Accomplished Teacher or Mystical Experience?

[Deeje]

@SalixIncendium https://www.religiousforums.com/members/salixincendium.61242/
I can't go past what Jesus said, as he was undeniably one of the most influential spiritual leaders the world has ever seen.

His simple words are so full of meaning...."If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. . . . . if the Son sets you free, you will be truly free." (John 8:32; 36)

Only those who "know" this truth can experience this 'freedom' and understand what it truly means. It means being free of doubt...free of every false belief planted by the devil....free to worship a God who is real and who is present in your everyday life. It means understanding why we are here, why we are experiencing this present situation where so many are spiritually lost or indecisive....and it means the confidence to know exactly where we are going and why. "I was lost...and was found" means so much when it actually happens.

True Christianity (as opposed to the fake Christianity Jesus foretold) isn't just a religion...it is a way of life...a way of thought and the only way to the kind of life that is programmed into every heart. It is a shared faith, not fragmented or with differences of opinion or unanswered questions. There is "one Lord, one faith, one baptism"....just one truth....not many versions of it.

I don't believe that it is just we who search for God, as much as it is he who searches for us. He will not grant the most important kind of freedom to those who only want a form of worship that pleases themselves. If one does not have the same self-sacrificing spirit that his son displayed, and a willingness to obey him in everything, then he has no use for us. He will not draw us to the teachings of his son if he finds a rebellious or selfish spirit in us. (John 6:44)

That is how I see it.

 

[YmirGF]

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.

The kick in the cosmic head is that even those insights will be filtered through existing belief structures. It gets pretty interesting when you begin to dismantle those belief structures however.

In regards to the OP, you do not need a "teacher", however, a great many people can indeed benefit from the help/guidance of someone more aware of the little things in life than they are. As long as it remains a healthy relationship, of comrades, rather than master/student I see nothing wrong.

 

[sayak83]

The kick in the cosmic head is that even those insights will be filtered through existing belief structures. It gets pretty interesting when you begin to dismantle those belief structures however.

In regards to the OP, you do not need a "teacher", however, a great many people can indeed benefit from the help/guidance of someone more aware of the little things in life than they are. As long as it remains a healthy relationship, of comrades, rather than master/student I see nothing wrong.

A good way to get out of this filtration is if one is able to express the insights in any religious or secular paradigm whatsoever.

 

[Quintessence]

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?

I would think the apparent answer is it is best to learn from both. Wise and resourceful students utilize all available opportunities for learning and exploration. A tale regarding this, if I may. I grew up in total ignorance of mystical religions like the branches of contemporary Paganisms, so I had no access to any guides or teachers. I discovered things like journeying and energy work all on my own, without guidance, without influence.

This was good and it was bad. But it was mostly bad.

Consider what it's like to explore a landscape in total ignorance of almost everything about it. You don't know that trees are called "trees," or why they are important to an ecosystem. They're just a neat thing that is present in the landscape that you go "oh, that's cool" and maybe poke at it for a little while. But without someone holding up a signpost saying "pay attention to this" or "this relates to this" and so on, you'll quickly get bored and start looking at something else in the landscape. Maybe, every so often, something will really hold your attention and you'll dive into it. But that's the exception to the rule. Remember, you don't know what any of this stuff is, or even that others experience it too. It's like being blind and deaf. There's a beauty in the rawness of those exploratory experiences, but they lack grounding and context. That's why I say it was mostly bad not to have some sort of guide.

The guide doesn't have to be a mentor. It can be a library. Books. Those are usually my mentors nowadays - books that are fragments of others' voices who have walked similar paths. They provide some sign posts, some context. From there, you've just got to trust yourself to know what to do with what you experience and what you see and hear from guides.

As for validity? I don't questions like that. Chasing validity in religions is little more than social posturing, and I have no patience for such nonsense.

 

[Jumi]

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?

Mystical experiences. Those teachers can only prod you towards them at best, but they can also mislead you and give their own ideas about what you should believe.

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

On God, there are so many conflicting teachings between each religion and then there is also the mismatch if you can experience it that it's better to rely on yourself. The experience proves itself, beliefs don't... people just convince themselves that they are true.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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."

Thank you for posting this.

