If it works for me, or him, or her; why knock it just because it doesn't work, or you don't want it to work, or cannot let it work for you?
That was partly what I wanted to bring forward, when The Reverend insisted that he would choose to believe what his close friend told him about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, when he (the Reverend) claimed that MMY sold snake oil. If it worked for so many others, why would he make a claim to something he had no experience with, in the practice of Transcendental Meditation?
Why would he choose to believe his friend when others of note who practice it, claim otherwise?
It also prompts a query into the idea of accepting testimony
for something you have no experience with.
Just because you like someone or dislike someone, why would the reality of what is spoken of be accepted or rejected?
If the attachment to surface appearances creates the barriers to the underlying reality of life, then how does one gain clear perception of reality or direct experience?
Does one just decide to have clear perception and gain it, or does one gain clear perception in another way?
Can you hypnotize yourself into experiencing something you have no familiarity with, or do you first become experientially familiar with something before letting go of the ignorance surrounding the reality of life or a subject within it?
