Make Sure to Subscribe & Consider supporting Esoterica by becoming a monthly Patron - www.patreon.com/esotericachannel or a one time donation - www.paypal.me/esotericachannel
My videos show something that was done by me? Time is an illusion that is a concept that exists within an abstract concept eternity. Space exists inside the infinitel. Use logic only for the Quantum
Hello Dr. Sledge, thank you for the education and exopsure of the content to your Esoterica. In a shameless manner if I may be permitted. I consider myself a modern Mystic. I have 27+ years of Inspirational psychic automatic writing under my belt. Of the "Jewels of Truth " series. I channel in writing spiritual wisdom, metaphysics, and mysticism. My blog site of "Atrayo's Oracle" 17+ yrs. Online has additional topic or statement rich environment. I don't channel by chapters, but by topic on interest. I predominantly channel the Heavenly host of the Angels, some lesser dieties, fairies, and even God on rare occasions. The content arrives telepathically akin to gentle whispers word by word or phrases. I enter into an altered state of mind and feel emotionally for the content. I compartmentalize my intellect off to the side so as to not jeopardize the transmission. I have 3 volumes in paperback and ebook of the Jewels of Truth Series. However, my blog site of Atrayo's Oracle has more recent channelings free for purvey. Thank you again for your teachings I find them enlightening.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!!
When I was a teenager I would have done everything to have free and easy access to content like these. Your work and the one of all your colleagues are the ones that really make the time we live worth living.
Immediate fundamental truths about reality are rad to the max - 26:49 Welcome to compromising your core values time. - 33:24 Everyone talks about your knowledge and wisdom I want to thank you also for your humor! 😂 I love your channel!!
Thank you for Justin for sharing your serious thinking on this subject and for pointing out the ridiculousness of the dismissal of the subject for serous consideration by so many. Your work is critical in creating the opportunity for thinking people to re-approach "the arcane side of history, philosophy, and religion." Thank you for seriously raising the of level of the discussion, (even if we disagree on some finer points ;).
This was the episode I needed to move forward with deciding how to research and write about mysticism with integrity and credibility. Thanks for pointing me toward phenomenologic studies. Totally indebted 🙏
Yep, I do try my best to always mention another approach especially when it differs from my own. I also do my best to present as many sides of a debate as I can. It's important that the channel teach that debate and not my opinion as much as possible.
Thanks for linking me to this video, Dr. Sledge. I knew you had already covered this but could not find it. And, clearly, I should spend much more time in the library.
I really appreciate this video. As a somewhat “mystically inclined” person with a background in philosophy, I used to rack my head trying to overcome skeptical arguments regarding mystical insight. I yearned for Ultimate Truth, but found I had to settle for just belief with the acceptance that I could be wrong. I won’t lie: it felt a bit like selling out or giving up. So seeing someone else tread that same path of thought and reach some of the same conclusions was reassuring.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!! And you where dumb enough to believe it.
Great video. I am reminded of an old Zen saying: "Those who Say do not Know, and those who Know do not Say", which for me fits with the fleeting experience of Kenshō, which is a glimpse into the "suchness" of life. I love the word Suchness, because it does not bring up any social conditioned idea of what this suchness points to, or means. So in my limited experience from sitting for years, I would never attempt to explain, or discuss my personal moments because it is pointless. much like the old metaphor of a fish who has looked for this thing called "water" and never finding it, and being unable to tell the fish who is searching that the water is and has always been all around him/her. a very funny thing.
Cool. I, however, tend to be very suspicious of abstract nouns, both outside of and inside of Buddhism. Generally, I have learned that they are shorthand for something more concrete. For example, Emptiness (Of fixed, permanent and unchanging nature.) The Unconditioned (by geed, hatred and, and delusion.) and so forth. Word that can not be defined by the people using them are, IMHO, not terrible useful, because they do not point us in any particular direction nor guides to towards any specific actions. However, I, too, have found myself overwhelmed by the "Success" of life. To me, it refers to a some vague wonder that I can not put into words. A word that points to the fact that reality can not really be put into words is not useless.
@@milascave2 "IMHO, not terribly useful, because they do not point us in any particular direction nor guide us towards any specific actions."...... well said, but I am wondering, how does "pointing us in any particular direction, or guiding towards any specific actions" result in anything other than what is here right now as you read this? Does the fish who is searching for this thing called "water" ever find it,?, or has water always been right there with the fish, and so intimate with him/her that they could never perceive it (water), without looking for it?
Not a very useful saying; for a start, you said it, implying that you don't actually know what you're talking about. More generally, acceptance of that idea would undermine the whole point of communication. At best, it needs some re-wording.
I’ve been watching your channel for a few weeks now, and I’m just struck by your brilliance and generosity. This is basically what I’d imagine a graduate-level philosophy lecture sounds like, and you’ve given it to us on youtube for free. I’ve been perpetually drawn to ancient mysticism and religious history and this channel has opened up a whole new world for me. I’ve learned such an absurd amount in the last few weeks that the word “gnosis” feels personal now😂. Just wanted to give a sincere thanks and express how impressive your knowledge, insight, and communication are. ✌🏼
What a fantastic episode, Justin! I truly enjoyed it. As a fellow scholar located in between Philosophy and Religious Studies, I totally agree that we need more philosophical investigations of religious experiences. Luckily, the online space has you to mend that wound! ;-)
Thanks, Angela. That means a lot coming from you, especially given that we both share philosophy backgrounds. I've always found it a pity that philosophy and religion have become so siloed in recent centuries, much - I think - to each other discipline's loss. Hope you are well, my friend!
As a Mystic, I believe the rationale and common sense is meant to be used to assess the person - NOT the experience. Look at the person themselves. What is their truck record for accuracy? What is their character? Their demeanor? The sensibility and moral compass? is their behavior is n alignment with their words? Do they seem lucid, coherent and genuine? I believe the more grounded and rational a person is, the more credence they have when recounting their experiences. Thank you for this awesome video! Blessings 😊💝🙏✨
Very articulate statement of the challenges - also regarding mystical innovation; as mystics we need to accept that ours are temporal truths that play out within a dynamic and evolving collective consciousness; we are necessary and our sacrifices are meaningful, but with this should come a forced humility if our mysticism is truly grounded in wisdom.
I could listen to you talking on these matters all day. I find it absolutely fascinating and you cover it so extensively and so very well. Keep doing what you do. My heart fluttered when you mentioned the Mayans (somewhat related to my Aztec ancestry) in your introduction, as those mystics are very rarely discussed.
I'll actually be doing an episode soon on Maya bloodletting mysticism that actually serves as the glyph for the channel. I have such an immense respect for those cultures - I even worked to learn to read Maya glyphs a few years ago - and their classical and contemporary mystical traditions are profoundly compelling.
Hi, I'm Gnew here. I Found this to be a particularly sophisticated disquisition on the intersection of mysticism and philosophy. Coincidentally, or perhaps synchronistically, I'm currently under the vapours of PCP (the 3-ho varietal) and I thought the glyph for your channel was a hand choking a chicken and was quite befitting.
@@charlesdickens3572 Has your experience with dissociatives lent to more mystical experiences than say a tryptamine psychedelic? Curious as I’ve haven’t explored dissociatives too much
@@dpc3324 Hard to say. Everything is dose and ROA dependent. Roughly speaking, at large dosages they are similar: Hold tight, lap bars down, and keep your hands inside the ride. Be ready to subjectively experience what is happening to you and like McKenna said, 'Try not to give in to death by astonishment'... However, at low/microdose levels both lend themselves to insights. Tryptamines at a low and consistent dosage over a period of time open your heart to insight. Whereas similarly prescribed, dissociatoves open up your analytical mind if that makes sense. Tryptamines amplify your intuition. Dissociatives amplify your cognition.
It was after I had my own mystical experience that I even found your channel and I’m so thankful for your teachings. I’m still trying to understand it, but this has helped so much. I was raised in a very devout southern baptist family in the heart of the Bible Belt. I’ve always had questions about consistencies and the history of scripture as well as those that compiled the texts and chose what to include in it, etc. I’m still trying to make sense of it, but it’s a process.
@@TheEsotericaChannel thank you. It has been very difficult and feels a bit like I’m grieving, but more like a death of one thing to the birth of something new. You’ve managed to hide any hint of southern accent, which I wish I could do. lol
@@TheEsotericaChannel where in the south if you don’t mind. My sister graduated college with someone with the last name of Sledge. Probably no relationship, but always thought it was a cool last name.
19:30 - "Mystical interpretations simply don't interpret themselves." This is true. I've had multiple experiences in my life, typically during stressful experiences or stressful times that are prolonged, though they are random enough that I cannot predict that if I am stressed or that if I do some intense practice that they will occur. When they happen, I don't jump to conclusions about the experience. I just trust that it did happen and that what happened was profound. It can take years to fully integrate the experience into a worldview that guides my life. And yes, this usually involves looking for similar "messages" and philosophies that have similar grounding. And while I rarely tell others of the experience, oh I've learned my lessons on that, the results of my focus and ruminations upon the experience projects out to my communities and people are affected by them.
no, THIS is the most important discussion that needs to be had in modern mysticism... ive said that about a few of your videos. you are producing quality material.
As a mystics I I really appreciate your work and I come back many times in this channel. It as helped me to understand the mystics on much deeper way and had putted in more reasonable way. It’s easy to bee fooled by your own mind (the ego) when one has experienced mysticisms. Many takes it tooo much. And I love that this channel are more based facts as it is. And For the non- mystics so it’s more easy for me to explain how mysticisms works. Thank you so much! ❤
Without doubt the most foundational and therefore most significant presentation that you've uploaded, and that is saying a lot, given the scope and depth of knowledge which you impart on this channel. That the nation's major theological seminaries and divinity schools haven't recruited you from WSU's philosophy adjunct staff itself demonstrates why this "episode" and your entire project are so essential.
My personal perspective is that ultimate reality shines through each person like light through a camera gel. Each person possesses a personal, unique gel tinctured by cultural conditioning, personal biases, traumas, experiences, et cetera. Thus, while it would seem impossible to evaluate mystical experiences, because it is impossible to evaluate these personal filters, I think it might be more useful to look at what mystics do with their experiences. Did his experience cause him to become violent? Start a cult? Did his experience cause him to become a humanitarian? Did he start a charitable organization? Did he become a hermit living on a mountain? In other words, while we cannot evaluate the experiences, we can evaluate the results on moral or humanitarian grounds, personal usefulness, et cetera.
I enjoyed this. Very few people have taken the time to examine the actual historic record of the mystical as it relates to community leaders and influencers (shaman, priests, philosophers, musicians/artists, poiticians?, etc...). What is almost as interesting as the historical record itself is the idea, presented here as well, of mystical innovation. Not only is there no widely acknowledged doctrine for the mystic, there is no widely accepted doctrine, and depending on ones' location, no political acceptance for mystical practitioners as personal belief becomes ever more scrutinized and politicized in today's environment. To remove the mystical experience is to remove the immediacy and veracity of true religious experience. Sadly, this state of affairs is the norm rather than the exception. In any event, it's nice to hear somebody bringing attention to the conversation.
Man is essentially a thinking creature (thinker & thought). But thinking is also man's limit. Man cannot go beyond man unless he transcends thinking. The mystics path is transcendence, that is, the transcendence of the thinking creature. In Dhyāna Buddhism this is absolute spirit, before thinker & thought.
Been trying to figure it out my whole life. Wrestle with How He Works, Why He Works, and When He Works but the biggest lesson I learned is that I really knew nothing, which is more than I used to know because I used to know everything. Thank God I don’t have to completely comprehend it with my intellectual faculties to see it, accept it, and live by it in my spiritual and loving faculties. Hallelujah Amen.
Love this channel by the way. I probably don’t know how I feel about 3/4 of your content, and the other 1/4 I am exploring because it makes me uncomfortable and I wanna see why it makes me uncomfortable. Lol but it’s always clearly and fully explained, in a variety of different and helpful ways. I appreciate the work you do. God bless you.
Dear Dr Sledge, To preface this comment, for whose length I must apologize, I'd like to note how thankful I am to your vast body of knowledge, your willingness to share it, and your wonderful patrons for enabling the whole process. While not the least bit spiritual or religious myself, your content gives me access to information I find deeply interesting about human cultures. I'm always happy to see that your comment sections are perpetually start with a combination of practitioners of whatever practice you are discussing, believers of one variety or another understanding their faith through different ones, and outside observers like me who just want to learn more about our collective past (and sometimes present). Most of all, I appreciate treatment of the matters you discuss, more specifically that you're always respectful and enthusiastic about the beliefs you show us, while simultaneously presenting each belief from a very third person perspective, if that makes sense. Your own content aside, most of the content surrounding the subjects you share information about is downright uninformative, and at times even obfuscational, to serve the agenda of followers of the particular religion in question. I absolutely do not expect you to read the whole thing, but if you do, I would really appreciate any philosophical or logical critiques you have for my positions, as I'm rather experienced in the field. The one sticking point I have is that I'm of the opinion that empiricism itself actually requires justification to be used to support anything. While Occam's razor certainly implies that our senses are, at least in some form, real and can be taken as true, they technically have no underlying self-evident justification. I believe that the data provided to our minds by our senses is not an axiomatically reliable source of Truth, but more a profoundly unique type of information: One which is fundamentally unprovable yet at the same time so likely that the acceptance of our senses as true manages to be palatable regardless. To put it another way, rejection of the senses, while logically rigorous, is only more logically rigorous than acceptance of the senses by an incredibly small degree. This small degree, when compared against the productivity gained by accepting the senses as trustworthy, is inconsequential enough to be unproblematic in day-to-day life. But if we are speaking philosophically, and we are holding ourselves without exception to full logical rigor, then our senses (nor any information obtained through their application) cannot in that technical... *Sense* be used as foundations for or components of further arguments or conclusions. Based on all the above, I don't believe I'm required to give spiritual experiences the same benefit of the doubt that I give to empirical experiences. I'm not wrongfully distinguishing one as valid and the other as invalid, based on personal preference. What I am doing is declaring both as *technically* non-rigorous when I'm attempting philosophy, yet within the scope of daily existence, provisionally treating empiricism as true, due to both the high likelihood and high utility of our senses being at least *largely* true. I don't think it's unfair to extend this kindness to empiricism alone, without extending it to mysticism as well. Human senses are rather effable, and remain consistent across most persons. Both of these qualities are rather less archetypical of mystical experiences. That being said, everything I've just written here is merely my truest, deepest feelings on the matter, and thus stand my common positions on the matters discussed. One of the core purposes of the lecture you composed, however, is to be as charitable as possible within the bounds of honesty and Truth to a position which we may not agree with. That is an exercise I'm not exceptionally practiced or skilled at. However, with your example of willingness to grant the ideas presented here that very kindness, I was able to understand something important about the exact framework through which I should explain mystical experiences. Were I not more open-minded in this particular way, I wouldn't have been able to access a component of understanding I now possess.
