the elf in my head makes breadsticks

With my credentials of being a pseudo-scientist, I now declare myself a quack health practitioner. As my first act under this vague and highly questionable title, I would like to identify a disease I have observed in the local area:

Phantom Wife Syndrome: an affliction of the male population that is brought about by feelings of insecurity, isolation, desperation, and despair. Generally these feelings are dependent on two factors. First, the patient will usually be living in an area in which males greatly outnumber females. The ensuing difficulty of finding a mate, much less a suitable mate, will create feelings of frustration and self-doubt, leading to desperation and despair. This on its own, however is not enough to qualify as PWS, and would be better classified as an inadequacy of self-esteem. Secondly, the patient will usually already have multiple responsibilities such as owning a house, being a parent, having a steady job, or owning his own business. In many cases, these will be remnants of a former serious relationship that has recently ended. In a few cases the patient will be relatively unburdened, but long for these "traditional" responsibilities because of a Security Illusion Complex (often a precursor to Phantom Wife Syndrome) wherein the patient believes that a certain possession (i.e. house, car, etc…) or lifestyle (i.e. living behind a white picket fence) is all that is necessary to protect him from emotional or financial hardships. 

When a patient develops PWS, he will become immediately infatuated with any woman who crosses his path and seems even the slightest bit suitable for marriage. He will use a string of logical fallacies to justify the depth of his premature emotional attachment, for example: She's been married before, therefore she must be a good wife. She has nice hair, therefore she must be a nice person. She doesn't have a criminal record, therefore she must love children. And so on. If the syndrome goes untreated for even a short amount of time, the patient will build up an entirely imaginary person in his mind and superimpose it on his mate. Anytime the real woman acts in a way which conflicts with the man's imaginary ideal, he will simply ignore it, choosing instead to amplify the significance of incidences where the real and imaginary coincide. In extreme cases where the imagined ideal and actual person conflict excessively, the man may become resentful, even violent, feeling he has somehow been tricked by the woman when actually he has only been fooling himself. 

The treatment for Phantom Wife Syndrome is a combination of Reality and Self-Esteem. The patient must come to terms with the fact that there is no absolute security. No matter how much material wealth a person may acquire, that person can still be stripped of any or all of his possessions at any moment. No matter how happy or loved a person is, that person will still have to grapple with emotional turmoil sooner or later. The patient must also cultivate and learn to rely on his own strength. He must come to the understanding that he has to be able to depend on himself before he can ask another person to depend on him and before he can  responsibly and reasonably become dependent on another.

I am absolutely certain that a similar syndrome involving feelings of inadequacy and desperation and the false belief in absolute stability afflicts women (as Phantom Husband Syndrome) and homosexuals. However, being a woman living in a population with an overwhelming male majority, I have only had personal experience with PWS and feel unqualified to satisfactorily explain the exact causes behind these alternate syndromes. Perhaps after more and better research into these areas I will further my mock career by describing them as well. In any case, they are all diseases of the spirit born out of loneliness and loneliness is something that affects us all. So, as my second act as an unspecified practitioner of hooey I would like to prescribe a series of preventative treatments:

First, know yourself, respect yourself, be yourself. This isn't always easy and people don't actually always admire you for your self-confidence as countless grade school teachers would have you believe, but feeling comfortable in your own skin is priceless and well worth any ridicule. Secondly, make as many friends as you can. Having a network of like-minded (or sometimes different-minded) and sympathetic people offers far more stability than a spouse, no matter how loving, ever could. And, in my experience at least, friendships tend to last longer than romantic relationships or even marriages. Finally, abandon the materialistic attitude. Having nice things can make life easier and more enjoyable, but that hole in your heart isn't there for want of a new car. Accurately identify your troubles before you go indiscriminately throwing money at them. Many problems cannot be solved by money, some can. Know the difference and act accordingly.

canoes are for finches

here is an article i found on http://www.buddhanet.net about homosexuality and buddhism. it also goes into more detail about the third part of the fourth fold of the buddhist eightfold path, which i posted in a previous blog, a sandbag becomes a spring, as meaning "Practice self control and do not abuse the senses or do not be unchaste". those are the two translations i have found in books, but its important to remember that the Buddha taught the foundational principles of moderation in all things (the middle path) and tolerance. i've been wanting to find some elaborations on the steps of the eightfold path because a straight translation doesn't always give a clear meaning, especially when seen out of context and here is an excellent opportunity to do just that!

