--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > > > Karma is what tradition would state, not "stress". > > > > > > Actually, "stress" in MMY's lingo refers to samskaras, [restoring snipped portion] > 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.
<snip> > If this is indeed what he's referring to, then please > quote a source showing the equivalency in MMB's own words. Who's "MMB"? If you mean MMY, I don't have a quote, but none is needed. If you know what samskaras are, and you've ever heard MMY talking about "stress," the equivalence is ridiculously obvious. I'm hardly the only person to have made this observation (and I made it independently, before learning that others had made it as well, just on the strength of the similarities). It seems rather strange, Vaj, that with all your vast knowledge of MMY's teaching and the yogic teaching, you wouldn't have made the association on your own. For that matter, MMY isn't the only one to have adopted the term "stress" to refer to samskaras. See, for instance, this from Swami Satyananda Saraswati (student of Sivananda): http://tinyurl.com/2gevpa > If indeed it is, and I suspect you may be right, the mediator is > indeed the pranic body and it's karmic eddies not the physical > nervous system (as oft advertised in TMO tracts). > > There may indeed be a physical component in the nervous system, > e.g. glia with an extremely short time span unmeasurable by > current medical imaging technology or some short biological half- > life fast neurotransmitters, but currently there is no tangible > evidence to definitely arrive at such a conclusion. There are a lot of things in yogic theory for which there is no "tangible evidence."