This has been my favourite video that you have made! thank you so much for your detailed exposition. In teaching Kabbalah for the last 30 years I have always tried to balance experiential and empirical ritual, with rational thought and verification, taken from the large array of mystical literature and living culture. Learning to describe mystical experiences with mystical languages such a Hebrew and Sanskrit has only helped my students get their mind around what they are going through and given them the ability to apply their new found knowledge into practical applications. Some students adapt to this process and some are either too rational or emotional to find that balance that allows them to alter their aperture of perspective as they have been enhanced by their visions and insights during divination. My journey as you mentioned was alienating and certainly as you put it conservative, though I never really looked at it that way, but certainly worth my efforts and seen in the quality of life I have been able to force from my mystically infused clarity that has allowed me to experience life from a more rounded perspective.
I have caught myself doing the mystic thing and FELT so deeply I understood the essence of things. Sometimes this produces poetry but never produced anything like real information except once. A daily deep meditation projects after a great trauma for me to where I felt I saw things fairly clearly and had achieved some lever of acceptance and I was compassionate and non judgmental. I remember talking to someone about my experience and he understood it to mean something Christian and I just let him have his thing. I didn’t feel a need to disabuse him. What did I know? And anyway he might have the same basic insight but just believe It was from good of Christ. I’ve had other experiences and have actively courted the mystical experience mostly my whole life. I learned to do art and music and i just consider this tendency to feel like the truth is just around the corner or a little to the left or right to be a cognitive style. It feels sometimes like building up a charge until it arcs across the gap. It’s an emotional experience which engenders this impression of knowing but like the dream in which you discover the meaning of life but upon awakening can’t describe anything valuable... unless you’re an artist! Then you can make art out of it which sometimes Can also give an impression of mysterious prescience or omniscience. I try not to take it too seriously even this it seems the most valuable thing.
Excellent explanation. I see it as a personal experience, and that it's my place to encourage others to seek their own truth, not to convince them of mine. My gnosis is not threatened by anyone's beliefs, even my own.😉
@@MichaelMarko At one point or another, I felt like I was the only one to be able to see things different than all others or that which has been written. That through knowledge one is taken to a door that feels like no words are needed or can be used to explain what it is perceived or understood in one's self. It is a place where no words can be used, or are needed. Kind of a place where words are not enough. That is why I believe that mystical experiences are just a beautiful experience for the individual who has them and not to be used to impose personal ideas or concepts on others. But again, not every individual feels this way. I believe it has to do with that individual's influences, mental ideas, or concepts that affects the meaning of their Mystical experiences. My teacher/Guru said, that visions will appear according to our beliefs and they should not be taken to seriously because they are just another mental experience. To enjoy them, but not to become attached to them. To go beyond them. Lucky for me, my mystical experiences happened when I had not fully being mentally programmed (Had no strong inclinations towards my faith and was a novice) into any religious philosophy and did not fully connect them to my beliefs at those moments. Now, I am pleased, I never made those connections and feel a connection to all believers and none believers. I appreciate your thoughts.
@@newlin83 your reply is confusing to me. Could you give me an example of a philosophy or organized cosmology that didn’t originate from the experience of one person? My openness to people having different experiences and belief systems isn’t dismissal. I’m actually suggesting that believing something because someone else had an experience makes less sense than utilizing my own experience along with the available literature, art, and discussion of others’ experiences along with logic to understand what I am comfortable believing. I do believe that a purely intellectual approach to faith is incomplete, but that’s an opinion based on my own experience.
I had a sober mystical experience, then my mom came to see if i was ok, long story short there was demons behind me and her while she told me to pray, i had lost my faith at the time. Afterwards we went to her bed and we satdown but it seemed like it was somebody else talking to me through her body. She told me it was my guardian angel. This is the end of the world,theres no space, we are one, except the evil people they are lost. Nobody can tell me what i experienced wasn't true. Thank you for educating me Dr.
Immediate fundamental truths about reality are rad to the max! Let us then continue, and continue, to consider our approaches to them. Properly, thoroughly. THANK YOU.
Hello Justin, thank you for your amazing work. I am so identified with your expression regarding that paradoxical state (26:12), as I have ended up when I've kept my cents of doubts for any of the many mystical practices I have tried out. And those cents, as well as the stance of some members of these groups, were the ones that consistently played mayor roles when deciding to quit pursuing these subjects. Now, after finding and getting to know some of the work of Carl Jung, I could understand the reason behind my fascination with some of these mystical stories. Because I couldn't disregard my personal experiences and affinities to the nature of the stories embedded in different Religions, the approach I ended up / I'm actively trying is some-what Existentialism, that interestingly goes along the lines of one your proposed solutions, relativism+mysticism, depending on the context I play it out. The way I'm playing it out (or try to) is I use the Model of the Psyche and the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious presented by Carl Jung as frameworks and axioms; a mindful approach to experience of the events of inner and outer worlds as input, and inner thoughts, resurfaced ideas and actions as outputs. Using the aforementioned elements, some abstraction, and tons of imagination, I carve out meaning for my life from moment to moment with the purpose of personal improvement. Indeed, a systemic approach has been key to the matter. And I know it's all like, super-biased, but it ultimately alleviated my "meaning” (or lack of) problem. With all that said, I still can't assert the validity of my "religious experiences" to be true. And regardless of my interest in these subjects, still can't find trust on some gnostics group members yet, not with their “credulity” drug issues Anyways, thanks for your video, My regards from the DR
Your scholarship and approach is the best I've seen on UA-cam so far; a true gift to the field. your work is much appreciated. You've filled in so many of the gaps that are out there.
Same! Bro it was so weird literally walking with god on DMT and nobody would believe me if I spoke it, probably should continue writing about it, but I am more of a sociology/philosophy/psychology focused person rather than mysticism focused.... I believe writing about that stuff is more prudent and probably what god wanted to have me do in walking with him. You can imagine how that fucked with me😂😂 (Also don’t wanna lead an apophis death cult, so I don’t wanna talk about it😂😂😂)
Although I do believe if there was a mystical method to be as consistent and as scientifically verifiable for the modern world it’d be a fat bowl of DMT for everyone with enough balls to inhale! I’m pretty sure we’d all be something of thelemites who will GM all the food to be extremely nutritious and such animals to be supremely cuddly and to make technology that would solve all of our issues by saying “fuck it, we basically are already gods! Let’s go balls deep! Let’s make heaven on earth and grow a pair, let’s make our lives so boring we want to simulate the life of a Roman legionare’s love story and whole life for us to play like a video game to play in just a night”
I truly appreciate you describing the immediate dismissal of mystical experiences as delusion as being "pseudoscientific" because that's exactly what it is, and going through the mental health system after an mystical experience is truly traumatizing. Your videos have been a major breath of fresh air in terms of someone having a true scholarly perspective when it comes to these types of things.
this reminds me of the discussion in neuroscience about dreams in particular, and the research being done; trying for objectivity of an inner experience
Thank you. This is just a though inside my mind which comes about as you started the video: The experiencer of the experience prior to having the mystic experience has been influenced by their religious thought or cultural ideas. It appears to me that their own personal knowledge may affect the interpretation or the experience itself. But of course, some of these mystic tend to express their experiences far beyond their religious ideology. Which sometimes gets them in trouble with their religious leaders. Which in turn makes me think that it is a personal experience that it is specifically for that individual and as far as not all are able to experience it, it becomes a mystery for billions of individual who desire to know or experience such a wonderful mystic experience. For example, I had two experiences in two different religions. In one I felt a like a puff or something blowing into the top of my skull. Immediate, I was taken by it. With my eyes close, I began to say, "Glory to God!" many times, yet the words coming out of my mouth were not those words being spoken in my mind. In other experience, during an initiation, as I was getting up, I felt the ground give from under me (Like walking on water), while walking and being help by others. Immediately, I felt something from inside of me (The middle of my body) rise and a giant breath going out of me as I look up, open my mouth and let it out. In both I was fully conscious. What it meant to me? To tell you the truth at that time I did not know what to make from it. Now I believe they were meant to for me alone. Yet, I am sharing them with you here. Another idea that comes to mind is that we are limited as far as knowing the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words, prior to be being born what did we know, and after birth what will we experienced or remember experiencing? In other words the mind can go blank at anytime due to many factors, and may even be rendered useless while still alive. All the knowledge (Limited knowing), as much as can be gather, I believe, can never be able to tackle the prior to birth and after death experience. Because, no memories are available from our birth, and no memories will be left after death (No memories in the mind and no memories left in it). Based on those factual items mentioned, all of the mysteries of God are being discussed and valued during the time of recollection by the mind, and its ability to know, understand, and be able to grasp educational, religious, or philosophical concepts. Which leads me to understand (My own ideas) that 1. All these topics are important to individual minds that can understand them and are still alive. 2. And all of it is important as long as that individual is capable of learning or wanting to know. 3. Prior to birth no ounce of knowledge was needed to be born, and at death none needed at all. The beauty that I can perceive from all of these thoughts is to be guided by the desire to know the eternal reality, and avoid giving to much value to mental concepts of any kind. But of course, all search for the real, or the itch to know God comes from concepts which it is even more interesting. As I learn and grow in wisdom, the more I desire to be one with God then to know anything at all. Hope it makes sense.
You are certainly right, in that the experiences tend to be interpreted (or re-interpreted) through the lens of a pre-established belief system. That's why Eckhart is particularly believable--his understanding at times rivals the dogma of the Church--and, hence, his own pre-established belief system.
Great work as always Justin. I can only offer thanks and appreciation as I am devoted to poverty. Mystical experience, as far as ive had it, os always revealed through the senses of an individual because it is often knowledge of how our senses are misused or how our interpretation of sensory information is clouded. My own gnosis are completely about our senses and nervous system. No-one speaks of 5 senses being variations of touch but it is indeniable, right down to molecules spinning up your nostrils offering you a scent. Photoreseptors absorbing all the photons reflected off every surface in your surroundings.
Thanks so much Justin and channel esoterica. Mystical experiences exist to train a persons faith, intuitions and divine nature. Truth makes us and ceases to be when the mystic embodies it. Truth is realisation, a transmission that transforms.
Outstanding video, one specific problem is that of a copy to the event of awakening. People who may not have experienced it, will borrow the information share and make it their own. The experience is specific to the individual and have certain things happen, those who really have already know that one carries no burden to instruct nor convert others. or share what they have been exposed to.
I love your content! Please could you enable auto generated captions? The content is really dense and they help follow; plus, they're very accurate because you are accurate too :)
i had a conversation with the catholic theologian John Haught many years ago in which he emphasized that a subject cannot grasp the divine but is grasped by it. He argued that the noetic aspect of an encounter with divinity has to be reconciled with empirical knowledge and what we think we know about the divine cannot be true unless it jibes with empirical science. His view was that the fact of evolution tells us something important about god, which is specifically that god values novelty and indeed novelty & surprise have to be an important aspect of the nature of divinity because that is so important to the emergence of life which he accepts on faith is beloved of god. He had no solution to the theodicy that seems to imply, however, other than kierkegaard’s faith that in the end god will wipe away all tears. i was not convinced, but i respected immensely the intellectual honesty and humility of the position.
19:30 I would argue that Wittgenstein shows the fly the way out that particular fly bottle by suggesting that mystical experiences aren’t susceptible to interpretation because of their ineffability, and the attempt to shoehorn mystical experience and the “truths” they reveal/show into the proposition which is always already a misapplication of language which has gone “on holiday” from the empirically public form of life that language requires to be meaningful at all.
indeed, that quality of being impervious to language is what makes the mystical experience so profound and personal, because it is inescapably private.
28:24 On the issue of contradiction, Wittgenstein is of some help here, but in my view I think a better way to go is a deep pluralism that doesn’t bother with trying to reconcile mystical beliefs but rather treats the contradiction itself as a mystical reality that is itself ineffable, noetic, and all the other things you might want to say about mystical experiences. This is not relativism because it doesn’t deny the absolute truth of the mystical, nor is it perennial because there is no claim that it is reconcilable. and from that standpoint the aforementioned route out of the bottle that denies the meaningfulness of language that attempts to express mystical experience because it forestalls any way to have endless, pointless arguments about those contradictions.
