Yes. I see "ultimate truth" as being mostly beyond the grasp of a human being incarnate. We can only have "experience" via our senses and obviously we are talking about subjective experiences.
Well, it seems to me if you have many gods then that would also all be subjective in the same sense, although there is the idea of subjectivity without object - that would be from the perspective that all is one, so there is only the subject. If there is any separation it is necessarily relative, you have subject and object - however powerful in whatever sense, it is conditional. Now to take this to experience, it is also clear that to experience something it requires a subject/object duality, therefore all experience is by nature relative. I think to classify any experience as better or more divine than others involves a certain confusion - more precisely it would be the fusion of an insight and the sensory experience that arise in the same time frame. Feelings and emotions, although deep are still more superficial than an insight which may hardly even be on the radar so to speak, and often that blip gets co-opted by the mind, put into a conceptual framework which more than likely distorts and misrepresents what it actually is, at best it is reduced to an idea.
This is the danger of talking about experiencing God - what is this God idea, or feeling? Even Einstein's cosmic religious feeling would be a byproduct which is only relative and conditional. If you say it's a matter of experiencing the divine, I say what isn't the divine? But no-thing is it, so not any thing that can be experienced, but then I have to go back to the question of what is having the experience? By that I don't mean the mind which will have its reactions to the experience - positive or negative - actually the mind itself is a part of what is being experienced, so what is experiencing all of that?