How to talk about spiritual experiences

Talking is good. Face to face, or otherwise. One of those other ways is through what I like to call "comment conversations." 

These frequently happen on this blog -- where people exchange a series of comments on some blog post subject. A recent post, "Modern mystics, why should anyone believe your 'vision'?", elicited some comments from me and others that got me thinking.

Also a good thing. 

Below I'll share my comment that is a less organized form of what follows in this post. Which is, a schema that describes how I've come to view the more desirable and less desirable ways of talking about personal spiritual experiences.

Here's the schema as it currently stands.

(1) Simply describing a personal spiritual experience or insight. This is utterly fine, in my view. It is almost exactly akin to talking about a movie someone has seen, or a dream that they had. I experienced such-and-such. This is what went through my mind. I have zero problem with people doing this. It's natural to want to share something interesting that happened to us.

(2) Expecting that someone else should have the same personal spiritual experience or insight. This is much more problematic. It's like me saying, "I really liked the movie Boyhood. You should see it, because you'll enjoy the movie just as much as I did." Or, "Riding a motorcycle is super fun. Everybody should get one." 

People are different. Each of us likes different things. We react in various ways to the same experience. One person screams with joy on a roller-coaster, wanting the ride to go on and on. Another screams in terror, wanting the ride to be over as soon as possible.

Further, it likely is impossible for two people to have exactly the same experience of anything. At the least, there is no way of knowing that my experience of tasting a strawberry, say, is the same as anyone else's. And if this is true of objects in the physical realm, it is even more true of mental objects: concepts, feelings, ideas, thoughts, and such.

So even though I might consider that standing on the rim of the Grand Canyon, or seeing the Pope preside over mass at the Vatican, was a life-changing experience for me (actually, neither is true), I have little or no reason to believe that anyone else will feel the same way.

(3) Considering that a personal spiritual experience or insight points to an objective truth about reality. I really have a problem with someone doing this. Shared reality, objective reality, whatever you want to call it -- this is common ground belonging to everyone.

No one has a right to define what reality is based merely on a subjective personal experience.

If someone has an inner vision of Jesus, of heaven, or of God, that's great. I'll be pleased to listen to them talk about what they experienced, so long as they speak in line with (1) above, simply describing what they experienced.

Often (2) and (3) seem to go together.

Meaning, I get the feeling that when someone urges other people to try to have the same personal spiritual experience or insight that they had, he or she believes that what was experienced reflected a supernatural, divine, or transcendent realm of reality that possesses objective existence.

For example, not only was a vision of Jesus, God, angels, or whatever experienced, this entity is considered to actually exist outside of the person's own mind. This is a giant claim about reality that deserves giant proof to be believable. 

Skepticism, questioning, demands for evidence -- these are entirely appropriate if someone tries to convert a description of a personal subjective experience, (1) above, into a statement about how the cosmos truly is in a objective way.

Here's my blog post comment, which covers similar ground, albeit not in a 1,2,3 fashion. I fixed a few grammatical errors.

tucson, here's how I see things...

I feel that most of us, me included sometimes, fall into the Other People Experience Things Like I Do delusion.

This applies to physical experiences, of course. Even more so to mental experiences (which are physical at heart, I'd say, but have an inward feel to them).

Example: my wife goes with me to see the current Radha Soami Satsang Beas guru, Gurinder Singh. She gets to sit in the front row, really close to him. Devotees tell her, "You're going to have an amazing experience."

Actually, she didn't feel like the guru was anything other than a normal human being. The experience was nothing special.

Likewise, and even more so, I think we all have the feeling that if other people could share our inward experiences regarding the Meaning of the Universe, they would see things the way we do.

However, if other people felt inwardly the same way we do, they would be us. Since they obviously are themselves, not us, we can't expect other people to experience things the same way.

So when you speak of "realizing" some truth, this isn't the same as seeing some physical object. Yes, everyone in the room with normal eyesight saw the guru sitting on a stage, but everybody in the room had a different experience of this encounter.

