> I understand this well enough. But to expand that concept to the > concept of unstressing resulting from meditation is unwarranted in my > mind. Did anyone other than MMY promote the unstressing concept? >
It may be a remake of the yogic idea of burning smaskaras. I think he tried it out and the reaction was so good in the West that he ran with it. It is kind of funny that we sort of instilled a phobia about all this "stress in the nervous system" in the intro lecture and then sold the solution to the problem we had created in their minds! --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, ruthsimplicity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > Both are "stress" in TM terms: they are experiences that overwhelm > > > Self. The Big-S Self is the exact opposite of Selye's "stereotypical > > physiological > > > response." Selye told MMY about 40 years ago that meditation was > > > the exact opposite, but I think that that was because he hadn't seen > > > the transcendental consciousness research at that time. > > > > I don't understand it that way. Eustress could just be the sun part > > of the cloth analogy. Eustress as I understand it is challenge that > > pushes you to greater ability and is considered positive in Selye's > > model right? The value of activities for infusing being was a big > > part of the story that supported fulltimers. Developing "flexibility" > > etc. was purported to be created by certain activities and often > > included a dose of sleep deprivation. > > > > > Yes, yes, yes. Stress can be good. You are hungry, you eat. You > want to ride a bike, you may fall a few times. People strive and are > competitive and handling the distress involved in learning is a big > advantage. > > I understand this well enough. But to expand that concept to the > concept of unstressing resulting from meditation is unwarranted in my > mind. Did anyone other than MMY promote the unstressing concept? >
