Does Mystical Experience Give Access to Reality?

Does Mystical Experience Give Access to Reality?

by Paul Marshall

Mystical experiences can bring an overwhelming sense that deeper realities have been contacted or that the everyday world has been apprehended as it truly is. Philosophical study of the experiences has not given much attention to their metaphysical significance, especially to the insights they may offer on fundamental issues such as the nature of reality, self, consciousness, and time. There are reasons for the neglect, and in the present article I consider two major theoretical obstacles to finding metaphysical significance in the experiences: a radical form of contextualism and a reductionist approach to neuroscience. With these obstacles addressed, there is room to consider how mystical experience and metaphysics can be brought into dialogue, a task facilitated by the contemporary resurgence of interest in alternatives to materialist metaphysics and a renewed interest in mystical experience encouraged by psychedelic research.

Mystical Experience and Metaphysics

Paul Marshall

In Chapter 2 of Beyond Physicalism, I suggest that mystical experience, if a source of genuine metaphysical insight, can shed light on a variety of extraordinary phenomena, including psi and near-death experience, as well as the mystery that is ordinary consciousness. It is striking that mystics are often left with the conviction that they came into contact with deeper realities during their experiences, and if their convictions are warranted, then the study of mystical experience could be highly informative, providing insights that will enrich metaphysical theorizing.

Admittedly, the kind of inquiry I undertake in the chapter faces difficulties, some of which are
noted there. Here I merely wish to draw attention to two areas of concern, a mistrust of metaphysics that impedes such inquiry and a challenge posed by the lack of metaphysical consensus among mystical traditions. Although supposedly informed by mystical insights, these traditions can have significantly different teachings about the nature of reality, which may suggest that mystical disclosures do not inevitably lead to similar understandings. In addressing the matter, I run through a variety of positions on mystical experience, mystical doctrine, and their relation. It will become clear that only a few of the positions are compatible with the idea that mystical experience can provide genuine insights into the nature of reality.

Does Mystical Experience Give Access to Reality?

by Paul Marshall

It depends on the experience.  Some might give access to reality, some might not.


One thing I have noticed in my discussions with Buddhist meditators is that it's much like some people who take hallucingenic drugs think they are experiencing alternate realities or dimensions, while other people think they are just having hallucinations.

Mystical experiences are like that too. So it depends on the experiencer as well.

Specifically, enlightenment, realizing that there isn't a self separate from the aggregates (unconscious phenomenon that produce thoughts, emotions, impulses, sensory experience, etc which arise into consciousness only after they are fully formed) is like that. Some people experience it and it is earth shaking, other people experience it and think "meh, some weird brain state". Unfortunately the people who think it's earth shaking are motivated to write the books and proselytize, the "meh" folks (who may be in the majority) are left wondering when they are going experience it when they have already done so. This is a big failure of the Buddhist teachers, authors, and podcasters where the mainstream view of enlightenment is extremely misleading to the point of being harmful to many people.

Specifically, enlightenment, realizing that there isn't a self separate from the aggregates (unconscious phenomenon that produce thoughts, emotions, impulses, sensory experience, etc which arise into consciousness only after they are fully formed) is like that. Some people experience it and it is earth shaking, other people experience it and think "meh, some weird brain state". Unfortunately the people who think it's earth shaking are motivated to write the books and proselytize, the "meh" folks (who may be in the majority) are left wondering when they are going experience it when they have already done so. This is a big failure of the Buddhist teachers, authors, and podcasters where the mainstream view of enlightenment is extremely misleading to the point of being harmful to many people.

The Buddhist notion of no-self is ultimately and inherently self-defeating when it comes to dealing with suffering. If there is no self, then logically there is no-one suffering, therefore suffering doesn't matter. I'm reminded far too much of Behaviourism...

It is illogical for the Buddhist aggregates to even exist ~ as they themselves are illusions. How can illusions produce any sort of existence that can be experienced as real, if it's all just an illusion? I don't think any such Buddhists know what actually illusions are ~ mistaken perceptions of reality, always based on something real. Like shadows being cast that might make you think that there's a predator or something, because you've encountered one in the past.

Genuine enlightenment is simply a subjective thing that differs for each individual ~ not some objective outcome which results in self-obliteration.