Like I said, this applies even more so when the "object" is mental, like an experience of the non duality of the cosmos. I really don't think we can expect that anyone else will have the same experience. Or if they do have a similar experience, that it will have the same meaning for them.

Another down to earth example: I get lots of comments and questions when people see me riding my bright yellow StreetStrider outdoor elliptical bike around. I always say, "It's so much fun!" But what I really mean is, "It's so much fun for me."

So far I don't believe anyone, out of the dozens I've talked to, has decided to get their own StreetStrider.

Reason: they are them, and I am me. My enjoyment of my own experience isn't diminished by other people failing to understand it, or not wanting to share it. I realize that my experience is subjective, and other people might not find any enjoyment in doing what I do.

Thus this is where I think spirituality and religion go awry. Believers assume that what they have experienced can, and should, be experienced by everybody. They make something objective out of something subjective. 

Comments

[vlad]

Nice Brian but there is also a fourth group which belongs to people like tAo who can attack lie make insults make fun of just anybody ..it would be nice to collect all of his posts and paste them here so we would get a picture of what this group of 4 would be like

[TheAncientGeek]

As with your the comments, your not noticing any difference between objectifying the specific contents of your own consciousness, and drawing conclusions from the very existence if general states of consciousness. No one has public evidence for consciousness. There needs to be a 4 after your 3, for those following apophatic theology/via negativa/direct path.

[Brian Hines]

vlad, our whole culture manifests an increasing intensity and divisiveness when it comes to communication. I don't think the situation is any different in commenting on this blog.

When I read online comments submitted to controversial stories in our local newspaper, the language is just as heated as it gets here sometimes. Ditto, of course, with political discourse these days, in Congress or many other places.

I also think that religious/spiritual believers aren't used to being challenged. Usually people don't respond to ridiculous religious statements with, "Why do you believe that?" or "Where is the proof for that?," even though this is entirely reasonable.

So being questioned or challenged can feel like being attacked. However, in scientific circles (and other places, like classrooms), open debate and discussion -- often intense -- is commonplace.

It's healthy for believers to have to defend their beliefs. If they can't be defended, maybe they shouldn't be held in the first place.

[observer]

Brian: "I also think that religious/spiritual believers aren't used to being challenged. Usually people don't respond to ridiculous religious statements with, "Why do you believe that?" or "Where is the proof for that?," even though this is entirely reasonable."

Why do atheists assume and automatically label anyone speaking about unusual experiences as 'religious' or 'spiritual'?

Someone with an 'open mind' can have paranormal experiences and not 'believe' in anything. Life is strange, weird and unknowable.

[x]

If you must hold a belief, hold it for questioning.

[vlad]

I agree with you Brian in everything you said but reading back tAo comments of manipulation insults attacks makes me want to vomit. Those are not just questions to believers those are serious attacks.

[vlad]

I agree with you x I would hold questioning to the end of my life. Towards my current state.

[x]

Someone with an 'open mind' can have paranormal experiences and not 'believe' in anything.

Yes, but that theoretical someone has yet to comment. So far, every one of you have become believers as a result of your "paranormal experiences".

[observer]

"If you must hold a belief, hold it for questioning."

I don't hold a belief and I do question everything.

You, x, hold a belief. From your comments it is easy to see that you have a firmly held belief that everyone who is not an atheist is either religious or spiritual. An agnostic is more unknowing.

[tucson]

Observer: "An agnostic is more unknowing."

tucson: "I think so. An atheist believes there is no God when in fact, they can't know that. They just know they personally have seen no convincing evidence of such a thing."

x: "So far, every one of you have become believers as a result of your "paranormal experiences"."

tucson: "And you, x, have become an atheist as a result of your lack of convincing paranormal experiences.

I think being agnostic is a more intellectually honest position."

Observer: "You, x, hold a belief. From your comments it is easy to see that you have a firmly held belief that everyone who is not an atheist is either religious or spiritual."..

tucson: "..which x considers delusion when in fact the veracity of others' paranormal experiences cannot be known.

