Accomplished Teacher or Mystical Experience?

[SalixIncendium]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

Most of these "accomplished teachers" you allude to are charlatans.

 

[Vinayaka]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

In my Hindu view, ultimately it has to be your own experience. What the true 'accomplished teacher' does is lead you to that experience, or provide guidelines for getting there, but He cannot give you that mystical experience.

 

[sun rise]

Most of these "accomplished teachers" you allude to are charlatans.

The presence of "fools gold" does not mean that real gold is impossible to find.

 

[sun rise]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

I don't see a 'best' choice - it's all individual for one thing and can also be different at different times for the same person.

And a teacher also can have work to do which a student might be invited to help with and which would provide learning as well. One example of this is Auroville founded by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. In a documentary I saw, it seemed to me that one of the purposes of Auroville is to put people into day-to-day situations where they learn through experience.

Another way I look at it is that there's no essential difference in outward action between an accomplished teacher and psychologist. The inner work is different but a psychologist or teacher is someone people go to when it's helpful in their growth.

 

[Nakosis]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

I suspect believers will understand any mystical experience based on the authority of the religious leader. In fact I think it's likely that the mystical experience is caused by the assumed religious authority. How would you even know what a mystical experience is or to go looking for one in the first place if you were not told what to look for.

You do whatever, like chant, long enough and you'll experience "something".

You've already bought into the possibility of the spiritual claim being true and have fed your subconscious some idea what you are looking for.

The more you study the teachings, the more detailed information you've provided your subconscious mind as to what your expectations are.

Otherwise, say you have this dream, vision, altered conscious experience without the benefit of specific religious teachings. What you you make of it?

I just don't think there is anything to attach any spiritual meaning to such an experience without some kind of religious indoctrination.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Most of these "accomplished teachers" you allude to are charlatans.

Can't deny that when you talk about "accomplished teachers" and what not, it more often than not leads to self promoting websites offering an array of book deals and online stores.

 

[George-ananda]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

In eastern (Hindu) tradition there is kind of a merging of the two in a guru/swami. To be a teacher, you need experience+knowledge.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

There should be no conflict, just different perspectives on the same reality. If there is a major conflict there is a problem.

 

[Milton Platt]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?[/QUO

Why is your definition of "accomplished teacher" defined as such?

 

[SalixIncendium]

I suspect believers will understand any mystical experience based on the authority of the religious leader. In fact I think it's likely that the mystical experience is caused by the assumed religious authority. How would you even know what a mystical experience is or to go looking for one in the first place if you were not told what to look for.

You do whatever, like chant, long enough and you'll experience "something".

You've already bought into the possibility of the spiritual claim being true and have fed your subconscious some idea what you are looking for.

The more you study the teachings, the more detailed information you've provided your subconscious mind as to what your expectations are.

Otherwise, say you have this dream, vision, altered conscious experience without the benefit of specific religious teachings. What you you make of it?

I would call it an extremely peculiar experience...until I stumbled across something that made sense of it.

I just don't think there is anything to attach any spiritual meaning to such an experience without some kind of religious indoctrination.

Would it matter if that indoctrination was handed down from another before the experience or if it was the result of a discovery after many years of seeking after the fact? Would either of these make the experience or its interpretation more valid?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

Its like this analogy:

My friend and I used to live on the same island far off always under the sun on its lonesome. We grew older together and at the same time grew apart. She moved out of town with her spouse and has two older children. Im alone.

One day she surprises me on a visit after thirty years. Ive gone through a lot in those years, mostly trying to leave this island. My spiritual destination blocked between a wall of tides.

The fifth night after catching up and my boring her about my spiritual jouney in isolation, she says "come with me."

We are at the hem of the land. "Swim." She says to me.

"Swim?" I tried before. She had taught me how to float, paddle, hold my breathe. I trusted my sister. Now, an adult standing over me I feel like Im her child.

After repeating old lessons, I finally got it, "okay. Now go. Swim." She says, "and dont forget to breathe."

She turnec away to the sunset and the wind blows in when something occurs to me as I was just kneeling back in the water.

I look up at her. "In what direction?" I ask.

She shrugs, "I dont know." She squinted. "You just goimg to have to figure that on your own."

"But, then, how did you get here then?" My mind still back in childhood where we swam for miles to the mainland only to open our eyes with sand in our mouths instead of Pop.

She shakes her head rolling her eyes. "You still dont know me, do you." She looks at me again, "hun, I flew."

-

"Your lessons should be your friend and your experience, the teacher." -Carlita (in her artistic moments)

 

[sun rise]

I suspect believers will understand any mystical experience based on the authority of the religious leader. In fact I think it's likely that the mystical experience is caused by the assumed religious authority. How would you even know what a mystical experience is or to go looking for one in the first place if you were not told what to look for.

You do whatever, like chant, long enough and you'll experience "something".

You've already bought into the possibility of the spiritual claim being true and have fed your subconscious some idea what you are looking for.

The more you study the teachings, the more detailed information you've provided your subconscious mind as to what your expectations are.

Otherwise, say you have this dream, vision, altered conscious experience without the benefit of specific religious teachings. What you you make of it?

I just don't think there is anything to attach any spiritual meaning to such an experience without some kind of religious indoctrination.

Atheist also have such experiences. How the experiences are interpreted is a different point.

