Is Personal Experience Reliable?

[+Sherapy]

Oh I see, ok, here I go:

Me:

Sorry, about that Sheri. I should have elaborated more on my point there. What I was trying to say, is actually geared to what each individual believes themselves, and thus their own experiences are the clinchers in their own beliefs. Meaning, someone's belief came to be, more than likely from something that experienced to get them there. If we are talking about the paranormal, I think of Zac Baggins's words in the theme of "Ghost Adventures" in which he came to believe and be fascinated in ghosts in his own experience in facing one face to face. He believes in ghosts because an experience in such triggered it. I feel the same thing in spirituality and belief systems, there were experiences that triggered belief in a certain religion or such. Me, for example, despite being an Atheist for only a short time in my life, because of how I was secular raised, there have been moments in my life that triggered my belief in varying New Age beliefs. Whether it was from happenstance or my pursuit of it, I think is irrelevant. That the fact, I myself, experienced it makes me believe, and me only. That is my shield from anyone trying to get me to think differently. Maybe it is irrelevant to debate on whether one can say they have a right to believe what they want to believe for themselves, because I think that is evident from the beginning. I don't think you could take your beliefs and experiences and try to hammer it into someone else. Because more than likely, they have their own triggers (experiences) that brought on their own beliefs.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

In how I was using this to explain my thoughts to your OP Sheri, I think is someone with their positive beliefs will always be alone in that, no matter how similar someone else's might be. I like to cherish the unique beliefs and non-beliefs everyone besides me have. I don't think it's important to get others to believe what I believe, my beliefs are what sustains me. I think what I'm trying to say, everyone will have their experiences and reasons for their beliefs, and being happy for their individual outlook is just as important as I am happy in mine. Maybe in a nutshell, no one will successfully change your mind, if you are sure of it in the first place, and your experiences that took you there is just a good example how that is. (Oh dear, I hope I am making sense. )

I guess the only time when experiences should be used in convincing others of your belief or such, is probably when you have a question about it and hope someone else has an understanding of it and answering those questions for you.

I think it's all good to want to share in something, to feel part of the situation, but different outlooks, when how things happen will have different results. I don't think anyone can escape that.

(Again, I hope I made sense )

.........................am also wondering if I ended up blubbering! ................................................Oh well..............

Sharon, you make incredible sense; I see exactly what you mean and I love how you say something personal triggered you to pursue a particualr belief and it should not and probably won't matter to anyone else. Unless you have the great fortune of meeting another person who happens to beleive the same. Thank you for posting.

[+Sherapy]

I have practiced a spiritual mystery religion for 12 years. From my experience I say no they are not reliable. The difference is between revealed religions, those with founders or a sacred book as a single source of guidance (such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam or Buddhism.) and mystery religions which have no single source and use personal experiences and multiple sources as a source of guidance (Earth base, some aboriginal, Druidry, most neo Pagan paths.) In revealed religions you are dependent on your source to be correct even as society changes over time and new ideals come into light. It is someone elses spiritual experience right or wrong. In mystery religions, the goal is to have the experience yourself. It too has its pitfalls. You can end up going down the wrong path if you're not careful. That is where sharing and research comes in. But your experience is your own. I am always surprised how often the experiences can end with same conclusions in different people.

Can you share some examples of same conclusions different people just for clarity. Thanks

[Leonardo]

You didn't mention academic knowledge in your criteria for making claims was this an oversight or intentional. What place does academic knowledge have in making claims (coming from personal experience)?

I am just asking your thoughts in general as I like the perspective you bring; I agree we are incredibly prone to self bias and self deception when it comes to our experiences.

Any knowledge, inherent or imparted, can increase our 'familiarity' with a particular phenomenon or experience, albeit imparted knowledge grants that 'familiarity' from the perspective of the observer, not the experiencer.

If we are more familiar with the imparted knowledge than the inherent (experienced), then we naturally trend towards trusting that. It wasn't so much an oversight that I didn't specify knowledge in my list of criteria, and it wasn't an 'omission', it is simply grouped - along with many other specifics - into the 'familiar'.

