> Meditation has its place. Hypnosis has its place. > Reading this post makes you more "attached" to the > gunas. John instead of repeating boilerplate TM dogma, > try thinking independently. Quite refreshing, > actually.
Pete, I've been giving some thought to the distinctions you made on a previous post between meditation and hypnosis. I am very interested in your perspective on how they relate. Since both of them study the inward direction of a person's mind, there must be some areas of illumination for both fields. Here is where I am so far. 1. Studying hypnosis teaches you about how language shifts a person's state for their usual mix of sensory attention, to an inward state where the mind is more flexible. When I studied the language of hypnosis, I was struck with how teaching meditation used similar language patterns. Both techniques lead to a state of mind that is different from our eyes opened state. With the inner states self hypnosis achieve, the differences get even more murky. 2. But the goals and end state may have some big differences. Usually in hypnosis therapy you shift the state just enough to help facilitate a specific change in a behavior or thinking pattern. So getting to the deepest possible trance is not necessary or even desirable. In meditation the purpose is to experience your awareness itself in at it's simplest state, beyond the objects of attention. (I know MMY would have a conniption fit about having an intent in meditation to reach any state! I am not talking about the process, just the theoretical goal of reaching the source of thought) It is the state itself that is cultivated as an end in itself repeatedly, so that it can be experienced along with activity. (MMY has a washer woman dying a cloth analogy here, but in my version she gets her gauze-like blouse wet as she dyes the cloth!) 3. Because hypnosis has specific therapeutic goals it can be useful for making specific changes. The meditation state doesn't replace the states reached by hypnosis and vice versa. I am not 100% on this. 4. Self hypnosis as practiced by John Grinder in NLP begins to bridge the views a bit. He was always seeking what he called states of genius. States of mind that were not hampered by the constraints of pre-programming. He tries to push his mind into challenging situations that will squeeze out more resources. This might be as physical as rock climbing or as internal as mental techniques to shut down the mind's normal functions for a while. We used to do exercises of double inductions where you would have one person in each ear giving you different instructions for experience. 5. I have not seen that the transcending experience delivers more flexibility in a person's thinking as predicted by MMY. It is as if the state is so unstructured that it is separate from a person's mental function. In the context of a goal of "enlightened functioning" this doesn't seem to bother long-term practicers, who seem to place little emphasis on its "relative" benefits over time. 6. But the hypnosis change techniques take more effort and I never found them charming enough to practice them regularly, even though in the short term I have found them useful. When I start going inward in a self hypnosis technique my mind usually reverts to a more content free state of pure awareness so I feel too lazy to do specific work. 7. Vaj had some interesting distinctions that seemed to indicate that he believes that hypnosis and superficial meditation lead to a similar state. But that meditation if pursued further can lead to an even deeper state of mind. I tend to believe that this is possible, but I am not convinced that it is desirable. The only reason to go to such an extreme state of mind seems to be a confidence in a traditional perspective on its value within spiritual development. So that's a start if anyone would care to join in. I believe that keeping these two fields of understanding the mind's capability apart is a waste of possible perspective and insight. I think there is much that can be learned looking at each perspective to see where they overlap and where they differ. With techniques like the sidhis, I think we find more areas of overlap. the Age of Enlightenment technique is another obvious blend for me. Anytime we are functioning with specific intent within a state of meditation, hypnotic principles may apply. And since those principles with their benifits and pitfalls have been studied to some degree by some mental health professionals (Dr, Peter!) we might be able to understand our minds better. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > --- John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > MMY has warned readers about the use of hypnotism. > > It is not the same > > as meditation. As I understand it, hypnotism does > > not free one from > > the gunas. Rather, it makes one be more attached to > > the gunas. > > Meditation has its place. Hypnosis has its place. > Reading this post makes you more "attached" to the > gunas. John instead of repeating boilerplate TM dogma, > try thinking independently. Quite refreshing, > actually. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe, send a message to: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Or go to: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ > > and click 'Join This Group!' > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >
