--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@...> wrote: > > "Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any demand, whether is is > caused by, or results in, pleasant or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, > like temperature as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and > the negative aspects of these concepts." -Hans Selye > > > "Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural functioning of the > nervous system." -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi > > IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness + > waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress. > > The two definitions converge. > > L
You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it. You obviously see what you are missing here in this comparison, even within the quote you isolate, let alone in the more full context of understanding that you probably have read. That perplexes me. The concept is so much more interesting with its nuances than Maharishi's misconception to me. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle > > again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on > > stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is > > Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is > > used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at > > least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early > > association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a > > support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM > > use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it: > > > > http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html > > > > What stress is not > > The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions > > of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by > > clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical > > opinion: > > Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals > > and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general > > manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging > > a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in > > patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the > > body. > > Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla. > > An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the > > whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory > > diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce > > considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in > > "local stress" reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body. > > Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its > > hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone, > > can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress. > > Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even > > pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce > > considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage. > > Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body. > > Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the > > contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the > > normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated > > with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only > > "local stress" and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of > > the specific activity. > > Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that, > > not stress itself. > > Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a > > whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which > > are caused by stress. > > Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress > > reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal, > > the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner. > > Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be > > produced by virtually any agent. > > Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it. > > The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that > > of exhilarating, creative, successful work is beneficial. The stress > > reaction, like energy consumption, may have good or bad effects. > > Stress cannot and should not be avoided. Everybody is always under some > > degree of stress. Even while quietly asleep our heart must continue to > > beat, our lungs to breathe, and even our brain works in the form of dreams. > > Stress can be avoided only by dying. The statement "He is under stress" is > > just as meaningless as "He is running a temperature. " What we actually > > refer to by means of such phrases is an excess of stress or of body > > temperature. > > If we consider these points, we may easily be led to conclude that stress > > cannot be defined, and that perhaps the concept itself is just not > > sufficiently clear to serve as the object of scientific study. > > Nevertheless, stress has a very clear, tangible form. Countless people have > > actually suffered or benefited from it. Stress is very real and concrete > > indeed, and is manifested in precisely measurable changes within the body. > > So before we proceed to a formal definition of the nature of stress, we > > will describe these manifestations. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote: > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms > > > > > > with your analysis. > > > > > > > > > > Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the > > > > > stress release, "unstressing", model is factually correct. Each time > > > > > we "transcend" we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous > > > > > system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would > > > > > chose as you did. > > > > > > > > Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a > > > > situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical > > > > feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as > > > > "thoughts." This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of > > > > functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking > > > > about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less > > > > thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of > > > > functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and > > > > the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with > > > > each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to > > > > interfere with the communication between the front and back parts > > > > of the brain. > > > > > > The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only > > > an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the > > > actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the > > > point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before > > > reaching what TMers believe is "the transcendent" - is 512 times more > > > gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is > > > actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to > > > even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the > > > piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of > > > practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM. > > > > > > So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest > > > levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to > > > the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've > > > said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's > > > believed to be "transcendent" in TM) to even begin to approach the > > > actual full transcendence of mind. > > > > > > Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be > > > done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively > > > frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's > > > also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor > > > interest to serious consciousness researchers. > > > > > >