The Buddhist notion of no-self is ultimately and inherently self-defeating when it comes to dealing with suffering. If there is no self, then logically there is no-one suffering, therefore suffering doesn't matter. I'm reminded far too much of Behaviourism...

It is illogical for the Buddhist aggregates to even exist ~ as they themselves are illusions. How can illusions produce any sort of existence that can be experienced as real, if it's all just an illusion? I don't think any such Buddhists know what actually illusions are ~ mistaken perceptions of reality, always based on something real. Like shadows being cast that might make you think that there's a predator or something, because you've encountered one in the past.

Genuine enlightenment is simply a subjective thing that differs for each individual ~ not some objective outcome which results in self-obliteration.

Yeah this actually ended up being a fatal, IMO, objection to Whitehead's idea that a Person could just be a continual succession of Occasions - a Panpsychism across time rather than space ->

More recently, the personalist philosopher, Peter Bertocci, has raised similar complaints against the process view of the self. (31) In an analysis of Hartshorne's defense of the Whiteheadian-Buddhist view of the self, Bertocci appealed to Borden Parker Bowne’s famous dictum that "there can be no succession of experiences without the experience of succession," (32) and questioned how there could be unity in a linear sequence without a self-identifying experient.

I think we can see the issue with these varied attempts at reducing the Person whether that's reductionism - to Mind or Matter,  denial of endurance across time or a denial that a Person exists in some kind of Present-tense.

When we regard the Person as they genuinely are via introspection, it is very hard to see how many supposed metaphysics can genuinely work.

Not only that, but it is difficult to see how Persons are created or destroyed.

Which aligns with the evidence of Personal Survival, for which - besides [outright denial] - there is no other good way to interpret other than the fact that Persons continue even after their current biological embodiment ceases:

As Edwards notes,

the real difference between an actual entity [God] which concresces continuously and a society of actual entities [humans] which concresces discontinuously is that the experiences and activities of the former are not interrupted, whereas the experiences and activities of the latter are interrupted. (36)

When this conclusion is wedded to the fact that for Whitehead, the epochal theory of time was a cosmological rather than a metaphysical one, Edwards seizes the open window of opportunity to suggest that it is not only conceivable but empirically justifiable to view human selfhood also as an actual entity (analogous then to God) rather than a society of actual occasions. In support of his position, Edwards appeals again to human experience:

Human experience and self-activity is the self-experience of a continuously existing acting entity with continuous immediacy of self-enjoyment, significance for itself, subjective aims, subjective forms, satisfactions, synthetic experiencing and self-creativity. We exist and do our thing without sputtering in and out of existence every fraction of a second. (37)

"there can be no succession of experiences without the experience of succession," (32) and questioned how there could be unity in a linear sequence without a self-identifying experient.

What's interesting about this is that to be aware of Time you have to be aware of change - and thus some aspect of your awareness is changing - while also having part of your Mind be unchanging.

This essay, though from a specifically Idealist perspective, does a great job explaining this. It's actually how I first understood that the Mind's relation to Time was something nothing "physical" could perform.

Also shows how a Person-as-Monad could be changeless in substance but changing in its qualities, through a Person's experiencing of Time via their own First Person PoV.

Yet another reason to reject Physicalism, if nothing else.

Yeah this actually ended up being a fatal, IMO, objection to Whitehead's idea that a Person could just be a continual succession of Occasions - a Panpsychism across time rather than space ->

So Whitehead didn't believe in a unitary, unchanging self within which multiplicious continuous change happens?

I think we can see the issue with these varied attempts at reducing the Person whether that's reductionism - to Mind or Matter,  denial of endurance across time or a denial that a Person exists in some kind of Present-tense.

Indeed ~ if anything, evidence from parapsychology demonstrates that the Person (in an incarnate sense) is a microcosm within the macrocosm of a Soul. Yet, even the Person is not a reduction of a Soul ~ it is clear, defined aspect within a Soul that reincarnates across time and space. The Person is not observed to be obliterated either ~ even at death, that same Person continues into another incarnation, at some point. My own experiences with parallel incarnations seems to further cement this ~ each parallel incarnation has their own progression of incarnations and memories, that never overlapped in any way until I connected to them. Even now, there is no overlap unless my mind is in a state where it reaches out to them, the overlap being only temporary.