Speaking of God. How could there be such a thing, at least as an object to be known as such? To me, it seems that whatever God is must be the foundational subject of all objects.

We think of ourselves as subjects witnessing objects when in fact our conceptualized subjectivity is just that, another object in mind.

We think of our selves, our subjectivity, constantly, making objects of that which we deem subjectivity when, in reality, we are the absence of what we think ourselves to be which is the presence of what we are.

We are our total objective absence which is the subjective presence of...I'll let the reader come up for a name for it. It could be called God, the Eternal One, Great Spirit, Tao, Reality, Void or Ziggy.

[Brian Hines]

tucson, I disagree. An atheist is almost exactly the same as an agnostic. Both recognize that there is no evidence for the existence of God, so God is viewed as an unproven hypothesis.

If solid evidence for God becomes apparent, both atheists and agnostics would change their view, and believe in God. However, it seems clear that nothing would change religious believers' belief in God, which shows their dogmatism compared to the open-mindedness of atheists and agnostics.

An atheist is just more convinced that the lack of evidence for God's existence is persuasive, compared to an agnostic.

I vehemently disagree that an atheist believes there is no God. Rather, an atheist sees no evidence for God, so concludes that there is no reason to believe that God exists.

This is exactly the same as someone who could be called an agoblinist, if society had a term for a person who doesn't believe in the existence of goblins. Finding no reason to believe in goblins, virtually everybody is an agoblinist.

But it would be ridiculous to say that everybody is a fervent believer in the non-existence of goblins. Most people never think about the non-existence of all the things that don't exist.

It is only because God is believed in by so many people that the word "atheist" is given to someone who doesn't see any evidence for God's existence.

[tucson]

Brian: "I vehemently disagree that an atheist believes there is no God. Rather, an atheist sees no evidence for God, so concludes that there is no reason to believe that God exists."

tucson: It seems like the same thing to me. That is, seeing no reason to believe God exists and not believing in God. It's sort of a semantic fine line. But I see your point.
Still, I see agnostic as a better term. A person sees no reason to believe in goblins but does not deny, even if the possibility is remote in their minds, that somehow, somewhere, a goblin exists.

Personally, I believe in goblins. They are also known as politicians.

[observer]

Bill Hicks & George Carlin: The Big Electron

Two legendary comedians offer their perspectives on life, through song (2:29)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvz9uSK3zXo

[moongoes]

Hey any rich cats out there with extra 50000€ to give to me moongoes but with no limit of giving them back..but if in the future i earn them I will. I calculated that this would give me really great life.tnx.moon..it is not a joke

[777]

Tuscon vs Brian

Even a >60_IQ mind knows that
1*0=1 casu quo
0*1= Brian

is a false statement

777

Solopism is the only answer
and complaints then should be directed by Brian to Brian

[x]

And you, x, have become an atheist as a result of your lack of convincing paranormal experiences. tucson

Someone with an 'open mind' can have paranormal experiences and not 'believe' in anything. observer

When you assume, tucson, that someone is not a believer because they haven't had a "convincing paranormal experience", you make the case that believers are delusional.

[x]

...we are the absence of what we think ourselves to be which is the presence of what we are. We are our total objective absence which is the subjective presence of...I'll let the reader come up for a name for it. It could be called God, the Eternal One, Great Spirit, Tao, Reality...

This is your belief, tucson, the certainty brought about by your convincing paranormal experience. It is not fact. It cannot be shown or demonstrated. It can only be believed. Recite this gibberish enough times and it becomes Truth, but it's just holy shit.

[One Initiated]

In actuality it's exactly opposite than what we call paranormal.
Only experience will explain it to the one who is experiencing,
that how normal is that state of happiness which everyone in the world is trying to find in various possible ways.
And what we are going through in this physical realm,
is actually paranormal.

And yes, that certainly can not be demonstrated here,
because of the huge and unimaginable difference in frequency of the vibration.

