Conference hydra::dejavu

    My belief is that meditation can take many forms, including something
    very similar, if not identical to, hypnosis.  In the case of guided
    meditation, it may not be very different from hypnosis.
    
    However, meditation can take many forms, including concentrating
    on something, free-form associations, and others.
    
    Otherwise, I see very little difference
    
    Elizabeth
    

	The main difference I see between the two are primarily in HOW the
	session is guided. 

	To me, meditation is mental calisthenics... I use it to exercise
	my mind and logic faculties.  As a reward for doing this, I receive
	control of what are normally considered autonomic functions... 
	blood pressure, body temperature, heart rate, etc.  Meditation is
	consciously guided by me at the time and can take many forms.

	In self-hypnosis, I would make a tape that would act as my 'guide'.
	I would place myself in an hypnotic state by use of the first part
	of my tape, with the suggestions coming much later on the tape. 

	Though I was the guide in both cases, the goal of the meditation
	was increased mental 'strength' and the goal of the hypnosis was
	behavior modification.  After a time, I reached a point where I
	no longer used self-hypnosis at all.  I could modify most any type
	of behavior or perception through willpower alone.


						-- Mike

    Hi.
         I've done TM on and off for years (The Macdonald's of the
    Meditation world, in case you haven't heard that one), and I've
    dabbled in self-hypnosis just a bit.  TM involves the gentle use
    of a repeated Mantra. One sits down, gets comfortable, then begins
    to mentally repeat this meaninless syllable.  One's mind wanders
    endlessly, so the idea in TM is to gently go back to the Mantra
    when you've noticed that you thinking about other things.
         The self-hypnosis method came out of a book.  It involved getting
    into a relaxed frame of mind, some visualization, and some mentally
    repeated affirmations.
         My understanding is that the hypnosis is communication with
    unconscious parts of ourselves.  All the stuff that pops into your
    mind, from God knows where, supposedly comes up from those parts.
    One can, I've read and heard many times, program that part of oneself,
    so that what pops into one's awareness is more of what you would
    like to have there.
        I need to go and meditate now.  This is one of my 'on' phases.
    
    Mike

>..I used no longer used self-hypnosis at all.  I could modify most any type
>of behavior or perception through willpower alone.

    Well, Mike, congratulations. However, your perception differs widely
    from mine. In my experience, using 'willpower', with or without
    Alpha-level work, to 'modify' behavior (bad-habit control) simply
    does not work. Or rather it does work, in terms of the specific
    bad habit/symptom going away.. except that another habit/symptom
    appears, apparently unconnected with the previous one(s). An analogy
    might be, suppressing a habit is like pressing down on a waterbed:
    that spot goes down (for as long as you remember to keep pressing)
    but it springs up in another place.
    
    No, habits go away when they no longer facilitate learning. Like
    letting some water OUT of the waterbed instead of pressing down
    on it in multiple places.

    karl moeller

	RE: .4

	I like your analogy, Karl, and I believe I over-simplified it.

	Through meditation I can realize why I may have a certain habit
	or perception; through careful dissection of my emotional and
	mental responses I try to isolate the cause.  If I accomplish
	this, I am usually aware enough of the "impulse" before it becomes
	an action.

	Over time, the modification of my behavior will become more or
	less permanent.  I'm not saying that I never slip up... 


						-- Mike

    I AM A NEW READER TO YOUR NOTES AND AM VERY INTERESTED IN THIS SUBJECT
    I WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IT IF SOMEONE CAN GIVE ME SOME SORT OF
    IDEA ON HOW TO REACH THESE SELF HYPNOTIC STATE OR SOME WAYS TO MEDITATE
    
    
     RAY

	The intellectual people would like to shop-around on everything 
	which they intend to get or get into specially in this country.
	The following Meditation is my recommendation.  You should study 
	all this before you spent a lot of money ( Most fake gurus are out 
	to pray on people like you ) and life time of dedication. If you get 
	into the wrong method, you could harm yourself.  For example, I heard
	of some people who have practiced TM for years and ended up with
	some horrible pain in the left side of the neck area.  This was
	due to the over use of the left channel (the parasympathetic of
	our nervous system).  Using the meaningless mantra (cost you $200
	to $300 to get it) was part of the reason causing the damage. For
	that you have to neutralize the mantra to cure the pain. 
	The meditation mantra is supposed to be an affirmation of your own 
	part or the name of deity to help you. Instead of that, they (TM) 
	gave people something like "the tail of Scoripion" - in Sanskirt word.  
	Can you imagine that?
	