When we regard the Person as they genuinely are via introspection, it is very hard to see how many supposed metaphysics can genuinely work.

Yeah, introspection calls many models into question. Many of these models seem to have arrived out of either scientistic thinking, overly intellectual thinking, or shallow analyses of the nature of the senses and mind not clearly understood.

Many better models also get completely overlooked ~ Jung's models of the psyche, Sheldrake's morphic fields, Faggin's minds-as-quantum-fields, the Shamanic and Animist models of reality. Shamanism in particular gets overlooked in the West, despite being thousands of years old, ripe with a vast history of tradition that has been deepened and widened by each new generation. The Shamanic worldview is defined through raw experience of trance states and journeying into the higher realms, not through intellect.

Not only that, but it is difficult to see how Persons are created or destroyed.

They all have strange problems in that they proclaim to explain the Person, yet can never define how a Person can even come into being in the first place. Though perhaps Idealism and Neutral Monism have the least issues here, as mind and / or a neutral substance containing mental potentials are presumed as part of the model. Persons are never created in these models ~ they have always existed in some form, only changing form or nature over time.

Which aligns with the evidence of Personal Survival, for which - besides [outright denial] - there is no other good way to interpret other than the fact that Persons continue even after their current biological embodiment ceases:

Indeed ~ if we go throughout life as a continuous entity, a microcosmic ground of being in which only what changes is the contents on that ground, then it is illogical to assert that we were created or that we can be destroyed.

If it is true physically that energy can never be destroyed, only changing form, then mentally, the same must logically be true of the metaphorical energy of the mind ~ it must simply go somewhere else, rather than being snuffed to nothing like a light being turned off.

And this holds, with NDEs, with reincarnation and past-life memories, with contact with deceased loved ones through mediumship, NDEs and dreams and such. Even pets are encountered in some NDEs ~ some swear up and down that their new pet is a reincarnation of an old pet that died, having the same personality quirks and even behaviours like their old pet that were never explicitly taught.

Some have even stated that their deceased pets have hung around as ghosts, unable to let go and move on. Ghost cats being a common one. Some ghost dogs too from memory.

On that note... is there mediumship around deceased pets?

So Whitehead didn't believe in a unitary, unchanging self within which multiplicious continuous change happens?


Indeed ~ if anything, evidence from parapsychology demonstrates that the Person (in an incarnate sense) is a microcosm within the macrocosm of a Soul. Yet, even the Person is not a reduction of a Soul ~ it is clear, defined aspect within a Soul that reincarnates across time and space. The Person is not observed to be obliterated either ~ even at death, that same Person continues into another incarnation, at some point. My own experiences with parallel incarnations seems to further cement this ~ each parallel incarnation has their own progression of incarnations and memories, that never overlapped in any way until I connected to them. Even now, there is no overlap unless my mind is in a state where it reaches out to them, the overlap being only temporary.


Yeah, introspection calls many models into question. Many of these models seem to have arrived out of either scientistic thinking, overly intellectual thinking, or shallow analyses of the nature of the senses and mind not clearly understood.

Many better models also get completely overlooked ~ Jung's models of the psyche, Sheldrake's morphic fields, Faggin's minds-as-quantum-fields, the Shamanic and Animist models of reality. Shamanism in particular gets overlooked in the West, despite being thousands of years old, ripe with a vast history of tradition that has been deepened and widened by each new generation. The Shamanic worldview is defined through raw experience of trance states and journeying into the higher realms, not through intellect.


They all have strange problems in that they proclaim to explain the Person, yet can never define how a Person can even come into being in the first place. Though perhaps Idealism and Neutral Monism have the least issues here, as mind and / or a neutral substance containing mental potentials are presumed as part of the model. Persons are never created in these models ~ they have always existed in some form, only changing form or nature over time.


Indeed ~ if we go throughout life as a continuous entity, a microcosmic ground of being in which only what changes is the contents on that ground, then it is illogical to assert that we were created or that we can be destroyed.

If it is true physically that energy can never be destroyed, only changing form, then mentally, the same must logically be true of the metaphorical energy of the mind ~ it must simply go somewhere else, rather than being snuffed to nothing like a light being turned off.