[Grandpa Greenman]

Can you share some examples of same conclusions different people just for clarity. Thanks

Oh dear, now I have to talk about my crazy witchy, Druidy stuff, I always seem to get into trouble when I do that. People come to Pagan paths looking for different things. If they stay with it long enough and work at it. They come the realization that gods are really just different aspects of universe as we also aspects of the same universe. You find that in a lot of other spiritual paths, too, but not all.

Then there is the woowoo crazy stuff. I am sitting in a circle with 5 people, we have been meditating on a cauldron with a little water in it, no fire, no moon, no light. One says, "Did you see that?", Another says, "You mean the light shooting out of the cauldron.", "Yes, what color did you see." Another says, "Blue." All agree the light shooting up to the sky out of the cauldron was bright blue. Lady comes late for ritual, she has been to the circle before. knows where we meet. She looks all over for us property for us. Finally she goes and sits on a bench. We finish the ritual and step out of circle. She sees us and runs up, "Where were you guys?" "We were right there in the circle." "No, you couldn't have been, I looked there." "Next time get to ritual before we call the mists." It just seems to me, the woowoo stuff happens more often than it should by random chance. If you tried to do it in a lab, it would never happen again. Observation affects the outcome or something, maybe, i don't know.

But this is why you shouldn't go by the experiences of others. You have to experience it on a personal level. It you tell others it is just crazy woowoo stuff. Everybody has a different point of view.

[+Sherapy]

Oh dear, now I have to talk about my crazy witchy, Druidy stuff, I always seem to get into trouble when I do that. People come to Pagan paths looking for different things. If they stay with it long enough and work at it. They come the realization that gods are really just different aspects of universe as we also aspects of the same universe. You find that in a lot of other spiritual paths, too, but not all.

Then there is the woowoo crazy stuff. I am sitting in a circle with 5 people, we have been meditating on a cauldron with a little water in it, no fire, no moon, no light. One says, "Did you see that?", Another says, "You mean the light shooting out of the cauldron.", "Yes, what color did you see." Another says, "Blue." All agree the light shooting up to the sky out of the cauldron was bright blue. Lady comes late for ritual, she has been to the circle before. knows where we meet. She looks all over for us property for us. Finally she goes and sits on a bench. We finish the ritual and step out of circle. She sees us and runs up, "Where were you guys?" "We were right there in the circle." "No, you couldn't have been, I looked there." "Next time get to ritual before we call the mists." It just seems to me, the woowoo stuff happens more often than it should by random chance. If you tried to do it in a lab, it would never happen again. Observation affects the outcome or something, maybe, i don't know.

But this is why you shouldn't go by the experiences of others. You have to experience it on a personal level. It you tell others it is just crazy woowoo stuff. Everybody has a different point of view.

Thank you for sharing, I have always been fascinated by all things witch.

[+Sherapy]

Any knowledge, inherent or imparted, can increase our 'familiarity' with a particular phenomenon or experience, albeit imparted knowledge grants that 'familiarity' from the perspective of the observer, not the experiencer.

If we are more familiar with the imparted knowledge than the inherent (experienced), then we naturally trend towards trusting that. It wasn't so much an oversight that I didn't specify knowledge in my list of criteria, and it wasn't an 'omission', it is simply grouped - along with many other specifics - into the 'familiar'.

Thank you for the clarity.

[Galahad]

I'm not certain what it is you mean here?

I said we assess reliability using different criteria based on our 'familiarity' with either the experience or the claimant (or both).

If our assessment is based on 'trust', is that reliable? Generally, yes - unless we are being deceived.

I'm not sure I understand why you ask what would make you trustworthy? Unless that is in relation to self-assessment of your own experiences? In which case there is no difference in assessing those to assessing the experiences of others - except that we are more casually biased/deceived by ourselves.

Behavioral Science ?

Edited April 1, 2015 by Galahad

[+Sherapy]

Behavioral Science ?

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm

Leo, is referencing this article.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I'll admit to not having read the whole thread, but I'll fully endorse "personal experience" as a valid way of approaching this. Provided one is not hurting self or others personal experience is the ONLY way of reliably working with the world. To deny my own personal experiences because they don't have empirical support sounds dishonest to myself. That's like saying "I have no empirical evidence that a relationship with this woman will work therefore I must admit it doesn't exist and not even acknowledge its existence".

Tragic.