39:00 the fallout of the position i have been taking is that the mystic may have a duty to avoid reducing their experiences to doctrine because they are not reliable evidence with which to form empirical propositions because of the non public nature of the experience which can provide no public criteria for meaning in Wittgenstein’s sense for and so it is impossible for any doctrine they produce to be meaningful. Instead, again following Wittgenstein, what mystics can do is show how they they had the experience and, by their having been grasped by it (as Haught would put it) changing them. The mystical “truth” is shown by works to paraphrase James the Just, thus showing that the position i’m arguing with is compatible with at least on important religious thinker of the early jewish christian milieu. which, y’know, ain’t bad as far as indirect evidence goes.
The difference between a “non mystic” and a mystic is Receiving vision. The difference between those that receive and those who don’t is... an open heart. I can never explain or justify what Ive seen to the degree that another person is satisfied enough to accept it. If everyone was meant to accept it, they probably would’ve experienced it first hand.
I was also thinking about the principals of resistance when he started mentioning the arguments on the capabilities to experiences the mystic. I think taoism puts this specific concept in a great perspective.
I think the autism/schizophrenia spectrum is as wide as it is because the informative mystical state requires it. I think the tendency toward a full gnostic experience is X-linked so, matrilineal inheritance of this tendency should be observable. ... given enough data. And a patrilineal inheritance tradition would mute this ability in that lineage.
Another difference between the two is that a mystic can see the common experience in two perspective simultaniously. What the day to day experience are both real and not real. When i say real means spiritual nature, nonreal means physical nature. Mystics can only give out clues (finger point). But to be able to see through the clues, one should gaze without their entire being. LoL. Ultimate reality is totally nonsense and illogical where eternity is its feature.
I always trusted my highest intelligence (intuition) and my gnostical experiences. Time by time you gonna get them, as they want you to evolve (up there).
By raising your vibration and consciousness through mantras, music, meditation, rituals. You can also use psychedelics. DMT is one of the best for spiritual experiences.
@@svenstefansson4022 In my opinion, psychedelics are a dangerous shortcut because they allow for experiences of the beyond without the necessary spiritual and mental foundation to support and fully comprehend that truth and connect it to further flashes that occur during contemplation. But to each his own way, I'm not going to judge people for seeking a shortcut to mystical experience. My experience with most users of psychedelic drugs is that they have seen the "substance" of mystical experience but are unable to properly translate it into lively action because it is of short duration and consists of a breaking of a shell rather than a complete "breaking down". I've had my own experiences without ever using drugs, and that turned out to be a rather bumpy road as well, though I'm not at all regretful about the way it went.
@@jcivilis533 this is why integration is imperative in getting the most of an experience. As more become legal, I think we will see integration specialists.
lol yes, immediate fundamental truths about reality are indeed rad to the max. That's pretty much the exact reason LSD is so popular. I have spent the majority of my 20's experimentally and theoretically examining the problems raised in this video, and I have to say your background and academic discipline has really added some clarity to this topic for me. Thanks again, man.
I just have to say, your channel is so refreshing! Definitely became one of my top 3 favourite channels within only a few days of watching. I also wanted I tell you that your channel has the best intro ever! I just love all of the curiosities and the absinthe louche!! And Thank you- your work is a wealth of information!
Thank You Dr. Sledge. I once did truly have notions of a early modern period of ecumenical peace and understanding. Babel from my wish for innocence in the Universe to exist among egoistic materialists.
Absurdism can also put into a very fascinating context mystical experiences considering that even our "normal" experiences can be remarked with trascendentality, thus mystical experiences could be considered more of a transition into adhering different forms of trascendental perspective into "normal" perspective (considering the transient nature of the experiences), sorta the re-arrangement of the perceptual organs. This would get us in the grounds of further debating the limits of the mind in experiencing abstractions and then making sense of them, as I would argue that a lot of the mystic experience could have to do with being overpowered by the absurdity of this experiential abstractions that beg to be integrated and accepted by the human factor in what we could call their "truths". How can something so beyond humans be experienced by humans? I don't know, with this we can get into the territory of death, and maybe even near-death mystical experiences.
Here's a thought...a mystical experience is a revelation between the Divine and the individual and contains useful information that is appropriate for the receiver but not necessarily for everyone else. The nature of that information comes from the source of all knowledge but only an aspect of that knowledge is transmitted to the visionary according to the nature of his questions. When discussion between Arjuna and Krishna starts off it doesn't come from a voluntary expression from Krishna but rather from Arjuna's dilemma which he expresses to Krishna. His reluctance to go into battle. Krishna just addresses that concern by explaining the true nature of the destiny of all those souls and tells Arjuna basically if he does not fulfill his destiny he would be thought of as a coward throughout all eternity. Arjuna wants to dig deeper and it gets to the point where he begs Krishna to reveal his truest identity and towards the end of that overwhelming experience he begs Krishna to go back to his more pleasant form. My point is although all mystical experiences come from the Source of all that is true, the information transmitted can only be seen/heard by those who are ready to receive what they need to hear no matter what culture or time. That's why hardening the revelations of a mystic into doctrine and organized dissemination of that information only creates another way to keep people lazy and obedient. If you want a relationship with God go out in the forest and fast and have your own private discussion. Share the wisdom gained in conversations with friends who ask for the information and don't cast pearls before swine. Not that there's anything wrong with swine.
this idea of whether we can trust divine experience as a source of knowledge, or a kind of epistemology, is a problem i have had most of my life. i see the ultra rational approach the west has taken to be mixed in with other historical developments such as capitalism and imperialism - atheistic or secular practices being perhaps useful means to push a colonial project. thank you, ESOTERICA, for proving the abundant precedents for mystical experience on your channel
Wow, great lecture! Ive been checking out the channel and this might be my favorite yet. Reminded me of a philosophy of science i took in my undergrad.
This is the first episode which I have felt immediately compelled to watch over again in the hope of comprehending more of. I feel as though I have some things to say about this subject. But I don't know if what I have to say is just reinventing the wheel. I guess there's only one way to find out. For now I'll leave this excerpt from Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae: "In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly these: (a) A widening of the horizon of the mind. (b) An improvement of the control of the mind.
The effort here is valiant. Resolving this polarity with rational thought structures to hold the irrational/subjective mystical experience only impels more creation through its contrast. A thought form container to hold such an understanding, seeking certainly of place to understand the mystical experience as if there is an angle by which truth is possible or clear, seems always to demand the irrational, the spirit of 'both', the basic polarity. Great work, very much enjoy you and supporting you.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!!
Thank you for this discussion. Apparently, I have been rooted in Quaker Mysticism my entire life. I don:t feel a need to prove it or share it with others. It is right for me and that is all that matters to me. However, It is interesting to understand the challenges of proofs.of mystical experiences. The resources that you provided are much appreciated.
Your UFO example reminded me to various anecdotes of the psychedelic experience in which people detail experiencing and seeing the same effects and events as other people on the same substances or mindset. With this I guess we could come back to the black box limitation but with a context of shared delusion, and we could go on about the mystical arguments on the collective unconscious and the archetypical experiences but this phenomena gets truly bizarre and special when people detail very specific connections (such as hearing the others person thoughts and words in one's head without verbally communicating). A video investigation on psychic phenomena would be interesting.
I have summoned angels before, and even seen one with my real eyes (Uriel). Seen grey aliens when I was a small child. Also did meditations and consciously made telepathic communication with human ET's (Pleiadians) and also communicated them via drug (DMT). So I basicly experienced spirits, angels and ufos in all different ways and methods. Its real all I can say and the key is the pineal gland and basicly vibration, you have to anchor more light into your DNA.
Fascinating, I've also had various mystical and visionary experiences both by my own will and path, and by external entheogen help. A lot of the times when watching vids like this, my mind constantly strays away from the scientific philosophical rigor and comes back to deal with the mystic question by its own mystic means, but it is a beautiful struggle to try to piece it all together, both logic and illogic, reason and unreason; reality and interpretation, and where both intertwine in my perception. Manifesting the vague, making clouds rain, good luck on your path.
I’ve had mystical experiences. In a nutshell imagine expanding your consciousness to infinity but then being overwhelmed and immediately retreating into your normal consciousness. That’s what it was. Three times I’ve done this.
First off your introduction was just beautiful, infact most of the video is fantastic. I have a response to this idea of rationality. We we presuppose that there is a rational, real, world we are assuming that there is a fundemental basis of the world were outcomes are predictable. Like the movement of balls on a pool table. The 20th century shows us how we can make predictions, but without a rstional explanation. This is why we have the "resolution" problem in physics. We can break the universe down into things like Hilbert space, Momentums, Ubiquitius 'invisible' fields, wave functions in wave particle duality. And if you ask different physicist you get different meanings. What we call reality is are a set emergent properties of interacting systems. For example change with respect to time, time is an emergent prooerty of events within space and quantum decoherance. Field properties, such as gravity and electromagnitism. Such fields are said to permeate all spacetime (the unseen universe), but we generally cant see the fields unless there is a disturbance. A yet QFT is one of the most powerful explanatory rules in Quantum theory. If this sounds like some of the contradictions in mysticism, that is my intent. Everything we rationalize is levels of indirect interpretation. Lets take an example, you look up on the dawns horizon and you see the largest celestial object. We follow the EM waves from the object to the eye, wear it goes through a lense, bends the light, across the membrane of a cell wall, the cell, whose firing impulses momentarily stops. The brain, which is always recieving signal then has to integrate the stop in the signal, the imagery is distibuted to 53 areas of the brain which create an abstractions about objects. Then we see the bright sun on the horizon. In that process, electrons in high orbits around protons collapse, the quantum collapse, a photon is tranformed into a wave function where it is recieved an causes the excitation of another electron as the wavefunctiin becomes a photon particle, quantum decoherance between the sun and the photon ends. This coherance decoherence process occurs untold numbers of time before the brain recreates the image. This is philosophical basis of reality, its interpretive. At the basis of our rationalization is something that we cannot see. 600,000,000 years ago, as life emerged from the anoxic muck of the primordial ocean, photosensitive systems became complex for competitive survival reasons, and that what we see is the evolved consequence of a need for sight and a selection for things that we need to see. We cannot see gamma, X, micro, or radio waves. Rationalism is that context is incomplete. This does not prove truth in mystical experiences by pointing to the flaw in rationalism, its just to say that rationalization has a implicit scale of errancy associated with it depending on what is rationalizing and that mystical experiences are spread along that scale of interpretation. Something as simple as a snowflake falling can become a paradox depending how one rationalizes it. Second, the mysticism-religion connection is complex. I have taken it upon my retirement to explore the dawn of religion and explore mysticism in that context. I think we can safely say religion has always been a reciever of mystical notions. In fact I would rather say that mysticism is generally a formative substrate of religion which is then refined via logic, popular cultural notions, and exploitive reinforcing behaviors (i.e. peity rules). Over time the trappings of the ecclesiastical structure create the need for change and new mystics with new ideas come along. We can see from the bible that mysticism is not encapsulated in the belief, but submerged in the mystical notions of the visible culture of the mystic, however far that extends. But the problem I see in the video is the notion of truth and the background state of the mystic. Let me be honest, if not offensive. The Truth, the grand vision, that which explains all, the great oneness, its just delusion. Mystics that are in a grand search for the Truth are in fact searching their own mind, defects, or disturbances in the mind (psychotropic agents) for a well-fit lie. The truism in searches of the truth is that the more one searches, the more one learns how much that they dont know. That is all rational truth. The truths in mysticism are not the grandious, but the familiar. Those things were the mind knows something (local realism) and the mystical fills in the gap. As the mystic moves beyond his zone of familiarity the more he projects a desire to change the unfamiliar based on the large gaps in his experience. This truth is the little divine essence within, and it is part of the self, the mind-body. My fortunate misfortune is to have been plagued by three health problems which effect the mind through the body. The body affected alters the mind, visual manifestations, many people have these, about 1/3rd of people with migranes have colorful manifestations hours before. These are just little areas of the brain that go from the normal to the affected state. For a mystic, the body should always be the temple of the spirit, defiling the body with mind altering substance also defiles the spirit, the defiled spirit is the projector of Truths. The only true mystics are natural mystics, and there, its probably the action of some defect. I would for simplicities sake describe the mystical plane as a field of nothingness, like an electron field with without electrons. In that electron field if one searches one will eventually find electrons. In the same way if one searches the void of the mystical plane one will eventually find structure, a another dimension of being. What one gets out of the experience depends on hiw one interacts with other dimensional structure in the plane. Those structures can become gods, angles, demons depending on the state of the body and desires of the mind. But experiential protrusions into the structures of the mystical plane if taken literally ARE delusions. And the notion of separation of Ego, while this may improve the experiential state, it is still the self that is experiencing the state, and thus the states of local truths identify with the self. Therefore excision of one entirely from ego will also hide the little truths and any divine concepts one does find are those Truth things that create all the contradictions. Divinity comes from within and only from within. The exoteric divine are pretty much idols, icons, and falseness. Finding the divinity within does not necessarily translate to true gnosis, it could just be a concealed projection of the defective self. Finding true gnosis requires a deeper search into the mind to see ones desires to capitalize a divinity with desired charcteristics, often with an eye on the power being of the divine. Rather than accept the visions, the mystic should probe the visions for flaws and false prophesy, and disgnose how preexisting belief played into those flaws. When these delusions are removed only the solitary divine self is left in a sea of other equally miniscule divine selfs, each with their own little truths. What god(s) are.... are projection from the mystic flawed divinities which others explore and sanctify, over time as codices and peity rules form we have religion. This is simply a deferential replacement of the miniscule divine self with a grandious power divinity. This idea of the oneness of the inner divine is simply an attempt to shape mystics into a unitarian mysticism. When you walk into an Orthodox church, filled with divine icons, the point of the environment is to trigger the mystical, and the point of the icons is to shape the experience so that one self-affirms the inner reality of the divine being. This is no different from the mystical trainings, its all the same mind tricks.
