despite being PF’s resident curmudgeon , is one of the most broadly educated and capable thinkers around.

Les has told me that it is natural, and in being so, is governed by the same natural laws that you and a I are. Also, earthly evolution (and the paradoxes that arise from the appearance of trial and error) leads to the logical opinion that it too has evolved from a more primitive form.
First, how can a universal consciousness arise out of the same laws that govern us . . .

To say universal consciousness and physicalness arose out of the same laws isn’t the same as saying both are physical. I’d propose there are absolute laws which are more basic than anything we’ve yet discovered. I’ll say more in a minute.

. . . and yet physicalists are scorned because they claim that our human consciousness did just that? Why are you right?

Physicalism is only scorned by me when its believers won’t admit where the theory has serious evidential gaps, when they apply bad logic (in the form of improper inferences) to cover the gaps, when they only study and allow one sort of evidence (physical evidence), and when they “dismiss” anything that doesn’t fit their theories.

Personally I don’t see anything wrong with trying to make a theory work as long as it is honestly and objectively discussed, and other perspectives are treated respectfully.

If you have an answer for that, then give me a timeline. Is it Big Bang--> universal conciousness-->ability to create-->planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us? What do you suppose? I've always assumed it was God--> big bang--> and the rest is history. Mine would assume that God is not governed by the same laws as us, nor does it assume that he is imperfect/perfect, (who are we to judge) nor does it rule out that he doesn't interact via our conscious minds. However, it does assume that any effect of the interaction would be physically measurable or at the very least mathematically/logically possible.

I say the most logical sequence is: universal consciousness-->ability to create--> Big Bang--> planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us. Why? I have only two serious reasons to offer and that is 1) the quality of organization found (at the very least) in living systems, and the emergence of consciousness from a physical system. Neither of those traits can be adequately accounted for by any known physical abilities. Matter cannot be shown to self-organize beyond a few steps, matter cannot be made to produce consciousness. I’ll develop my argument from these “gaps” in physicalist theory.

In the thread I started “Define Physical” I suggested physicalness is defined by mass. I have since refined my definition to be: physicalness is the behaviors and effects of mass entities. It should be obvious that “mass entities” refers to all the types and combinations of basic particles that mass exists as (e.g., protons, quarks, etc.), oscillation and radiation are types of “behaviors” of mass (i.e., particles vibrate, radiate, etc.) and gravity is an example of an “effect” of mass (gravity only manifests when mass is present). In other words, no mass, no physical.

Not everyone agrees with that, but if for the moment we accept that as a working definition, then we can reason that it was orderly amassing that produced this universe and gave it “time”; and it was the organization of mass entities that produced the means for life as well as what provided the means for consciousness to show up in biology.

Okay, let’s look around for anything which can organize similar to the quality found in biology (I call that type of organization progressive). There is only one thing known in the universe that can organize anywhere close to progressive quality, and that is human consciousness.

So if we have to decide what happened way back before the Big Bang, what is the most logical order? If the only known progressive organizing force is consciousness, if we have examples of extended progressive organization (like the billions of years of it that led to humans), and if physicalness can’t be shown to do it, then it is more logical that consciousness developed first, evolved for eons until it was powerful enough to cause significant amassing (using, I say, the same laws that originally brought it about as consciousness), and it evolved enough to then serve as the progressive organizing force of this universe.

All pleasurable benefits of the union experience aside, that is no longer a question for me. I don't doubt that at all. What my questions are concerning is the stance that what you are experiencing is the interaction of the 2 realities, or whether it is actually one reality, or whether it is the result of an overactive imagination. Perhaps you've ruled out the last one for yourself, fine, let's proceed from there.

I would answer it is one reality. It is “something fundamental” that is generally unevolved but which has the potential to evolve. We know this is true because here we are, so the only question is in what order this evolution took place. I’ve given my logic for proposing consciousness came first, and we are little sparks of it encased in biology right now having been born here from the realm of consciousness.

