“Mystical experience”. What does it mean?
What follows is speculation. In Wikipedia there are some pointers of one subcategory of this experience.
That is an encyclopedic account. What follows is more of a draft of existential account.
We may think of human experience in terms of mental, emotional and physical events and sensations. But there is the “fourth element” too: memory. Some say these four correspond to the ancient four basic elements: earth, air, water and fire. I think that needs to be understood in the sense of different planes of being. Mental, emotional, memory and physical aspects of being seem to be like four corners of being a human.
That memory would correspond with fire is less obvious than emotions corresponding with water or air corresponding with metal activity. In addition to immediate memory that is easily accessible, we have all the stuff in the subconscious and unconscious.
When the ancient saying declared: “Man know thyself”? I believe this has to do a lot with memory. If you remember everything: everything in your subconscious and unconscious is lucid and accessible, what can remain hidden? What can remain unknown about reality of self?
Mystical experience may be one of the side-effects of mysticism but not perhaps the final goal. Final goal is clear in all mysticism in all mystical traditions of the world: union with God. But that is something quite transcendent, something that looks just simply (or at least almost) unattainable by definition in paper. I suspect that is because of our concepts of man and God, Christianity has done a through job in drawing definite demarcation line between man and God even if there are many saints and mystics that talk in those terms of union. And yet paradoxically Christian doctrines and scriptures are filled with ideas that suggest that this union would be not only attainable but also something to be sought after. Our culture seems to be ambiguous as far as theological doctrine goes on this matter. On the other hand (to paint a very simplistic caricature) there is that idea that you only need to mentally accept a sentence or two as a “truth” that you mentally commit to as your belief and you will be “saved” and that’s that – “a done deal” – and on the other hand the very fabric of Christian religion is filled with ideas that suggest something else is at play.
To know oneself completely would require access to the subconscious or “super consciousness”, perhaps they are the two sides of the same, or the flip sides of the same? Or maybe this dualism is something that needs to be examined? But if memory is corresponding with fire as it is “esoterically” suggested, that would mean experience of fire, “trial by fire“? baptism of fire? That same experience that was in the burning bush metaphorically speaking?
I suppose very straightforward definition for mystical experience whether it is “ecstatic” or not is: experience of God.
It is not – I would submit – foremost an emotional experience (although love as devotion in bhakti yoga may be also something that resonates emotionally), it is not I would also venture to suggest an intellectual experience (although mediation and jnana yoga are mental activities certainly), but it is the experience of spiritual fire that may also be physical experience.
Some say it is the purpose of life: to be that fire, to be one with that fire, ultimately. It is a bit “incendiary” existentially speaking. And yet that bush was not consumed.