I would looove to see an in-depth video on your research process, personal mystical inspirations over time that lead you to this point, and your journey through education. If you have already made a video like this then I need to hunt it down! Your solid grasp on mystical history and application, and your ability to clearly present, disect, and argue all of this information, is so inspiring! I'm grateful for your work. 🙏❤
As someone who did take the mystical Path in the early '70s, as a devotee of an Indian guru, I received many mystical insights, now referred to as "downloads," that were common to all philosophies no matter what culture they were a part of... and were impossible to articulate. I still receive them when I'm sending Distant Reiki or meditating, but so are others who are on this Path... these energies are accelerating now leading us to an amazing future that will begin in our lifetimes.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!!
I am currently studying philosophy at university but i also practice, rather unwillingly, mysticism, what i think a great method is, is to see mysticism and philosophy in a relation of reciprocal justification, solving the problem of a never available first epistemological cause for each other. If one assumes that truth is accessible to the mind as well as the soul, (/ unum in nobis etc) taking ones experience as to be proved independent of it after the fact seems natural to me, also in a certain sense making sure that ones lack of knowledge does not skew ones interpretation of it. That might lead one down the rabbit hole of needing to fundamentally needing to innovate within one of the fields, but if one is careful to not give up the independence of each side, this can have quite strong and positive effects of further growth. Inspiration for philosophy, routes for mysticism. A largely good example for that would be jung and his red book, but also, in a certain sense euklid, with his platonic unviewable definitions, or proclus henology and cusanus etc.. If then such a unity in justification is achieved, one has an object for epistemological reasoning which is not necessarily unjudgeable. Also, I found this episode very great and also quite clearly formulated, what a wonderful break from often convoluted texts about the subject. In general i find this channel great as one truly can recognize its efforts of presenting the subject on it own terms, i find it wonderful how the creator not only wishes to be scholarly in his videos (something which even trained academics give up on this platform) but, at least from my perspective, also succeeds in it. Or in short, i am happy that i found this channel, tough sadly i cant support it on patreon yet.
I would say "ultimate actuality" rather than "ultimate reality". I would say that reality is the meeting of meaning and matter, or the merging of emanation and emergence. Actuality would be where those aspects of reality are separate.
I feel like the reason a 'Universal Set of Standards' seem like an absurd thing to establish, is that even when in the throws of mystical truth and as overwhelming as it feels, we simply cannot escape the dualistic nature of material existence in order to gain the omni-perspective truth. We are only seeing a shadow of truth, cast upon what our momentary selves happen to have on our mind and we, SO SO commonly forget the elasticity of the momentary self, despite knowing very well that any distraction basically kills that iteration of 'you' in the short-term memory sense and the new you has to look around and see if the last guy left some notes to work with. We see limited things. For limited times. With limited interests. And limited processing. For any of us to speak in terms of absolute truths is, in my eyes, pure vanity.
I love this guy. Also, I get that algorithms feed us stuff on UA-cam, but all the videos I’m getting that deal with mystical experiences (many, but not all centered on psychedelics)are giving me confidence in talking about my own without feeling cray or even care if people think I’m crazy. I haven’t had an acute experience in quite a while, but i have a “muscle memory” of the insights gained from said experiences. I find that this is grounding me, at least for now, to better bear a few slings and arrows. I am recalling more and more “who I am”, and even teasingly but gently tell people when things get heated, politically or otherwise: “At this point, you don’t know who you are” Am I crazy?
Well done. I learned many ways to think about all these concepts. Your perception is well worth my time here. I look forward top hearing your thoughts and will go through the video library to catch what you already have dropped. Thanks.
I'll need to watch this again a few times to parse out the ideas. I think this may give me some of the language and perspectives I can use to work out the mystical experiences I've had in my life.
All these reasons were why I rejected Ken Wilber's (Integral Inc.) claim that if one does the injunction one will experience the truth. But as you pointed out, that specific claim is a dubious gambit. Indeed, one might also experience their original face that existed prior to the big bang but that experience wouldn't prove anything past personal phenomenology. Any claim about reality past that is unwarranted. And the size of the group experiencing similar noetic experiences doesn't matter as groups of people who experience similar things can still be wrong or even deluded...There would have to be other mechanisms available for verification to justify any claim past mere personal experience or in group claims to privileged access.
Sounds like inspiration to me. Like how the library of babble can glean vast amounts of knowledge out of random re-shuffling; so to the mind gleans inspiration form pondering unlikely combinations of seemingly unrelated thoughts. When the mind finds something that may be of value it shows it to you, as a inspirational revaluation. The brain is pretty chaotic (not exactly stable in memory or interpretation) so reshuffling is pretty plausible. Just as scrying can by chance glean you insights so to can your own mind. Add in the dopamine rush of figuring something out and who knows what other emotions felt during inspiration or revolution and perhaps adding some chaos into the mind via “mystical drugs”, and a pretty good grasp of the mystical experience can be grasped. Knowetic: weather it was Eisenstein’s revolution of a man falling off a roof inspiring relativity, or the Greek muses; seems like the minds inspiration mechanism. Helps too making a conceptual mottle to see the invisible forces of the world are even more.
If one claims something is true weather it be mystic or secular, the rubber got to meet the road at some point for testing. Otherwise unfalsifiable is unverifiable and pretty much non-useful as If it was able to bring verifiable results of following the “truth” it would be able to be measured.
The chief difficulty in transcribing mystical-noetic states from their original ultra-conscious domain into a proto-conscious idiom of everyday (such as human language and reason) is just that the nous perceives something that is unrelatable and untranslatable in the idiom of the other five sense upon which we base our vocabulary. The nous is unique of perception designed to interact with other worlds and act as a bridge between this world and those. So, it's like trying to describe colors to a person born blind, a person who can only conceptualize ideas and images in terms of auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile metaphors. This is why music so exceeds philosophy in its ability to limn the feeling of mystical-noetic awareness. Music transcends the rational bounds of language, not to mention the fact that the medium of sound - in its defiance of discourse - most closely approximates the ethereal, transrational quality of the realm from which mystical experience originate.
I'm new to your channel. Thanks for posting as Mysticism is an important topic. Yes, the current state of Philosophy in the Academy is still unfortunately nowhere near to helping us understand what's going on. While different mystical experiences do vary based on cultural differences, the main "flaw" in Philosophy, IMO, is that it doesn't include the idea of "Consciousness" and specifically that it approaches experience only thru "Ratio". Ironically, there is no real discussion of the technique & praxis of mystics, and it doesn't help that much of it is shrouded by the mytics themselves! Only the mystic can access "his/her organ of mystical sensation, "and this has more to do with differences in the capacity for 'perceptual attunement.' However, even allowing for the differences in technique in achieving the vision, the ultimate mystery is related to the concept of a higher mind, if you will, and the issue of Consciousness (which is not a topic of study other than thru Neuroscience at this time). In a current world view where most folks only accept that which is 'real'/concrete/external and the scientific perspective rules (the 'everything in the universe is dead' and only humans have higher consciousness), it is no wonder that the personal noesis of a mystic is so difficult to relay. It is extremely important to understand how the concept of "Intellectus" was distorted especially after the Middle Ages. This is something that is quite beautifully discussed by Seyd Hossain Nasr, a prominent Traditionalist, in his first Gifford Lecture (read his Knowledge & The Sacred or check out his Consciousness lecture on UA-cam). Yes, Traditionalist history does include fascist thinkers (Evola specifically comes to mind) but there's a lot there that is helpful to the seeker and which goes along way to understanding the split between "black box" mystical experience and non-mystics. A non-mystic will not accept the veridicality of a mystic's experience because their experience of Reality is completely different, but I feel that if the general populace understood the importance of the concept of Intellectus, it could go a long way to dealing with this issue. Of course, the mystery will remain, but at least the possibility for enlightenment would be greatly improved. I'd love to see you discuss the topic of Intellectus in a followup vlog.
@Sloth910 sadly or sometimes hilariously it’s autogenerated, so it comes out with some doozies. My partner has a profound hearing loss. It’s so frustrating when creators don’t at least leave the option for auto generated, but in reality having someone do the subtitles professionally would help gain a greater audience. It would reach those with hearing issues, as well as auditory and language processing disorders. I used to own a transcription company until nafta insured I couldn’t compete with the fees companies in India were offering, so I closed my business, but I’d love to do this for content creators.
I’ve had several life changing spiritual experiences. The most recent ones did not wear off. They were all revolving around specific spiritual information that became a irreversible aspect of my being. The first one was only a small ping in my chest followed by an ability to love myself perfectly. Second and third revolves around hermetic principles and those were written permanently in my being. The fourth concerned the idea of incarnating from another planet to earth, this one made the most positive change. After that I had lesser experiences from meditation and astral projection practices.
The Three Teachers of Truth: the work, the master and the experience. I personally believe all three are the only ways to Truth; Experience being chief to the two prior.
If, as many have expressed, a mystical experience sets in motion, a passion, energized by desire, for further exploration of self-awareness and curiosity of an ecological interconnectedness for growth (expansion) then why does it matter (ultimately) what modality (or belief system) the mystical experiences come from? Are we seeking to prove the "right" origins of a mystical experience or might we benefit individually and collectedly if we foster and nurture those experiences (regardless of modality or system)?
Great comment! Not sure why this wasn't part of the discussion. When I have a personal mystical experience I never view it as applying to others, only to my own path and personal evolution.
I have so many of these experiences, one of let me explicitly explain, do not leave this place, the cause was not explained, but the meaning of the unexplained remains impeded in the logic of humain indiscrepences.... The featurete of todays society...
My idea(from my own experiences and my understandings) is that when they speak of “ultimate reality” the ideas are filtered in a sense by the experiencer(making it potent and clear for the experiencer, and in a way requiring more reflective understanding to others) And to the idea of conflicting ideas (again they come from a time, place, and set of beliefs) but also they invite a paradoxical thinking Like when I say everything’s separate, and everything is one thing It invites an understanding that encompasses both such as that everything has some essence that itself is the same in all, such as consciousness, yet we view things as separate So the oneness and division are reconciled more fully though “this and that” instead of “this or that” (And on the dual vs one idea, it invites almost an idea of gradients such as seeing masc and fem as representations of the same idea of gender, and you can move between them-so it’s both one gender and the 2 “main” genders - or 1(nonmoral) way radiating between 2(good and evil) : so like nothings wrong in a universal sense but something could be wrong or right to an individual or group)
Make Sure to Subscribe & Consider supporting Esoterica by
becoming a monthly Patron - www.patreon.com/esotericachannel
or a one time donation - www.paypal.me/esotericachannel
I loved the video thanks for giving some pushback! I'm new to these sorts of ideas and so far all I get is agreement 😅
I will certainly support your work on Pateron, excellent content. Thank you.
My videos show something that was done by me? Time is an illusion that is a concept that exists within an abstract concept eternity. Space exists inside the infinitel. Use logic only for the Quantum
Hello Dr. Sledge, thank you for the education and exopsure of the content to your Esoterica.
In a shameless manner if I may be permitted. I consider myself a modern Mystic.
I have 27+ years of Inspirational psychic automatic writing under my belt. Of the "Jewels of Truth " series. I channel in writing spiritual wisdom, metaphysics, and mysticism.
My blog site of "Atrayo's Oracle" 17+ yrs. Online has additional topic or statement rich environment. I don't channel by chapters, but by topic on interest.
I predominantly channel the Heavenly host of the Angels, some lesser dieties, fairies, and even God on rare occasions.
The content arrives telepathically akin to gentle whispers word by word or phrases. I enter into an altered state of mind and feel emotionally for the content. I compartmentalize my intellect off to the side so as to not jeopardize the transmission.
I have 3 volumes in paperback and ebook of the Jewels of Truth Series. However, my blog site of Atrayo's Oracle has more recent channelings free for purvey.
Thank you again for your teachings I find them enlightening.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!!
When I was a teenager I would have done everything to have free and easy access to content like these. Your work and the one of all your colleagues are the ones that really make the time we live worth living.
Same.
Yep! though MSN chat working out the meaning of existence in 97 was still a right of passage with your goth friends ;)
as a teenager this is my most watched yt channel
💫🖤💜DITTO💜🖤💫
@@eve1ynmargaret You are Truly Blessed!!! I can only imagine my life were I to BE GRANTED such Knowledges & Wisdom!!!💜🖤💫
Immediate fundamental truths about reality are rad to the max - 26:49
Welcome to compromising your core values time. - 33:24
Everyone talks about your knowledge and wisdom I want to thank you also for your humor! 😂 I love your channel!!
"Philosophy means everyone's a target" I love that statement
Thank you for Justin for sharing your serious thinking on this subject and for pointing out the ridiculousness of the dismissal of the subject for serous consideration by so many. Your work is critical in creating the opportunity for thinking people to re-approach "the arcane side of history, philosophy, and religion." Thank you for seriously raising the of level of the discussion, (even if we disagree on some finer points ;).
*eye shift from left to right* what ever.... I love you so much
Second!
This was the episode I needed to move forward with deciding how to research and write about mysticism with integrity and credibility. Thanks for pointing me toward phenomenologic studies. Totally indebted 🙏
Yep, I do try my best to always mention another approach especially when it differs from my own. I also do my best to present as many sides of a debate as I can. It's important that the channel teach that debate and not my opinion as much as possible.
Much luck in your educational endeavors!!
Thanks for linking me to this video, Dr. Sledge. I knew you had already covered this but could not find it.
