--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- 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.
Maharishi was linking it with a scientist to assume of the credibility for his own theories which were from a spiritual tradition while misusing the concepts through oversimplification. > Of course positive stress makes relative life more > pleasant, but it also creates attachment. It also stimulates dendrite growth. The concept of positive stress for Seyle is much more significant and profound than this description. It is a powerful useful force in our life that the yogis seem to miss. Look at life in a movement facility and you will see the results of this misunderstanding. 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. Of course. But he was also trying to base his thoery on more than the authority Maharishi was using too and that is why it was desirable for Maharishi to hook his marketing star to. > > 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. These are two different logical levels I don't think they are related and shouldn't have been combined. Whatever Maharishi was talking about from his spiritual tradition was only superficially perhaps analogously related to how Seyle presented his ideas. > > And "marketing" is your weasely denigrating term.> It is a factual term for how it was used. I know I taught it misusing the concepts as I was instructed. It is your term weasely which is a distraction from me pointing out Maharishi was misusing the connection with the term stress while ignoring the actual concepts Seyle was promoting. MMY > was using it to make the nature and mechanics of > consciousness comprehensible in his teaching to > Westerners. Without regard to the integrity of the concepts themselves for his marketing scheme laid out in his SOB. And so you too have missed the fascinating subtly of Seyle's concepts. You don't care that they were misused and presented in a misleading way to promote TM. That is the TM way. > > > > > > > > > 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. >
