Again, we're into subjective definitions ...
On a Christian forum I'd be more reserved about using the term 'bliss', as it's redolent of so many other traditional conceptions, and the term is largely and commonly defined by Hindu and Buddhist ideas than by Christian.
'Bliss' doesn't occur in the Bible, nor does its synonyms. In fact the closest term I can find is 'paradise', but this is never used of a subjective state, rather the reference to the pre-lapsarian Garden.
As your philosophy, from what I can glean of it, is that of a naturalism within a pantheist view of the world, then I can fully understand your experience within that frame of reference. If however, you were equating that experience with an order of Christian pneumatology, (the term being more properly 'beatitude' or simply 'grace'), then I'd say there is an utter distinction of meaning, the Christian idea being something your own declared perspective disallows, as the Christian is founded in an utterly transcendent ontology.
Generally, the appeal of religious pluralism in the west is the assumption that it makes 'religious experience' more accessible (largely the basis on which the idea is sold), whereas it does the opposite, it tends to the private and parochial. 'My' narrative is more important or at least as equally as important as any other; it is more true (if such was possible) for me than perhaps for you; more authentic (ditto) ...
Once definitions become subjectively determinable, they become meaningless.
On a Christian forum I'd be more reserved about using the term 'bliss', as it's redolent of so many other traditional conceptions, and the term is largely and commonly defined by Hindu and Buddhist ideas than by Christian.
'Bliss' doesn't occur in the Bible, nor does its synonyms. In fact the closest term I can find is 'paradise', but this is never used of a subjective state, rather the reference to the pre-lapsarian Garden.
As your philosophy, from what I can glean of it, is that of a naturalism within a pantheist view of the world, then I can fully understand your experience within that frame of reference. If however, you were equating that experience with an order of Christian pneumatology, (the term being more properly 'beatitude' or simply 'grace'), then I'd say there is an utter distinction of meaning, the Christian idea being something your own declared perspective disallows, as the Christian is founded in an utterly transcendent ontology.
Generally, the appeal of religious pluralism in the west is the assumption that it makes 'religious experience' more accessible (largely the basis on which the idea is sold), whereas it does the opposite, it tends to the private and parochial. 'My' narrative is more important or at least as equally as important as any other; it is more true (if such was possible) for me than perhaps for you; more authentic (ditto) ...
Once definitions become subjectively determinable, they become meaningless.