/lit/ - Literature

>>17634675
>Is there a similar progression in Christianity? Is mystical experience (henosis?) more vague, less progressive?
Depends on the model and system. Example many use the sephirothic schema which is itself a phenomenology system, someone like Saint Teresa is effectively doing the same thing as hekhalot and sephirothic stuff.

Bonaventure has a six fold model, other Christian mystics and philosophers have different schemas, and just as some forms of Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism has less formulaic and more spontaneous models for spiritual development, so also does Christianity. Again none of these traditions are as monolithic as you would wish them to be.

> Do you simply "become aware" of such a relationship, like it's beyond any shadow of a doubt and that's when you know?

Yes but you also get proofs such as literal communication, knowledge, inexplicable events and other such. It’s a question of devotion and listening, discussion and so forth between you and god and must be cultivated.

> So there is no end goal, just eternally attempting to grasp God's plan? I'm not framing it in a very appealing light but I do find it an interesting possibility.

Again, you’re applying your preferred existential and ontological framework and not approaching the systems in and of themselves. The question isn’t God’s plan, the question Is God’s being, his nature, who he is. You will continuously unfold in knowledge of Him. That is the point of knowledge, he who is truth and knowledge, the supreme Godhead unfolding and entering into perichoresis with this, your ego with that of the triune godhead. No religion will allow you to truly come in, guns blazing, and apply your own personal desires for what the religion ought be and what aims should be done. Religions are different from each other and even within themselves have many differing schools and nuances. You need to study and practice. No ifs or ands or buts about it.