And this holds, with NDEs, with reincarnation and past-life memories, with contact with deceased loved ones through mediumship, NDEs and dreams and such. Even pets are encountered in some NDEs ~ some swear up and down that their new pet is a reincarnation of an old pet that died, having the same personality quirks and even behaviours like their old pet that were never explicitly taught.

Some have even stated that their deceased pets have hung around as ghosts, unable to let go and move on. Ghost cats being a common one. Some ghost dogs too from memory.

On that note... is there mediumship around deceased pets?

Apparently Whitehead shared the view of Hume & some Buddhists that the Self is a bundle of sorts. I think the issue as we note is observing the bundle leaves out the Person doing the observing.

As I’ve never sensed any parallel incarnations, I can’t say too much about them heh…but I would agree that the Cosmic soul contains embodiments, or this is at least one way to solve the question of how to reconcile the Mundane Sciences with Psi evidence [mental causation across time & space], and those two with Survival evidence. The other option being Idealism, though IMO the Cosmically Immense Soul idea has less issues…I could be wrong though and it’s just I haven’t had the issues pointed out to me yet…

I am fine with variations of many “Isms” but I think some of these ignore some aspect of a Person’s capacity such as awareness of Time’s passage, volition, aboutness of thoughts & conceptual thoughts, use of Reason, etc. These are things that cannot be added up from smaller bits of thought, negating Panpsychism. Nor is Pure Awareness able to Reason or have Thoughts about anything, negating Absolute Idealism. 

Beyond that there seems to be a certain fear of blasphemy and/or adherence to dogma marking other philosophies. So God can destroy souls, even though we can’t really grasp what this means. We can’t have free will because that means God doesn’t have perfect knowledge of the future. And so on. This isn’t to say all religious people are like this, I once took a class from a Catholic priest who was very into Teilhard and he was willing to forgo a lot of these types of limiting ideas.

I do like a lot of the Shamanic views, I have friends who’ve undergone journeys of ayahuasca and talked to some Indigenous peoples about their views. I would like to believe just as our embodiment is a localized attention of our Cosmically Immense Soul so to might “physical” objects at least sometimes become home to a spirit. I haven’t thought about this too much metaphysically but as you say the insights might be more direct. Not everything can be learned just by sitting around and thinking heh…

I might be losing track of what is being brought up where, heh, but I recall you mentioning shared dreams of the dead. I think this is one piece of Survival evidence that seems to very much suggest Idealism, though it could also be that if Souls are as large as Reality - or at least several sub-set realities of the Super Set - the attention of the living and the dead could meet in a spiritual realm. 

After watching the Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue on Energy I feel as if mental energy and physical energy are not necessarily different. Even the secularist Dierdot admitted he thought matter had conscious aspects and Materialism didn’t make sense, instead it was just a useful weapon against the Church. (See also my sig heh.)

Regarding mediums communicating with pets, I feel like it has happened but not in any formal research setting. As you say there are definitely experiences people have had with visitation/communication from dead pets.

Apparently Whitehead shared the view of Hume & some Buddhists that the Self is a bundle of sorts. I think the issue as we note is observing the bundle leaves out the Person doing the observing.

Because the Self is non-phenomenological, they mistakenly conclude that there is actually nothing there. Even though it should be clear with a little bit of introspection that there is a Self that is being affected by mental contents, by emotions, that has a continuous sense of evolving existence. It doesn't seem to occur to them that particular experiences and memories are always linked to a particular individual. (Putting aside for the moment the potential of sharing them through telepathy.)

As I’ve never sensed any parallel incarnations, I can’t say too much about them heh…but I would agree that the Cosmic soul contains embodiments, or this is at least one way to solve the question of how to reconcile the Mundane Sciences with Psi evidence [mental causation across time & space], and those two with Survival evidence. The other option being Idealism, though IMO the Cosmically Immense Soul idea has less issues…I could be wrong though and it’s just I haven’t had the issues pointed out to me yet…

Idealism in the sense of Absolute and Objective Idealism does have some particular issues, I agree. It doesn't really account for Cosmically Immense Soul/s that are a superset of the individual as known. It would seem that many proponents either don't understand NDE, OBEs, mediumship, psychic evidence in general, or just didn't know about them.

