Docs Divided Over Best Oxygen Levels for Preemies
Docs Divided Over Best Oxygen Levels for Preemies |
- Docs Divided Over Best Oxygen Levels for Preemies
- Understanding emptiness
- Suicide on the Rise in Middle-Age Adults
- How to Hack Relationships: 3 Ways Physical Touch Helps
- Buddhism, wealth, and happiness
- Find the Zen of Work
- 5 Types of Fungus in Capri Sun — But Are They Harmful?
- Sex Supplements Recalled Due to Undeclared Drugs
- The tender heart of lovingkindness (Day 22)
- Early Morning Buddhist Inspiration - 5/3/2013
- Breaking the boundaries (Day 24)
- Breast Cancer: What Raises Your Risk?
- A mindful writer: An interview with Diana Gould
- How meditation can influence gene activity
- Early editions of Radha Soami Satsang Beas books wanted
- Who knew Louis C.K. was a (funny) philosopher?
- The expansive mind of lovingkindness (Day 23)
| Docs Divided Over Best Oxygen Levels for Preemies Posted: 05 May 2013 09:00 AM PDT
Extremely premature babies need oxygen to help them breathe, but exactly how much oxygen is best for these infants is a controversial topic. Two new studies aim to answer the question, but doctors are still divided on the issue. One study, published today (May 5) in the New England Journal of Medicine, suggests that keeping blood oxygen levels up in the higher end of the range they have traditionally be kept in — between 91 to 95 percent — may be wise. In this study, premature infants whose oxygen levels were kept in this higher range were less likely to die while they were in the hospital compared with babies whose oxygen levels were kept between 85 and 89 percent. But babies in the lower oxygen group were less likely to develop a condition that can cause blindness. By contrast, a second study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found there was no difference between the two oxygen groups in terms of the percentage of babies who lived to be 18 months old, as well as the percentage of babies who were disabled at this age. The findings of the JAMA study contrast with those of earlier work, but there was some suggestion that babies' oxygen levels in this study were more tightly controlled than those of previous studies. Although doctors and nurses ideally try to keep babies' oxygen levels between 85 to 95 percent, they can fluctuate below or above this range. "All of these studies say we just need to be really careful how we set our limits, and how we adhere to them," said Dr. Edward Shepherd, a neonatologist at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, who was not involved in the studies. Because of the new studies, hospital staffs are likely to be more aggressive in keeping levels within the 85 to 95 percent range, Shepherd said. But others said the new studies mean that doctors will be likely to favor higher oxygen levels for premature infants to reduce their risk of death. "The conclusion will be that keeping babies with low [oxygen] saturations is not a good idea based on the evidence that's available now," said Dr. Eduardo Bancalari, of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, who co-wrote an editorial accompanying the JAMA study. Some doctors are recommending that oxygen levels be kept between 90 and 95 percent, Bancalari said. [11 Facts Every Parent Should Know About Their Baby's Brain] In the 1940s, doctors advocated liberal use of oxygen in premature babies to help them survive. But studies done in the 1950s and 1960s showed that high oxygen levels increased the risk of blindness. Recently, doctors have kept oxygen levels between 85 and 95 percent, but whether there is a tighter range that provides the greatest benefits to babies while reducing their risk of blindness is not known. Both of the new studies involved very premature babies (born before 28 weeks of pregnancy) who were randomly assigned to either a low- or high-oxygen group. Because of their prematurity, these babies are already at high risk of complications, including death. The New England Journal study involved babies in Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, while the JAMA study involved babies in Canada, the United States, Argentina, Finland, Germany and Israel. Both studies encountered a software problem halfway through — the calibration on the devices used to measure oxygen saturation levels was off. In the New England Journal study, babies in the low oxygen group had a higher rate of death (23 percent died before leaving the hospital) compared with those in the higher oxygen group (16 percent). Among all babies in the study, those in the lower oxygen group were less likely to develop the condition that causes blindness (10 percent treated) compared to those in the higher oxygen group (13 percent treated.) The JAMA study did not confirm these results. This study provides "a message of reassurance that [low oxygen levels] can be safe, provided that you rigorously enforce the alarms," said study researcher Dr. Barbara Schmidt, of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Looking at both studies, "the story continues to be untold as to what optimal [oxygen] target is," said Dr. David Mendez, neonatologist at Miami Children's Hospital, who was not involved in the studies. Researchers are awaiting the results from a larger study, involving 5,000 babies, which may provide a better answer, Mendez said. Technology that could automatically adjust a oxygen levels would be an important advancement, he said. Both studies will be presented today at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting in Washington, D.C. Pass it on: Two new studies aim to find the optimal oxygen levels for preemies, but doctors are still divided on the issue. Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow MyHealthNewsDaily @MyHealth_MHND, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on MyHealthNewsDaily.  Read More @ Source | |||