As I’ve said, many who think this way are those who’ve learned to experience the “essence” of their own consciousness in the way called union. The history of this report is very ancient, and it is not investigated by science but by turning inward. So I do not understand the resistance by some to accepting there might an effective epistemology besides science. It's not like there is no evidence, there is tons of evidence if one wants to look for it.

But one can't evaluate the merits of an unfamiliar epistemology by subjecting it to one's own, and then when it fails to meet that standard declare the unfamiliar epistemology is bogus. In a culture of all union meditators, if someone evaluated science the same way they would most certainly conclude it is bogus since it produces nothing at all in the way of the type of insights union does.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Personally I don’t see anything wrong with trying to make a theory work as long as it is honestly and objectively discussed, and other perspectives are treated respectfully.

Agree 100%. Plus it is fun to discuss this, imo. What a great thread!

I say the most logical sequence is: universal consciousness-->ability to create--> Big Bang--> planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us. Why? I have only two serious reasons to offer and that is 1) the quality of organization found (at the very least) in living systems, and the emergence of consciousness from a physical system. Neither of those traits can be adequately accounted for by any known physical abilities. Matter cannot be shown to self-organize beyond a few steps, matter cannot be made to produce consciousness.

Interesting perspective. (now that's what I was hoping for as an avenue to explore). I still need to continue reading all those links you provided me, in case this is re-hashing a topic you've already discussed. Thanks Les.

 

[PIT2]

I have read plenty about NDE and OBE. I did do a quick re-check after your post to see if there was possibly some evidence I have overlooked. As far as I know, the "holy grail" of a verifiable OBE is yet to be documented.

Ive looked into this as well and these two links below are about the best I've found with regard to OBE/NDE:

On the first three laboratory nights Miss Z reported that in spite of occasionally being “out,” she had not been able to control her experiences enough to be in position to see the target number (which was different each night). On the fourth night, at 5:57am, there was a seven minute period of somewhat ambiguous EEG activity, sometimes looking like stage 1, sometimes like brief wakings. Then Miss Z awakened and called out over the intercom that the target number was 25132, which I wrote on the EEG recording. After she slept a few more minutes I woke her so she could go to work and she reported on the previous awakening that:

"I woke up; it was stifling in the room. Awake for about five minutes. I kept waking up and drifting off, having floating feelings over and over. I needed to go higher because the number was lying down. Between 5:50 and 6:00 A.M. that did it. . . I wanted to go read the number in the next room, but I couldn’t leave the room, open the door, or float through the door. . .. I couldn’t turn on the air conditioner!"

The number 25132 was indeed the correct target number. I had learned something about designing experiments since my first OBE experiment and precise evaluation was possible here. The odds against guessing a 5digit number by chance alone are 100,000 to 1, so this is a remarkable event! Note also that Miss Z had apparently expected me to have propped the target number up against the wall behind the shelf, but she correctly reported that it was lying flat.

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/display/ctt_articles2.cfm?ID=50

And a 13yr NDE study published in 2001:

Thus, induced experiences are not identical to NDE, and so, besides age, an unknown mechanism causes NDE by stimulation of neurophysiological and neurohumoral processes at a subcellular level in the brain in only a few cases during a critical situation such as clinical death. These processes might also determine whether the experience reaches consciousness and can be recollected.

With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one's body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG? (22) Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope. (29,30) Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this experience.

Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception.

The theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.
http://www.merkawah.nl/literatuur/lommel-lancet.html

 

[Royce]

Royce,
I have read plenty about NDE and OBE. I did do a quick re-check after your post to see if there was possibly some evidence I have overlooked. As far as I know, the "holy grail" of a verifiable OBE is yet to be documented. Sure there are plenty of personal accounts, but just a personal account leaves too many unknowns about the individual personal history.

This has been discussed here before. I just tried to search for the posts but was not successful. I cited two cases of OBE that I knew about. One was talked about on Discovery (I think). Another was told to me by a personal friend and co-worker about his own personal experience. I have no reason to disbelieve either and no grounds to say that the are deluded or mistaken. Until proven differently I have to accept them at face value as there was nothing that was exceptional to other stories of OBE. I have no personal experience with either OBE or NDE.