	There were introduction of Sahaja Yoga in Holistic Notes #19.*
	and #158.*. Actually, those discussions are more appropriate
	in Dejavu notes since there are more spiritual seekers than any
	other notes.   

	Sharing experience is important but to 	experience it yourself is 
	even more important.

							ps


          <<< REGENT::SYS$SYSDEVICE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RELIGION.NOTE;1 >>>
================================================================================
Note 90.0         Self Realization -connection with the Divine.        4 replies
SNO78C::KYRIACOU                                    120 lines  21-APR-1987 00:42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   To the seekers of truth.


	   The goal of every Religion or Yoga is the same. The word
	Yoga in Sanskrit means 'union'. It is the actualisation of 
	the promise of union with whatever it is that makes the 
	'world go around'! It matters little whether we call this 
	thing God, Vibrations, Mother Nature, the All-Pervading Spirit, 
	Cosmic Power or anything else that suits one's own view of 
	existence. What is important, is the union.

	   What does all this mean: and why have sages and saints down
	through the ages, led lives of unbelievable hardship and 
	deprivation in an attempt (usually unsuccessful) to achieve
	this union?

	   Yoga or union with the ultimate, is not some incomprehensible
	and mystical experience. It is much more down to earth and it is
	practical and obtainable. It is simply what it says - the
	conscious connection of oneself with this ultimate
	power that is the cause of all things.

	   If we look at this possibility in everyday terms, it is not 
	unlike a television set. The TV set is an astonishingly complex
	piece of equipment, designed to tune in to programs that are both
	entertaining and informative.

	   But this sophisticated piece of equipment is a useless collection
	of electronic bits and pieces until it is plugged into the nearest
	power point! Until this is done, it is unable to pick up the programs
	that permeate the atmosphere: and whilst it is still an outstanding
	example of modern technology. it has little value other than a
	piece of furniture.


	   The act of Yoga or union, is the actualisation of this 'plugging
	in' to the all pervading power grid! It means that we become 
	'switched on' and are able to tune in to whatever programs are
	in the atmosphere.

	   The various Yogas all have this as their ultimate goal. They all
	hope to attain this union - to be plugged in... But, like the
	great religions of the world, they have been divided. The different
	Yogas are, in fact, fragments of what was once a complete recipe
	for attaining this connection. They have lost their collective 
	relationship and have become entities on their own.

	   The question must therefore be asked. How often does a practitioner
	of a Yoga technique, achieve this goal? And the answer, if they
	are honest, is very seldom.

	   However in 1970, an amazing thing happened. A remarkable lady
	perfected a method of achieving this sought after 'connection'.
	Her name is Sri Mataji Nirmala Devi and she not only proved that
	it was possible to awaken this state of Yoga, but that it could be 
	given to all people. Having achieved the connection, she followed
	this up by proclaiming the proper way of using it. This was quite 
	revolutionary, because up to that point in history, mankind had
	never considered what to do with this union, should the unlikely
	event take place!! Those who devoted their time and energies in
	this direction, were wholly focused on their union - what they 
	would do with it after it had been obtained, was so far into the
	realms of fantasy, that it was never really considered. It was
	enough to try and attain the unattainable.

	   With the advent of Sri Mataji's method of 'self-realization'
	or Yoga, it has become a simple matter to achieve one's union.
	It is then up to the individual to perfect himself in order to
	handle this gift in a manner appropriate to it magnitude.

	   The purifying and somewhat bizarre techniques and postures of 
	the past, are no longer necessary, in the sense that they were 
	designed to achieve what is already available. However the 
	development of this connection still requires a commitment of
	considerable degree. It is not a magical formula through which
	we become enlightened beings of great stature. We have to work at
	it. We still need to purify and discard old and injurious
	conditionings. But unlike our ancestors, we have been plugged
	in and as a result, we have unlimited resources at out disposal.