And, clearly, I should spend much more time in the library.
I really appreciate this video. As a somewhat “mystically inclined” person with a background in philosophy, I used to rack my head trying to overcome skeptical arguments regarding mystical insight. I yearned for Ultimate Truth, but found I had to settle for just belief with the acceptance that I could be wrong. I won’t lie: it felt a bit like selling out or giving up. So seeing someone else tread that same path of thought and reach some of the same conclusions was reassuring.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!! And you where dumb enough to believe it.
Great video. I am reminded of an old Zen saying: "Those who Say do not Know, and those who Know do not Say", which for me fits with the fleeting experience of Kenshō, which is a glimpse into the "suchness" of life. I love the word Suchness, because it does not bring up any social conditioned idea of what this suchness points to, or means. So in my limited experience from sitting for years, I would never attempt to explain, or discuss my personal moments because it is pointless. much like the old metaphor of a fish who has looked for this thing called "water" and never finding it, and being unable to tell the fish who is searching that the water is and has always been all around him/her. a very funny thing.
Cool. I, however, tend to be very suspicious of abstract nouns, both outside of and inside of Buddhism. Generally, I have learned that they are shorthand for something more concrete. For example, Emptiness (Of fixed, permanent and unchanging nature.) The Unconditioned (by geed, hatred and, and delusion.) and so forth. Word that can not be defined by the people using them are, IMHO, not terrible useful, because they do not point us in any particular direction nor guides to towards any specific actions.
However, I, too, have found myself overwhelmed by the "Success" of life. To me, it refers to a some vague wonder that I can not put into words. A word that points to the fact that reality can not really be put into words is not useless.
@@milascave2 "IMHO, not terribly useful, because they do not point us in any particular direction nor guide us towards any specific actions."...... well said, but I am wondering, how does "pointing us in any particular direction, or guiding towards any specific actions" result in anything other than what is here right now as you read this? Does the fish who is searching for this thing called "water" ever find it,?, or has water always been right there with the fish, and so intimate with him/her that they could never perceive it (water), without looking for it?
@@zenpig6605 Why do people think I'm weird when I say I think we don't know shit & I'm fine with not truly understanding anything, pig?
Not a very useful saying; for a start, you said it, implying that you don't actually know what you're talking about. More generally, acceptance of that idea would undermine the whole point of communication. At best, it needs some re-wording.
I’ve been watching your channel for a few weeks now, and I’m just struck by your brilliance and generosity. This is basically what I’d imagine a graduate-level philosophy lecture sounds like, and you’ve given it to us on youtube for free. I’ve been perpetually drawn to ancient mysticism and religious history and this channel has opened up a whole new world for me. I’ve learned such an absurd amount in the last few weeks that the word “gnosis” feels personal now😂. Just wanted to give a sincere thanks and express how impressive your knowledge, insight, and communication are. ✌🏼
What a fantastic episode, Justin! I truly enjoyed it.
As a fellow scholar located in between Philosophy and Religious Studies, I totally agree that we need more philosophical investigations of religious experiences.
Luckily, the online space has you to mend that wound! ;-)
Thanks, Angela. That means a lot coming from you, especially given that we both share philosophy backgrounds. I've always found it a pity that philosophy and religion have become so siloed in recent centuries, much - I think - to each other discipline's loss. Hope you are well, my friend!
@@TheEsotericaChannel I am, thanks for asking! We should have a catch-up chat soon. 🖤
As a Mystic, I believe the rationale and common sense is meant to be used to assess the person - NOT the experience.
Look at the person themselves.
What is their truck record for accuracy? What is their character? Their demeanor?
The sensibility and moral compass?
is their behavior is n alignment with their words?
Do they seem lucid, coherent and genuine?
I believe the more grounded and rational a person is, the more credence they have when recounting their experiences.
Thank you for this awesome video!
Blessings
😊💝🙏✨
Very articulate statement of the challenges - also regarding mystical innovation; as mystics we need to accept that ours are temporal truths that play out within a dynamic and evolving collective consciousness; we are necessary and our sacrifices are meaningful, but with this should come a forced humility if our mysticism is truly grounded in wisdom.
I could listen to you talking on these matters all day. I find it absolutely fascinating and you cover it so extensively and so very well. Keep doing what you do. My heart fluttered when you mentioned the Mayans (somewhat related to my Aztec ancestry) in your introduction, as those mystics are very rarely discussed.
I'll actually be doing an episode soon on Maya bloodletting mysticism that actually serves as the glyph for the channel. I have such an immense respect for those cultures - I even worked to learn to read Maya glyphs a few years ago - and their classical and contemporary mystical traditions are profoundly compelling.
@@TheEsotericaChannel I knew I recognized that glyph! I really look forward to that discussion! 😍
Hi, I'm Gnew here. I Found this to be a particularly sophisticated disquisition on the intersection of mysticism and philosophy. Coincidentally, or perhaps synchronistically, I'm currently under the vapours of PCP (the 3-ho varietal) and I thought the glyph for your channel was a hand choking a chicken and was quite befitting.
@@charlesdickens3572 Has your experience with dissociatives lent to more mystical experiences than say a tryptamine psychedelic? Curious as I’ve haven’t explored dissociatives too much
@@dpc3324 Hard to say. Everything is dose and ROA dependent. Roughly speaking, at large dosages they are similar: Hold tight, lap bars down, and keep your hands inside the ride. Be ready to subjectively experience what is happening to you and like McKenna said, 'Try not to give in to death by astonishment'...
However, at low/microdose levels both lend themselves to insights. Tryptamines at a low and consistent dosage over a period of time open your heart to insight. Whereas similarly prescribed, dissociatoves open up your analytical mind if that makes sense. Tryptamines amplify your intuition. Dissociatives amplify your cognition.
It was after I had my own mystical experience that I even found your channel and I’m so thankful for your teachings. I’m still trying to understand it, but this has helped so much. I was raised in a very devout southern baptist family in the heart of the Bible Belt. I’ve always had questions about consistencies and the history of scripture as well as those that compiled the texts and chose what to include in it, etc.
I’m still trying to make sense of it, but it’s a process.
Good on you - that's a long road to hoe. I'm also from the South and can feel that struggle. Wishing you the best on your journey.
@@TheEsotericaChannel thank you. It has been very difficult and feels a bit like I’m grieving, but more like a death of one thing to the birth of something new. You’ve managed to hide any hint of southern accent, which I wish I could do. lol
@@TheEsotericaChannel where in the south if you don’t mind. My sister graduated college with someone with the last name of Sledge. Probably no relationship, but always thought it was a cool last name.
@@TheFrugalMombot Originally from Mississippi but haven't lived there in years.
Drugs are bad
It's so refreshing to encounter someone who takes a scholarly approach to religion! This is what I've been looking for since I was a teenager
19:30 - "Mystical interpretations simply don't interpret themselves." This is true. I've had multiple experiences in my life, typically during stressful experiences or stressful times that are prolonged, though they are random enough that I cannot predict that if I am stressed or that if I do some intense practice that they will occur. When they happen, I don't jump to conclusions about the experience. I just trust that it did happen and that what happened was profound. It can take years to fully integrate the experience into a worldview that guides my life. And yes, this usually involves looking for similar "messages" and philosophies that have similar grounding. And while I rarely tell others of the experience, oh I've learned my lessons on that, the results of my focus and ruminations upon the experience projects out to my communities and people are affected by them.
no, THIS is the most important discussion that needs to be had in modern mysticism... ive said that about a few of your videos. you are producing quality material.
A spiritual experience is personal and it’s best to keep it to yourself no gane by exposing it. ❤
As a mystics I I really appreciate your work and I come back many times in this channel. It as helped me to understand the mystics on much deeper way and had putted in more reasonable way. It’s easy to bee fooled by your own mind (the ego) when one has experienced mysticisms. Many takes it tooo much. And I love that this channel are more based facts as it is. And For the non- mystics so it’s more easy for me to explain how mysticisms works. Thank you so much! ❤
Without doubt the most foundational and therefore most significant presentation that you've uploaded, and that is saying a lot, given the scope and depth of knowledge which you impart on this channel. That the nation's major theological seminaries and divinity schools haven't recruited you from WSU's philosophy adjunct staff itself demonstrates why this "episode" and your entire project are so essential.
Thanks, and I'm pretty sure they don't know this channel even exists.
I know I'm late to the boat, but this content is what I've been craving for many lives.
My personal perspective is that ultimate reality shines through each person like light through a camera gel. Each person possesses a personal, unique gel tinctured by cultural conditioning, personal biases, traumas, experiences, et cetera. Thus, while it would seem impossible to evaluate mystical experiences, because it is impossible to evaluate these personal filters, I think it might be more useful to look at what mystics do with their experiences. Did his experience cause him to become violent? Start a cult? Did his experience cause him to become a humanitarian? Did he start a charitable organization? Did he become a hermit living on a mountain? In other words, while we cannot evaluate the experiences, we can evaluate the results on moral or humanitarian grounds, personal usefulness, et cetera.
Great perspective; is your gel that of a photographer?
I enjoyed this. Very few people have taken the time to examine the actual historic record of the mystical as it relates to community leaders and influencers (shaman, priests, philosophers, musicians/artists, poiticians?, etc...). What is almost as interesting as the historical record itself is the idea, presented here as well, of mystical innovation. Not only is there no widely acknowledged doctrine for the mystic, there is no widely accepted doctrine, and depending on ones' location, no political acceptance for mystical practitioners as personal belief becomes ever more scrutinized and politicized in today's environment. To remove the mystical experience is to remove the immediacy and veracity of true religious experience. Sadly, this state of affairs is the norm rather than the exception. In any event, it's nice to hear somebody bringing attention to the conversation.
Man is essentially a thinking creature (thinker & thought). But thinking is also man's limit. Man cannot go beyond man unless he transcends thinking. The mystics path is transcendence, that is, the transcendence of the thinking creature. In Dhyāna Buddhism this is absolute spirit, before thinker & thought.
This is SO good.
Also, can you do a video on Mesoamerican philosophy?
Been trying to figure it out my whole life. Wrestle with How He Works, Why He Works, and When He Works but the biggest lesson I learned is that I really knew nothing, which is more than I used to know because I used to know everything. Thank God I don’t have to completely comprehend it with my intellectual faculties to see it, accept it, and live by it in my spiritual and loving faculties. Hallelujah Amen.
Love this channel by the way. I probably don’t know how I feel about 3/4 of your content, and the other 1/4 I am exploring because it makes me uncomfortable and I wanna see why it makes me uncomfortable. Lol but it’s always clearly and fully explained, in a variety of different and helpful ways. I appreciate the work you do. God bless you.
Dear Dr Sledge,
To preface this comment, for whose length I must apologize, I'd like to note how thankful I am to your vast body of knowledge, your willingness to share it, and your wonderful patrons for enabling the whole process.
While not the least bit spiritual or religious myself, your content gives me access to information I find deeply interesting about human cultures. I'm always happy to see that your comment sections are perpetually start with a combination of practitioners of whatever practice you are discussing, believers of one variety or another understanding their faith through different ones, and outside observers like me who just want to learn more about our collective past (and sometimes present).
Most of all, I appreciate treatment of the matters you discuss, more specifically that you're always respectful and enthusiastic about the beliefs you show us, while simultaneously presenting each belief from a very third person perspective, if that makes sense. Your own content aside, most of the content surrounding the subjects you share information about is downright uninformative, and at times even obfuscational, to serve the agenda of followers of the particular religion in question.
I absolutely do not expect you to read the whole thing, but if you do, I would really appreciate any philosophical or logical critiques you have for my positions, as I'm rather experienced in the field.
The one sticking point I have is that I'm of the opinion that empiricism itself actually requires justification to be used to support anything.
While Occam's razor certainly implies that our senses are, at least in some form, real and can be taken as true, they technically have no underlying self-evident justification.
I believe that the data provided to our minds by our senses is not an axiomatically reliable source of Truth, but more a profoundly unique type of information:
One which is fundamentally unprovable yet at the same time so likely that the acceptance of our senses as true manages to be palatable regardless.
To put it another way, rejection of the senses, while logically rigorous, is only more logically rigorous than acceptance of the senses by an incredibly small degree.
This small degree, when compared against the productivity gained by accepting the senses as trustworthy, is inconsequential enough to be unproblematic in day-to-day life.
But if we are speaking philosophically, and we are holding ourselves without exception to full logical rigor, then our senses (nor any information obtained through their application) cannot in that technical... *Sense* be used as foundations for or components of further arguments or conclusions.
Based on all the above, I don't believe I'm required to give spiritual experiences the same benefit of the doubt that I give to empirical experiences.
I'm not wrongfully distinguishing one as valid and the other as invalid, based on personal preference.
What I am doing is declaring both as *technically* non-rigorous when I'm attempting philosophy, yet within the scope of daily existence, provisionally treating empiricism as true, due to both the high likelihood and high utility of our senses being at least *largely* true.
I don't think it's unfair to extend this kindness to empiricism alone, without extending it to mysticism as well.
Human senses are rather effable, and remain consistent across most persons. Both of these qualities are rather less archetypical of mystical experiences.
That being said, everything I've just written here is merely my truest, deepest feelings on the matter, and thus stand my common positions on the matters discussed.
One of the core purposes of the lecture you composed, however, is to be as charitable as possible within the bounds of honesty and Truth to a position which we may not agree with.
That is an exercise I'm not exceptionally practiced or skilled at. However, with your example of willingness to grant the ideas presented here that very kindness, I was able to understand something important about the exact framework through which I should explain mystical experiences.