Of course, if the person with personal experience is legitimately suffering delusion and just thinks they are experiencing something then society may need to intervene. But without that empirical evidence of delusion and danger to the person in question, personal experience simply MUST be part of the process, otherwise life is meaningless.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Galahad]

"I think therfore I am "

[Frank Merton]

I appreciate this thread; been away for a few days so will insert my approach even though I suspect as much as already been said.

Personal experiences can be taken as evidence of something -- either a delusion or an illusion or reality. Three choices. Trying, on the basis of just the experience, to choose is possible but dangerous.

We weight all evidence in a context of what we already think about the world and what we already know, and how well it fits. If the experience doesn't fit at all, we think probably delusion. The further "out" the evidence is, the more we doubt it and the more auxiliary evidence we ask for. The rational person is always ready to leave some thing's reality undecided in there is not enough grounds for either belief or disbelief.

Some people seem to have a personality quirk that wants to accept things on aesthetic grounds (how beautiful or exciting or mysterious it is) rather than on rational grounds. These people and their opinions can simply be disregarded.

[Frank Merton]

"I think therfore I am "

Just what do you think you are doing when you "think?" You are thinking you think. There is a self-referential problem with that that the great Descartes seems to have either missed or decided to ignore.

[Galahad]

Well I think I'm talking on a forum...but maybe I'm talking to a wall in a padded room in reality! Lol, ( eyes glancing left and right) , the only thing I'm actually sure of is that I exist, because I think! thats the thing with crazy people.......they don't know there crazy!

[Frank Merton]

Well I think I'm talking on a forum...but maybe I'm talking to a wall in a padded room in reality! Lol, ( eyes glancing left and right) , the only thing I'm actually sure of is that I exist, because I think! thats the thing with crazy people.......they don't know there crazy!

You are posting on a forum, not thinking. Remember that to think about thinking you have to think you think, which requires that you think you think you think, which requires that you think you think you think you think, etc.

I dunno how our mind works, but I suspect that "thinking" is an illusion. The words I type appear off my fingers and there is no thought involved -- it just happens. Of course one says that the "thoughts" are processed by the subconscious so we aren't aware of the mechanics, except that there were no thoughts to be processed.

At the very least, this notion of thinking is too poorly defined/understood/delimited to allow it to be used as the basis for a profound and extremely important philosophical conclusion -- that anything "exists."

[eight bits]

GreenmansGod

If you tried to do it in a lab, it would never happen again.

I predict just the opposite. Such things have been done in a lab, and are being done. I interpret them according to what you said

If they stay with it long enough and work at it. They come the realization that gods are really just different aspects of universe as we also aspects of the same universe.

So, there is no blue flame in the sense that you could cook with it. But there is an aspect of yourself and your relationship with what else is that finds expression in the experienced image of a blue flame erupting from a cauldron into the sky. (I think another member sometimes reports something similar, except that his talks, if I recall correctly. Either way, the experience is psychological, not immediately practical, but meaningful and so potentially ultimately practical).

On a point arising about the proper characterization of Buddhism:

Most of what we call "religions" involve one or more instances of something Mircea Eliade called a "hierophany," a human interpreting an experience as the emergence of something supernatural into the natural world.

Two of the chief kinds of religiously important hierophanies are hugely different: epiphany and theophany. Epiphany is a sudden feeling of breakthrough (not necessarily supernatural; Archimedes in his bath suddenly realizing how to do something and shouting Eureka! was an epipahny). Theophany is an encounter with a god, which may be sudden or expected, brief or extended... as long as there's a god involved, preferably a talkative one. Plus, there is a third important kind of hierophany which doesn't have a name (so far as I know), such as described by psychiatrist Raymond Bucke in his book Cosmic Consciousness,

All at once, without warning of any kind, he found himself wrapped up as it were by a flame-colored cloud. For an instant, he thought of fire, some sudden conflagration in the great city; the next he knew that the light was within himself. Directlty afterwards came upon him a sense of exultation, of immense joyousness accompanied or immediately followed by an intellectual illumination quite impossible to describe.

Into his brain streamed one momentary lightning-flash of the Brahmic Splendor which has ever since lightened his life; upon his heart fell one drop of Brahmic Bliss, leaving thenceforward for always an aftertaste of heaven. Among other things he did not come to believe, he saw and knew that the Cosmos is not dead matter but a living Presence, that the soul of man is immortal, that the universe is so built and ordered that without any peradventure all things work together for the good of each and all, that the foundation principle of the world is what we call love and the happiness of every one is in the long run absolutely certain.