| Posted: 05 May 2013 07:00 AM PDT At least in early Buddhism emptiness or voidness are not in the same category as nirvana or liberation. These are specific signifiers that are used to signify transcendence and can stand alone. By contrast, terms like 'good', 'large' or 'empty' cannot stand alone. In traditional logic such terms as 'good', 'large' or 'empty' are called syncategorematic. Each of these terms must be joined explicitly or implicitly to a "categorematic" term which can stand alone. When joined properly we might get: 'a good job', 'a large tub' an 'empty room'. On their own, these terms do not signify. On the other hand, the term 'nirvana' has signification. As a syncategorematic term, the signification of the term 'empty' changes depending on what word it is connected with. For example. the Zen term 'empty mind' or wu-shin, means that the pure Mind is empty of defilements. Mind empty of defilements is naturally self luminous. On a somewhat different note, the term, highest emptiness (P., paramanuttara suññatâ) has implicit reference to Mind being totally empty of the flow of sensory desire, becoming and ignorance. When referring to the liberation of Mind/spirit (cetovimutti) that is non-temporal and immovable it is also called the void Mind liberation (suññatâ-cetovimutti). Turning to another example the Uttaratantra says:
If I say that the essence of the Buddha is emptiness, I really mean to say that the essence of the Buddha is empty of defilements. If you've personally seen this essence, there are no defilements present whatsoever. It is like an empty house which is present but is empty of furniture, rugs, curtains, etc. When the Madhyamikas say that all things are unreal like a mirage (which is empty of water although the deluded believe otherwise), this is emptiness of intrinsic nature (svabhâva). Such things are dependently originated (fabrications) which means they lack intrinsic nature. They are empty of it or nihsvabhâva. | |||
| Suicide on the Rise in Middle-Age Adults Posted: 05 May 2013 05:00 AM PDT Suicide rates among middle-age U.S. adults are on the rise, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Over the last decade, the rate of suicide among adults ages 35 to 64 increased 28 percent, from 13.7 suicides per 100,000 people in 1999, to 17.6 suicides per 100,000 people in 2010. The greatest increases in suicide rates were among people ages 55 to 59 (a 49 percent increase) and ages 50 to 54 (a 48 percent increase). While suicide prevention efforts have traditionally targeted the young and the old, the new findings suggest that it's important for prevention strategies "to address the types of stressors that middle-aged Americans might be facing," Linda Degutis, director of CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, said in a statement. Overall, firearms were the most common way people committed suicide (8.3 suicides per 100,000 people), followed by hanging/suffocation (4.1 suicides per 100,000 people), and poisoning (3.8 suicides per 100,000 people). During the study period, the rate of suicide from hanging/ suffocation increased 81 percent. The reason for the rise in suicide rates is not known. Previous research has suggested that the recent economic downturn, as well as a rise in access to prescription painkillers may be contributing factors, the report said. "Suicide is a tragedy that is far too common," CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden said in a statement. "This report highlights the need to expand our knowledge of risk factors so we can build on prevention programs that prevent suicide." Suicide prevention strategies include enhancing social support and access to mental health services, and reducing the stigma associated with seeking such care, the report said. Strategies that help people overcome job loss, partner violence and the stress of caring for loved ones are also critical, the report said. Since 2009, suicide deaths have been more common than deaths from car accidents. In 2010, there were 33,687 deaths from motor vehicle crashes and 38,364 suicides, the CDC said. Pass it on: Suicide rates among adults ages 35 to 64 are on the rise. Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow MyHealthNewsDaily @MyHealth_MHND, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on MyHealthNewsDaily. Read More @ Source | |||
| How to Hack Relationships: 3 Ways Physical Touch Helps Posted: 05 May 2013 04:00 AM PDT  It is astonishing how little one feels alone when one loves. – John Bulwer Everyone says moving in with a significant other is difficult, but the first week of my life playing house was more difficult and emotionally challenging than I ever expected. When my husband and I returned from our honeymoon, we moved in together for the first time and a newfound silence fell upon our apartment. All this new time we were spending together in our new home was mired with a kind of white noise, one I was always aware of and always wanted to replace with joyful conversation and love. The silence made me feel alone, and — worst of all — it made me feel scared for the years to come. I grew up in a loud and overly affectionate family. Hugs, jokes, and conversation bounced around the house in a constant state of interaction. The house was always full of banter and togetherness. My husband, on the other hand, grew up in a family that is loving in a different way, quiet and respectful of each other's space. Silence and independence felt natural to him, but (after years of dates, movie nights, and dinners) I had never sat in a room with him in such silence. I remember looking over at him and wondering why he wasn't speaking to me or if it meant that things between us had changed. I even remembering crying to my mother, telling her just how much I missed her and the rest of my family. Little did I know that all I had to do to feel better was hold his hand. Getting through that adjustment period took work and immense understanding. One year later, my marriage has been incredibly refreshing and wonderful. The tools I used to combat the silence and adjust my habits to fit another person still serve me every single day in the relationships I have in all are! as of my life. They are incredibly simple tactics, and they probably aren't the ones you'd expect. 1. Hold on tightThis may be hard to believe, but much of what I achieved was by getting cuddly. Studies actually show that physical contact slows down our heart rate. That includes holding a person's hand, giving a warm hug, or a hand on the shoulder. Through physical touch, our bodies interpret that there is a meaningful connection around us, and our heart responds by slowing its rhythm a bit. When I felt extremely upset or emotional, unable to communicate exactly what I felt was missing in our new home, I held my husband's hand, and the results were uncanny. I almost instantly felt more calm and closer to peace. 