My primary takeaway from this excerpt is that it teaches an important lesson that if one chooses to learn from another, one should learn through observation of another's qualities and actions, not merely by what another postulates as truth.

Additionally, although one is awakened to truth through observing the experience of another, it is the experience of the individual, not the experience of another, that yields the attainment of truth.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I would think the apparent answer is it is best to learn from both. Wise and resourceful students utilize all available opportunities for learning and exploration. A tale regarding this, if I may. I grew up in total ignorance of mystical religions like the branches of contemporary Paganisms, so I had no access to any guides or teachers. I discovered things like journeying and energy work all on my own, without guidance, without influence.

This was good and it was bad. But it was mostly bad.

Consider what it's like to explore a landscape in total ignorance of almost everything about it. You don't know that trees are called "trees," or why they are important to an ecosystem. They're just a neat thing that is present in the landscape that you go "oh, that's cool" and maybe poke at it for a little while. But without someone holding up a signpost saying "pay attention to this" or "this relates to this" and so on, you'll quickly get bored and start looking at something else in the landscape. Maybe, every so often, something will really hold your attention and you'll dive into it. But that's the exception to the rule. Remember, you don't know what any of this stuff is, or even that others experience it too. It's like being blind and deaf. There's a beauty in the rawness of those exploratory experiences, but they lack grounding and context. That's why I say it was mostly bad not to have some sort of guide.

The guide doesn't have to be a mentor. It can be a library. Books. Those are usually my mentors nowadays - books that are fragments of others' voices who have walked similar paths. They provide some sign posts, some context. From there, you've just got to trust yourself to know what to do with what you experience and what you see and hear from guides.

Books can problematic from the standpoint of interpretation. The intent of the author may be ambiguous, either purposefully or negligently, and unless one has access to to the author, one is left to interpret meaning. I think scripture is a perfect example of this. Many read from the same book and walk away with entirely different understandings of its meaning.

As for validity? I don't questions like that. Chasing validity in religions is little more than social posturing, and I have no patience for such nonsense.

If have an entirely different take on an existing religion from the universally accepted take, does that make mine valid? Can I call myself a Christian if my truth replaces Jesus with Krishna? Is my truth valid in that context? Can I call myself Christian? Would it not be an affront to Christians for me to do so?

 

[ajay0]

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?

A teacher sets the conditions, culture and environment wherein the aspirant attains mystical experiences of his own in a shorter period of time by a steep learning curve. As Emerson stated, " A teacher makes things easier to understand."

Sri Ramakrishna attained nondual realization with the help of his Advaitan Guru Totapuri.

However, as Vinayaka stated, a lot too depends on the earnestness and fitness of the aspirant.

Swami Ramanujananda of the Ramakrishna Mission had stated in this regard, ," Essentially, success depends on a proper aspirant. Factors like time, place etc. are secondary in this connection.":

Siddharameshwar had many disciples, but it was his dalit disciple Nisargadatta, a non-vegetarian cigarette maker and businessman, who through steady and diligent adherence to Siddharameshwar's teaching of being in the 'I am' state of awareness , heroically attained enlightenment, within a span of three years.

 

[pearl]

To acquire a believing knowledge and a knowing faith both are required. I look to a scholar renowned by his/her peers for knowledge and to a scholar, again renowned by his/her peers, to lead me in the mystical beyond knowledge.

 

[Quintessence]

Books can problematic from the standpoint of interpretation. The intent of the author may be ambiguous, either purposefully or negligently, and unless one has access to to the author, one is left to interpret meaning. I think scripture is a perfect example of this. Many read from the same book and walk away with entirely different understandings of its meaning.

I don't believe that humans having individual brains that interpret things differently is a problem. Mostly because it's simply an inevitability, and I'm not a fan of calling the way things must be "a problem." The flexibility in interpreting experiences is a strength - it means we understand those experiences in a way that makes sense to us and is meaningful to us. It's central to the human ability to tell stories.

If have an entirely different take on an existing religion from the universally accepted take, does that make mine valid? Can I call myself a Christian if my truth replaces Jesus with Krishna? Is my truth valid in that context? Can I call myself Christian? Would it not be an affront to Christians for me to do so?