He claims that he learned more within the few seconds during which the illumination lasted than in the previous months or even years of study, and that he learned much that no study could ever have taught. The illumination itself continued not more than a few moments, but its effects proved ineffaceable; it was impossible for him ever to forget what he at that time saw an knew; neither did he, or could he, ever doubt the truth of what was then presented to his mind. There was no return that night or at any other time of the experience.

That's more than an epiphany, I think, but not properly a theophany either.

So, Buddhism versus Abrahamism. Both of these legendary, and for us literary, founders had hierophanies. The religious movements that flow from them are based on stories about their hierophanies and the hierophanies of their many successors.

However, the key thing about a theophany is that a supernatural personality is involved. Abraham's God talks to him like Abraham's wife or concubine or sons talk to him. They can explain themselves, who they are, what they want, why they are talking to him, and so on. What the leaders of the religion gather from these conversations become the doctrines of the religion. However extraordinary the circumstances, what happens fits easily into ordinary waking consciousness. When Abraham negotiated with God for mercy on Sodom, he could just as well have been haggling over the price of a carpet as far as cognitive processing goes.

In contrast, the Buddha's experience was more like Bucke's - the Buddha figures out what the experience means more or less on his own, and in both cases, the meaning is more than personal, it is metaphysical, and somehow the "blinding force" of the realization is taken as an indicator of its correctness. (Acceptance is not inevitable; Archimedes tested his bathtime epiphany, as did Henri Poincare who was "carried away" in modern times. Also, the Buddha recommends personal testing and retesting of all teachings, as did Jesus, for that matter.)

The role of the books involved are as different as the root experiences of the founders. The point of a "Bible" is that you, average Joe and Jane, needn't have a theophany, that's all been done for you (and if someone wants a smooth-running instituionalized religion, it's best not to have new doctrines pop up except under the supervision of management). It is this kind of religion that Carl Jung and others describe as a psychological defense AGAINST having a hierophany.

Of course, in Buddhism, it's just the opposite, what the Buddha did first, you need to do yourself in order for what the Buddha did to be of best use to you. Reading about it is not a substitute for doing it, believing it is pointless unless belief motivates action. Ideally, a believer reading about it is an inspiration and preparation for the believer doing it.

So, it is not unusual for any religion to be based on one or more original hierophanies, and both Buddhism and Abrahamism are. That much is similar. But their hierophanies were different in kind, and from that difference flow many other differences in what happens next and how followers relate to the founders. That justifies distinguishing Buddhism from a "revealed" religion.

[Frank Merton]

I very much appreciated the distinction between epiphany and theophany, and the fact that the Buddha's reported experience was the former and involved no communication from a deity (although of course the story is loaded with deities trying to either encourage or to discourage the Buddha from going forward from there).

We are told the Buddha became enlightened as a "Buddha" because he did it by his own bootstraps, without having a Buddhist tradition to help. His epiphany occurred at the end of a long process of mental evolution, testing this and that and lots of meditating (sitting still thinking introspectively) and, no doubt even after the event, which we would take as a point where he saw how the pieces fit together, the teaching still continued to evolve and mature.

Still, I have studied Buddhism (as have many others of course) and know it well and accept the core of the teaching, at least as it pertains to the nature of the world and of our experience in it, but I never experienced enlightenment and would not consider myself enlightened. I think this is not an uncommon thing. One can accept Buddhism on rational grounds because it makes sense and so on (and of course because the teaching helps so much with living -- although that would not be grounds for accepting a teaching). There is nothing in it requiring any sort of special experience to come to accept it, and generally such a thing doesn't happen.

[Whisperer]

Wow eight bits, your so deep...

But yeah, to me, personal experience is reliable in every way, whether anyone else jumps on my bandwagon or not is dependent on their personal experience.

I hold my personal experience as waypoints to where my personal understanding is evolving, of course dependent on the usual's, from my so called spiritual experiences (still not happy with that description) to my worldly experiences.

Without them I wouldn't have a leg to stand on....

