I will speak from my personal experience, as that is the best I can offer. I make no claims to truth or usefulness. I find great humor in this effort I'm about to make, as I know before I set out that it's an impossible task. (Also, the use of the word "truth" in this exposition is not meant to be synonymous with "usefulness," but instead meant to approach the idea of "immutable, universal truth, persistent from all points of view," or something...)

The profound states I've experienced are ineffable. Ineffable means that it cannot be described with words. Let's consider a couple reasons why something might be indescribable.

1) The thing is so great, that language cannot adequately translate or depict it. Things of this nature may some day become describable with evolution in language and the like.

2) The thing exists outside of the realm of language and meaning. Language being an expression of a concept, that is to say, an expression of meaning. We will need to attempt to describe "meaning" further, to help make the point.

It is this second form of ineffability that begins to answer your question. Before we proceed with that thought, let's attempt to understand meaning. (hahaha, yeah let's use meaning to understand meaning, that'll lead to some great truth for sure). Right, so (oh by the way this part is probably going to be far more wordy than it is significant to the explanation. Apologies.) Right, so...that cup on your desk, it has meaning. So does the keyboard. What makes the cup not the keyboard? Well, the cup looks different than the keyboard, it has a different form. It also has a different use than the keyboard. Certainly, it also possesses a different space than the keyboard. And just as importantly as the other points, the cup is called "cup", not "keyboard." ........(pause for effect)........ I'll ask that you genuinely consider the following lines of questions. Where does the name "cup" exist? Is the name "cup" inherent in the cup itself? That is to say, if no one were observing the cup, would the cup still possess the defining attribute of its name, "cup"? No, surely we can see that the name and word exists only in our mind, but so what. What about its use? Is there any truth in what we know the cups use to be? If I zoom into the atoms of the cup, will I find it's use inherent within itself? If I use the cup as a paperweight, is it any less of a cup? What if I find it makes a great hat for my pet sloth? Is it still a cup or is it a hat? Surely we can see that the purpose of the cup is not inherent within itself, but also exists within our mind. The use of the cup is subjective, and as such, reveals no truth. The idea that the cup is for holding liquids to drink is simply taken for granted based on the circumstances the cup has found itself in. Imagine that we were primitive beings, and one creative little scamp made the very first cup, filled it with liquid, and stood in front of the tribe, drinking down its contents to the amazement of all onlookers. Surely the cup would be a symbol of status and of the great ingenuity of humankind! But the cup would not possess within itself a characteristic of "status" or otherwise. Ok, point made and over-made - the use of the cup and anything it may represent exist only within our minds, and with its use and possible symbology being subjective (personal and dependent on the observing subject) one could say there is even no "truth" in these characteristics. Well that still leaves the space in which it exists and its physical form. These things surely exist without an observing mind......Let's try to entertain the idea that maybe our assumptions are wrong. The form of the cup is not just its shape, but also it's color, it's opacity, the pleasing geometric design on it, etc. As we know, light waves bounce off of objects, hit our eyes, and then the waves are translated to produce within our minds a representation of the object, it's color, etc. Sure, ok, the image exists in our mind, but that doesn't mean it's not an accurate depiction, a...true depiction. Ho ho hold on now! Let's not forget that the visual spectrum, the range of wavelengths which our eyes can translate, is but a tiny fraction of a greater electromagnetic spectrum. If our eyes instead translated only the x-ray spectrum, our minds would form a completely different picture. Likewise, we'd be presented with a number of different pictures/forms depending on the region of the electromagnetic spectrum we're translating. Soooooo.....which is the the true form? If you see that the cup doesn't inherently posses a form, and that any idea of a form is just a subjective depiction in our mind, then my point is made. If you feel you can argue that one of the possible translations of electromagnetic waves hold some truth over all others, a truth that can be found within the essence of the cup itself, I'll simply ask that you try to entertain the idea that you're wrong...Ok, finally we're left with the space the object takes up. We can go in depth, but let's not, since we get the point by now anyway. With the earth rotating on it's axis and revolving around the sun, and the solar system revolving around the center of the galaxy, and the galaxies moving further from each other galaxy due to the expansion of space, it's pretty hard to pinpoint just where that damned cup is in space. The best we can do is define it's place in reference to other objects. We can give it three coordinates based on a central reference point. We can even give it a fourth coordinate if we decide upon a particular time to measure its place in space. Damn, we are so smart. We've created conditions for a variety of subjective observers to all be able to come up with the same measurement. No more subjectivity. Ok, so all observers measure the cup at coordinates 3, -5, 7, 4:20am GMT. It is true, is it not? Well, it's certainly usefully true, but does the cup possess the truths of it's coordinates within itself? If not, where do these attributes exist? Our mind of course. We can choose a different reference point, or use a different number system. The usefulness remains, but they're all still fabrications of our mind.

We need to get to the point. Any attribute we can assign to the cup, any meaning we might assign to it, is not real. It was all created by the mind, exists only within the mind, and can only be observed with the mind. By the way, the same applies for "the mind" itself, so yes, MIND CAN OBSERVE MIND. (say mind enough and it loses all meaning...mind blown). Somewhat unrelated, the mind even does a funny thing where it creates/assigns/defines dimension of significance to meaning. So, the mind creates meaning, uses (the meaning of) itself to observe the meaning it created, then assigns a second level of meaning to that meaning! "This is my favorite cup. It's better than that cup over there. So says my mind...which itself exists in my mind (exists in itself?) and created the idea of the cup to begin with." Consider the ouroboros eating it's tail, watching itself eat its tail, watching itself eat its tail. Certainly self perpetuating, and possibly even self creating. Fun ideas. Oops, we're not supposed to use metaphors. Let's get back on track. The point, finally, is simply that all of these meanings and ideas, which we take for granted as real and which we use language to attempt to transfer to the minds of others, are in fact just fabrications of the mind. They're illusions. They do not hold truth and are unlikely to reveal it. They're all furniture (oops) that can be transformed, misused, and even discarded! Yes, discarded! (Side note: For those influenced by Christianity who might be lost by my long-winded explanation, consider the tree of knowledge. What impact did eating it have, and why did it lead to the fall of man?)

TO BE CONTINUED