You can call yourself whatever you want until you decide to let other humans be the boss of you. I don't see it as a question of "validity" as much as a question of when you decide to tow someone else's line or tread along with whatever the current social consensus is. Generally speaking, I only find studying the social consensuses useful from an impartial or academic standpoint. I don't find it useful to attempt to conform myself to them, especially within the Pagan community where there's barely any sort of consensus for these things in the first place.

For religions that actually have dogmas? Yeah, the issue becomes more complicated. But there's a reason I leave those alone. I've little patience for the "you're not a real X because Y" distractions. I used to, but I just don't care anymore. I'd rather spend my time listening to others' stories than undermining that person by doing stuff like demanding they call themselves something else.

 

[pearl]

I don't believe that it is just we who search for God, as much as it is he who searches for us.

Probably one of the few statements you offer that I agree with. But I would add that the His search for man is through all religions and non religious.

 

[ajay0]

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.

Also, it depends on the depth of the teacher or student's maturity that would correspond to the truthfulness of the personal insight gained.

Ramakrishna, through his devotion to the Divine Mother, was absorbed in the conceptual form of the divine mother, to the exclusion of everything else. But this still constituted an attachment. His advaitan guru Totapuri helped him to shed off this conceptual construct as well to attain nondual awareness and perception. So here, the teacher was helpful in the student's growth.

Similarly H.W.Poonja was deeply devoted to Krishna, and Ramana Maharshi helped him to transcend this attachment to Krishna's conceptual form to non-conceptual awareness.

In Jiddu Krishnamurti's Series on Living, he talks about a sannyasin who saw Krishna, Buddha and Jesus as his favorite personal versions of God, and after years of worship and prayer, had visions of them. One day, upon hearing a talk of Krishnamurti, he realised that these visions were actually the projections of his own conditioned background. He met Krishnamurti after this personal revelation, and was similarly guided to choiceless awareness.

Siddhartha trained with the best teachers and gained all of his knowledge from them. As they were not enlightened, he then embarked on his own quest. Upon attaining enlightenment and becoming the buddha, he became a teacher to his former teachers.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

This is perhaps partially true, and not true as well. Typically, a good teacher will ask the student to describe his experience, and he will recognize when it's not genuine, but some manufactured thing from the student still looking for an experience. How anyone will recognize a mystical experience is very simple. They have one.

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

As one might expect. There are plenty of exercises that are designed to help relax the ever-chattering busy brain. The key is not the chant, but relaxing the whirling and buzzing thoughts to a place of Silence. When that happens, then the difference becomes obvious.

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.

I don't agree with that. People seek this out because they are drawn to it from something deep within themselves. Seeking Enlightenment is a rare choice where you have to be willing to pay the price of everything you cling to and seek for yourself, to find Peace through complete release of all expectations of outcome. That is something an aspirant intuits on a deep level in themselves, prior to committing to such a path.

Now granted, you do have those who imagine Enlightenment as some escape from life's responsibilities, and they will fall from that path soon enough, or go skipping off into la la land seeking experiences to distract them from life in some New Age frenzy. This ultimately will fail as well to progress beyond that.

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

Not exactly. You are supposed to drop any image of outcome you have in your mind, drop any expectations of what you may bring to the seeking. However, once you do have a genuine mystical experience, the teachings do provide a framework in order for us to talk about the experience, both to ourselves and to others. This is true of any system of language and symbols with any experience of anything in life. But it seems to me you are trying to suggest that any experience of mystical states whatsoever are "primed" through the power of suggestion? I would very much disagree with that assumption, based on personal experience.

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

Well, I can address that one. What I made of it without the benefit of any prior religious teachings or specific practices (it was spontaneous without any prior conditioning), was to try to put it into words, indescribable. No words. Everything. Infinity. Perfection. Love. Compassion. Grace. And so forth. I did not know what this was, other than it was absolutely real, like a great curtain being pulled back to reveal absolute Reality.

It was only years after this I ended up in some religion to try to find some framework of understanding what this was in order to find a path of return to it. That of course didn't work out so well. I had to go off on my own to find that through things like a meditation practice, as well as other channels, such as the exploration of soul in music and body. The structures of religious language is useful to me as a means to talk about this, but it is far from defining the actual content or context of the state of being itself.