	   Sahaja Yoga is seen to be very new. In fact, it is very ancient
	and has been reborn into the consciousness of mankind: no longer
	as knowledge, but as as actualisation of that knowledge. Sahaja
	means spontaneous, or 'born with' and that is the key to this
	whole remarkable discovery. It is born with us!

	   After all those untold centuries of seeking something called 
	'self-realization', it turns out that this unobtainable something
	was lying dormant within us: and the unobtainable aspect of its
	existence was merely the ability to awaken it!

	   This, in simplistic terms, is what Sri Mataji achieved in 1970.
	Because she was born with her 'candle' already alight, she was able
	to light the candle of countless others: and they in turn , can now 
	light the candle of those who still seek that elusive union with that 
	all-pervading something that powers the universe.

	   It requires nothing else than the desire to attain this union and
	the help of someone who is 'already there'. One cannot buy it. It does
	not require blind faith, nor is it based on an intellectual 
	understanding of its mysteries. It just happens!...And it is felt on
	one's central nervous system. It is felt as a coolness emanating from
	the hands and from the top of the head. Some feel it as a coolness
	all over, some as a tingling sensation up the spine or as a
	prickling sensation on the top of the head. But most describe it as a
	coolness.

	  Some say it is the Chaitanya of the Hindu Scriptures, or the cool
	wind of the Holy Ghost, spoken of in the Bible, or the Rukh of the
	Koran. It is felt because we are truly 'plugged in' and our ability 
	to tune into knowledge and peace, grows with our development. It
	is remarkable... it sounds highly fanciful...but it is true...it
	is Sahaja...!

	   If anyone is interested in achieving their self-realization
	please mail me your request and I will put you in contact with
	someone in your city who can give this to you. Also Sri Mataji
	will be touring Australia and New Zealand in May, giving lectures and
	granting self-realisation if anyone is interested I can send them
	the venues.

    re.6
    There are tapes you can buy that will help you to reach a trance
    or meditative state more easily.  Some are available from Lewellyn
    publishing.

    re 7,8
    Thanks for the info, I am definitely going to shop around before
    I spend any kind of money. I also plan on looking in to those tapes.

    RE:ALL
    
      does anyony have any proceedures on self- hypnosis? if so, please
    share..
    
    LORENZO
    

    Re .10:
    
    Lorenzo, there are many different approaches to self (or any) hypnosis.
    Basically, they come down to methods of clearing one's conscious
    mind so that it just concentrates on a single thing to the exclusion
    of other things.  This is why gimmicks like swinging pendulums,
    flickering points of light, and even candle flames can be used
    successfully.   There are several books available on self-hypnosis;
    it's often a good idea to check with a qualified hypnotherapist
    if one really wants to experiment on his or her own, though.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    There is also an exercise one does in relaxation.  
    Begin by stretching out on a bed in the wand position,  straight
    out, arms by your side... don't allow any parts of your body to
    cross each other (or have any other pressure points).
    Begin by "feeling" a warmth enter the toes and "feeling" how that warmth
    relaxes all of the muscles in the toes.  You then work the warm
    feeling up the entire body ending with the head and face.
    When you are completely relaxed,.. you imagine (there are variations)
    that you are traveling down a long tunnel or falling backwards down
    an endless black well, or whatever works best for you.  You reach
    a point where you can hear but you can't move ... it takes some
    effort to come slowly out of it.  Tapes are even better because
    they guide you through the process and bring you back when you are
    finished.  
    There is nothing to be afraid of... the worst that can happen is
    that you could fall asleep and wake up when you are no longer tired...
    as if you were napping.  When you wake up it is as if whatever
    bothered you has diminished or you have a different perspective
    on life.  Its an interesting exercise.

    The most effective method for learning self-hypnosis is to go to
    a hypnotic practitioner (not necessarily a hypno-therapist) and
    to have them "teach" you.  They will hypnotize you, and give you
    a post-hypnotic suggestion which will allow you to return to the
    state at will.  They will also give you advice on how to use the
    state for your benifit -- its not as obvious as it would seem.
    