2. Watch anger dissipateWe've all experienced anger in our lives — sometimes it happens every day! It's a natural human reaction. But have you ever noticed that you are never usually angry with someone who is touching you at a certain moment? I've tried this, and getting angry while hugging someone just doesn't feel right. In my personal relationships, I have learned to take matters into my own hands. If an argument is escalating to a place I don't feel comfortable with, I offer a hug. The anger gurgling up inside almost always starts to dissipate, and the conversation usually takes a turn for the productive, instead of the destructive. 3. Create connectionPhysical touch goes one step further than just calming our anger and slowing our heart rates. It also readies our minds and bodies for connection. When someone touches us on the shoulder, for example, it sparks our attention in a way that is non-intrusive. It is welcoming, instead. A few months ago, I remember feeling so stressed and worried, that it only took my husband's hand on my shoulder to break the floodgates and have tears start flowing down my face. I was tense and uptight, holding tears back with gumption, but physical! touch si! gnaled that being vulnerable is okay. Our connection strengthened, and my tears flowed like a river. Each and every day that we navigate personal relationships, work relationships, and romantic relationships, physical touch is a tool that we very rarely use to create connection and an atmosphere of peace. Since I learned how to leverage physical touch to help my relationships grow, I feel more calm within myself and more connected to those around me. I'd love to hear from youIs there something about your personal relationships you want to hack? Could giving a friend a high-five or holding your partner's hand do the trick? Are you fearful of hacking your relationships? What concerns you? Leave your stories and ideas in the comments!
Have a bucket list? Create yours today with this list of 101 things to do before you die! Grab your free pdf e-book in the next second by signing up for the free newsletter.     Read More @ Source | |||
| Buddhism, wealth, and happiness Posted: 05 May 2013 03:00 AM PDT
The Business Week post is rather breathless: "I just spoke with Justin Wolfers, co-author of a short but important new paper that concludes the more money you have, on average, the happier you are." I almost see the author's laptop screen misting as he pants with excitement. Business Week describes this finding thus: "That may seem to deserve a Homer Simpson "Duh!" award for most obvious research finding of the month" before going on to admit that actually previous research has shown this not to be the case: once one's basic needs are met, happiness increases with income, but only to a point. Thereafter (and if I recall correctly the limit is about $ 100,000) there's pretty much a plateau. The Stress Reduction perspective on this is nicely expressed in a verse from the Dhammapada: "Not even if it rained gold coins would we have our fill of sensual pleasures." Craving is essentially insatiable. We can satiate simple needs, as for food or companionship. But there's no end to craving. Real happiness is more to do with the quality of our experience — how mindful, patient, kind, wise we are — and is less to do with our annual income. Craving for wealth is usually tied up with desire for status — wanting to be "better" than others. I heard an amazing interview on the radio with someone who had been studying the rich, and he recalled a conversation with someone who had "only" $ 2 billion. The billionaire had lamented, "You know, I look at these people with five, six billion, and I think, Where did I go wrong?" So the problem with basing your happiness on being richer than others is there's always someone richer than you, and even if you're number one there's a load of people on your heels. But back to that research. It's based on a Gallup poll question:
Did you notice the bit about where it asks you how happy you are? Neither did I. The question isn't about happiness. The word happiness isn't in there, nor are any closely related words. The question asks you to rank where you rank yourself on a scale of "the worst possible life for you" to "the best possible life for you." What does that mean? The "best possible life" could mean happiness, or feeling loved, or having more money. How do you rank where you "stand at this time" on that ladder. Well, let's assume that the worst possible life for you is being very poor. And that the best possible life you can imagine is being very rich? You're now being asked to rank where you are on a scale of being very poor to being very rich: what's your social standing? And you'd therefore expect there to be some correlation — perhaps even a high degree of correlation — between where people think they stand socially and where they stand socially. But that's a different question from "how happy are you compared to other people in general" or "how satisfied are you compared to other people in general" — both of which are quite straightforward questions. Yes, having imagined the idea of a hierarchy from "the worst possible life" to "the best possible life," participants in the survey were asked then how they felt about their lives, but now the question is affected by the earlier assumption. "On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time" comes before the factors that you're supposed to now go back and integrate into what you've already imagined. Those factors now ask you how you feel about your social standing, which is not the same as "how happy are you?" Altogether, this is a complex question asked badly. Actually it's more than one question, and we don't know which one people were replying to, or how they understood the various components. But this interpretation, "the more money you have, on average, the happier you are," will get a lot of press. For one thing, it's entertaining and provocative. Second, there are vested interests that try to convince us that we have to have more stuff in order to be happier. And third, there are people who are near the top in terms of wealth who now see their mission as raw power and they need us to be passive so that we can allow them to gain political power