Reading and understanding are two very different things, one cannot simply read and understand as one cannot just grasp the full meaning.....
They might be different things (like eating and satiating ones hunger are two different things) but they are not mutually exclusive.
it must be realized.....in the mind.....before one can even truly explain what it is.
Teachings are explanations too. Knowing is also an aspect of realising.
Although one needs to be very careful what one reads as one who is deluded does not truly know if what one is reading is actually that of an enlightened being.....A blind man cannot lead a blind man out of the forest!
The Buddha was a blind man? Jigten Sumgon? Saraha? The authors of "The Sovereign All-Creating Mind - The Motherly Buddha"? I think you will find that these are trustworthy sources, I cannot have the same faith in what you say though (though others may).
Was it not the Buddha who mentioned that to admit oneself is deluded is a wise man.....and for one who does not admit onself is deluded is in fact a fool.
I don't think anybody here claimed to not be deluded. Or maybe there is somebody here who can claim this?
...and for one to have familiarisation, one must first achieve realization.
Not necessarily, I can familiarise myself with Jhana experiences by reading any number of texts, then when I experience them... Of course "knowing" about them is not the same as experiencing them, but "not knowing" of them is also not the same as experiencing them. Knowing is not realising (though it can lead to realisation), but I would say that "not knowing" is hardly a precondition to bringing one closer to realisation.
Natural reaction is a common theme...
What are you talking bout here? I fail to understand this term.