    Failing that, there is a good book on the market, which I would
    recommend but the title and author escape me.  I'll try to remember
    to look it up tonight and post it tomorrow (no promises though,
    I'm in the process of selling my house and buying another and things
    are a bit confused at home just now).
    
    					Topher

    	Sourcebooks on hypnosis;
    
    	I really liked reading about Milton Erickson, who was perhaps
    one of the greatest hypnotists ever to live.   I believe he died
    in Pheonix, in 1980.   He used to teach hypnosis at Columbia's
    medical school.   
    	Milton Erickson had the reputation of being able to hypnotise
    the most resistant patients, and for helping to heal those whom
    other doctors had been unable to help.   The many stories about
    him teach wonderful lessons about the reality of that part of
    the mind that has been called "subconscious" or "unconscious".
    
	The best books on him, that I have found are;
    
    1) _The_teaching_Tales_of_Milton_Erickson_ (edited by one of
    		his students, Erickson is not listed as the author.)
    2) _The_Collected_writings_of_Milton_Erickson_  (4 volumes, hardbound,
    		I found these in the UCCS library)
 and somewhat more easy to obtain;
    3) _Tranceformations_ by Bandler and Grinder,  (this book is based
    		on Bandler and Grinder's study with Erickson.)

    
    	Erickson emphasized that all people go in and out of trance
    states, naturally and spontaneously, many times each day.  Many
    of his methods involved using these spontaneous trance accesses,
    and learning to recognize when they are happening.
	I found his work very interesting and useful.   It helped
    me a great deal with learning how to access those spontaneous
    trance states that had already been occuring, but had been
    unnoticed.    I myself, am a resistant hypnotic subject, so I 
    was very glad to learn some ways to bypass my mental resistance.
    
    	Alan.

    re .13
    That is good advice Topher.  I also saw a professional hypnotist
    at first.

RE: .14
    
    Without question Erickson is one of the most unusual people of this
    century.  Mark Kac divided geniuses into two categories: "ordinary"
    and "magical".  An ordinary genius is one whos results are things
    which you could imagine coming up with if only you were smarter.
    A magical genius pulls things seemingly right out of the air.  I
    suspect that Erickson would be classed as a magical genius.
    
    Much of what he knew was incommunicable -- he just KNEW what was
    right.  Bandler and Grinder attempted to capture that knowledge.
    I don't think they succeeded, but I think that they may have captured
    *some* of his results -- tricks that are a consequence of what he
    knew at a much deeper level.  They have built a set of techniques
    up in large part from their findings.  They call it Neuro-Linguistic
    Programming (NLP).  Rather interesting stuff, although even they
    find it a bit hard to be sure what they have ("everything I tell
    you is to some extent a lie -- although most of it is useful lies"
    or words to that effect).  NLP is enthusiastically embraced by some
    and makes others, including myself, rather nervous -- even assuming
    that all their claims are true: Its rather strongly manipulative,
    though the explicit goal is to manipulate people for their own
    good (their justification is that we manipulate people all the time
    unknowingly -- we might as well learn to do it deliberately and
    for good).
    
    					Topher

    
    	RE: .16
    
    	I agree, Topher, in both your assessment of Erickson, and also
    of Bandler and Grinder, and NLP.    I found the book _Transformations_,
    dealt with trance states in a more fluid, spontaneous way, than
    I had ever seen before.   Since they gave Erickson a lot of credit
    in their book, I then went back to Erickson's writings to get closer
    to the source material.
    	I have come to believe that all spoken and written language
    contains an element of hypnotic content.  So, I do agree with
    Bandler and Grinder that we program each other all the time,
    so we might as well study to be *good* at it.   Unfortunately,
    I'm not so sure I would want advertisers or politicians to be
    developing these abilities, but now that the knowledge is slowly
    entering the public domain...
    	Erickson hypnotised Bandler and Grinder and taught them to
    imitate him in trance.  (Erickson often used one patient in a
    trance to hypnotise another more resistant patient.)   Presumably
    they were able to access some of his more unconscious abilities
    through this process of imitation.  Many other hypnotists were
    trained by Erickson, by this hypnotic technique;  they are sometimes
    referred to as "Erickson clones".
    
