--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Right. I am of course not referring to the TM itself, but to the > > > explanation that is given especially at the second day checking, > > that > > > is stress release, and thought being an expression of it. The idea > > > that stresses, for example emotional are restored in the body and > > upon > > > release are giving rise to thought activity. The idea that the > > thought > > > will be not necessarily exact, but could respond by association. > > That > > > there is a mixture, i.e. a cluster of stress released. That there > > is a > > > cycle. > > > > But this is exactly what the samskaras are in the Yogic tradition. > > Ever occur to you that maybe Hubbard was familiar with THAT? > > Hubbard modelled his Dianetics after Psychtherapy. He surely was aware > of Samskaras, but in Indian thought samkaras are usually not being rid > of by just making them conscious. This is typically Freud. You become > conscious of something hiding in the unconscious and get rid of it > thereby. You don't find this in the indian Samskar theory. Similarely > in TM the stresses are being released when the thought arises. I am > not aware that in indian theory the arising of thought is seen as > getting rid of Samkaras. I am not saying that it cannot work. I am > just saying that I am not aware of such a source. I don't think that > it's bad to get inspired and influenced by other contemporary > movements. But personaly I wouldn't be too rigit about this > thought=stressrelease theory. It's helpful, but its also a trap. You > get rid of Samskaras in TM. But it's not one to one with the thoughts > arising IMO.
MMY never said it was. In fact, in the SCI tapes, he said exactly the opposite: that you cannot assume a 1 to 1 relationship. you have to distinguish of a theory being helpful to keep > a certain process going - as an explanation, to not resist thoughts or > force oneself, and it being *literally* true. An elephant has two > kinds of teeth, two to show and two to chew. > > > Its not the same, but you feel that he modelled it after the > > > auditing model of Dianetics. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
