--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, navashok <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" <awoelflebater@> wrote: > > > All I know is this: > > > > I am not a meditator by nature. I like to do things, run around, play, get > > dirty, eat, be competitive at sports, read. The list goes on. What I > > believe MMY was brilliant at was to appeal to others like me, those not > > particularly spiritual or monkish by nature, not given to strolling off > > into some hidden cave or ashram or to spend long hours in intense > > contemplative or prolonged meditative states. I am just Jo Anybody, Amy > > Average who wants to have a good time, not hurt anyone, live comfortably. > > > > I also want to 'improve' myself, deepen myself, discover mysteries about > > myself, others, the world. But I don't want to spend an inordinate amount > > of time sitting on my butt, isolated with my eyes closed. And neither do > > the majority of the population in the Western World and perhaps everywhere > > else. And here is my point, MMY was a master at making a simple technique > > available and easily practiced by people like myself. He opened up a world > > of potential transcendence for a whole lot of people who would most likely > > have spent 40 minutes a day watching TV or chatting with friends on the > > phone instead. He created a technique that people believed would be > > beneficial and doable. > > > > I meditated from the age of 14 until I was about 30 years old. I attended > > and graduated from MIU. I had two sisters who were initiators. But my > > engagement with the Movement basically ended in 1980 when I graduated. I > > was spared the Rajas, the indignities of being on staff. I didn't invest > > years and years of my life as an initiator or Governor. I don't have any > > regrets or hold grudges with respect to my time doing TM and being at MIU. > > We all took our own ride, trod our individual paths. But no one can deny, > > at least, that Maharishi brought the concept and the practice of using a > > mantra to transcend to a huge amount of 'ordinary' householders and I don't > > think this has harmed the planet. At worst it accomplished nothing and at > > best it gave many the opportunity to deepen their awareness and explore > > something other than the ordinariness of everyday life. > > > > > This is a very nice account Ann. A nice personal account as well, I always > wanted to ask, if you actually ever did do TM, so thanks for it. Also I could > wholeheartedly agree with your conclusion of what the contribution of > Maharishi was. > > As you said it, it was to make meditation accessible to people who would not > already feel a natural affinity to any of these topics, meditation, > enlightenment, spirituality etc. like myself for example.
'Like myself' meaning, I'm the opposite of you. Well, I do run, I do sports and am very active, but I have a natural inclination towards mediation. When I started meditation, my grandma said: Oh he was always like this. > But what I wonder, if meditation was so good, and if spreading meditation was > such a good and important thing, then why don't you practice it anymore? What > I mean to say is, that your natural temperament, your natural inclination > finally one anyway. You didn't have the meditation that would really finally > have convinced you. So, despite of the fact that you are actually making a > good case for TM, your own example contradicts it. > The above should read: "your natural temperament, your natural inclination finally WON anyway"