    	Alan.

       One of the things that has long bothered me by the idea of 
    hypnosis is that it turns one's power over to someone else (or
    *something* else.)  As you may have discerned from some of my
    previous entries, I am opposed to that.  I do not care what the
    justification for a manipulation might be, I find it contemptible
    that it be utilized.  Where does justification start/end?  Who's
    to say how much or how little to manipulate or exploit another?
    When is it okay to dominate or control and when is it not okay?
       Seven or eight years ago I was "privy" to what at the time I
    felt was an eye-popping experience.  A married couple I knew 
    intimately allowed me to witness something that they had been
    practicing since their relationship had begun several years earlier.
    It seems as though the man in this relationship (who had been a
    minister earlier in his "career") had had a great deal of experience
    in the use of hypnosis (and had written college papers on it, etc.)
    and used to hypnotize his wife (and, later, vice versa.)  Sounds
    innocent enough, I suppose, but on examination, he used it to find
    out every private thought she held...who she had "lustful" thoughts
    for, who she had sexual relationships with, etc.  As I watched them
    in *action*, I noticed how submissive she allowed herself to be
    under his control...she would do virtually anything he'd ask.
    While she, in turn, hypnotized him, it was usually for his purpose
    of being "mommied", i.e., she would treat him as a dominating
    "bitch" and he could allow himself to be a "little boy."  I saw
    enough to really nauseate me and saw first hand the inherent
    dangers of being dominated by someone else. The real trick here,
    though, is understanding that this domination IS ALLOWED by the
    one being dominated.  This idea can be carried over into the 
    remainder of our lives.  We can allow this "martyrhood,"
    "victimization", manipulation, control, domination, exploitation,
    submission, etc. or we can instead take positive control over
    the realities we create and make the chips fall where we want
    them to.  There can be no bullies in a world that does not
    allow itself to be dominated.
        Insofar as this idea is being presented, I suggest that if
    there are those who insist on using hypnosis at all, that it be
    used strictly as a tool within oneself...one can learn self-hypnosis
    and can use it beneficially.  My admonition is this:  Since
    hypnosis is essentially an issue which deals with control, take
    great care in understanding where the power is going that you
    are giving away.
      
    Frederick
    

    
    RE: .18
    
    	Well, Frederick, here I think you went a little overboard
    into fear....
    
    	When I was in college I got involved in a television production
    on hypnosis.   When we first started this project we were going
    to "expose" the manipulative dangers of hypnosis.   How dissapointed
    we were, to find that there were no (or at least very few) real 
    dangers involved.
    
    	Studies have shown that, while hypnotized, a certain percentage
    of people (say x%) will obey repulsive commands, that we would think
    are things a sane person would not obey.  The studies show that
    this percentage is the *same* for both unhypnotized persons and
    hypnotized persons.    In other words, it is just as easy (or hard)
    to domimate a person in the waking state as in the hypnotized
    state.    The people who would resist repulsive commands while
    awake, will spontaneously pop out of trance if the hypnotist tries
    to misuse them.

    	Plese note;   I am not saying that there is no danger here.
    There is a real and clear danger;  A given percentage of the population
    is open to domination, whether hypnotized or waking, a fact that
    dictators the world over are making use of.
    
    	*BUT*  The danger is *not* hypnosis !    All relationships
    have some hypnotic content in their communications; all
    relationships should be guarded against the dangers of domination
    by the self or the other person.   Obviously one should avoid
    a dominating physician or hypnotist, just as one should avoid
    dominating friends or mates.
    
    	The use of hypnosis is very safe, *if* the relationship is
    mainly one of cooperation.   The misuse of hypnosis is very
    difficult, since the vast majority of people will resist any
    commands that would be to their own detriment, no matter how
    deep in trance.

    	Alan.

RE: .18
    
    To emphasize what Alan said:
    
    Frederick, you are reacting not to hypnosis as it is, but to the
    stereotype of hypnosis.  Hypnosis is not about giving up control,
    but about gaining it.  What one gives up is not control, but one
    trades something called "reality testing" for *increased* control
    of oneself.  "Suggestibility" increases under hypnosis, but to such
    a small extent that it remained undetectable for many years until
    very sensitive testing procedures were developed that were able
    to measure the difference.
    