and gain even more wealth and power. Their aim seems to be to amass enough wealth to completely insulate themselves from the effects of their wealth-gathering. So you trash an economy and throw millions out of work? No problem. There are always other economies to loot. And in any event, in amassing billions in this way you're not just making yourself richer. You're making others poorer. Which means you've landed on hedonism's "Double Word Score," because craving wealth is about feeling superior, and you're now both absolutely richer and comparatively richer because of having brought everyone else down. Back when the late Margaret Thatcher was first elected, I had a shocking encounter with a young man I'd worked with one summer. I bumped into him at the train station, and we got chatting until the train arrived and the doors opened. As the crowd got onto the train I hung back to allow others to get seated. There were lots of older people and people with young children boarding, and being well-trained in manners it was natural to let them sit first. If I had to stand as a consequence, I'd feel fine about it. But this former colleague tried to drag me to the front of the line: "You've got to grab what you want; otherwise someone else will get it, right?" He looked at me for confirmation, but I suspect all he got was confusion, and possibly even distaste. I'd honestly never heard selfishness articulated as a personal virtue before, at least by real people. Yes, I'd heard Thatcher and her crew advocating selfishness as the answer to society's problems, but I didn't think anyone actually believed it. Certainly not people I knew. I thought, "My god, what kind of a world am I living in now?" I soon found out. We're still living in Thatcher's world (and Reagan's). And Gordon Gekko's. The crash of 2008 and the Great Recession that many of us are still experiencing, even if it no longer officially exists, were perhaps its high water mark. But I think the tide is starting to turn. More people are beginning to realize that we actually have to think of everyone's wellbeing, and not just our own. If we're all only thinking of our own wellbeing, then who's going to be there to help you when you fall? But any hint of this turning of the tide is a threat, which is why the Occupy movement was so roundly criticized in the media: "No one knows what they want!" Of course we knew what they wanted: an economy that works for everyone, not just the rich, and for the people who had destroyed the economy through fraudulent practices to be punished. It's obvious. But the media couldn't, in general, admit this. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you, and the media is well-fed. So the message has to be spread: wealth makes you happy! This justifies the cravings of the super-rich, and keeps us on the hedonic treadmill of consumerism. And so papers like this will appear, and will be relentlessly repeated until they are "common knowledge." The Buddha's realization that happiness is something, fundamentally, that can't be bought is his "dangerous idea." Or one of them. One of his other dangerous ideas was that for the long-term stability of a nation, there has to be a fair distribution of wealth — something that's been notably lacking in recent years, where productivity has soared, and yet wages for ordinary people have remained stagnant. So be skeptical. Be very skeptical of this research "showing" that money makes you happier — research based on a question that didn't even ask about happiness. These "memes" can be poisonous. Just think how much suffering has been caused by austerity measures in Europe, which were justified in part by a paper based on an Excel spreadsheet error. If you want to be happy, there are plenty of things you can do, and those things will tend to make other people happier too. Earning more money? Don't let me put you off, especially if you're struggling financially, but if your basic needs are covered there are better uses of your precious human existence than pounding away on the hedonic treadmill. Read More @ Source | |||
| Posted: 05 May 2013 02:00 AM PDT By Leo BabautaOne of the most common problems I hear from readers is the difficulty in finding calm and peace in the middle of a work day. Work for many people is stressful, full of too many things to do, too many meetings and emails and incoming information and interruptions and irritations and distractions and decisions and confusion. Putting "Zen" into the workplace — some calm, some mindfulness, some letting go of that which stresses you out — is not a simple thing for most people. To help those who'd like to find a more peaceful way of working, I've teamed up with San Francisco Zen Center to create the Zen of Work online course. Zen priest Robert Thomas (former president of SFZC) and I will be co-teaching the class, which lasts for four weeks and starts this Sunday (May 5, 2013). Space is limited so please sign up by Saturday (May 4) if you'd like to join us. What will the class consist of? Four weekly modules, each with:
This will take a daily commitment, so if you'd like to do it, please set aside at least 20-30 minutes a day to view/read course materials, do the practice, and interact with the teachers and other members (through the forum, Q&A, and webinars). Sign up for the Zen of Work course here. Course ContentsHere's what we'll be offering during the four weeks of the course (starting May 5): Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Register → Read More @ Source | |||
| 5 Types of Fungus in Capri Sun — But Are They Harmful? Posted: 05 May 2013 01:00 AM PDT
Five types of fungus have been identified in the popular kids' juice drink Capri Sun, researchers say. The study was spurred by reports of consumers finding mold — mats of fungus consisting of millions of cells — in the drink. While the findings have an "ick" factor, the fungi probably aren't harmful to most people, said study researcher Kathleen Dannelly, associate professor microbiology at Indiana State University. Fungi are all around us — in the soil, air, and even on our skin and inside our digestive tract — but they are generally kept in check by our immune systems. "Probably, those of us with healthy immune systems, we could even eat that, and that wouldn't be a problem," Dannelly said, referring to the fungal mats in Capri Sun. However, for people with compromised immune systems, such as those with AIDS, leukemia or cystic fibrosis, fungus exposure may be a health concern, Dannelly said. For instance, the fungus Aspergillus is found in air, and most people breathe it in without problems. But for those with compromised immune systems, the fungus can cause lung and other infections. Kraft, which manufactures Capri Sun, acknowledges that mold can grow in the drink, but says such reports are not common. "Since there are no preservatives in our drinks, mold can grow, especially in a leaking pouch," Kraft says on its Capri Sun frequently asked questions website. During the manufacturing process, the drinks are heated to temperatures that exceed those used for pasteurization. But punctures in the products' package — even microscopic ones — can allow air inside the package, and mold to grow, Kraft says. Fungi need oxygen to grow, Dannelly said. Capri Sun packages have a shelf life of about a year. The company urges consumers to discard leaking or damaged packages. In the new study, the researchers filtered Capri Sun through filter paper, and then checked whether any microorganisms were left behind on the paper. The juice contained just a few fungal cells, which grew in laboratory dishes. Dannelly said if this experiment was done on any juice after it was opened and left in the refrigerator, she would expect both fungus and bacteria to grow. In a second experiment, the researchers, including Leah Horn, an undergraduate biology major, punctured Capri Sun packages with a sterile needle to mimic damage to the product. When left in a sterile environment for three weeks, fungal mats grew in the juice. A problem with Capri Sun is that the packages are not see-through, so unlike mold on bread or cheese, consumers can't tell when Capri Sun goes bad. Kraft said it tried creating clear packages for Capri Sun, but stopped making the packages after it created manufacturing problems. The company said it will not add preservatives to the product because their customers don't want this. Preservatives give food a longer shelf life, but some, such as the preservative nitrite, have been linked to an increased risk of certain cancers. Dannelly said there are some natural preservatives, such as citric acid, which are not harmful and could be added to the product (although it would make the product more acidic). "If you're going to have a package you can't see through, I think you need to do something," Dannelly said. The study has not yet been published in a peer reviewed journal, but the researchers plan to submit the work for publication. Pass it on: Five types of fungus have been found in Capri Sun, but they are likely not harmful. Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow MyHealthNewsDaily @MyHealth_MHND, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on MyHealthNewsDaily. Read More @ Source | |||
| Sex Supplements Recalled Due to Undeclared Drugs Posted: 05 May 2013 12:00 AM PDT
Several sexual enhancement supplements were recalled this week because the products contain undeclared drugs, according to the Food and Drug Administration. The products, called Vicerex and Black Ant, manufactured by American Lifestyle, are marketed as enhancing sexual desire and performance. Vicerex was found to contain the drug tadalafil (sold under the brand name Cialis), and Black Ant was found to contain the drug sildenafil (brand name Viagra). Both tadalafil and sildenafil are FDA-approved drugs to treat erectile dysfunction. Supplements are not allowed to contain prescription drugs. Tadalafil and sildenafil can cause adverse effects (such as dangerously low blood pressure) if taken along with other prescription drugs that contain nitrates, the FDA said. The recall is voluntary, and no adverse events have been reported so far. Consumers should return the product to the place of purchase or to American Lifestyle. The UPC codes for the recalled products can be found on the FDA release. Earlier this month, the FDA warned consumers that a number of other sexual enhancement supplements contained undeclared drugs. The FDA regulates supplements only after they enter the market. Because of this, consumers should be careful about purchasing supplements, particularly sexual enhancement, weight loss and bodybuilding supplements, because the agency is not able to test all of them. Some supplements are certified by the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention or NSF International — these certifications can provide reassurance that the products contain the proper dosage of ingredients, and don't contain prohibited ingredients, experts say. Follow Rachael Rettner @RachaelRettner. Follow MyHealthNewsDaily @MyHealth_MHND, Facebook & Google+. Originally published on MyHealthNewsDaily. Read More @ Source | |||
| The tender heart of lovingkindness (Day 22) Posted: 04 May 2013 11:00 PM PDT
I think almost everyone has experienced that kind of emotional nose-dive. But I think that when this happens we may be looking within in the wrong way, and for the wrong thing. I think the potential for lovingkindness is always there. It's an innate part of us. But we have to awaken it. It's sleeping, dormant. It's wrapped in blankets of denial and self-protection. And my current approach to awakening our innate ability to be kind is one I've mentioned before: a pair of simple reflections, followed by an invitation. So the first reflection is this: We drop into the mind the truth, "I want to be happy." I'm presenting this as a truth, because I believe that deep down we all do want happiness. Even when we choose a destructive path that leads to pain, we're doing this because we believe it will bring happiness, or at least a relief from suffering, in the long term. It won't, of course, but that's because we've chosen the wrong strategy to find happiness, not because we don't want to be happy. So we drop this statement — "I want to be happy" — into the mind, and let its truth resonate within us. Feel its truth in your life, not in an abstract way, but concretely: "Yes, it's true. I do want happiness. Even in this moment I want happiness." This may be experienced as a kind of tender ache, and that's OK. We'll get back in a moment to why that's OK. And the second reflection is this: "Happiness isn't always easy to find." So we drop that thought — that truth — into the mind in the same way, giving ourselves time and space to have a response to it, to sense the truth of it in our lives. Because this too is true. We want happiness, but happiness is often elusive. We keep expecting to be happy and it doesn't happen. Happiness doesn't arrive, or it passes too quickly, or unhappiness shows up instead. So this too many evoke an achey sense around the heart. That's good. Again, we'll come to the why in a moment.  