Were I not more open-minded in this particular way, I wouldn't have been able to access a component of understanding I now possess.
This has been my favourite video that you have made! thank you so much for your detailed exposition. In teaching Kabbalah for the last 30 years I have always tried to balance experiential and empirical ritual, with rational thought and verification, taken from the large array of mystical literature and living culture. Learning to describe mystical experiences with mystical languages such a Hebrew and Sanskrit has only helped my students get their mind around what they are going through and given them the ability to apply their new found knowledge into practical applications. Some students adapt to this process and some are either too rational or emotional to find that balance that allows them to alter their aperture of perspective as they have been enhanced by their visions and insights during divination. My journey as you mentioned was alienating and certainly as you put it conservative, though I never really looked at it that way, but certainly worth my efforts and seen in the quality of life I have been able to force from my mystically infused clarity that has allowed me to experience life from a more rounded perspective.
I have caught myself doing the mystic thing and FELT so deeply I understood the essence of things. Sometimes this produces poetry but never produced anything like real information except once. A daily deep meditation projects after a great trauma for me to where I felt I saw things fairly clearly and had achieved some lever of acceptance and I was compassionate and non judgmental. I remember talking to someone about my experience and he understood it to mean something Christian and I just let him have his thing. I didn’t feel a need to disabuse him. What did I know? And anyway he might have the same basic insight but just believe It was from good of Christ. I’ve had other experiences and have actively courted the mystical experience mostly my whole life. I learned to do art and music and i just consider this tendency to feel like the truth is just around the corner or a little to the left or right to be a cognitive style. It feels sometimes like building up a charge until it arcs across the gap. It’s an emotional experience which engenders this impression of knowing but like the dream in which you discover the meaning of life but upon awakening can’t describe anything valuable... unless you’re an artist! Then you can make art out of it which sometimes Can also give an impression of mysterious prescience or omniscience. I try not to take it too seriously even this it seems the most valuable thing.
Excellent explanation. I see it as a personal experience, and that it's my place to encourage others to seek their own truth, not to convince them of mine. My gnosis is not threatened by anyone's beliefs, even my own.😉
@@sarahjensen2473thanks! And thanks for not noticing my typos!!
@@MichaelMarko At one point or another, I felt like I was the only one to be able to see things different than all others or that which has been written. That through knowledge one is taken to a door that feels like no words are needed or can be used to explain what it is perceived or understood in one's self. It is a place where no words can be used, or are needed. Kind of a place where words are not enough.
That is why I believe that mystical experiences are just a beautiful experience for the individual who has them and not to be used to impose personal ideas or concepts on others. But again, not every individual feels this way. I believe it has to do with that individual's influences, mental ideas, or concepts that affects the meaning of their Mystical experiences.
My teacher/Guru said, that visions will appear according to our beliefs and they should not be taken to seriously because they are just another mental experience. To enjoy them, but not to become attached to them. To go beyond them.
Lucky for me, my mystical experiences happened when I had not fully being mentally programmed (Had no strong inclinations towards my faith and was a novice) into any religious philosophy and did not fully connect them to my beliefs at those moments.
Now, I am pleased, I never made those connections and feel a connection to all believers and none believers. I appreciate your thoughts.
@@newlin83 your reply is confusing to me. Could you give me an example of a philosophy or organized cosmology that didn’t originate from the experience of one person? My openness to people having different experiences and belief systems isn’t dismissal. I’m actually suggesting that believing something because someone else had an experience makes less sense than utilizing my own experience along with the available literature, art, and discussion of others’ experiences along with logic to understand what I am comfortable believing. I do believe that a purely intellectual approach to faith is incomplete, but that’s an opinion based on my own experience.
@@newlin83 🤣🤣🤣
I had a sober mystical experience, then my mom came to see if i was ok, long story short there was demons behind me and her while she told me to pray, i had lost my faith at the time. Afterwards we went to her bed and we satdown but it seemed like it was somebody else talking to me through her body. She told me it was my guardian angel.
This is the end of the world,theres no space, we are one, except the evil people they are lost.
Nobody can tell me what i experienced wasn't true.
Thank you for educating me Dr.
Nope, they can't and I say as much on the episode.
Immediate fundamental truths about reality are rad to the max! Let us then continue, and continue, to consider our approaches to them. Properly, thoroughly. THANK YOU.
Hello Justin, thank you for your amazing work. I am so identified with your expression regarding that paradoxical state (26:12), as I have ended up when I've kept my cents of doubts for any of the many mystical practices I have tried out. And those cents, as well as the stance of some members of these groups, were the ones that consistently played mayor roles when deciding to quit pursuing these subjects.
Now, after finding and getting to know some of the work of Carl Jung, I could understand the reason behind my fascination with some of these mystical stories.
Because I couldn't disregard my personal experiences and affinities to the nature of the stories embedded in different Religions, the approach I ended up / I'm actively trying is some-what Existentialism, that interestingly goes along the lines of one your proposed solutions, relativism+mysticism, depending on the context I play it out.
The way I'm playing it out (or try to) is I use the Model of the Psyche and the Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious presented by Carl Jung as frameworks and axioms; a mindful approach to experience of the events of inner and outer worlds as input, and inner thoughts, resurfaced ideas and actions as outputs. Using the aforementioned elements, some abstraction, and tons of imagination, I carve out meaning for my life from moment to moment with the purpose of personal improvement. Indeed, a systemic approach has been key to the matter. And I know it's all like, super-biased, but it ultimately alleviated my "meaning” (or lack of) problem.
With all that said, I still can't assert the validity of my "religious experiences" to be true. And regardless of my interest in these subjects, still can't find trust on some gnostics group members yet, not with their “credulity” drug issues
Anyways, thanks for your video, My regards from the DR
Your scholarship and approach is the best I've seen on UA-cam so far; a true gift to the field. your work is much appreciated. You've filled in so many of the gaps that are out there.
pffft... discounting pcp visions of mary
ua-cam.com/video/Z0S9VEm3bT4/v-deo.html
Same! Bro it was so weird literally walking with god on DMT and nobody would believe me if I spoke it, probably should continue writing about it, but I am more of a sociology/philosophy/psychology focused person rather than mysticism focused....
I believe writing about that stuff is more prudent and probably what god wanted to have me do in walking with him.
You can imagine how that fucked with me😂😂
(Also don’t wanna lead an apophis death cult, so I don’t wanna talk about it😂😂😂)
Although I do believe if there was a mystical method to be as consistent and as scientifically verifiable for the modern world it’d be a fat bowl of DMT for everyone with enough balls to inhale!
I’m pretty sure we’d all be something of thelemites who will GM all the food to be extremely nutritious and such animals to be supremely cuddly and to make technology that would solve all of our issues by saying “fuck it, we basically are already gods! Let’s go balls deep! Let’s make heaven on earth and grow a pair, let’s make our lives so boring we want to simulate the life of a Roman legionare’s love story and whole life for us to play like a video game to play in just a night”
@@adebleswordfish I met Mary on ayahuasca..
@@coryhofstede3104 I fully believe you.
Don’t go starting a new religion unless it truly has divine influence, but ye good for you
I truly appreciate you describing the immediate dismissal of mystical experiences as delusion as being "pseudoscientific" because that's exactly what it is, and going through the mental health system after an mystical experience is truly traumatizing. Your videos have been a major breath of fresh air in terms of someone having a true scholarly perspective when it comes to these types of things.
this reminds me of the discussion in neuroscience about dreams in particular, and the research being done; trying for objectivity of an inner experience
Thank you. This is just a though inside my mind which comes about as you started the video: The experiencer of the experience prior to having the mystic experience has been influenced by their religious thought or cultural ideas. It appears to me that their own personal knowledge may affect the interpretation or the experience itself.
But of course, some of these mystic tend to express their experiences far beyond their religious ideology. Which sometimes gets them in trouble with their religious leaders. Which in turn makes me think that it is a personal experience that it is specifically for that individual and as far as not all are able to experience it, it becomes a mystery for billions of individual who desire to know or experience such a wonderful mystic experience.
For example, I had two experiences in two different religions. In one I felt a like a puff or something blowing into the top of my skull. Immediate, I was taken by it. With my eyes close, I began to say, "Glory to God!" many times, yet the words coming out of my mouth were not those words being spoken in my mind.
In other experience, during an initiation, as I was getting up, I felt the ground give from under me (Like walking on water), while walking and being help by others. Immediately, I felt something from inside of me (The middle of my body) rise and a giant breath going out of me as I look up, open my mouth and let it out. In both I was fully conscious.
What it meant to me? To tell you the truth at that time I did not know what to make from it. Now I believe they were meant to for me alone. Yet, I am sharing them with you here.
Another idea that comes to mind is that we are limited as far as knowing the whole truth and nothing but the truth. In other words, prior to be being born what did we know, and after birth what will we experienced or remember experiencing? In other words the mind can go blank at anytime due to many factors, and may even be rendered useless while still alive. All the knowledge (Limited knowing), as much as can be gather, I believe, can never be able to tackle the prior to birth and after death experience. Because, no memories are available from our birth, and no memories will be left after death (No memories in the mind and no memories left in it). Based on those factual items mentioned, all of the mysteries of God are being discussed and valued during the time of recollection by the mind, and its ability to know, understand, and be able to grasp educational, religious, or philosophical concepts.
Which leads me to understand (My own ideas) that 1. All these topics are important to individual minds that can understand them and are still alive.
2. And all of it is important as long as that individual is capable of learning or wanting to know.
3. Prior to birth no ounce of knowledge was needed to be born, and at death none needed at all.
The beauty that I can perceive from all of these thoughts is to be guided by the desire to know the eternal reality, and avoid giving to much value to mental concepts of any kind.
But of course, all search for the real, or the itch to know God comes from concepts which it is even more interesting.
As I learn and grow in wisdom, the more I desire to be one with God then to know anything at all.
Hope it makes sense.
You are certainly right, in that the experiences tend to be interpreted (or re-interpreted) through the lens of a pre-established belief system. That's why Eckhart is particularly believable--his understanding at times rivals the dogma of the Church--and, hence, his own pre-established belief system.
Perfectly clear and insightful. Thank you, Dr S!
"Credulity is a hell of a drug!"
Great video, as always.
"At dawn my lover comes to me; And tells me of her dreams; With no attempts to shovel the glimpse; Into the ditch of what each one means" Bob Dylan
Man, Doctor Sledge with the SPICY takes. Bringing the philosophical hammer down.
Great work as always Justin. I can only offer thanks and appreciation as I am devoted to poverty.
Mystical experience, as far as ive had it, os always revealed through the senses of an individual because it is often knowledge of how our senses are misused or how our interpretation of sensory information is clouded.
My own gnosis are completely about our senses and nervous system. No-one speaks of 5 senses being variations of touch but it is indeniable, right down to molecules spinning up your nostrils offering you a scent. Photoreseptors absorbing all the photons reflected off every surface in your surroundings.
I can’t believe how much I enjoy this channel. Wish I found it twenty years ago!!
This video is so dense with information that I'm going to have to listen to this 10 times to get one tenth of what you've just explained.
Thanks so much Justin and channel esoterica.
Mystical experiences exist to train a persons faith, intuitions and divine nature. Truth makes us and ceases to be when the mystic embodies it. Truth is realisation, a transmission that transforms.
This is probably my favorite video you have made so far. I really appreciate all the effort you put in!
Outstanding video, one specific problem is that of a copy to the event of awakening. People who may not have experienced it, will borrow the information share and make it their own. The experience is specific to the individual and have certain things happen, those who really have already know that one carries no burden to instruct nor convert others. or share what they have been exposed to.
I love your content!
Please could you enable auto generated captions? The content is really dense and they help follow; plus, they're very accurate because you are accurate too :)
This and it would allow my partner to watch. He reads lips too, but does best with subtitles.
i had a conversation with the catholic theologian John Haught many years ago in which he emphasized that a subject cannot grasp the divine but is grasped by it. He argued that the noetic aspect of an encounter with divinity has to be reconciled with empirical knowledge and what we think we know about the divine cannot be true unless it jibes with empirical science. His view was that the fact of evolution tells us something important about god, which is specifically that god values novelty and indeed novelty & surprise have to be an important aspect of the nature of divinity because that is so important to the emergence of life which he accepts on faith is beloved of god.
He had no solution to the theodicy that seems to imply, however, other than kierkegaard’s faith that in the end god will wipe away all tears. i was not convinced, but i respected immensely the intellectual honesty and humility of the position.
19:30 I would argue that Wittgenstein shows the fly the way out that particular fly bottle by suggesting that mystical experiences aren’t susceptible to interpretation because of their ineffability, and the attempt to shoehorn mystical experience and the “truths” they reveal/show into the proposition which is always already a misapplication of language which has gone “on holiday” from the empirically public form of life that language requires to be meaningful at all.
indeed, that quality of being impervious to language is what makes the mystical experience so profound and personal, because it is inescapably private.
28:24 On the issue of contradiction, Wittgenstein is of some help here, but in my view I think a better way to go is a deep pluralism that doesn’t bother with trying to reconcile mystical beliefs but rather treats the contradiction itself as a mystical reality that is itself ineffable, noetic, and all the other things you might want to say about mystical experiences. This is not relativism because it doesn’t deny the absolute truth of the mystical, nor is it perennial because there is no claim that it is reconcilable. and from that standpoint the aforementioned route out of the bottle that denies the meaningfulness of language that attempts to express mystical experience because it forestalls any way to have endless, pointless arguments about those contradictions.