    Typically the hypnotized person has very foccused attention, and
    is less able to judge how likely or unlikely things are to be true.
    There still seems to be another part of the mind, however, which
    is fully aware and is capable of making value judgements.  Its not
    just "repugnant" ideas which are rejected -- the hypnotized person
    is in a very agreeable state of mind, but still does what he or
    she wants to do.  Suggestions are allowed or not allowed, and when
    allowed seem like they are happening automatically -- because they
    are carried out subconsciously.  If a hypnotized person decides
    that they don't "want to do this anymore" whether "it" is a hypnotic
    or a post hypnotic suggestion, they just stop doing it.  I've observed
    this many times.
    
    In other words -- all hypnosis really is self-hypnosis.  The hypnotist
    is a guide, a person trained in helping a hypnotized person make
    maximum use of the trance state.  The hypnotized person is then
    able to focus more -- achieve a "deeper" trance.  There is no more
    "giving up control" then if two people are working on, say, building
    something and one says to the other "OK, you supervise".  The
    hypnotized person has to trust the hypnotist to make the right
    decisions and to take care of the possible little annoyances and
    choices, but any strong conflicts between what the hypnotist says
    and the hypnotized person wants will be "won" by the hypnotized
    person.  This is why "direct suggestion" to change long term behavior
    (e.g., "You will never want to smoke again") almost never works
    (what does work is using hypnosis to give the person the tools to
    change their own behavior).
    
    So, auto-hypnosis (i.e., self hypnosis) is more convenient and can
    be applied on the spot, but is less effective than hetero-hypnosis
    (i.e., hypnosis using an hypnotist) *when* the "subject" trusts the
    hypnotist, to take care of the "little things".
    
    					Topher

    John,  in what way were your dreams being affected?
    
    
    Gene

I was taking a class in college and was consistently failing the tests.
This was very disturbing, as I studied the subject very hard and felt I
should have been doing much better ( I loathe tests).  Several friends
independently suggested that I try hypnosis, so I went to a clinical
psychologist who practiced it.  Two weeks later when the final exam came
up (which could make or break the grade for the course) I finished before
everyone else and got an A on the test!  

As topher has already mentioned *all hypnosis is self-hypnosis.*  A hypnotist
cannot make you do anything in a trance (for want of a better word) that
you wouldn't do when "awake."  

I was very good at self-hypnosis when I was practicing it; in fact, the
therapist said I had made more progress in three weeks than his other clients
had in 3 months.  The reason I gave up hypnosis was because my dreams were
being effected by it.

BTW, Frederick's story sounds pretty kinky. I think he is leaving out some
important details...   ;-)

John M.

    This question may not be right on the subject, but it does sort
    of deal with the medetative state since you go in and out of the
    "alpha state" several times a night.  I have - well - er - this
    friend.  Yeah! That's the ticket - this friend of mine lives alone
    and she has trouble sleeping because all the little noises in the
    house keep her awake, so she turns the TV on in the bedroom and
    sleeps with the tube on all night.  Since the theory is that your
    subconcious is always listening, what do you figure the end effect
    would be to her in the concious state?
    
    Marion
    
    BTW - did you know that "Real People" is on every weekday night
    in the wee hours of the morning and do you think that may be why
    my friend is a little odd? 
                               

    
    	RE: .24
    
    	I don't think TV is *directly* harmful, although there may
    be some indirect types of harm.   I, personally, can't
    imagine trying to get a good night's sleep next to one, however.
    I do not own a TV, my own bias is that while they may do little
    harm, they also do little good, and I see no need to own one.

        TV does have some bad effects though;  Probably the worst
    thing is that being passivly entertained takes up time that
    could be far better spent.
    
    	I see it as analagous to having a good diet.   Anyone healthy
    can absorb a little excess poisons, *if* the remainder of their
    diet is a heathy one.    The problem with TV and other passive
    entertainments is;  they often replace *all* opportunities for
    healthier activities, kind of like having a diet of all junk 
    food.   This is also like the difference between brainwashing
    and hypnosis;  brainwashing requires dominating the person's
    entire day, every day.   The harmful effects of TV increase, as
    a greater and greater portion of the person's day is spent
    watching the tube, but the danger is not hypnotic.  It's simply
    the danger of becoming a vegtable.