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Sharon, you make incredible sense; I see exactly what you mean and I love how you say something personal triggered you to pursue a particualr belief and it should not and probably won't matter to anyone else. Unless you have the great fortune of meeting another person who happens to beleive the same. Thank you for posting.

Awww, thanks Sheri! Well, unfortunately in the real life, really haven't met anyone close to my beliefs, which is ok. Well, that's not quite true. Someone I use to work with, who I consider a great friend, maybe close to it. She does attend a Christian church, which seems to fit a lot of my belief characteristics. We were talking about our beliefs one day, and she thought this church might meet my needs. I was thankful for her talking about it and suggesting it. I haven't gone to it though. There are still some things in my personal belief system that has me wary.

But, if I have met people close to my beliefs it's on here. There are a couple of posters on here who mention their belief's characteristics and it matches mine to a good match or such. And I have told them such. It's quite refreshing!

[mskate]

Unfortunately that seems to be the case with your own ' personal experiences ' , you could be

believed buy a close Friend- family.... say you said to me ,There's a purple monster with 1 eye

in the middle of his head- well , I don't think I could believe that. Unless I saw it myself, then

you would be cause I saw it too! do ya see what I'm saying?

[Frank Merton]

One-eyed purple monsters in the front yard don't happen, so it is pointless speculating what I might think of such a report. This is I think a species of hypothesis contrary to fact. Should one turn up my first impulse would be to question what we all ate for dinner, unless of course it's on the evening news, in which case some new biology textbooks will soon be needed.

[Grandpa Greenman]

8 Bits and Frank, I didn't mean to imply Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions are the same. Far from it, but I only say they have single source for their foundations. In the case of Buddhism it is that of the Buddha. I am sure if Siddhartha walked into a Buddhist temple he would have a serious face palm. Buddhism as he intended isn't really a religion it is philosophy, but you have to admit people have given it all the trappings of a religion.

Any story when you start retelling it gets garbled. Case in point, 8 Bits, said we saw a blue flame, but I said it was a light, I never said it was a flame, because it wasn't a flame. It was light as in a flashlight pointed up at the night sky. We weren't looking for an epiphany, we were practicing like you would music. You took someone elses experience from a book whose experience was different and put them together then came up with your own conclusion. It is human nature to draw links even when there are none. When I read Buddha's story the link I draw is to the tree he was sitting under. My epiphany came sitting under an oak tree. All I can say, if you are happy with you life as it is, don't meditate under trees, they are conduits.

Edited April 1, 2015 by GreenmansGod

[+Sherapy]

GreenmansGod

I predict just the opposite. Such things have been done in a lab, and are being done. I interpret them according to what you said

So, there is no blue flame in the sense that you could cook with it. But there is an aspect of yourself and your relationship with what else is that finds expression in the experienced image of a blue flame erupting from a cauldron into the sky. (I think another member sometimes reports something similar, except that his talks, if I recall correctly. Either way, the experience is psychological, not immediately practical, but meaningful and so potentially ultimately practical).

On a point arising about the proper characterization of Buddhism:

Most of what we call "religions" involve one or more instances of something Mircea Eliade called a "hierophany," a human interpreting an experience as the emergence of something supernatural into the natural world.

Two of the chief kinds of religiously important hierophanies are hugely different: epiphany and theophany. Epiphany is a sudden feeling of breakthrough (not necessarily supernatural; Archimedes in his bath suddenly realizing how to do something and shouting Eureka! was an epipahny). Theophany is an encounter with a god, which may be sudden or expected, brief or extended... as long as there's a god involved, preferably a talkative one. Plus, there is a third important kind of hierophany which doesn't have a name (so far as I know), such as described by psychiatrist Raymond Bucke in his book Cosmic Consciousness,

That's more than an epiphany, I think, but not properly a theophany either.

So, Buddhism versus Abrahamism. Both of these legendary, and for us literary, founders had hierophanies. The religious movements that flow from them are based on stories about their hierophanies and the hierophanies of their many successors.

However, the key thing about a theophany is that a supernatural personality is involved. Abraham's God talks to him like Abraham's wife or concubine or sons talk to him. They can explain themselves, who they are, what they want, why they are talking to him, and so on. What the leaders of the religion gather from these conversations become the doctrines of the religion. However extraordinary the circumstances, what happens fits easily into ordinary waking consciousness. When Abraham negotiated with God for mercy on Sodom, he could just as well have been haggling over the price of a carpet as far as cognitive processing goes.