And only one thing which can bring that experience to anyone is Love.
Make your heart full of Love and only Love and it will come by it's own.
You can not store tons of cotton in a huge room if there is slightest spark is present. Similarly you can not make your heart full of love if there is slightest of hatred present.

Love Everyone, to be loved by the One.

regards,
One Initiated

[x]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcc6m-B7XjE

[tucson]

x: "This is your belief, tucson, the certainty brought about by your convincing paranormal experience. It is not fact. It cannot be shown or demonstrated. It can only be believed. Recite this gibberish enough times and it becomes Truth, but it's just holy shit."

Tucson: "It may not even be MY belief in every case, x.

This is for anyone who reads my comments..
I am just philosophizing or theorizing based on personal experience/observation/thoughts, but I do not expect anyone to take it as truth on face value. They shouldn't and they usually don't.

At best, I might stimulate someone's intuition to see their own truth or to think outside their personal conceptual box. That's it. Nothing holy. No religion. No thing at all.

I may come off as having certainty, as if I am preaching from a self-proclaimed pulpit, but that is just the way my writing comes off when I think about matters philosophical. It is too much trouble to keep prefacing each and every sentence with, "It seems to me" "In my opinion" "It could be possible that" "In my experience" "I can't say this with certainty but" "I could be wrong, however" "I realize this is purely subjective" etc."

x: "When you assume, tucson, that someone is not a believer because they haven't had a "convincing paranormal experience", you make the case that believers are delusional."

tucson: "If Joe Blow has been convinced by a vision or something that God exists, he is not likely to say, as a result, that he is an atheist. Or would he? Maybe God told him to keep quiet about it.. "My son, don't let the Cat out of the bag. Keep it to yourself and proclaim that you are an atheist. Obey, if you know what is good for you."

[Brian Hines]

tucson, I like your style. You don't take yourself seriously, which is great. I also resonate with what you said about not always saying "it seems to me," and such.

When someone expresses an opinion, it makes sense to take it as just that, an opinion, even if the person doesn't say "I feel," "I believe," or whatever.

Like you, I enjoy philosophizing about what might be. Sticking to what absolutely provably is, that's too limiting and boring. It does no harm to mentally soar into blue sky, so long as realize that there's really nothing there other than what we put there.

[tucson]

One Initiated: "Love Everyone, to be loved by the One."

tucson: " This is just my opinion. I could be wrong, but it seems to me, knowing full well that I possess mental frailties and that I could be in a state of utter delusion on the subject. Also, I mean no offence to One initiated and give this person the respect I would give to anyone who has not behaved unfairly or offensively. There, have I made sufficient qualifying statements?

'Love' is not a choice. You either have it or you don't. You can try to be nice, to love someone/something or God. You can act nice or loving but the actual state of sincerely 'loving' of 'being in love' is something that just comes of its own accord. You can't force it.

Some people love mushrooms. I have tried to love them. I have tried just to like them. I have even pretended to like them. But it just doesn't happen. Maybe by the grace of God.

I think George Carlin is right."

[One Initiated]

But, I Love you tucson :)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Got a smile on your face ?
That's what all HE wanted :)

So much Love to Everyone.

[Skeptic]

Something interesting to read re athiest evangelists
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists?CMP=fb_gu

[Tara Kline]

I signed up to this site because of this thread and had a similar question in mind, I unfortunately have had negative contact with the spirit, and i join the vampire family to get to where i am today and been a vampire i have been able to do what i can't do before, i can run faster and hear from a far distance and been a member is the greatest gift of my life if you chose to become a vampire then let the Great lord know what you need worldofvampir @ hotmail . com

[Drivis]

@Tara

Interesting... I’ve been through something similar except I turn into a werewolf. I too can run really really fast when this happens. My sense of smell has heightened to the point where I can smell a chinchilla a mile away. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve found myself naked near a stream with no memory of what happened the night before. That part is awkward. I know we’re supposed to be mortal enemies but if you want you can reach me at madasahatter @ yoohoo . com