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

Well, you are dead wrong on that. My experiences prior to religious indoctrination set me on a path that has been the core of who I am for the past four decades of my life. It was the later religious indoctrination that I had to cleanse myself of when it failed to bring me on a path back to this, in order to just relax back into that Ocean which has always been there as it was then.

 

[pearl]

As one might expect. There are plenty of exercises that are designed to help relax the ever-chattering busy brain. The key is not the chant, but relaxing the whirling and buzzing thoughts to a place of Silence. When that happens, then the difference becomes obvious.

True, its the ability to come to the present moment only.

Now granted, you do have those who imagine Enlightenment as some escape from life's responsibilities, and they will fall from that path soon enough,

True

The structures of religious language is useful to me as a means to talk about this, but it is far from defining the actual content or context of the state of being itself.

If one attempts to share the experience one must be able to articulate it. This is the balance that knowledge provides.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Hard to say. I was always exposed to Christian belief. So I experienced something that I took to be being in the presence of God. Jesus lifting the burden of sin.

Later I followed a Guru who taught me to hear divine music.

I started following Druidic practices and saw, plain as day, spirits dancing on each blade of grass.

In meditation, I found a place that was void of self.

The reality of what I experience is personal, but would I have even had them if I hadn't been guided to them?

You are told you will experience something and you do. Was it the right experience? Does it matter?

This is perhaps partially true, and not true as well. Typically, a good teacher will ask the student to describe his experience, and he will recognize when it's not genuine, but some manufactured thing from the student still looking for an experience. How anyone will recognize a mystical experience is very simple. They have one.


As one might expect. There are plenty of exercises that are designed to help relax the ever-chattering busy brain. The key is not the chant, but relaxing the whirling and buzzing thoughts to a place of Silence. When that happens, then the difference becomes obvious.


I don't agree with that. People seek this out because they are drawn to it from something deep within themselves. Seeking Enlightenment is a rare choice where you have to be willing to pay the price of everything you cling to and seek for yourself, to find Peace through complete release of all expectations of outcome. That is something an aspirant intuits on a deep level in themselves, prior to committing to such a path.

Now granted, you do have those who imagine Enlightenment as some escape from life's responsibilities, and they will fall from that path soon enough, or go skipping off into la la land seeking experiences to distract them from life in some New Age frenzy. This ultimately will fail as well to progress beyond that.


Not exactly. You are supposed to drop any image of outcome you have in your mind, drop any expectations of what you may bring to the seeking. However, once you do have a genuine mystical experience, the teachings do provide a framework in order for us to talk about the experience, both to ourselves and to others. This is true of any system of language and symbols with any experience of anything in life. But it seems to me you are trying to suggest that any experience of mystical states whatsoever are "primed" through the power of suggestion? I would very much disagree with that assumption, based on personal experience.


Well, I can address that one. What I made of it without the benefit of any prior religious teachings or specific practices (it was spontaneous without any prior conditioning), was to try to put it into words, indescribable. No words. Everything. Infinity. Perfection. Love. Compassion. Grace. And so forth. I did not know what this was, other than it was absolutely real, like a great curtain being pulled back to reveal absolute Reality.

It was only years after this I ended up in some religion to try to find some framework of understanding what this was in order to find a path of return to it. That of course didn't work out so well. I had to go off on my own to find that through things like a meditation practice, as well as other channels, such as the exploration of soul in music and body. The structures of religious language is useful to me as a means to talk about this, but it is far from defining the actual content or context of the state of being itself.


Well, you are dead wrong on that. My experiences prior to religious indoctrination set me on a path that has been the core of who I am for the past four decades of my life. It was the later religious indoctrination that I had to cleanse myself of when it failed to bring me on a path back to this, in order to just relax back into that Ocean which has always been there as it was then.

I understand where you are coming from as I have been there. You rely on what you have experienced for yourself as whomever is teaching you relies on what they've personally experienced.

I've however have come to question these personal experiences. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with them. The sense of fulfillment, peace, confidence in your self, direction in life.

However as I've come to learn more about what the mind is capable of, I find it to be less of a mystical process and more of an internal one.

I find most people to be completely unaware of the subconscious influences which can cause these mystical experiences. So they are to the conscious awareness, "mystical".

As I've become more aware of what causes them, it becomes easier to create them, experience them, control and influence them.