What I'm most interested in, and I believe is in line with the OP, is how this alleged universal consciousness operates. This is also a general question not just for you, but Les as well. I have always thought of God, if it exists at all, as existing in another dimension or a reality separate from our own. As Les has pointed out to me in another thread, that point of view leads to logical flaws such as omnipotence and the like. I agree that those ill-conceived notions can be logically dismissed. But, if you want to persuade me that God, in the form of a universal consciousness, exists in this reality, than I need to know some sequence of events. Les has told me that it is natural, and in being so, is governed by the same natural laws that you and a I are.

The Universe is defined as everything that exists.
This is not my definition but one that was told to me
here in another thread. I accept it as valid and use it
frequently.

Therefore nothing exists outside of the universe.
If something exists it then must be the universe or part
of the universe.

Therefore the can be only one universe.
If there were more than one universe it would by
definition also be a part of the universe and would be a
subset universe of the universal set that is the One
Universe.

If it is exists it is real and a part of the One Universe that is also real.
If it does not exist it is not real. If it is not real it does
not exist.

Either something came from nothing without reason or cause or something is eternal, without beginning and without end.
I hold that something from nothing without reason or
cause is impossible and therefore absurd. Something
eternal while incomprehensible is the only alternative left
and therefore must be accepted.

If something exists and is eternal it then must be or be a part of the universe.
Therefor the Universe is eternal.

If something is eternal it must also be timeless for time implies and contains beginnings and endings.

Here Les and I differ. I hold that one aspect of the One Eternal Timeless Universe is consciousness and it too is eternal. It is my belief that the universe is God and God is the universe and is conscious. We being part of the universe are therefore part of God and conscious yet we have individuality and uniqueness.

I believe that God created us and the physical universe out of himself, his own energy, by his will. As I have said many time before; "God said, 'Let there be light- BIG BANG.'"

As there is only one and all that is, is of that one then if anything is natural all is natural. There is no, and cannot be anything, unnatural or supernatural. This is no Outsider nor Outside. There is only the one and all that is, is the one.

How all the works is way beyond me. Yes, I am ignorant of this. However I don't think that there can be any time line as the universe is timeless. There is no first second or third. There only is what is, what has always been and what always will be.

This is only my opinions and my beliefs.
I KNOW very little. All of this has been arrived at by meditation, contemplation and by sharing our thoughts and experiences here at Physics Forums and specifically the Philosophy Forum.

First, how can a universal consciousness arise out of the same laws that govern us, and yet physicalist's are scorned because they claim that our human consciousness did just that? Why are you right?
If you have an answer for that, then give me a time line. Is it Big Bang--> universal consciousness-->ability to create-->planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us? What do you suppose? I've always assumed it was God--> big bang--> and the rest is history. Mine would assume that God is not governed by the same laws as us, nor does it assume that he is imperfect/perfect, (who are we to judge) nor does it rule out that he doesn't interact via our conscious minds. However, it does assume that any effect of the interaction would be physically measurable or at the very least mathematically/logically possible.
All pleasurable benefits of the union experience aside, that is no longer a question for me. I don't doubt that at all. What my questions are concerning is the stance that what you are experiencing is the interaction of the 2 realities, or whether it is actually one reality, or whether it is the result of an overactive imagination. Perhaps you've ruled out the last one for yourself, fine, let's proceed from there.

I have answered many of your questions in my previous response. God, the creator or the universal consciousness made the initial rules, parameters and laws but once deciding on how or what method to use I don't think that he had much choice in the rest of it. It all has to follow logically and reasonably and be consistent.

As far as two realities or dualities are concerned, I think that I have answered that, there is only one reality and one universe and I believe that I have logically supported my position.

I have conducted my own little experiments, asked questions concerning something that I didn't understand and in time full understanding has come to me on that particular subject (or at least my questions were answered possibly by myself). I often experienced things that I had no prior knowledge of and only later learned the names or terminology and that other had also experienced similar or identical things.

