--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > 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. > > What I remember being told is that the > content of thoughts that arise likely have > nothing at all to do with the content of > the stresses being released.
That's only half true. I just looked it up, I still have the notes: let's say the stress was created through an overwhelming feeling of joy. When the stress is getting released you will re-experience the joy, but you will attribute it to something in your immediate environment.Let's say you expect a friend to come, and you will associate the *feeling* with the present event. But the feeling will be reminescent of the stress being released according to 2nd day checking. Incidentally I came across the same kind of explanation on the site explaining auditing. They even illustrated it, showing a motorbike you see, and then indicate how it triggers a stress created by a motorbike accident. Of course in the TM the whole re-experiencing is somewhat diluted due to the fact that there could be clusters of stress being simultaneausly released (but that is also said by Scn, they actually adress whole clusters of engrams AFAIK), and be the fact that they could be partially released, e.g. a big shock could be slowely released giving rise to a feeling of anxiety only, but over a period of time. > E.g., you > transcend, and a stress implanted by a > teacher yelling at you when you were a kid > because you were late to class unwinds, but > the thought that arises as a result has to > do with what you're going to have for dinner > that night. I disagree. The event is not remembered, but the feelings will be the same. Just you pick up something from your environment to justify that feeling. You pick the appropriate association. > As I understood this, the *energy* released > by the dissolution of the samskara--the energy > that was holding it in place--more or less > randomly kicks some current concern and > activates it as a thought. Yes. But the type of energy is relived. > > Most of my thoughts during meditation are very > mundane, not at all concerned with past stresses, You won't think of the past. > even when my meditation is very deep. So either > I'm not releasing much in the way of past > samskaras, or the ones I'm releasing don't go > through my mind in the form of thoughts; what > goes through my mind are, so to speak, > surrogates activated by the released energy. Yes, but that is not unspecific. It is specific in its type of emotion, but its also diluted. > > > I am > > not aware that in indian theory the arising of thought is seen as > > getting rid of Samkaras. > > According to the explanation I outlined, > the arising of thoughts would be a byproduct > of getting rid of samskaras, if that makes > any difference. Yes, understood. But in Indian terms, getting rid of Samskaras wouldn't necessitate reliving the energy of it. In Indian and I guess Buddhist terms, Samskaras are desires or latent impressions giving rise to the desire to reincarnate. Purifying oneself of these desires or impressions wouldn't necessitate living through it, not even emotionally or energetically. > > 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. 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. > > This explanation also has the effect of making it > easier to take thoughts as they come rather than > being tempted to examine them to discover what > stresses are being released. The explanation is phantastic. Thats the upside. The downside is, that if you believe in it, you are hooked up to a kind of cypernetic model of having to do something, and unless you do it, i.e. release stresses one by one, you can't get enlightened. Yet the truth is you can get enlightened in one stroke - immediate enlightenment, if you have the sudden insight, and disassoziate from your desire mind and ego. The explanation model has a purpose, one amongst many is to keep you going to meditate even if you don't experience much, as you think the effect of stress-release is accumulative. But it's also limiting yourself, and is just one more conditioning, like everything else. 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/