Stuff like a Cosmically Immense Soul having multiple embodied aspects is perhaps incomprehensible for Idealism in general. Nothing in Idealism seems to acknowledge the possibility of survival ~ even if the existence of psychic phenomena have no conflict with the model.

I am fine with variations of many “Isms” but I think some of these ignore some aspect of a Person’s capacity such as awareness of Time’s passage, volition, aboutness of thoughts & conceptual thoughts, use of Reason, etc. These are things that cannot be added up from smaller bits of thought, negating Panpsychism. Nor is Pure Awareness able to Reason or have Thoughts about anything, negating Absolute Idealism. 

Yeah, a Pure Awareness merely becomes a passive superset that cannot act or do anything. The ability for a mind to go through mystical experiences apparently encompassing the universe itself entirely negates Panpsychism, because it shouldn't be possible in such a model ~ the composite-consciousness is inherently limited by its consciousness-particles in scope and ability.

Beyond that there seems to be a certain fear of blasphemy and/or adherence to dogma marking other philosophies. So God can destroy souls, even though we can’t really grasp what this means. We can’t have free will because that means God doesn’t have perfect knowledge of the future. And so on. This isn’t to say all religious people are like this, I once took a class from a Catholic priest who was very into Teilhard and he was willing to forgo a lot of these types of limiting ideas.

At least one possibility I saw floated allowing the co-existence of free will and God's perfect knowledge of the future, is that there are infinite possibilities, infinite threads, the way something, anything, could have happened and might happen, so God knows about every single possible set of outcomes, yet because of free will, God cannot know in advance precisely what path we will ultimately choose ~ some choices might be predictable, others may happen on a whim.

But all of that depends on the idea of God having, basically, a mind that judges, decides, thinks like a human ~ basically, ideas being filtered through religion's human-like, thus limiting conceptions of God.

I do like a lot of the Shamanic views, I have friends who’ve undergone journeys of ayahuasca and talked to some Indigenous peoples about their views. I would like to believe just as our embodiment is a localized attention of our Cosmically Immense Soul so to might “physical” objects at least sometimes become home to a spirit. I haven’t thought about this too much metaphysically but as you say the insights might be more direct. Not everything can be learned just by sitting around and thinking heh…

Agreed. If you think about it, are biological beings not a sort of object that is home to a spirit, so to speak? Just in a very particular sense, where the object is molded and shaped over time. A living object animated by the life of the spirit ~ well, our astral nature, aura, or whatever you want to call the subtle body.

I might be losing track of what is being brought up where, heh, but I recall you mentioning shared dreams of the dead. I think this is one piece of Survival evidence that seems to very much suggest Idealism, though it could also be that if Souls are as large as Reality - or at least several sub-set realities of the Super Set - the attention of the living and the dead could meet in a spiritual realm. 

That's what also seems to happen in NDEs, beyond merely dreams of the deceased visiting to give comfort or say goodbye or the like.

After watching the Sheldrake-Vernon Dialogue on Energy I feel as if mental energy and physical energy are not necessarily different. Even the secularist Dierdot admitted he thought matter had conscious aspects and Materialism didn’t make sense, instead it was just a useful weapon against the Church. (See also my sig heh.)

A nice quote that I think outlines this in an interesting way:

Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather.
~ Bill Hicks

And then there were Nikola Tesla's views, in which he believed that the physical was reducible to energy, frequency, and vibration:

https://science-is-fascinating.blogspot....verse.html

Regarding mediums communicating with pets, I feel like it has happened but not in any formal research setting. As you say there are definitely experiences people have had with visitation/communication from dead pets.

There are so-called pet-whispers who are able to intuitively pick up messages from people's pets, communicating their thoughts and wants to their human companions. So that might be where the pet-medium thing came from. It seems to be sort of part of the same skill-set, in a way... psychic abilities do tend to have some amount of overlap ~ or at least, skill in one psychic ability tends to mean you might have also weaker forms of others.

...

My reply is admittedly out of order, I do quote parts of your post but I thought this might actually be more clear in writing it up ->

Tesla's views are interesting, though AFAICTell he seems more a Physicalist? Though it does seem to get a bit confusing, in that he wanted humanity to be freed from "material fetters".

