Originally Posted By: Ellis

TT- Is it necessary to have met someone in order to have some understanding of their philosphy? Surely the method Rev described is the method by which people learn of ideas and trends ie. by comparing notes---and presumably discussing and conducting personal research into the new ideas and assessing them. None of us can meet Gandhi, Confucius or Jesus but many think their ideas have merit and relevance.

Following the idea of merit, does it make sense to discuss brain surgery if you haven't studied it or practiced it? Would the conversation be anything more than speculation?

The mechanics of moving the awareness inward are pretty much the same for any valid teaching using a useful set of tools that work. Over the centuries there have been many teachings of this process with many names. Also over the many centuries there have been many religions speculating the relationship of spirit to the manifest from the intellect but not from direct experience.
These discussions often branch off into democratic cliques similar to the way freedom of religious belief branches into the many churches and their names complete with judgment and hollow claims to the effect that comparison and majority creates authority.

If the Reverend wants to discredit the Maharishi and his Teaching without having spent time with him or with an understanding of his teaching he is more than welcome to do that as his choice. But in all reality would you allow someone to operate on your brain who has only met a brain surgeon and has only talked about brain surgery with others, and one who didn't think much of the brain surgeon he met in the first place because he cast judgment around the surgeon from surface appearances and personal beliefs?
Is this the normal way to learn, from others who make assumptions or to assume knowledge from another without direct experience?
Originally Posted By: Ellis

I have to say that in this instance you have been hammering Rev with your own personal take on spirituality, which you obviously find revealing and beneficial. This is great for you, but others are still seeking the destination you seem to have found. However annoying we find Rev he seems to me to be one who is still seeking affirmation that his search for 'truth' is a valid one, and one which he will find ( or has found) the answers, which he now seeks to share. Just like you really.

Well no, not like me really.
If he seeks affirmation from one who knows and his ideas are incorrect should the one who knows say, "Why Yes, that is correct," and mislead the Rev.? I haven't been hammering him with anything but the facts. He makes assumptions and projects from limited knowledge of what he has said about the NOW and God, and I have responded quickly and without hesitation from the knowledge that projecting from an idea not backed with experience is illusion, especially when it is projected upon someone who knows better. If he didn't want me to engage him he wouldn't have responded to me as he did.
He wants me to prove I know better regardless of whether he is projecting or not, diverting the attention from his own weak foundation of belief. And he wants a biography so he can judge whether the truth is worthy based on who it comes from.
You see I experience the Rev, a bit differently. He seeks companionship in his own affirmations of his chosen path. Without something greater in experience and understanding, no one will give up their beliefs for an idea that escapes them due to lack of experience.
The Rev. has fit the word NOW into his poetic framework of self identification but just because he has, doesn't mean he knows what it is.
Obviously this has been the case in Religions all over the world and in all of history. People of all beliefs have used the manipulation of affirmations to try and protect their truth in the face of opposition. It's just an egoic defense mechanism.

The Rev. says he's open to learn but I have offered him some insight to the reality that he is only open to accept what he feels fits within his expectations of what God is and how it feels to him. So far he hasn't been able to give up anything he clings to that might take from his sense of self worth and identity of self/ego. He demands proof first before he will give up his beliefs.
This is understandable but not so much when a person admits their beliefs are from the lack of experience and knowledge. It doesn't make sense really to fight so hard for something even when your beliefs are constantly changing and morphing into something else.
A Chameleon uses this type of behavior for protection from its natural predators. The ego uses it to keep from being annihilated.

For anyone who has invested years into belief and, making assumptions of God without the actual experience of God, it can be a great blow to the ego to discover everything you believe in is built on shaky ground.

Freedom of the NOW is far beyond the need of affirmations from the outside. Being able to choose for the Now takes all the power of God and puts it right where you are (once you Know God).
One way is Self/Consciously supportive from the awareness of truth and comes from the inside (from God).
The other is co-dependent and is addicted to the feelings created by the limited support of others and the projections of God in a relative unity in belief as a moral majority.

Once such a support system is removed, there is no real ground to stand on.
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!