--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
> > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <LEnglish5@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Stress is the nonspecific response of the body to any
> > > > demand, whether is is caused by, or results in, pleasant
> > > > or unpleasant conditions. Stress as such, like temperature
> > > > as such, is all-inclusive, embodying both the positive and
> > > > the negative aspects of these concepts." -Hans Selye
> > > >
> > > > "Stress is anything that distorts the normal, natural
> > > > functioning of the nervous system." -Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
> > > >
> > > > IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness
> > > > + waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is
> > > > stress.
> > > >
> > > > The two definitions converge.
> > > >
> > > > L
> > >
> > > You, like Maharishi are ignoring the positive aspect of stress
> > > in Selye's work. Seeing it only as negitive, is a misconception
> > > in the full context of his understanding. It is a serious flaw
> > > in Maharishi's use of the term. He was using it superficially
> > > for marketing without regard to how Selye meant it.
> >
> > Maharishi was using it in the context of growth of
> > consciousness to enlightenment; Selye was using it in
> > the context of ordinary waking-state consciousness.
>
> Maharishi was linking it with a scientist to assume of
> the credibility for his own theories which were from a
> spiritual tradition while misusing the concepts through
> oversimplification.
Yeah, he wasn't misusing the concept, he was using it in
a different context.
> > Of course positive stress makes relative life more
> > pleasant, but it also creates attachment.
>
> It also stimulates dendrite growth. The concept of positive
> stress for Seyle is much more significant and profound than
> this description. It is a powerful useful force in our life
> that the yogis seem to miss.
"The yogis" see growth of consciousness as more important,
and they see your "powerful and useful forces" as potentially
attachment-generating.
> Look at life in a movement facility and you will see the
> results of this misunderstanding.
Lame.
> Selye wasn't
> > interested in dissolving attachment or in the ability
> > to maintain transcendental consciousness throughout
> > waking, sleeping, and dreaming. He was interested in
> > the detrimental effects of stress on the body and also
> > felt that some stress was necessary and desirable,
> > which it may well be if you're considering only
> > relative life and not growth of consciousness to
> > enlightenment.
>
> Of course. But he was also trying to base his thoery
> on more than the authority Maharishi was using too and
> that is why it was desirable for Maharishi to hook his
> marketing star to.
Teaching star, not marketing star.
> > I can't believe you don't see how it fits with the
> > concepts of attachment and karma, which are said to be
> > created by both negative and positive experiences. You
> > don't have to agree with that thesis to see that the
> > use MMY was making of the stress concept was
> > appropriate in that context.
>
> These are two different logical levels I don't think they
> are related and shouldn't have been combined. Whatever
> Maharishi was talking about from his spiritual tradition
> was only superficially perhaps analogously related to how
> Seyle presented his ideas.
MMY took what he needed from Selye's much more complex
approach. Dendrites and hormones and such simply weren't
relevant. We don't know from a scientific perspective
whether attachment and karma are real, obviously, but the
main issue is whether MMY *misused* what he took from
Selye conceptually, and the fact is, as Lawson said, that
their two definitions converge.
> > And "marketing" is your weasely denigrating term.>
>
> It is a factual term for how it was used. I know I taught
> it misusing the concepts as I was instructed. It is your
> term weasely which is a distraction from me pointing out
> Maharishi was misusing the connection with the term stress
> while ignoring the actual concepts Seyle was promoting.
>
> MMY
> > was using it to make the nature and mechanics of
> > consciousness comprehensible in his teaching to
> > Westerners.
>
> Without regard to the integrity of the concepts themselves
> for his marketing scheme laid out in his SOB.
This from the dude who hotly denies he has any residual
resentment where MMY is concerned.
> And so you too have missed the fascinating subtly of
> Seyle's concepts.
("Subtlety.") I haven't made a study of them, no. It's
not one of my areas of interest.
> You don't care that they were misused and presented in a
> misleading way to promote TM.
To *teach* TM. And I don't think they were misused or used
misleadingly, if what you quoted from Selye is
representative of his work.