39:00 the fallout of the position i have been taking is that the mystic may have a duty to avoid reducing their experiences to doctrine because they are not reliable evidence with which to form empirical propositions because of the non public nature of the experience which can provide no public criteria for meaning in Wittgenstein’s sense for and so it is impossible for any doctrine they produce to be meaningful. Instead, again following Wittgenstein, what mystics can do is show how they they had the experience and, by their having been grasped by it (as Haught would put it) changing them. The mystical “truth” is shown by works to paraphrase James the Just, thus showing that the position i’m arguing with is compatible with at least on important religious thinker of the early jewish christian milieu. which, y’know, ain’t bad as far as indirect evidence goes.
The difference between a “non mystic” and a mystic is Receiving vision. The difference between those that receive and those who don’t is... an open heart. I can never explain or justify what Ive seen to the degree that another person is satisfied enough to accept it. If everyone was meant to accept it, they probably would’ve experienced it first hand.
I was also thinking about the principals of resistance when he started mentioning the arguments on the capabilities to experiences the mystic. I think taoism puts this specific concept in a great perspective.
Yes, you're correct.
I think the autism/schizophrenia spectrum is as wide as it is because the informative mystical state requires it. I think the tendency toward a full gnostic experience is X-linked so, matrilineal inheritance of this tendency should be observable. ... given enough data. And a patrilineal inheritance tradition would mute this ability in that lineage.
Another difference between the two is that a mystic can see the common experience in two perspective simultaniously. What the day to day experience are both real and not real. When i say real means spiritual nature, nonreal means physical nature.
Mystics can only give out clues (finger point). But to be able to see through the clues, one should gaze without their entire being. LoL. Ultimate reality is totally nonsense and illogical where eternity is its feature.
@@ponscardinal2862 Perhaps by that the mystic is not stunned by the light. Seems most people are taken by the flash itself.
I always trusted my highest intelligence (intuition) and my gnostical experiences. Time by time you gonna get them, as they want you to evolve (up there).
How do you get those experiences?
By raising your vibration and consciousness through mantras, music, meditation, rituals. You can also use psychedelics. DMT is one of the best for spiritual experiences.
@@svenstefansson4022 In my opinion, psychedelics are a dangerous shortcut because they allow for experiences of the beyond without the necessary spiritual and mental foundation to support and fully comprehend that truth and connect it to further flashes that occur during contemplation. But to each his own way, I'm not going to judge people for seeking a shortcut to mystical experience. My experience with most users of psychedelic drugs is that they have seen the "substance" of mystical experience but are unable to properly translate it into lively action because it is of short duration and consists of a breaking of a shell rather than a complete "breaking down". I've had my own experiences without ever using drugs, and that turned out to be a rather bumpy road as well, though I'm not at all regretful about the way it went.
@@jcivilis533 this is why integration is imperative in getting the most of an experience. As more become legal, I think we will see integration specialists.
lol yes, immediate fundamental truths about reality are indeed rad to the max. That's pretty much the exact reason LSD is so popular. I have spent the majority of my 20's experimentally and theoretically examining the problems raised in this video, and I have to say your background and academic discipline has really added some clarity to this topic for me. Thanks again, man.
I just have to say, your channel is so refreshing! Definitely became one of my top 3 favourite channels within only a few days of watching. I also wanted I tell you that your channel has the best intro ever! I just love all of the curiosities and the absinthe louche!! And Thank you- your work is a wealth of information!
Thank You Dr. Sledge. I once did truly have notions of a early modern period of ecumenical peace and understanding. Babel from my wish for innocence in the Universe to exist among egoistic materialists.
Absurdism can also put into a very fascinating context mystical experiences considering that even our "normal" experiences can be remarked with trascendentality, thus mystical experiences could be considered more of a transition into adhering different forms of trascendental perspective into "normal" perspective (considering the transient nature of the experiences), sorta the re-arrangement of the perceptual organs. This would get us in the grounds of further debating the limits of the mind in experiencing abstractions and then making sense of them, as I would argue that a lot of the mystic experience could have to do with being overpowered by the absurdity of this experiential abstractions that beg to be integrated and accepted by the human factor in what we could call their "truths". How can something so beyond humans be experienced by humans? I don't know, with this we can get into the territory of death, and maybe even near-death mystical experiences.
I get what you’re saying heavily, discordianism is, to me, the most absurdist “faith”
Reminds me of the poem
I've never seen a purple cow
And hope I never see one.
And yet in the right light, cows can be purple
Thank you. Excellent and personally relevant discussion I thoroughly enjoyed. I am just getting acquainted with your channel, but so far, so good!
Here's a thought...a mystical experience is a revelation between the Divine and the individual and contains useful information that is appropriate for the receiver but not necessarily for everyone else. The nature of that information comes from the source of all knowledge but only an aspect of that knowledge is transmitted to the visionary according to the nature of his questions. When discussion between Arjuna and Krishna starts off it doesn't come from a voluntary expression from Krishna but rather from Arjuna's dilemma which he expresses to Krishna. His reluctance to go into battle. Krishna just addresses that concern by explaining the true nature of the destiny of all those souls and tells Arjuna basically if he does not fulfill his destiny he would be thought of as a coward throughout all eternity. Arjuna wants to dig deeper and it gets to the point where he begs Krishna to reveal his truest identity and towards the end of that overwhelming experience he begs Krishna to go back to his more pleasant form. My point is although all mystical experiences come from the Source of all that is true, the information transmitted can only be seen/heard by those who are ready to receive what they need to hear no matter what culture or time. That's why hardening the revelations of a mystic into doctrine and organized dissemination of that information only creates another way to keep people lazy and obedient. If you want a relationship with God go out in the forest and fast and have your own private discussion. Share the wisdom gained in conversations with friends who ask for the information and don't cast pearls before swine. Not that there's anything wrong with swine.
As a devoted Graham Harman reader, I appreciated your acknowledgement of thr Speculative Realists!
"In philosophy, everyone is a target." Lol I love you
this idea of whether we can trust divine experience as a source of knowledge, or a kind of epistemology, is a problem i have had most of my life. i see the ultra rational approach the west has taken to be mixed in with other historical developments such as capitalism and imperialism - atheistic or secular practices being perhaps useful means to push a colonial project. thank you, ESOTERICA, for proving the abundant precedents for mystical experience on your channel
This was my favorite video so far.. those psycho social failures definitely need to be addressed, I would say rather quickly.
Great video Doc! I can’t imagine getting this awesome content anywhere else. Thank you for your work and sharing.
'That ship sailed when you were waiting at the bus stop', just beautiful, I'm eagerly awaiting the day I can use that in real life. Thanks.
Best philosophy lecture ever. Out of the park with bases loaded.
Was led here by the 36 Sermons of Vivec. Amazing video, will be sharing with the lore community.
Real world mysticism is way better than the Elder Scrolls
Wow, great lecture! Ive been checking out the channel and this might be my favorite yet. Reminded me of a philosophy of science i took in my undergrad.
This is the first episode which I have felt immediately compelled to watch over again in the hope of comprehending more of. I feel as though I have some things to say about this subject. But I don't know if what I have to say is just reinventing the wheel. I guess there's only one way to find out.
For now I'll leave this excerpt from Liber O vel Manus et Sagittae:
"In this book it is spoken of the Sephiroth and the Paths; of Spirits and Conjurations; of Gods, Spheres, Planes, and many other things which may or may not exist. It is immaterial whether these exist or not. By doing certain things certain results will follow; students are most earnestly warned against attributing objective reality or philosophic validity to any of them. The advantages to be gained from them are chiefly these:
(a) A widening of the horizon of the mind.
(b) An improvement of the control of the mind.
p.s. The irony of a quote downplaying mystical experience by a man who created a religion around his mystical experiences is not lost on me at all. 😅
The effort here is valiant. Resolving this polarity with rational thought structures to hold the irrational/subjective mystical experience only impels more creation through its contrast. A thought form container to hold such an understanding, seeking certainly of place to understand the mystical experience as if there is an angle by which truth is possible or clear, seems always to demand the irrational, the spirit of 'both', the basic polarity. Great work, very much enjoy you and supporting you.
So good.
And an excellent addition to your convo with "Seekers of Unity".
When able, I'll make my response over there.
Ive had some mystical experiences and this has helped me process some of it. Thanks for this.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!!
Thank you for this discussion. Apparently, I have been rooted in Quaker Mysticism my entire life. I don:t feel a need to prove it or share it with others. It is right for me and that is all that matters to me. However, It is interesting to understand the challenges of proofs.of mystical experiences.
The resources that you provided are much appreciated.
What beautiful food for thought 😍 really appreciate your in depth, well thought out content, and clearly communicated content!
Thank you for your great work Dr. Sledge! 🙏
Your UFO example reminded me to various anecdotes of the psychedelic experience in which people detail experiencing and seeing the same effects and events as other people on the same substances or mindset. With this I guess we could come back to the black box limitation but with a context of shared delusion, and we could go on about the mystical arguments on the collective unconscious and the archetypical experiences but this phenomena gets truly bizarre and special when people detail very specific connections (such as hearing the others person thoughts and words in one's head without verbally communicating). A video investigation on psychic phenomena would be interesting.
I have summoned angels before, and even seen one with my real eyes (Uriel). Seen grey aliens when I was a small child. Also did meditations and consciously made telepathic communication with human ET's (Pleiadians) and also communicated them via drug (DMT). So I basicly experienced spirits, angels and ufos in all different ways and methods. Its real all I can say and the key is the pineal gland and basicly vibration, you have to anchor more light into your DNA.
Fascinating, I've also had various mystical and visionary experiences both by my own will and path, and by external entheogen help. A lot of the times when watching vids like this, my mind constantly strays away from the scientific philosophical rigor and comes back to deal with the mystic question by its own mystic means, but it is a beautiful struggle to try to piece it all together, both logic and illogic, reason and unreason; reality and interpretation, and where both intertwine in my perception. Manifesting the vague, making clouds rain, good luck on your path.
I’ve had mystical experiences. In a nutshell imagine expanding your consciousness to infinity but then being overwhelmed and immediately retreating into your normal consciousness. That’s what it was. Three times I’ve done this.
First off your introduction was just beautiful, infact most of the video is fantastic.
I have a response to this idea of rationality.
We we presuppose that there is a rational, real, world we are assuming that there is a fundemental basis of the world were outcomes are predictable. Like the movement of balls on a pool table. The 20th century shows us how we can make predictions, but without a rstional explanation. This is why we have the "resolution" problem in physics. We can break the universe down into things like
Hilbert space, Momentums, Ubiquitius 'invisible' fields, wave functions in wave particle duality.
And if you ask different physicist you get different meanings.
What we call reality is are a set emergent properties of interacting systems. For example change with respect to time, time is an emergent prooerty of events within space and quantum decoherance. Field properties, such as gravity and electromagnitism. Such fields are said to permeate all spacetime (the unseen universe), but we generally cant see the fields unless there is a disturbance. A yet QFT is one of the most powerful explanatory rules in Quantum theory.
If this sounds like some of the contradictions in mysticism, that is my intent. Everything we rationalize is levels of indirect interpretation. Lets take an example, you look up on the dawns horizon and you see the largest celestial object. We follow the EM waves from the object to the eye, wear it goes through a lense, bends the light, across the membrane of a cell wall, the cell, whose firing impulses momentarily stops. The brain, which is always recieving signal then has to integrate the stop in the signal, the imagery is distibuted to 53 areas of the brain which create an abstractions about objects. Then we see the bright sun on the horizon. In that process, electrons in high orbits around protons collapse, the quantum collapse, a photon is tranformed into a wave function where it is recieved an causes the excitation of another electron as the wavefunctiin becomes a photon particle, quantum decoherance between the sun and the photon ends. This coherance decoherence process occurs untold numbers of time before the brain recreates the image. This is philosophical basis of reality, its interpretive. At the basis of our rationalization is something that we cannot see. 600,000,000 years ago, as life emerged from the anoxic muck of the primordial ocean, photosensitive systems became complex for competitive survival reasons, and that what we see is the evolved consequence of a need for sight and a selection for things that we need to see. We cannot see gamma, X, micro, or radio waves. Rationalism is that context is incomplete. This does not prove truth in mystical experiences by pointing to the flaw in rationalism, its just to say that rationalization has a implicit scale of errancy associated with it depending on what is rationalizing and that mystical experiences are spread along that scale of interpretation. Something as simple as a snowflake falling can become a paradox depending how one rationalizes it.
Second, the mysticism-religion connection is complex. I have taken it upon my retirement to explore the dawn of religion and explore mysticism in that context. I think we can safely say religion has always been a reciever of mystical notions. In fact I would rather say that mysticism is generally a formative substrate of religion which is then refined via logic, popular cultural notions, and exploitive reinforcing behaviors (i.e. peity rules). Over time the trappings of the ecclesiastical structure create the need for change and new mystics with new ideas come along. We can see from the bible that mysticism is not encapsulated in the belief, but submerged in the mystical notions of the visible culture of the mystic, however far that extends.
But the problem I see in the video is the notion of truth and the background state of the mystic. Let me be honest, if not offensive. The Truth, the grand vision, that which explains all, the great oneness, its just delusion. Mystics that are in a grand search for the Truth are in fact searching their own mind, defects, or disturbances in the mind (psychotropic agents) for a well-fit lie. The truism in searches of the truth is that the more one searches, the more one learns how much that they dont know. That is all rational truth.
The truths in mysticism are not the grandious, but the familiar. Those things were the mind knows something (local realism) and the mystical fills in the gap. As the mystic moves beyond his zone of familiarity the more he projects a desire to change the unfamiliar based on the large gaps in his experience. This truth is the little divine essence within, and it is part of the self, the mind-body. My fortunate misfortune is to have been plagued by three health problems which effect the mind through the body. The body affected alters the mind, visual manifestations, many people have these, about 1/3rd of people with migranes have colorful manifestations hours before. These are just little areas of the brain that go from the normal to the affected state. For a mystic, the body should always be the temple of the spirit, defiling the body with mind altering substance also defiles the spirit, the defiled spirit is the projector of Truths. The only true mystics are natural mystics, and there, its probably the action of some defect.