As I have repeatedly said, I know very little. Much of what I say is speculation or conclusions that I have reached after years of thought and meditation and reading and discussions here. I am here not because I know, but because I don't know and would like to know more. This is one of the few places where I can air my thoughts and speculations and at least others will usually try to understand what I'm trying to say or ask and respond. I am here for me, for my own education and enjoyment. I am not here for you no anyone else, your education nor to force my views, opinions and beliefs onto anyone. I merely air them and the more argument that I get the better I like it. Like everyone the one thing that I hate is to be ignored or dismissed.

 

[Royce]

Sometimes people do give opinions without the slightest knowledge of what they are talking about, and in the realm of turning inward, around here it goes on all the time. But I flinched at seeing the term “ignorance” used in the same sentence with selfAdjoint who, despite being PF’s resident curmudgeon , is one of the most broadly educated and capable thinkers around.

I apologize, selfAdjoint. Possibly I presumed too much. I meant in no way to imply that you are ignorant nor did I mean any insult. I meant only to say that in this specific instance you were apparently not well informed. The word "ignorance" means to me un-informed or uneducated in this topic. I profess profound ignorance in many topics but have an opinion in most.
Again I mean no offense and hope that none was taken.

 

[Rade]

Dead wrong. The physicists' energy has nothing to do with what the mystics call energy. Physicists' energy produces objective, observable, repeatable effects. Mystics energy is only a name they use, and has almost no definite properties.

But this is what I just do not understand--there are not "two" energies, there is only the energy of E = Mc^2. Thus both physicists and mystics must talk about the same energy since there is only one concept of energy (unless one moves outside this universe to another). As I see it, where both groups error is when they fail to realize that neither M nor E take priority--they are intermingled. I think the mystics view E as being possible without M or c^2 involved, physicists do not (due to relativistic theory)--is that what you are saying above ?

 

[RVBuckeye]

Ive looked into this as well and these two links below are about the best I've found with regard to OBE/NDE:
And a 13yr NDE study published in 2001:

Thanks PIT2. I've seen both of those before. As for the first, however interesting, it's 2006. That was in the 1960's and occurred once.
Here's another study you might find relevent, at least I do.

"Out of Body Experiences", Dreams, and REM Sleep
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:7I9D1kJouxYJ:www.home.no/lucid/lucid/remobe.pdf+link:http://www.neurology.org/cgi/content/abstract/42/7/44[/URL]
[QUOTE]In conclusion, the data and analysis presented here argue that out-of-body experiences are mental events that arise out of the same physiological conditions as wake-initiated lucid dreams. Both involve transitions waking to dreaming, and are accompanied by similar phenomenology such as vibrations, unusual auditory hallucinations, sleep paralysis, and a sensation of floating out of body. Using the proposed model for understanding metachoric experiences reveals that the difference between OBEs and lucid dreams lies solely in the semantic frameworks used. In the end, we suggest that in approaching the study of consciousness, the most fruitful approach may require us to abandon arbitrary distinctions between states and to recognize that all conscious experience derives from the activity of the brain. The primary function of the forebrain is the creation of complex models of reality that allow us to accurately predict the outcome of our interactions with the physical world. This function does not cease with the onset of sleep and is not dependent on external input to the sense organs.
In a final note, we would like to address the concerns of those for whom OBEs have provided revelation of existence beyond the limits of the physical body. Declaring OBEs dreams does not diminish their reality if, by the same argument, we declare that waking reality is a dream as well! The worlds we create in dreams and OBEs are as real as this one, and, further, they are unfettered by the constraints of the physical universe. In dreams,we have the potential to explore the true powers of the mind without the limitations imposed in the “real world” by the need to survive in a hostile environment. How much more exhilarating it must be to be "out-of-body" in a world where the only limit is the imagination, than to be loose in the physical world in a powerless body of ether! Freed of the constraints imposed by the physical, expanded by the knowledge that we can transcend all previously known limitations, who knows what we could be, or become?[/QUOTE]

