--- 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
IMO, for Maharishi stress seems to be anything that produces
saMskaara-s (some scars in the nervous system, heh...).
For him, "normal, natural functioning of the nervous system"
seems to be like electricity in a superconductor: not causing
any resistance to mental activity, or stuff.
YS I 50 (please, find your favorite translation yourselves):
taj-jaH saMskaaro 'nya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.
(tat-;jaH saMskaaraH; anya-saMskaara-pratibandhii.)
Word-for-word:
that-born saMskaara [is] other-saMskaara-pratibandhii.
I 51
tasyaapi nirodhe sarva-nirodhaan nirbiijaH samaadhiH.
(tasya+api nirodhe sarva-nirodhaat; nirbiijaH samaadhiH.)
Its also nirodha-"in" all-nirodha-from [follows] nirbiija-samaadhi.
>
> IOW, anything that takes us away from the pure consciousness +
> waking/dreaming/sleeping status of cosmic consciousness is stress.
>
> The two definitions converge.
>
> L
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Great discussion from both of you. It sent me out to re-read Hans Selyle
> > again because I remembered how Maharishi ignored much of his theory on
> > stress and was struck by how far apart their ideas really were. Here is
> > Hans describing some of the misconceptions about how the term stress is
> > used and it seems to nail the movement's view as a misconception or at
> > least an oversimplification. I am not sure how Hans viewed his early
> > association with the movement in the end. He may not be the best link as a
> > support for TM theory. Here it is so you can judge for yourself if the TM
> > use of the term has anything to do with how he is using it:
> >
> > http://www.icnr.com/articles/the-nature-of-stress.html
> >
> > What stress is not
> > The word stress has been used so loosely, and so many confusing definitions
> > of it have been formulated, that I think it will be best to start by
> > clearly stating what it is not. Contrary to current popular or medical
> > opinion:
> > Stress is not nervous tension. Stress reactions do occur in lower animals
> > and even in plants, which have no nervous system. The general
> > manifestations of an alarm reaction can be induced by mechanically damaging
> > a denervated limb. Indeed, stress can be produced under deep anesthesia in
> > patients who are unconscious, and even in cell cultures grown outside the
> > body.
> > Stress is not an emergency discharge of hormones from the adrenal medulla.
> > An adrenaline discharge is frequently seen in acute stress affecting the
> > whole body, but it plays no conspicuous role in generalized inflammatory
> > diseases (arthritis, tuberculosis) although they can also produce
> > considerable stress. Nor does an adrenaline discharge play any role in
> > "local stress" reactions, limited to directly injured regions of the body.
> > Stress is not that which causes a secretion by the adrenal cortex of its
> > hormones (the corticoids). ACTH, the adrenal-stimulating pituitary hormone,
> > can discharge these hormones without producing any evidence of stress.
> > Stress is not the nonspecific result of damage only. Normal and even
> > pleasant activities - a game of tennis or a passionate kiss - can produce
> > considerable stress without causing conspicuous damage.
> > Stress Is not the deviation from homeostasis, the steady state of the body.
> > Any specific biologic function, e.g., the perception of sound or light, the
> > contraction of a muscle, eventually causes marked deviations from the
> > normal resting state in the active organs. This is undoubtedly associated
> > with some local demand for increased vital activity, but it can cause only
> > "local stress" and even this does not necessarily parallel the intensity of
> > the specific activity.
> > Stress is not that which causes an alarm reaction. The stressor does that,
> > not stress itself.
> > Stress is not identical with the alarm reaction or with the G.A.S. as a
> > whole. These are characterized by certain measurable organ changes which
> > are caused by stress.
> > Stress itself is not a nonspecific reaction. The pattern of the stress
> > reaction is very specific: it affects certain organs (e.g., the adrenal,
> > the thymus, the gastrointestinal tract) in a highly selective manner.
> > Stress is not a reaction to a specific thing. The stress response can be
> > produced by virtually any agent.
> > Stress is not necessarily undesirable. It all depends on how you take it.
> > The stress of failure, humiliation, or infection is detrimental; but that
> > of exhilarating, creative, successful work is beneficial. The stress
> > reaction, like energy consumption, may have good or bad effects.
> > Stress cannot and should not be avoided. Everybody is always under some
> > degree of stress. Even while quietly asleep our heart must continue to
> > beat, our lungs to breathe, and even our brain works in the form of dreams.
> > Stress can be avoided only by dying. The statement "He is under stress" is
> > just as meaningless as "He is running a temperature. " What we actually
> > refer to by means of such phrases is an excess of stress or of body
> > temperature.
> > If we consider these points, we may easily be led to conclude that stress
> > cannot be defined, and that perhaps the concept itself is just not
> > sufficiently clear to serve as the object of scientific study.
> > Nevertheless, stress has a very clear, tangible form. Countless people have
> > actually suffered or benefited from it. Stress is very real and concrete
> > indeed, and is manifested in precisely measurable changes within the body.
> > So before we proceed to a formal definition of the nature of stress, we
> > will describe these manifestations.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 9, 2011, at 10:29 AM, sparaig wrote:
> > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Dec 5, 2011, at 8:04 AM, seventhray1 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, good. I'll just have to revise my experience so it conforms
> > > > > > with your analysis.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually we've all already been pre-programmed to believe in the
> > > > > stress release, "unstressing", model is factually correct. Each time
> > > > > we "transcend" we're chipping away at those stresses in our nervous
> > > > > system. So I believe most of us who were indoctrinated into TM would
> > > > > chose as you did.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the current theory of how TM works is that it sets up a
> > > > situation in the thalamus that inhibits the thalamo-coritical
> > > > feedback loops that scientists believe are what we experience as
> > > > "thoughts." This allows the brain to relax into a default mode of
> > > > functioning where it is still alert, but literally not thinking
> > > > about much of anything. The stronger the inhibition, the less
> > > > thinking tha is done. Coincidentally, the default mode of
> > > > functioning that results is where the front part of the brain and
> > > > the back part of the brain are most easily able to communicate with
> > > > each other. This is the exact opposite of stress, which tends to
> > > > interfere with the communication between the front and back parts
> > > > of the brain.
> > >
> > > The only problem with such theories is Lawson that TM is really only
> > > an elementary practice of mantra meditation. From the POV of the
> > > actual mantra tradition, the subtlest level of mantra in TM - the
> > > point where one still has some abstract feeling of the mantra before
> > > reaching what TMers believe is "the transcendent" - is 512 times more
> > > gross than the subtlest level of mantra reached before the mind is
> > > actually transcended - what is known as the unmana stage. In order to
> > > even access those levels of subtlety one needs to complete the
> > > piercing of the bindu (bindu-bhedana) and master further levels of
> > > practice. This level of subtlety simply does not exist in TM.
> > >
> > > So theories that are in effect based on iterations of the grossest
> > > levels of mind are not really, ultimately, of much value except to
> > > the indoctrinated TM crowd, and those they can still fool. As I've
> > > said many times, you need to transcend the transcendent (what's
> > > believed to be "transcendent" in TM) to even begin to approach the
> > > actual full transcendence of mind.
> > >
> > > Once that level is attained, then some interesting research could be
> > > done. However since the 'canon of awakening in TM' was effectively
> > > frozen with the death of MMY, that point will never be reached. It's
> > > also therefore a fact that all TM research can only ever be of minor
> > > interest to serious consciousness researchers.
> > >
> >
>