I would for simplicities sake describe the mystical plane as a field of nothingness, like an electron field with without electrons. In that electron field if one searches one will eventually find electrons.
In the same way if one searches the void of the mystical plane one will eventually find structure, a another dimension of being. What one gets out of the experience depends on hiw one interacts with other dimensional structure in the plane. Those structures can become gods, angles, demons depending on the state of the body and desires of the mind. But experiential protrusions into the structures of the mystical plane if taken literally ARE delusions. And the notion of separation of Ego, while this may improve the experiential state, it is still the self that is experiencing the state, and thus the states of local truths identify with the self. Therefore excision of one entirely from ego will also hide the little truths and any divine concepts one does find are those Truth things that create all the contradictions.
Divinity comes from within and only from within. The exoteric divine are pretty much idols, icons, and falseness. Finding the divinity within does not necessarily translate to true gnosis, it could just be a concealed projection of the defective self. Finding true gnosis requires a deeper search into the mind to see ones desires to capitalize a divinity with desired charcteristics, often with an eye on the power being of the divine. Rather than accept the visions, the mystic should probe the visions for flaws and false prophesy, and disgnose how preexisting belief played into those flaws. When these delusions are removed only the solitary divine self is left in a sea of other equally miniscule divine selfs, each with their own little truths. What god(s) are.... are projection from the mystic flawed divinities which others explore and sanctify, over time as codices and peity rules form we have religion. This is simply a deferential replacement of the miniscule divine self with a grandious power divinity. This idea of the oneness of the inner divine is simply an attempt to shape mystics into a unitarian mysticism. When you walk into an Orthodox church, filled with divine icons, the point of the environment is to trigger the mystical, and the point of the icons is to shape the experience so that one self-affirms the inner reality of the divine being. This is no different from the mystical trainings, its all the same mind tricks.
The Sledge Hammer is breakin it down! - Cue Peter Gabriel theme music
That should be his Kabbalist name. הפטיש
I would looove to see an in-depth video on your research process, personal mystical inspirations over time that lead you to this point, and your journey through education. If you have already made a video like this then I need to hunt it down!
Your solid grasp on mystical history and application, and your ability to clearly present, disect, and argue all of this information, is so inspiring! I'm grateful for your work. 🙏❤
As someone who did take the mystical Path in the early '70s, as a devotee of an Indian guru, I received many mystical insights, now referred to as "downloads," that were common to all philosophies no matter what culture they were a part of... and were impossible to articulate. I still receive them when I'm sending Distant Reiki or meditating, but so are others who are on this Path... these energies are accelerating now leading us to an amazing future that will begin in our lifetimes.
Truth without Spirit is MEANINGLESS and this channel is a disgrace to the more esoteric truths, it isn't fit to be called esoterica at all!!! This video wasn't about mystic beliefs whatsoever, it was nonsensical rambling back and forth about names of philosophies and how they supposedly disagree, complete and utter unintelligible BS!!!!!
I am currently studying philosophy at university but i also practice, rather unwillingly, mysticism, what i think a great method is, is to see mysticism and philosophy in a relation of reciprocal justification, solving the problem of a never available first epistemological cause for each other. If one assumes that truth is accessible to the mind as well as the soul, (/ unum in nobis etc) taking ones experience as to be proved independent of it after the fact seems natural to me, also in a certain sense making sure that ones lack of knowledge does not skew ones interpretation of it. That might lead one down the rabbit hole of needing to fundamentally needing to innovate within one of the fields, but if one is careful to not give up the independence of each side, this can have quite strong and positive effects of further growth. Inspiration for philosophy, routes for mysticism.
A largely good example for that would be jung and his red book, but also, in a certain sense euklid, with his platonic unviewable definitions, or proclus henology and cusanus etc.. If then such a unity in justification is achieved, one has an object for epistemological reasoning which is not necessarily unjudgeable.
Also, I found this episode very great and also quite clearly formulated, what a wonderful break from often convoluted texts about the subject. In general i find this channel great as one truly can recognize its efforts of presenting the subject on it own terms, i find it wonderful how the creator not only wishes to be scholarly in his videos (something which even trained academics give up on this platform) but, at least from my perspective, also succeeds in it. Or in short, i am happy that i found this channel, tough sadly i cant support it on patreon yet.
8:58
Ohhhhh
I am a Mystic, and I have wanted to sink my teeth into this conversation ALL MY LIFE!
I would say "ultimate actuality" rather than "ultimate reality". I would say that reality is the meeting of meaning and matter, or the merging of emanation and emergence. Actuality would be where those aspects of reality are separate.
I feel like the reason a 'Universal Set of Standards' seem like an absurd thing to establish, is that even when in the throws of mystical truth and as overwhelming as it feels, we simply cannot escape the dualistic nature of material existence in order to gain the omni-perspective truth. We are only seeing a shadow of truth, cast upon what our momentary selves happen to have on our mind and we, SO SO commonly forget the elasticity of the momentary self, despite knowing very well that any distraction basically kills that iteration of 'you' in the short-term memory sense and the new you has to look around and see if the last guy left some notes to work with.
We see limited things. For limited times. With limited interests. And limited processing.
For any of us to speak in terms of absolute truths is, in my eyes, pure vanity.
I love this guy. Also, I get that algorithms feed us stuff on UA-cam, but all the videos I’m getting that deal with mystical experiences (many, but not all centered on psychedelics)are giving me confidence in talking about my own without feeling cray or even care if people think I’m crazy. I haven’t had an acute experience in quite a while, but i have a “muscle memory” of the insights gained from said experiences. I find that this is grounding me, at least for now, to better bear a few slings and arrows. I am recalling more and more “who I am”, and even teasingly but gently tell people when things get heated, politically or otherwise: “At this point, you don’t know who you are” Am I crazy?
Tell us more
Mystic experiences are real in the way psychodelic trips are real.
Well done. I learned many ways to think about all these concepts. Your perception is well worth my time here. I look forward top hearing your thoughts and will go through the video library to catch what you already have dropped. Thanks.
Amazing clarity of analysis on a very fuzzy and subjective.enterprise. I’m a fan.
I'll need to watch this again a few times to parse out the ideas. I think this may give me some of the language and perspectives I can use to work out the mystical experiences I've had in my life.
All these reasons were why I rejected Ken Wilber's (Integral Inc.) claim that if one does the injunction one will experience the truth. But as you pointed out, that specific claim is a dubious gambit. Indeed, one might also experience their original face that existed prior to the big bang but that experience wouldn't prove anything past personal phenomenology. Any claim about reality past that is unwarranted. And the size of the group experiencing similar noetic experiences doesn't matter as groups of people who experience similar things can still be wrong or even deluded...There would have to be other mechanisms available for verification to justify any claim past mere personal experience or in group claims to privileged access.
I was always wanting answers to these questions... looking forward to watching the rest of this.
Sounds like inspiration to me. Like how the library of babble can glean vast amounts of knowledge out of random re-shuffling; so to the mind gleans inspiration form pondering unlikely combinations of seemingly unrelated thoughts. When the mind finds something that may be of value it shows it to you, as a inspirational revaluation. The brain is pretty chaotic (not exactly stable in memory or interpretation) so reshuffling is pretty plausible. Just as scrying can by chance glean you insights so to can your own mind. Add in the dopamine rush of figuring something out and who knows what other emotions felt during inspiration or revolution and perhaps adding some chaos into the mind via “mystical drugs”, and a pretty good grasp of the mystical experience can be grasped. Knowetic: weather it was Eisenstein’s revolution of a man falling off a roof inspiring relativity, or the Greek muses; seems like the minds inspiration mechanism. Helps too making a conceptual mottle to see the invisible forces of the world are even more.
Does it mean all mystical experiences are inherently right; I’d say of course not. But it doesn’t mean it is inherently wrong either.
If one claims something is true weather it be mystic or secular, the rubber got to meet the road at some point for testing. Otherwise unfalsifiable is unverifiable and pretty much non-useful as If it was able to bring verifiable results of following the “truth” it would be able to be measured.
The chief difficulty in transcribing mystical-noetic states from their original ultra-conscious domain into a proto-conscious idiom of everyday (such as human language and reason) is just that the nous perceives something that is unrelatable and untranslatable in the idiom of the other five sense upon which we base our vocabulary. The nous is unique of perception designed to interact with other worlds and act as a bridge between this world and those. So, it's like trying to describe colors to a person born blind, a person who can only conceptualize ideas and images in terms of auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile metaphors.
This is why music so exceeds philosophy in its ability to limn the feeling of mystical-noetic awareness. Music transcends the rational bounds of language, not to mention the fact that the medium of sound - in its defiance of discourse - most closely approximates the ethereal, transrational quality of the realm from which mystical experience originate.
I'm new to your channel. Thanks for posting as Mysticism is an important topic.
Yes, the current state of Philosophy in the Academy is still unfortunately nowhere near to helping us understand what's going on. While different mystical experiences do vary based on cultural differences, the main "flaw" in Philosophy, IMO, is that it doesn't include the idea of "Consciousness" and specifically that it approaches experience only thru "Ratio". Ironically, there is no real discussion of the technique & praxis of mystics, and it doesn't help that much of it is shrouded by the mytics themselves!
Only the mystic can access "his/her organ of mystical sensation, "and this has more to do with differences in the capacity for 'perceptual attunement.' However, even allowing for the differences in technique in achieving the vision, the ultimate mystery is related to the concept of a higher mind, if you will, and the issue of Consciousness (which is not a topic of study other than thru Neuroscience at this time). In a current world view where most folks only accept that which is 'real'/concrete/external and the scientific perspective rules (the 'everything in the universe is dead' and only humans have higher consciousness), it is no wonder that the personal noesis of a mystic is so difficult to relay.
It is extremely important to understand how the concept of "Intellectus" was distorted especially after the Middle Ages. This is something that is quite beautifully discussed by Seyd Hossain Nasr, a prominent Traditionalist, in his first Gifford Lecture (read his Knowledge & The Sacred or check out his Consciousness lecture on UA-cam). Yes, Traditionalist history does include fascist thinkers (Evola specifically comes to mind) but there's a lot there that is helpful to the seeker and which goes along way to understanding the split between "black box" mystical experience and non-mystics. A non-mystic will not accept the veridicality of a mystic's experience because their experience of Reality is completely different, but I feel that if the general populace understood the importance of the concept of Intellectus, it could go a long way to dealing with this issue. Of course, the mystery will remain, but at least the possibility for enlightenment would be greatly improved.
I'd love to see you discuss the topic of Intellectus in a followup vlog.
You are wearing out my dictionary tonight. lol.
@Sloth910 sadly or sometimes hilariously it’s autogenerated, so it comes out with some doozies. My partner has a profound hearing loss. It’s so frustrating when creators don’t at least leave the option for auto generated, but in reality having someone do the subtitles professionally would help gain a greater audience. It would reach those with hearing issues, as well as auditory and language processing disorders.
I used to own a transcription company until nafta insured I couldn’t compete with the fees companies in India were offering, so I closed my business, but I’d love to do this for content creators.
@@TheFrugalMombot
Roomy.
🤭
I’ve had several life changing spiritual experiences. The most recent ones did not wear off. They were all revolving around specific spiritual information that became a irreversible aspect of my being. The first one was only a small ping in my chest followed by an ability to love myself perfectly. Second and third revolves around hermetic principles and those were written permanently in my being. The fourth concerned the idea of incarnating from another planet to earth, this one made the most positive change. After that I had lesser experiences from meditation and astral projection practices.
The Three Teachers of Truth: the work, the master and the experience. I personally believe all three are the only ways to Truth; Experience being chief to the two prior.
If, as many have expressed, a mystical experience sets in motion, a passion, energized by desire, for further exploration of self-awareness and curiosity of an ecological interconnectedness for growth (expansion) then why does it matter (ultimately) what modality (or belief system) the mystical experiences come from? Are we seeking to prove the "right" origins of a mystical experience or might we benefit individually and collectedly if we foster and nurture those experiences (regardless of modality or system)?
Great comment! Not sure why this wasn't part of the discussion. When I have a personal mystical experience I never view it as applying to others, only to my own path and personal evolution.
I have so many of these experiences, one of let me explicitly explain, do not leave this place, the cause was not explained, but the meaning of the unexplained remains impeded in the logic of humain indiscrepences.... The featurete of todays society...
My idea(from my own experiences and my understandings) is that when they speak of “ultimate reality” the ideas are filtered in a sense by the experiencer(making it potent and clear for the experiencer, and in a way requiring more reflective understanding to others)
And to the idea of conflicting ideas (again they come from a time, place, and set of beliefs) but also they invite a paradoxical thinking
Like when I say everything’s separate, and everything is one thing
It invites an understanding that encompasses both such as that everything has some essence that itself is the same in all, such as consciousness, yet we view things as separate
So the oneness and division are reconciled more fully though “this and that” instead of “this or that”
(And on the dual vs one idea, it invites almost an idea of gradients such as seeing masc and fem as representations of the same idea of gender, and you can move between them-so it’s both one gender and the 2 “main” genders - or 1(nonmoral) way radiating between 2(good and evil) : so like nothings wrong in a universal sense but something could be wrong or right to an individual or group)
Thank you, that was fascinating and incredibly helpful. Your generosity is much appreciated, subscribed!