--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness. Of course positive stress makes relative life more pleasant, but it also creates attachment. Selye wasn't interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also felt that some stress was necessary and desirable, which it may well be if you're considering only relative life and not growth of consciousness to enlightenment. I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be created by both negative and positive experiences. You don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the use MMY was making of the stress concept was appropriate in that context. And "marketing" is your weasely denigrating term. MMY was using it to make the nature and mechanics of consciousness comprehensible in his teaching to Westerners. > > 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.
