--- In [email protected], "Patrick Gillam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sparaig wrote: > > > > I think there's a problem with Clay's own understanding of stress and > > TM, if he presented things that way: > > David Clay didn't define stress in any way at all. He simply > summed up the evidence that TM does something good > and concluded that "release of stress" was inadequate to > explain all the benefits. For example, consider the 1% > phenomenon. Assuming it is a valid phenomenon -- I know > we've beaten it up pretty badly around here -- it suggests > consciousness is a field common to us all that influences > behavior.
So how does that change the meditation as anti-stress model? It implies that a normal (CC) nervous system would *always* be radiating coherence, which is certainly what the verse that MMY uses to justify the theory about the Maharishi Effect says. > > > In MMY's > > definition, stress is that which prevents you from being enlightened > > TM defines stress as an overload of experience. Well, > what's ignorance? It's when experience overshadows the > awareness of awareness itself. Maharishi's definition of > stress is a Westernized definition of ignorance. > > - Patrick Gillam Or, MMY uses a Western medical term (stress) to describe a Yogic metaphysical concept. The interesting thing, to me, is that there appears to be a close fit between the Western term and the Eastern, although the Eastern term covers more territory than the normal Western definition. 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/