I do think there is some interesting literature about cases where someone is convinced of an animal's Survival. This would be in accordance with how I think of animals and plants as well, and given the research into their problem solving ability - admittedly more of that on the animal side - it seems to me the capacity of the soul for Reason / Thought / Feeling differs only in degree [within its current biological embodiment]...and sometimes not even that as in the case of octopus cities.

My guess is that each of our Cosmically Immense Souls are - ideally by choice, but possibly to some degree by force - localized in attention to embodiment yet still retain some awareness of our True Nature. So Psi would work, in some sense, by this overlap in Mind/Soul-as-field. 

I think this helps make sense of mystic experiences where it seems one can slip into the embodiment of another entity (excerpts from Beyond Physicalism):

St. Benedict of Nursia was once deep in prayer at the monastery of Monte Cassino when an extraordinary light appeared to him. It was nighttime, and the monks were sound asleep. Only Benedict was awake, keeping vigil high in the tower that he used as his quarters. As Benedict stood by a window and prayed to God, a great light flashed out from above and dispelled the darkness. But this was no ordinary radiance: it was brighter than the light of day and brought together the created world in its entirety, both heaven and earth. The cosmic vision, which nowadays would attract the label “mystical,” was joined by a more specific, “clairvoyant” perception. Gazing intently into the light, Benedict discerned what he took to be the soul of his friend Germanus, Bishop of Capua, carried aloft in a fiery sphere by angels. Benedict had a messenger sent to Capua, and it was found that at the time of the vision the Bishop had passed away.

Here we see how Psi is facilitated through the mystic vision of God (or rather one's own?) Cosmic Immensity.

And when you write:

Agreed. If you think about it, are biological beings not a sort of object that is home to a spirit, so to speak? Just in a very particular sense, where the object is molded and shaped over time. A living object animated by the life of the spirit ~ well, our astral nature, aura, or whatever you want to call the subtle body.

This parallels a different kind of vision:

There appears to be a link between mystical knowing and unity. Poet and scholar Kathleen Raine (1975) was gazing at a hyacinth on her writing desk when the following occurred:

I found that I was no longer looking at it, but was it; a distinct, indescribable, but in no way vague, still less emotional, shift of consciousness into the plant itself. Or rather I and the plant were one and indistinguishable; as if the plant were a part of my consciousness. I dared scarcely to breathe, held in a kind of fine attention in which I could sense the very flow of life in the cells. I was not perceiving the flower but living it. I was aware of the life of the plant as a slow flow or circulation of a vital current of liquid light of the utmost purity. (p. 119)

Although reminiscent of some clairvoyant perceptions, the experience has a mystical feel as a result of its unitive quality, and, interestingly, the insights into structure and process are associated with the unity, the plant being a “part” of Raine’s consciousness. Raine has a special awareness of the plant by being or living it, not by perceiving it as an external observer. It is mystical knowledge by identity (Forman, 1999, pp. 109–127).

I would even compare this to the lesser identification we might feel while watching someone else play a video game, a now popular past time that some gamers have built careers off of it. It seems we can identify with a pixelated character not just when we play the game but even when watching someone else play it. So this kind of mystical experience would be us being able - and hopefully allowed by invitation / affirmative consent! - to experience the embodiment of another body currently serving as the localized attention of another Cosmic Soul.

And as previously mentioned, switching "avatars" as a vehicle for embodied experience within a particular game world - like in the old (original?) MMO Ultimate Online where "dying" meant you become a ghost who can be resurrected back into your actual body with the help of players who are still "alive" in the game. This would be akin to shifting your attention into the subtle body. I think this also helps explain silver cords and other string like "reminders" which are sometimes present and sometimes absent from an OOBE. The cord/strings are a visualization of the attachment to a biological body, rather than something metaphysically actual. In the same way one person might tie a string to their finger, another might keep a notepad, etc.

I also think that maybe this idea of a Cosmically Immense Soul could explain the mystical visions such as the one Paul Marshall mentioned in the paper posted above, Does Mystical Experience Give Access to Reality? ->

I was standing among pine trees, looking out at the sky when, suddenly, ‘the heavens opened’ as it were, and caught me up. I was swept up and out of myself altogether, into a flood of white Glory. I had no sense of time or place. The ecstasy was terrific while it lasted. It could have lasted only a minute or two. It went as suddenly as it came. I found myself bathed with tears, but they were tears of joy. I felt ONE with everything and everybody; and somehow I knew that what I had experienced was Reality, and that Reality is Perfection.