    	I would suspect the worst effect from sleeping next to a running
    TV, would be occasional wierd dreams, as the subconscious triggers
    dream scenes off occasional scraps of dialogue
    
    	Alan.

    re .24
    I've used self-hypnosis to get to sleep during times when its been
    difficult to sleep (or times when I was under an exceptional amount
    of stress and sleep was the only escape in sight)... it might be
    worth a try.

    
    Re .On owning a TV:
    
    Cable company representatives give you very strange looks when you 
    tell them you don't want to subscribe to their service 'cause you 
    don't own one!
    
    Actually we do own one, but the picture only works 1/2 of the time
    and we haven't bothered to get it fixed.....          
    
    Cindy

    RE: .27
    
     	I understand that Fredericks' of Hollywood has a video version
    of their catelogue (sp?).  Maybe with a VCR your picture would perform
    better than 50% of the time?
    
    
    ....Bob

    re: -.1
        Speaking of performances (masculine energy, I'm sure,) 
    yesterday Frederick's of Hollywood opened up a brassiere museum.
    Cindy would no longer have to go into the woods au natural but
    could instead avail herself to any brassiere made by Frederick's
    these past three decades (including Phyllis Diller's or the 38A
    mentioned elsewhere in these notes.)
    ...Just thought I'd keep everyone abreast of these things...
      
    re: my earlier note and replies thereupon:
        Perhaps I argued solely for my own limitations...perhaps I *was*
    expressing some of my own fears...I think perhaps I *did* react
    to a "worst case" scenario, and not to "normal" usage.  Some of
    you who responded came up with very good replies and balances, so
    I will leave it at that.
      
    re: John
         Skeptic though you be, you have a very metaphysical intuitive
    side to yourself...I shall say no more (to "protect" the "guilty"
    and the "innocent.")
      
    Frederick
    

    
    Frederick,
    
    That was CHAMPAGNE au natural!  C'mon!  (;^) <==(winking happy face)
    
    Cindy

    if anyone is interested, to get even more off the subject, Fredericks
    store near Shopper's World in Framingham, MA is having a sale til
    October 25.
    
    -Jody
    

    I - er - that is my friend doesn't have any trouble getting to sleep,
    it is the fact that she is often awaken while asleep or half asleep
    by noises that are usually the cat, but she feels that she must
    get up and investigate.  If the TV is on at a low volume, any sleep
    interuption can be passed off as a TV noise.  About the TV producing
    crazy dreams - you are correct.  Those dreams are usually very
    adventurous and enjoyable.
    
    Marion

.13 continued
    
    I finally got around to finding the book I meant to recommend on
    self hypnosis in .13.  My copy is quite old but Books In Print at
    the DEC Hudson library says that it is still in print (from two sources)
    as of 1985.  One of the sources lists a relatively new (1970)
    copyright, while the other lists no copyright date at all.
    
    The book is:
    
    		LeCron, Leslie M.
    		Self Hypnotism: The Technique and Its Use in Daily Living.
    
    The source information from Books In Print.
    
    	1) 1970 paperback $2.95 (ISBN 0-451-12747-1) New American Library.
    
    	2) paperback $4.95 (ISBN 0-13-803486-9) Prentice-Hall.
    
    The edition I have is a hardcover, copyrighted in the early fifties
    but published by Prentice-Hall in the late 60s.  A lot has been
    learned since it was written.  If, as I suspect, the Prentice-Hall
    book currently available is this same edition while the NAL one
    is a revision, I don't know which to recommend, since the newer
    quite likely is better, but not having seen it, I cannot be sure.
    
    Anyway, the book is a very practical one, providing techniques for
    inducing and using self hypnosis (after recommending that ideally
    self hypnosis is most effectively learned directly from a hypnotic
    practitioner).  It also discusses at length the use of the pendulum
    as a psychological tool for self discovery, both with self-hypnosis
    and independently.
    
