--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On May 25, 2007, at 9:23 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: > > > > This just verifies what I've stated here numerous times, > > > that the TM myth of physical stress release from the > > > physical nervous system was fallacious. Where stress is > > > being released is in the pranic body or vajra body. It is > > > the pranic body that evolves. > > > > I don't understand the inconsistency between MMY's position, > > your's, and Muktananda's. > > > > Whether it's the "pranic body or vajra body" (although I'm not > > sure what "vajra body" is), isn't that still on the relative > > level? Whether it's actual physical body or subtle, the stress > > (or karma) is still stored there and has to be released. > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress".
Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, impressions left in the mind of past experiences (in this or previous lives). In the yogic tradition, they're said to be the imprints of past karmas (actions) that compel new actions/reactions in the present. Note that stress can be "eustress" (from positive experiences) or "distress" (from negative experiences), per Hans Selye; the same is true of samskaras. The parallel between Selye's "stress" and samskaras isn't perfect, although there are many common elements. MMY uses "stress" simply as a translation of "samskaras," rather than strictly in the Selyean sense. MMY believes, of course, that everything mental has a physical (or neurophysiological) correlate (including the "subtle" nervous system). TM is said to allow the release of the physical/ neurophysiological correlates of mental impressions (samskaras), which results in the dissolution of the mental impressions as well. Generally one > would practice a technique to resolve the karmic eddies that > still exist in the pranic body. Once practicing such a > technique, then one can follow various signs to see how that's > working. MMY's position is a marketable one, that's all, > otherwise it's utterly fallacious and misleading. Of course, it's neither. It's *simplified*, but conceptually it's pretty straight yogic theory a la Patanjali.
