This question has been on my mind lately.
That we even talk about certain experiences being spiritual reveals a mark of otherness. For most of us, only rare moments earn the denomination. Yet one of the most consistent claims proceeding from examinations of such experiences is the fundamentally spiritual nature of total reality, the oneness of all that is.
I’d like to better understand what leads me, you, he or she, to designate an experience spiritual. What are the qualities of that experience that separate it from non-spiritual experiences?
Further, within the class of spiritual experiences, are there differences? Are some experiences more spiritual than others? Are there different types of spiritual experience?
When first confronted with this line of inquiry, many understandably balk. They anticipate a dystopia of ranked ineffables and the inevitable hierarchies that would proceed. “I’ve had fourteen documented level 6 spiritual experiences, you’ve barely had three level fives, so I think we’ll go with my idea.” Imagine a militaristic organization with the Dalai Lamas as a five star general overseeing an army of average materialists who occasionally experience bliss during a close football game.
Such anxieties, and the lack of faith they reveal, shouldn’t dissuade us. If spiritual experiences are real, they will resist colonization by such thinking. Indeed, they may offer us the very qualities and criteria needed to relegate this type of thinking to its proper place (a reverse colonization, like Greek gods in Rome).
A proper examination of what constitutes spiritual experiences, if the consistencies of the reports are any indication, may reveal a reality that palimpsests the typical flatland of contemporary western ontology.
But that’s jumping ahead.
First, the question remains: what constitutes a spiritual experience?
Hi Chris,
This is a complex subject. I’ll give my view in a very succinct fashion.
Annie Besant once said that the essence of spirituality is “the ability to intuit the unity of all life.” In like manner, HPB said that “spirituality is not what we understand by the words ‘virtue’ or ‘goodness’. It is the power of perceiving formless, spiritual essences”, without being deluded by the gross aspect of the manifested world.
I think a genuine spiritual experience has nothing to do with visions, particular sensations, ideas, etc. It is one where our sense of personal “I” is weakened, if not vanished. That weakening, however, is not product of some kind of psychological pathology, reversion, etc., but a conscious perception of that Unity which transcends the individual.
In other words (paraphrasing J. Krishnamurti), there is spiritual experience when the self is not.
Pablo, I love that last line: “there is spiritual experience when the self is not”.
And the distinctions you mention are crucial as well. I can lose myself though sex, drugs, music, intense emotions, etc., but those experiences don’t include a conscious experience of unity. I may experience oneness, but it is unconscious and fleeting.
I’m wondering now if this can also provide us with a key to discriminating between spiritual experiences. How wide the sense of unity stretches, how long the perception lasts, how deep it touches . . . these can all be used to critically reflect on the nature of our own experiences and those of others.
I think your point about hierarchies not really working when talking about this is really good. It’s not really about the ‘level’ of the spiritual experience, but about the purity of it. Like cleaning a window. It could be dirty in all kinds of ways (oil, sand, paint), but ultimately what matters is whether you can look through it with clarity to see a beautiful view. Or perhaps even: whether you can see yourself and others with clarity – so that helping them or enjoying their company is simple and true.