I understand there is a commonality to them which seems to support and source external to our "brain" (in materialistic terms). However there is a commonality to the experience of being human. This common experience is sufficient to explain the common mystical experience which can be found from the desire to seek a spiritual truth.

There is a benefit to these experiences in terms of the quality of life. However I suspect it is just us, expanding our control over our conscious experience.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

Accomplished teacher = Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ = author of books, not so often, mystical experiences
= Read the scriptures, pray over what you read

 

[Windwalker]

However as I've come to learn more about what the mind is capable of, I find it to be less of a mystical process and more of an internal one.

What the problem seems here is whatever narrative you may have had of them as supposedly "supernatural", which it seems as how you are using the term "mystical" to mean. I have no problem whatsoever in understanding them as part of our minds. It doesn't change the nature of what they are, or what effect they have. I sometimes just shake my head at materialists (not suggesting you here) who make some statement, "It's just the brain", as a way to dismiss or discount such transcendent experiences as anything truly meaningful. Well, hallelujah for the brain then! Would that everyone's brain would do this for them!

I find most people to be completely unaware of the subconscious influences which can cause these mystical experiences. So they are to the conscious awareness, "mystical".

I am deeply aware of these things. But I will need to clarify just exactly what "type" of mystical experience are you referring to? If you are talking subtle-level state experiences, with visions of Bodhisattvas, the Christ, Krishna, etc, these imagery do of course arise from the subconscious mind, as well as all manner of your own psychological repressions and emergent aspects which take form in various types of vision. Then there is a state of utter Stillness, where there are no visions and such. That the brain allows us to experience this, and the consequent effect it has on us, again I say hallelujah. Would that everyone knew how to access their minds like this! The world would instantly become a better place overnight.

As I've become more aware of what causes them, it becomes easier to create them, experience them, control and influence them.

I can put myself into a meditative state in a matter of seconds. However, there is something "icky" about the idea of deliberately creating, controlling, and influencing them as you suggest. The danger in this of course is the ego. Now, these become an extension of the ego, thinking it knows best what it needs. It doesn't sound like a recipe to learn from the subconscious mind in what it has to tell our puny and often times pathetic egos what higher truth it doesn't yet apprehend. I'd just be cautious about this. It could easily lead to delusions.

I understand there is a commonality to them which seems to support and source external to our "brain" (in materialistic terms). However there is a commonality to the experience of being human. This common experience is sufficient to explain the common mystical experience which can be found from the desire to seek a spiritual truth.

And none of this detracts from the pure Beauty and Power of what this is. Only an idiot would suggest that the pinnacle of how a human experiences Enlightened Mind is how all of life experiences God. For humans, this is the experience of Reality, versus the lesser illusionary states we substitute for our Awakening.

There is a benefit to these experiences in terms of the quality of life. However I suspect it is just us, expanding our control over our conscious experience.

I'll reject the term "control" here. If you are controlling, that is the ego. It is not something we create, but rather is the prior condition of our consciousness before we muck it all up with the created objects of the mind we then look to as reality. I always say to people, you already are Enlightened. You're just not enlightened to the fact of that yet. Anyone who experiences this is struck by how it was never other to us, but there the whole time. You don't achieve or control it. You allow it.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

The subconscious mind is much more aware of the world around you than your conscious self. Of course these mystical experiences can be very insightful to the conscious self. However since this is created in the subconscious mind, we are consciously cut off from knowing exactly what all the influences were behind the mystical experience.

 

[Nakosis]

What the problem seems here is whatever narrative you may have had of them as supposedly "supernatural", which it seems as how you are using the term "mystical" to mean. I have no problem whatsoever in understanding them as part of our minds. It doesn't change the nature of what they are, or what effect they have. I sometimes just shake my head at materialists (not suggesting you here) who make some statement, "It's just the brain", as a way to dismiss or discount such transcendent experiences as anything truly meaningful. Well, hallelujah for the brain then! Would that everyone's brain would do this for them!

Ok, I try not to add non-materialistic elements which I don't think can be justified.