In contrast, the Buddha's experience was more like Bucke's - the Buddha figures out what the experience means more or less on his own, and in both cases, the meaning is more than personal, it is metaphysical, and somehow the "blinding force" of the realization is taken as an indicator of its correctness. (Acceptance is not inevitable; Archimedes tested his bathtime epiphany, as did Henri Poincare who was "carried away" in modern times. Also, the Buddha recommends personal testing and retesting of all teachings, as did Jesus, for that matter.)

The role of the books involved are as different as the root experiences of the founders. The point of a "Bible" is that you, average Joe and Jane, needn't have a theophany, that's all been done for you (and if someone wants a smooth-running instituionalized religion, it's best not to have new doctrines pop up except under the supervision of management). It is this kind of religion that Carl Jung and others describe as a psychological defense AGAINST having a hierophany.

Of course, in Buddhism, it's just the opposite, what the Buddha did first, you need to do yourself in order for what the Buddha did to be of best use to you. Reading about it is not a substitute for doing it, believing it is pointless unless belief motivates action. Ideally, a believer reading about it is an inspiration and preparation for the believer doing it.

So, it is not unusual for any religion to be based on one or more original hierophanies, and both Buddhism and Abrahamism are. That much is similar. But their hierophanies were different in kind, and from that difference flow many other differences in what happens next and how followers relate to the founders. That justifies distinguishing Buddhism from a "revealed" religion.

Excellent post 8ty, and in Buddhism as far as I know there is no personal testimony, your experiences are just that, little importance is placed on them in the big picture, they are geared towards what wisdom they lead you to. And the wisdom you are led to is not defined /outlined for you.

[+Sherapy]

I very much appreciated the distinction between epiphany and theophany, and the fact that the Buddha's reported experience was the former and involved no communication from a deity (although of course the story is loaded with deities trying to either encourage or to discourage the Buddha from going forward from there).

We are told the Buddha became enlightened as a "Buddha" because he did it by his own bootstraps, without having a Buddhist tradition to help. His epiphany occurred at the end of a long process of mental evolution, testing this and that and lots of meditating (sitting still thinking introspectively) and, no doubt even after the event, which we would take as a point where he saw how the pieces fit together, the teaching still continued to evolve and mature.

Still, I have studied Buddhism (as have many others of course) and know it well and accept the core of the teaching, at least as it pertains to the nature of the world and of our experience in it, but I never experienced enlightenment and would not consider myself enlightened. I think this is not an uncommon thing. One can accept Buddhism on rational grounds because it makes sense and so on (and of course because the teaching helps so much with living -- although that would not be grounds for accepting a teaching). There is nothing in it requiring any sort of special experience to come to accept it, and generally such a thing doesn't happen.

Thank you for your thoughts, Frank. They are valued and appreciated by me. As you so eloquently put Buddhsim doesn't require the giving up of anything. Whatever one is lead to in the way of wisdom is via their personal experience and is about them for them. The biggest part for me was thinking about how different it was from the western world (abrahamic) approach. For ex: in Buddhism one is concerned with the process, being "right" would only be subject to the findings according to the journey, therefore conclusions are changed easily. Where as "right" in the abrahamics are firmly tied to the conclusion, in other words never changed or revised.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Sherapy

[eight bits]

My apologies, GmG. I stand corrected. It was the picture that formed in my head while I was reading your post, and appropriately enough for the theme of the htread, the picture was influenced by my personal experience.

Whenever I point a flashlight upwards (including a bluish LED one),

It was light as in a flashlight pointed up at the night sky.

I don't see anything "shooting" (the word in your post) at all beyond the light source itself.

However, that does not justify asserting a flame when you did not. Sorry again.

[Grandpa Greenman]

My apologies, GmG. I stand corrected. It was the picture that formed in my head while I was reading your post, and appropriately enough for the theme of the htread, the picture was influenced by my personal experience.

Whenever I point a flashlight upwards (including a bluish LED one),

I don't see anything "shooting" (the word in your post) at all beyond the light source itself.

However, that does not justify asserting a flame when you did not. Sorry again.

No big deal, it did point out the pitfalls of using the spiritual experiences of others, though.