Here we are identified with the totality of our Cosmically Immense Soul. But this shouldn't be mistaken as overrunning the identities of other such Souls which is where I would say varied Idealisms go off the rails, so to speak. If we liken the Cosmic Souls to fields then there is room for each of us to be equally immense. As noted by Marshall re: a young man's experience:

On waking, the young man felt that ordinary existence was dreamlike in comparison: “the experience was one of such infinitely enriched and awakened consciousness that earthly existence seemed a mere dream in comparison with it,” a common feeling in the aftermath of the more intense experiences, which can leave feelings of alienation and depression, if only temporarily (Marshall 2005, p. 104).4 However, the thrust of the young man’s account is not so much to dismiss ordinary consciousness and its associated ego-states as “mere illusion” but to recognize that they are just a tiny part of a much greater whole, “a drop of water in a mighty ocean.” The illusion is to take everyday existence as all there is.

It is akin to the Bill Hicks quote you mentioned - I loved that the first time I heard it, IIRC as an epigraph to a TOOL song heh - yet we are not just "One Consciousness". It would be more akin to a Priority Monism, where the "priority" is given to the Many who are still united and grounded in the One.

Regarding the part where you say:

Yeah, a Pure Awareness merely becomes a passive superset that cannot act or do anything. The ability for a mind to go through mystical experiences apparently encompassing the universe itself entirely negates Panpsychism, because it shouldn't be possible in such a model ~ the composite-consciousness is inherently limited by its consciousness-particles in scope and ability.

Interestingly enough Bergson described this kind of Universal Awareness as a "Pure Perception" yet he distinguished this from Reflection and thought this kind of Perception would not leave us with much to do or reflect on. Perhaps this is why we are drawn to incarnation as bodies over & over?

It could also be that the same continual, often subconscious feedback we get to assure our current embodiment - as per Beischel - is suddenly applied to the vastness of a Cosmically Immense Soul. This would be different than the passive, inactive Perception Bergson felt would not be active. Of course Bergson himself could be seen as a mystic in his own way, given his belief:

“...Men do not sufficiently realize that their future is in their own hands. Theirs is the task of determining first of all whether they want to go on living or not. Theirs is the responsibility, then, for deciding if they want merely to live,

or intend to make just the extra effort required for fulfilling, even on this refractory planet, the essential function of the universe, which is a machine for the making of gods.”

Regarding Idealism, I would prefer this to an Idealism, though I think some kinds of Idealism - like Edward Kelly's - could accommodate Pis & Survival by banishing genuine corporeal extension. However at least in terms of marketing I don't think Idealism will get that far in STEM academia. It has a role to play, like bottom-up / top-down Panpsychism, but I think trying to convince people the brain is merely an image of thoughts seen from the outside will be difficult.

At least in our current stage of humanity, the idea of a soul containing the body keeps the basic "dualist intuition" in tact and has a premier advocate in Sheldrake. [Or at the least this idea of a Cosmically Immense Soul is in line with what he says.]

While I share your concerns about organized religion, I do think it's helpful Sheldrake is a proud Christian. After all there are billions of Christians and I think his more open, tolerant, ecumenical faith can provide a shift away from both Materialism and Dogmatism.

God can be - as Sheldrake notes - the Ground upon which Souls play out their cosmic dramas. Of course this could be a cosmic Principle more than a Person, for me I'm more agnostic about which it is. A Personal God need not be as domineering as some might want, though I do understand some people finding comfort in the idea that God knows the future and has a genuine Plan.

I would say it's closer to what you said:

At least one possibility I saw floated allowing the co-existence of free will and God's perfect knowledge of the future, is that there are infinite possibilities, infinite threads, the way something, anything, could have happened and might happen, so God knows about every single possible set of outcomes, yet because of free will, God cannot know in advance precisely what path we will ultimately choose ~ some choices might be predictable, others may happen on a whim.

There are some possibly good reasons to think reality is like this, as noted in Arvan's P2P Hypothesis.