    					Topher
                                             

    I'm not sure this is the right place for this note but as it deals
    with meditation I thought it would be alright to put it here.
    
    Recently I caught the very end of a program dealing with transcendantal
    meditation.  What I heard was that this type of meditation was better,
    more effective etc.  than any other type of meditation.  My question
    is, how many type of meditations are there?  What is the difference
    between TM and the other type? and why is TM better?
    
    I have tried a few times to meditate but don't seem to either do
    it right or get anything out of it.  How can one succeed at NOT
    thinking? at getting a total blank in their head?
    
    I have read all the replies to this note but I am still a bit confused
    between meditation and hypnosis.  There doesn't seem to really be
    a difference - or did I miss the point?
    
    I would really appreciate your comments.

    As I understand it, there is no "best" way to meditate.  
    Also, as I understand it,  the act of meditation is itself
    the goal.  There may be side effects, such as attaining alpha,
    reducing blood pressure,  achieving altered states of consciousness.
    However, when one starts to meditate with a specific goal in mind,
    that individual  amy be disappointed.
    
    Meditation is doing nothing.  Just trying to be aware of
    oneself,the universe, and the relationship between the two.
    It's certainly hard not to think.  The best advice that I've
    seen suggests to just notice the thoughts as thoughts that are
    passing through...  don't TRY not to think... don't feel bad 'cause
    thoughts keep slipping through... don't dwell on how "poorly"
    you are meditating.  Just give yourself the quiet time to
    be alone with yourself, not interpreting all the stimuli
    within and without yourself, just be aware of them.
    
    There are many books on meditation...  just leaf through one
    and see if it feels  right.  try it.  if it doesn't "work,"
    try another.    One popular one is _The Relaxation Response_
    by [something] Benson, in paperback.   Most of the book is
    filler, with a simple technique for "meditating."  It's
    as good a place as any to start.
    
    
    	bruce

    Thank you so much Bruce.  What you said is very helpful.  You 
    have simplified this "mystery" for me.  I will certainly try
    again and hopefully will eventually notice some benifits from
    it.

    re: last two
    
         Wait a second...the meditational purposes Bruce mentions are
    *not* the only purposes for meditation.  Meditation does indeed
    involve "going within" but that does not necessarily mean into
    "nothing" (as I would interpret Bruce's use of that word.)  It is
    apparently also possibly to use meditation for the purpose of 
    slipping into a different reality...e.g., the astral plane,
    past lives, the causal plane, etc.  Going into "nothing" is probably
    closer to going to planes "above" the astral and causal, i.e.,
    into the mental plane or "higher".  At least, that is how I see
    it.  I have done some incredible (for me) meditations that have
    been guided (by my "old" friend Lazaris) that were definitely not
    of a "floating" type at all but were very graphic in detail of
    visual sensings as well as profoundly moving emotionally. 
    So, while .37 is uncovering his own experiences, keep in mind that
    probabilities seem to be abundant.
    
    Frederick
    

    Transcendental Meditation (TM) was founded nearly 30 years ago by Maharishi
    Mahest Yogi.  It is a scientific technique, requiring neither specific
    beliefs nor adoption of a particualr life style.  TM is a simple,
    natural, easily-learned mental technique that is practiced for 15-20
    minutes twice daily sitting comfortably in a chair with the eyes
    closed.  During TM, the mind enjoys a settled state of inner
    wakefulness, pure consciouness, while the body gains a unique state of
    deep rest.  
    
    Self Hypnosis is basically the same individual process of creating a
    state of consciousness that the body clears itself of accumulated
    stress spontaneously and also enables the person to become more rested
    and enjoy increased clarity of thoughts and imagination.  Self Hypnosis
    also allows the person to become the person they wish to be and helps
    them follow the right path for their life.
    
    I use Self Hypnosis nightly and sometime during the day (for only a few
    minutes).  When I become anxious about different issues/concerns, it
    assist in bringing them into a different level and for me to have more
    control to solve them. 
    
    I have also used meditation, and with the use of both I feel that I
    have more control over my life and where it is going because it has
    taught me to look at things in a different perspective
    
    Everyone should use either of the two for many reasons; decreased
    incidents of illness, personality development, improve quality of life
    etc...