The impasse you describe seems to be because philosophy is all about figuring things out, labeling them, and thinking deeply about them — all of which have their place in our world. But the mysticism of which I speak has nothing to do with thought, but rather seeing/being beyond thought, knowing, ideas, belief, information, etc. There is no clarity of mind as long as it is filled with thought. Thought, of course, has its place, but the reason why mysticism/enlightenment is so confounding is because thought is being used to figure it out, which is not possible. That which is prior to thought cannot be explained or comprehended through thought, knowledge, or even metaphors.

Ultimately this is a subjective reality and the approaches to assessing it are manifold. I would say, however, that the so-called enlightened mystic (I use this word with trepidations) sees without interpretation and this is the essence of the guidance. Perhaps Jiddu Krishnamurti explained this best with little religious or cultural overlay. Unlike the Hindu philosophy you just mentioned, Krishnamurti proclaimed that "Truth is a pathless land." This is a subject to be tackled by itself, and one I have tried to explain in one of my articles.

Ultimately, to find the ultimate reality means to observe what it is not; and for this reason it is ineffable and beyond thought, philosophy, religion, etc.