If you like Bodhipaksa's articles, check out his books, guided meditation CDs, and MP3s. The invitation that follows these two reflections is just this: there is some part of you that, realizing that you want to be happy and that happiness is elusive, is prepared to wish you well. There is a part of you — a very deep part of you — that is prepared to be kind and supportive as you go about this difficult thing we do — being human. Because I think it is generally harder than we admit, this being human. Having this innate drive for happiness in a world in which happiness is hard to find is a tough thing to do. And happiness doesn't necessarily mean going about with a smile plastered on your face. Yes it can mean joy, but it can also be meaning, purpose, satisfaction, connection, or peace. And the ache I talked about, which comes, often, when we rediscover that we want to be happy and when we admit that it's hard to do this, is very valuable. Because this feeling of vulnerability is the recognition of the truth of our existential situation, and it's not until we recognize our desire for happiness and the difficulty of attaining that desire that we can be truly supportive of ourselves. Often we don't admit this truth, and we believe we have our lives "sorted." We're fine. Maybe we don't admit that we're not too happy right now. That would be an admission of weakness and failure! Or maybe we do grudgingly admit that things aren't perfect right now, but once we lose that 10 pounds, or get that promotion, or get past this busy spell at work — well, then we'll be happy. We can become a bit cold and hard, and judgmental. When we see others being unhappy, rather than feel sympathy for them we may feel contempt. Or if we're magnanimous we may give them some advice: "You just need to…" Have you noticed how prone we are to give advice on how to be happy even when we're not happy ourselves? How sure we are that we have it all figured out, even when clearly we haven't? And when people are are their most alienated from their vulnerability, they can be cruel. It becomes enjoyable to watch someone else fail; it confirms that they are weak — unlike us. When we allow ourselves to be vulnerable ("Yes, I do want to be happy; yes, it is hard") all this protectiveness is dropped, and we discover that we do want to support ourselves. We do want to be kind to ourselves as we do this difficult thing of being human. We do have innate lovingkindness and we have just contacted it. And it's a bit achey, but that's just what happens when we rediscover our deeper needs, and when we admit the difficulty of meeting them. And then when we turn our attention to others and recognize that they are in the same situation as us — that they are struggling beings, desiring happiness but finding it elusive — we find that the vulnerability opens the way to a tender sense of kindess toward them: a heart-felt desire to wish them well as they do this difficult thing of being human. This is what "contacting our innate lovingkindness" means. It's not looking inside and finding some pre-made emotion of love. It's finding a way to our own achey, tender vulnerability, and letting the heart respond with kindness. Read More @ Source | |||
| Early Morning Buddhist Inspiration - 5/3/2013 Posted: 04 May 2013 11:00 PM PDT  "A flower falls, even though we love it; and a weed grows, even though we do not love it." ~Dogen Zenji      Read More @ Source | |||
| Breaking the boundaries (Day 24) Posted: 04 May 2013 10:00 PM PDT
I find this helpful when it comes to the transition from focusing on one person at a time — yourself, the friend, the neutral person, the person you find difficult — to wishing many beings well. As we move into the final stage of the lovingkindness practice we're asked to cultivate lovingkindness equally for all four people, not favoring self over other, other over self, friend over ourselves, the neutral person, or the difficult person. And this is a step that many people find a bit awkward, because you may find that the mind is hopping from person to person. But traditionally this step is called "breaking the bounds." Breaking the bounds of what? In my view what we're doing is breaking the bounds of the one-to-one relationship. Having focused on one person at a time, we're now embracing in our kindly awareness all four people. And this is where my perspective of noticing space, and letting that space be filled with kindness, is useful, because this approach doesn't require us to focus on one person at a time. In fact it requires us not to do this. If you like my articles, please check out my books, guided meditation CDs, and MP3s. In making this transition what I do is move from cultivating metta for the person I find difficult to simply sensing the space of my awareness, which includes the space around me and also the "virtual space" of the mind in which images and other thoughts appear. And I sense this space with kindness. Then I simply invite the friend, neutral person, and difficult person to be in this space, and because my awareness is imbued with kindness they are perceived kindly. I too am in the sphere of my awareness, and so I too am perceived kindly. So I don't have to "beam" metta to any of the four people, or to make any spacial effort to ensure that I'm wishing them all well to an equal extent. My lovingkindness is "omni-directional." It is simply a property of my consciousness, and whoever is in this space of consciousness is held kindly. The boundaries have been broken. Kindness flows everywhere that my attention is. And from here it's easy to become aware, in a kindly way, of the wider space around me, and to receive all beings in that space, and beings that appear in my mind, with love — with a recognition that they are feeling beings who desire happiness and who find happiness elusive. And recognizing this I feel no desire to obstruct their happiness and wish to help them find happiness if I can. Read More @ Source | |||