I am deeply aware of these things. But I will need to clarify just exactly what "type" of mystical experience are you referring to? If you are talking subtle-level state experiences, with visions of Bodhisattvas, the Christ, Krishna, etc, these imagery do of course arise from the subconscious mind, as well as all manner of your own psychological repressions and emergent aspects which take form in various types of vision. Then there is a state of utter Stillness, where there are no visions and such. That the brain allows us to experience this, and the consequent effect it has on us, again I say hallelujah. Would that everyone knew how to access their minds like this! The world would instantly become a better place overnight.

The stillness allows one to become detached from the noise created by the ego and subconscious mind. You become more of an observer than an actor. Like watching a movie, the self no longer exists.

I can put myself into a meditative state in a matter of seconds. However, there is something "icky" about the idea of deliberately creating, controlling, and influencing them as you suggest. The danger in this of course is the ego. Now, these become an extension of the ego, thinking it knows best what it needs. It doesn't sound like a recipe to learn from the subconscious mind in what it has to tell our puny and often times pathetic egos what higher truth it doesn't yet apprehend. I'd just be cautious about this. It could easily lead to delusions.

What higher truth? The reality seems to me there is no "higher" truth. There is only what we experience.

Sure the ego can consciously "imagine" a mystical experience. I suppose it's icky because it is whatever you want it to be. You're no longer the actor or observer, you become the director. There's no more mystery.

And none of this detracts from the pure Beauty and Power of what this is. Only an idiot would suggest that the pinnacle of how a human experiences Enlightened Mind is how all of life experiences God. For humans, this is the experience of Reality, versus the lesser illusionary states we substitute for our Awakening.

You mean vs the greater illusionary states? Is there an ultimate reality behind all the curtains? I don't know. You look past one curtain to only, eventually, discover another. At this point, whatever my experience, I'm only expecting to discover the next curtain.

I'll reject the term "control" here. If you are controlling, that is the ego. It is not something we create, but rather is the prior condition of our consciousness before we muck it all up with the created objects of the mind we then look to as reality. I always say to people, you already are Enlightened. You're just not enlightened to the fact of that yet. Anyone who experiences this is struck by how it was never other to us, but there the whole time. You don't achieve or control it. You allow it.

You allow it? Sounds like a bit of control.

I find that exposing myself to ideas, knowledge, images, experiences, rituals can influence the subconscious noise. Immerse yourself into whichever belief system you want/like.

I think this explains the mystical, religious experience of a lot of people. To me it's like any other experience. Something one is not conscious in control of. These are fun. There's nothing wrong with them as long as we don't become attached to them.

It you see this place of stillness as the ultimate truth, maybe. Beyond that there is nothing, a void. No truth, no self, no being.

I suppose I have to admit some attachment to struggle, drama, illusion. A preference for illusion over nothing if nothing is really the ultimate truth.

So as I see it, you seek truth, find nothing and become free to create whatever truth/illusion you like.

 

[Windwalker]

The subconscious mind is much more aware of the world around you than your conscious self. Of course these mystical experiences can be very insightful to the conscious self. However since this is created in the subconscious mind, we are consciously cut off from knowing exactly what all the influences were behind the mystical experience.

One thing to add to my previous post I noted here. While you are addressing the subconscious mind, there is also the unconscious mind.

The unconscious mind stores the primal, instinctual thoughts which we cannot deliberately access. Our overt behavior may give signs of the unconscious forces that drive them, but that is involuntary. The countless memories and experiences collected throughout childhood and as toddlers contribute to forming the person we are today. Yet, we cannot recall most of those memories, other than a few incidents of relatively larger significance. These are unconscious forces (beliefs, patterns, subjective reality) that drive our behavior.

from here: Subconscious vs Unconscious mind - Difference and Comparison | Diffen
​

I am assuming you are probably meaning to speak of the unconscious mind. But one thing about the unconscious mind, is it's not just a reservoir for all of our cultural programming, but it also taps into Reality in ways our conscious, or subconscious minds do not. Part of this is the realization of the potentialities of our human experience. This "higher mind", the emergent unconscious, is realized down there, and when you begin to allow that to manifest itself, considerable transformation occurs. Not simply addressing and making conscious repressed thought, the actual programming, etc, but emergent, or as of yet unrealized qualities. I'll put a term to that, the Self. Atman. And that is in part what happens in deeper, quieter meditation. You get to meet that Face to Face, so to speak. Meditation is like psychotherapy on steroids.