--- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "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.
MMY never said that anyway. He said that stress is repaired during the inward stroke of TM, and that thoughts arise as part of the activity of repair. If there was no repair to be made (no samskaras left), no repair activity occur. The mental experience of the repair- activity during TM is mental activity of some kind. 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. > I don't see why it can't be "literally" true, given the proper refinement of definitions in response to physiological research. > > 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/
