I fully agree with everything you have said here. No argument, no need to clarify. You've said it well. I would add to this that we are looking at a paradox.

As I've said, words are failures when it comes to explaining that which is indescribable. This seems obvious, yet there is something in us, the way we have been conditioned, or psychologically trained, that demands an explanation. Words like see, experience, know, and so on, are imprecise.

I also return to the problem of the word mystic and its connotation and denotation. I recently revisited this word for a book I am writing.

Among mystic's definitions are:

1 of or relating to mysteries or esoteric rites : OCCULT

2 of or relating to mysticism or mystics

3 inducing a feeling of awe or wonder

4 having magical properties

We can see that there is room for misunderstanding apropos to what I am trying to get across, which is that a mystic can be a person who has unusual experiences, or that a mystic can be a person who realizes, through having or some sort of direct perception, that he and all else are one singular existence with a fundamental essence that is undefinable and ineffable. And part of the paradox is that there is no haver, no experiencer, no actual seer, etc.