| Breast Cancer: What Raises Your Risk? Posted: 04 May 2013 09:00 PM PDT
"The Healthy Geezer" answers questions about health and aging in his weekly column. Question: Is breast cancer the leading cause of cancer death in women? Answer: Breast cancer is second — behind lung cancer — as the leading cause of cancer death in women. The chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman's life is about 1 in 8. There are many risk factors for breast cancer. The risk rises with age. About 77 percent of women with breast cancer are older than 50 when they are diagnosed. Breast cancer risk is higher among women whose close relatives have the disease. A woman with cancer in one breast is at high risk of developing a new cancer in either of her breasts. Women who started menstruating before age 12 or who went through menopause after age 55 have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. Having multiple pregnancies and becoming pregnant at an early age reduces breast cancer risk. Long-term use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after menopause increases your risk of breast cancer. Drinking alcohol is linked to an increased risk of developing breast cancer. Obesity is a breast cancer risk, especially for women after menopause. Evidence is growing that exercise reduces breast cancer risk. Breast cancer can also strike men. Most men who get breast cancer are white and in their 60s. However, the disease is uncommon in men. It represents only 1 percent of all breast cancers. Because of its rarity, many men aren't aware it exists. And that's a problem. For unknown reasons, the incidence of male breast cancer has been increasing. About 2,000 men in the U.S. are diagnosed with breast cancer annually. Some risk factors for male breast cancer are: Age: The average age for a man diagnosed with breast cancer is 67. Family: About 20 percent of men with breast cancer are related to someone with the disease. Genes: About 7 percent of breast cancers in men are inherited. Radiation: There's a higher risk to men who underwent chest radiation treatments when they were younger. Klinefelter Syndrome: Men with this syndrome make lower levels of male hormones, called androgens, and more female hormones. This can cause gynecomastia, benign breast enlargement. Men with this condition may be at greater risk of breast cancer. Many medicines used to treat ulcers, high blood pressure, and heart failure can cause gynecomastia, too. Estrogen: The risk is small for men who take the female hormone estrogen. Estrogen drugs may be used to treat prostate cancer. Liver disease: This can increase your risk of gynecomastia and breast cancer. Obesity: Fat cells convert androgens into estrogen. Alcohol: Drinking alcohol raises the odds that a man will develop breast cancer. The risk increases with the amount of alcohol consumed. If you would like to read more columns, you can order a copy of "How to be a Healthy Geezer" at www.healthygeezer.com. All rights reserved © 2013 by Fred Cicetti Read More @ Source | |||
| A mindful writer: An interview with Diana Gould Posted: 04 May 2013 08:00 PM PDT
Read the original article » Read More @ Source | |||
| How meditation can influence gene activity Posted: 04 May 2013 07:00 PM PDT
In the small study, researchers recruited individuals who had no prior meditation experience and examined participants' genetic profile prior to their adoption of a basic daily relaxation practice. The 10- to 20-minute routine included reciting words, breathing exercises and attempts to exclude everyday thought. The New Scientist reports… Read the original article » | |||
| Early editions of Radha Soami Satsang Beas books wanted Posted: 04 May 2013 04:00 PM PDT A while back I blogged about how I boxed up almost all of the Radha Soami Satsang Beas (RSSB) books that I'd accumulated over some thirty-five years. An Indian woman had contacted me, saying she was looking for older editions (first and second editions, ideally) of RSSB books published before 2000. I agreed to send her mine for the cost of mailing. They were sent to her relatives in this country, because shipping books to India is expensive. Only one of the three boxes I sent off got to her. Two were lost, one seemingly because it was opened by the postal service to check if the contents indeed qualified for "book rate," then not resealed properly. I did my best to find the books via USPS staff, but had no luck. I just heard from the woman again. She still wants to obtain copies of older RSSB books, preferably first or second editions, published before 2000. She wants the older editions because she has heard that they were rewritten, and she wants the "originals." Email me (see right sidebar) if you have any books you don't want any more. She will pay the mailing cost. I'll forward any emails I get to her. Then she and the prospective book provider can work things out. I was glad to get rid of books that were sitting in storage boxes in our attic. Books should be read, not stored away. This woman has told me that she's interested in the RSSB teachings, though she isn't an initiate. This is what she told me in one of the first emails that we exchanged.
| |||
| Who knew Louis C.K. was a (funny) philosopher? Posted: 04 May 2013 03:00 PM PDT Being an admirer of the American comedian Louis C.K., naturally I was attracted to the title of a Yoga Brains post I came across: "The Yoga of Louis C.K." It's worth a read. Excerpt: With that in mind, the below clip, which ended comedian Louis C.K.'s HBO special 'Oh My God,' while hilariously funny (and worth watching on those merits alone), points to the deep rift we humans suffer on a daily basis: the distance between what we think and how we, at least sometimes, act. Or, at the very least, the conflicting chorus of voices that consistently ring out in our heads, oftentimes at the most inopportune moments—what he refers to as 'Of Course' and 'But Maybe.' Kudos to Louis C.K. for being able to get laughs by talking about children dying from nut allergies. Humor is marvelous. We're reminded that, sure, life can be really tough and serious. Nothing to joke about. Of course. But maybe... everything is a joke. On some level. Of course... that probably is wrong. But maybe... And so we go. Here's the video clip.