 

[Vinayaka]

I know it's entirely possible to have mystical experiences without any pre-existing doctrine or teacher telling you what to expect or how to interpret. But when that teacher or belief system happens by to give you an explanation that coincides with said experience, it's 'Oh. Okay, so that's what that was.'

 

[Mindmaster]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

Qualitatively, no it doesn't matter whether you learn through study or teachers. The spiritual journey is yours alone, and while someone can give you some encouragement or a few pointers the hurdles are yours to cross. The only caution with being a solitary seeker I can give, and one that I've stumbled on many times is that you don't know what you don't know. You're likely to think you've reached some form of enlightenment only to see in the near future that you are just on the bottom stair of the staircase, so to speak. You have to approach such a path with humility ready to throw out and reinvent yourself completely as you go, to reach the goals you desire. Most people form attachments to ideas, so this is all easier said than done.

Although, I would say particularly in more non-traditional settings such as paganism having access to a group of dedicated spirit working assistance has its advantages. Most people have their own realms of knowledge and by being affiliated with their group it may save you considerable time in your search. The downside is there is no "flex" per Se in the practices of the group as they have formed "traditions" so ritual craft or injecting some other methods may not be well received. Also, things like healing rituals or blessings can be group efforts and if the group really does work as a family would the net benefit of such arrangements can be much more powerful that your own efforts. Morale is another great thing about these groups, as they will keep you motivated even when you feel out of whack...

 

[socharlie]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

it is good but not necessary to have "accomplished teacher" who would direct you but it still your own experience that counts. Your experience will tell you "to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith".

 

[whirlingmerc]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

I really don't think 'God is a mumbler' who is so vague everything is merely subjective and unclear

 

[Vinayaka]

If I was climbing Mount Everest, I'd hire a sherpa guide. In sampradaya/parampara, that's the role of the teacher.

 

[sayak83]

I suspect believers will understand any mystical experience based on the authority of the religious leader. In fact I think it's likely that the mystical experience is caused by the assumed religious authority. How would you even know what a mystical experience is or to go looking for one in the first place if you were not told what to look for.

You do whatever, like chant, long enough and you'll experience "something".

You've already bought into the possibility of the spiritual claim being true and have fed your subconscious some idea what you are looking for.

The more you study the teachings, the more detailed information you've provided your subconscious mind as to what your expectations are.

Otherwise, say you have this dream, vision, altered conscious experience without the benefit of specific religious teachings. What you you make of it?

I just don't think there is anything to attach any spiritual meaning to such an experience without some kind of religious indoctrination.

Mystical experiences should provide real insight into the world and about oneself independent of religious doctrines. Otherwise they are likely to be projections of preexisting beliefs.

 

[SomeRandom]

A teacher can guide you, but ultimately it's your experience.

 

[sayak83]

Given the subjectivity of faith and religion, is it best to learn religious and/or spiritual knowledge from an accomplished teacher or through mystical experiences? Why?

From which would you consider knowledge to be more valid? Why?

For the purposes of this thread, we will define "accomplished teacher" as someone that is heralded and held in high regard for his spiritual and/or religious knowledge by adherents of one or more religious organizations, i.e. a sage, and we will define "mystical experience" as personal insight gained through individual study, meditative practice, prayer, and sense experience.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): As one who has learned exclusively or primarily from either one, is it acceptable to dismiss or invalidate the knowledge of another of the same or similar faith? On what foundation?

Buddha says it the best, as always.

Canki Sutta: With Canki

"There is the case, Bharadvaja, where a monk lives in dependence on a certain village or town. Then a householder or householder's son goes to him and observes him with regard to three mental qualities — qualities based on greed, qualities based on aversion, qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on greed that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on greed... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not greedy. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's greedy.

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on greed, he next observes him with regard to qualities based on aversion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on aversion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on aversion... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not aversive. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's aversive.

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on aversion, he next observes him with regard to qualities based on delusion: 'Are there in this venerable one any such qualities based on delusion that, with his mind overcome by these qualities, he might say, "I know," while not knowing, or say, "I see," while not seeing; or that he might urge another to act in a way that was for his/her long-term harm & pain?' As he observes him, he comes to know, 'There are in this venerable one no such qualities based on delusion... His bodily behavior & verbal behavior are those of one not deluded. And the Dhamma he teaches is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. This Dhamma can't easily be taught by a person who's deluded.

When, on observing that the monk is purified with regard to qualities based on delusion, he places conviction in him. With the arising of conviction, he visits him & grows close to him. Growing close to him, he lends ear. Lending ear, he hears the Dhamma. Hearing the Dhamma, he remembers it. Remembering it, he penetrates the meaning of those dhammas. Penetrating the meaning, he comes to an agreement through pondering those dhammas. There being an agreement through pondering those dhammas, desire arises. With the arising of desire, he becomes willing. Willing, he contemplates (lit: "weighs," "compares"). Contemplating, he makes an exertion. Exerting himself, he both realizes the ultimate meaning of the truth with his body and sees by penetrating it with discernment.

"To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is an awakening to the truth. To this extent one awakens to the truth. I describe this as an awakening to the truth. But it is not yet the final attainment of the truth.

"The cultivation, development, & pursuit of those very same qualities: to this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the final attainment of the truth. To this extent one finally attains the truth. I describe this as the final attainment of the truth."