EDIT: Here's a recent article on NDE's and sleep
[url]http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060410/full/060410-2.html[/url]
[QUOTE]People who have had near-death experiences are more likely to mix up dreams and reality than those who have not, researchers say.[/QUOTE]

 

[Rade]

I say the most logical sequence is: universal consciousness-->ability to create--> Big Bang--> planets, solar system--> lesser animals--> us...If the only known progressive organizing force is consciousness, if we have examples of extended progressive organization (like the billions of years of it that led to humans), and if physicalness can’t be shown to do it, then it is more logical that consciousness developed first, evolved for eons until it was powerful enough to cause significant amassing ...

I do not view this sequence as being logical at all. Why ? For the simple reason that one cannot "first" have a progressive organizing "force" without there being some "things" to organize. Give me one example of a force acting on (organizing) itself, which is what would be required for your hypothesis to hold. No such example is possible. Does gravity act on itself ? Or strong force of atom ? Of course not. Thus I hold that the most logical sequence is (1) some fundamental things = existence (2) an organizing force that forms "things" into "objects" (OK, we call it consciousness to make you happy--others call it union of weak force, strong force, gravity, electro-magnetism) (3) a breakup of objects to form more complex objects during recombination (big bang), etc. etc. etc. to (4) present. And please, there is no "us" above "lesser animals" in any logical sequence to explain existence. All life on Earth has identical worth, many forms of animal life have consciousness. You may ask, where did first (1) some fundamental things = existence come from--easy answer, they had no beginning nor end, they just exist, always have, always will. Finally, you state that "consciousness evolved" But a force does not evolve, the things the force acts on evolve.

 

[Les Sleeth]

But this is what I just do not understand--there are not "two" energies, there is only the energy of E = Mc^2. Thus both physicists and mystics must talk about the same energy since there is only one concept of energy (unless one moves outside this universe to another). As I see it, where both groups error is when they fail to realize that neither M nor E take priority--they are intermingled. I think the mystics view E as being possible without M or c^2 involved, physicists do not (due to relativistic theory)--is that what you are saying above ?

They have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You don’t really think one word cannot be applied to several different things do you? A quick survey of the English language will of course show you otherwise.

Energy in physics has no existential properties. It is only identified by the fact that it helps keep track of what moves/changes things or does "work." I presented the history of the how term energy is likely derived from Aristotle’s energia to help explain the quality of motion, or “vis viva” in things in this thread:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=3252

In that thread Tom Mattson made the point, “In science, energy is a descriptive bookkeeping tool, and no causative power is ascribed to it.” You can also read Tom’s story about the woman who thinks because the energy concept in physics talks about not being created and not being destroyed, and it is part of everything, then it must be God, when really energy is merely a way to calculate and record change. People who use energy like this are just spewing new age nonsense because it has nothing to do with the physics concept of energy, and it has nothing to do with the kind of inner experience that union practitioners talk about.

In the past I’ve posted the following about how the popularization of the energy concept has led to misconceptions about it. Science writer Paul Davies writing in his book Superforce explains, “What made it appealing was that energy is always conserved, never created or destroyed.” Davies goes on to say, “When an abstract concept becomes so successful that it permeates through to the general public, the distinction between real and imaginary becomes blurred. . . . This is what happened in the case of energy. . . . Energy is . . . an imaginary, abstract concept which nevertheless has become so much a part of our everyday vocabulary that we imbue it with concrete existence.”

And so you must be wrong Rade. Because energy is merely a concept, there is no possible way to experience it and therefore be the mystical experience as you have speculated. And those who are accomplished at the sort of mystical experience we’ve been talking about here (union) do not talk about energy being God anyway (unless it is simply to describe vibrancy, like in this quote by the famous eleventh century mystic Benard “I confess, then, to speak foolishly that the Word has visited me—indeed very often. But, though He has frequently come into my soul, I have never at any time been aware of the moment of His coming . . . You will ask then how, since His track is thus traceless, I could know that He is present? Because He is living and full of energy.”)