| |||
| The expansive mind of lovingkindness (Day 23) Posted: 04 May 2013 02:00 PM PDT
This doesn't invalidate what we do. The five (sometimes six) stage model has a long pedigree going back at least 2,000 years, and it may be that it goes back to the Buddha himself. We just don't know. But it's interesting to look back and see that there is, apparently, an early strand of teaching that's quite different from what we do. So here's a typical direction for lovingkindness practice:
So there's a lot of emphasis on directionality. Let's call this the "compass approach" to lovingkindness. This is quite different from how I was taught the practice, which was to cultivate loving-kindness for those nearby, and then to work outward: neighborhood, town, region, country, neighboring countries, etc., until the whole world is embraced in a mind of lovingkindness. What I was taught is more of an "atlas approach." What may be the earliest meditation manual we have, the Vimuttimagga (path of freedom), which dates to just a few hundred years after the Buddha, includes this atlas-style approach to lovingkindness:
The Vimuttimagga then goes on to take the compass approach. And I think switching from the atlas to the compass approach is a good idea, because I've always felt the atlas metod to be rather clunky. How do you conceive of having lovingkindness for all beings in, say, Europe or Africa, especially for someone who doesn't live there? Do you picture a map? That's rather detached from the reality of the beings that live in those places. Do you pick random scenes and wish the people you see well? That's what I tend to do, but in a way you're departing from the atlas approach, since you can't exactly do this for every nation, going "country to country." It is, of course, possible to over-think this!
So perhaps the notion of just considering a direction is a good one! It frees us up from having to picture the world. We can let go to some extent of our visual sense, and have more of a spatial sense of the world around us. We can just be aware of each direction in turn, and have a sense that we're wishing any beings in that direction well. We don't have to see the directions. We can feel them. They're inside our awareness already. A sense of the space around us is one of our senses, although one people don't talk about very much. But if you close your eyes right now, you still have a pretty good idea of where you are in relation to things around you. You know roughly how far it is to the wall in front of you, to the right, left, and behind you. You have a sense of the dimensions and orientation of the whole building around you, and of that building's relation to the space around it, and to other buildings. You can even have a sense of the whole space above you — all the way up the sky. So in a sense all of that space is "in" your awareness. And if your awareness is imbued with a sense of kindness, then (in a sense) the space around you is imbued with kindness as well. So I tend, in my own practice of the fifth stage of the metta bhavana, to simply experience the space around me in all directions, and to regard those directions kindly. And whatever beings there may be in that space, human or animal, I wish them well. My mind becomes a field of lovingkindness, extending outside of my body, into the world. It's hard to say how far out from my body I sense this field of lovingkindness extending. You don't literally have to have a sense of the whole world as part of the practice of "cultivating universal loving-kindness." Your mind is your world, and all you have to do is maintain a loving awareness of that world, and of any beings that enter your senses, including the sense of the mind. So for me the emphasis in the practice isn't trying to connect with different geographic areas (which gets rather abstract), or with in some way trying to imagine the whole world (again abstract) or all the beings on it (which is impossible), but having a sense that my mind is this field of lovingkindness; and whoever was to enter my awareness, whether by physically entering the range of my senses, or by appearing in my mind's eye, would be received kindly, with a recognition that this is a being that wants to be happy and finds happiness elusive, and with a sense that I am prepared to support that being, not obstructing their happiness, and supporting it if I can. Read More @ Source |
Be forewarned. You're going to see a bunch of headlines soon like this one from Business Week: Economists Nail It: You Can Never Be Too Rich.
In previous posts I've suggested an approach to cultivating lovingkindness that begins with contacting our innate lovingkindness. Now the expression "contacting our innate lovingkindness" is a problem for many people, because they look inside themselves, don't see anything at that moment that they could call "metta" or "lovingkindness," and then conclude they don't have these qualities. Which can start a downward spiral of rumination and pain: I don't feel any love; Therefore I don't love myself; Therefore I must be unlovable; Therefore no one will ever love me; Therefore my life is horrible.
Elisha Goldstein, Ph.D., PsychCentral: It's not often that I interview someone on the mindfulness and psychotherapy blog who has put out a novel. However, Diana Gould has had a long career in film and television and in her practice with mindfulness. She currently teaches at InsightLA in Santa Monica, California and has recently released her first novel Coldwater. She has also put out a special Coldwater Challenge contest: Find the Mindfulness! Nestled within the pages of this noir thriller are little nuggets of mindfulness teachings. How many can you find? Make a list, give your reasons, and submit to contest@insightla.org…
Lia Steakley,Scope, Stanford Medicine: A growing body of scientific evidence shows that mindful-based therapies, such as meditation, can lower psychological stress and boost both mental and physical health. Now findings recently published in PLoS One suggest that such practices may also change gene activity.| You are subscribed to email updates from BuddhaRocks ☸ To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
