Let's take the word "mystical" out of the equation, and take the same argument for any mundane human experience, like experiencing emotion or being creative. Go to different cultures and examine the life experiences of different individuals, and you will see that the form of expression indeed is a function of belief, upbringing and social framework.
At the same time, you might notice that at the core of "falling in love", for example, you are still dealing with human beings regardless of the external factors. So a common frame exists, or we would never be able to relate to each other across these apparent boundaries.
Where mundane experiences are concerned, furthermore, the understanding that we are all fundamentally human of a human "nature" in all our experiences, with variations according to "nurture", is rather self-evident.
We partake in said life experiences ourselves, and can relate to others that do as well, regardless of walks of life. Most philosophical analysts, however, do not partake of the mystical experiences they attempt to imbibe with intellectual order.
They are like the blind trying to make sense of works of fine art through the descriptions of those who can see. Whether favoring "nature" or "nurture" they can only form nice and neat labels that reduce the cognitive dissonance of analytic reasoning when confronted with the "ineffable".
The mind wants to keep things ordered for its convenience, so it easily strays to extremes of cultural relativism and humanistic absolutism. The latter tends to oversimplify the common denominator, and the former betrays the continuity between the variations.
The least tolerant of the underlying human nature of experiencing the mystical are Abrahamic religions, which tend to use relativism to combat "Universalist" views, and keep the ineffable on the straight and narrow. At least India had its Ramakrishna (and not only), who experienced visions of Jesus and the Virgin, right alongside those of the Divine Mother Kali.
Let's take the word "mystical" out of the equation, and take the same argument for any mundane human experience, like experiencing emotion or being creative. Go to different cultures and examine the life experiences of different individuals, and you will see that the form of expression indeed is a function of belief, upbringing and social framework.
At the same time, you might notice that at the core of "falling in love", for example, you are still dealing with human beings regardless of the external factors. So a common frame exists, or we would never be able to relate to each other across these apparent boundaries.
Where mundane experiences are concerned, furthermore, the understanding that we are all fundamentally human of a human "nature" in all our experiences, with variations according to "nurture", is rather self-evident.
We partake in said life experiences ourselves, and can relate to others that do as well, regardless of walks of life. Most philosophical analysts, however, do not partake of the mystical experiences they attempt to imbibe with intellectual order.
They are like the blind trying to make sense of works of fine art through the descriptions of those who can see. Whether favoring "nature" or "nurture" they can only form nice and neat labels that reduce the cognitive dissonance of analytic reasoning when confronted with the "ineffable".
The mind wants to keep things ordered for its convenience, so it easily strays to extremes of cultural relativism and humanistic absolutism. The latter tends to oversimplify the common denominator, and the former betrays the continuity between the variations.
The least tolerant of the underlying human nature of experiencing the mystical are Abrahamic religions, which tend to use relativism to combat "Universalist" views, and keep the ineffable on the straight and narrow. At least India had its Ramakrishna (and not only), who experienced visions of Jesus and the Virgin, right alongside those of the Divine Mother Kali.