Homosexuality and Theravada Buddhism
by A. L. De Silva

Buddhism teaches to, and expects from, its followers a certain level of ethical behaviour. The minimum that is required of the lay Buddhist is embodied in what is called the Five Precepts (panca sila), the third of which relates to sexual behaviour. Whether or not homosexuality, sexual behaviour between people of the same sex, would be breaking the third Precept is what I would like to examine here.
Homosexuality was known in ancient India; it is explicitly mentioned in the Vinaya (monastic discipline) and prohibited. It is not singled out for special condemnation, but rather simply mentioned along with a wide range of other sexual behaviour as contravening the rule that requires monks and nuns to be celibate. Sexual behaviour, whether with a member of the same or the opposite sex, where the sexual organ enters any of the bodily orifices (vagina, mouth or anus), is punishable by expulsion from the monastic order. Other sexual behaviour like mutual masturbation or interfemural sex, while considered a serious offense, does not entail expulsion but must be confessed before the monastic community.
A type of person called a pandaka is occasionally mentioned in the Vinaya in contexts that make it clear that such a person is some kind of sexual non-conformist. The Vinaya also stipulates that pandakas are not allowed to be ordained, and if, inadvertently, one has been, he is expelled. According to commentary, this is because pandakas are "full of passions, unquenchable lust and are dominated by the desire for sex." The word pandaka has been translated as either hermaphrodite or eunuch, while Zwilling has recently suggested that it may simply mean a homosexual. It is more probable that ancient Indians, like most modern Asians, considered only the extremely effeminate, exhibitionist homosexual (the screaming queen in popular perception) to be deviant while the less obvious homosexual was simply considered a little more opportunistic or a little less fussy than other 'normal' males. As the Buddha seems to have had a profound understanding of human nature and have been remarkably free from prejudice, and as there is not evidence that homosexuals are any more libidinous or that they have any more difficulties in maintaining celibacy than heterosexuals, it seems unlikely that the Buddha would exclude homosexuals per se from the monastic life. The term pandaka therefore probably does not refer to homosexuals in general but rather to the effeminate, self-advertising and promiscuous homosexual.
The lay Buddhist is not required to be celibate, but she or he is advised to avoid certain types of sexual behaviour. The third Precept actually says: 'Kamesu micchacara veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami.' The word kama refers to any form of sensual pleasure but with an emphasis on sexual pleasure and a literal translation of the precept would be "I take the rule of training (veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami) not to go the wrong way (micchacara) for sexual pleasure (kamesu)". What constitutes "wrong" will not be clear until we examine the criteria that Buddhism uses to make ethical judgments.
No one of the Buddha's discourses is devoted to systematic philosophical inquiry into ethics such as one finds in the works of the Greek philosophers. But it is possible to construct a criterion of right and wrong out of material scattered in different places throughout the Pali Tipitaka, the scriptural basis of Theravada Buddhism. The Buddha questioned many of the assumptions existing in his society, including moral ones, and tried to develop an ethics based upon reason and compassion rather than tradition, superstitions and taboo. Indeed, in the famous Kalama Sutta he says that revelation (anussana), tradition (parampara), the authority of the scriptures (pitakasampada) and one's own point of view (ditthinijjhanakkhanti) are inadequate means of determining right and wrong.
Having questioned the conventional basis of morality, the Buddha suggests three criteria for making moral judgments. The first is what might be called the universalisability principle - to act towards others the way we would like them to act towards us. In the Samyutta Nikaya he uses this principle to advise against adultery. He says: "What sort of Dhamma practice leads to great good for oneself?... A noble disciple should reflect like this: 'If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another's spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?' As a result of such reflection one abstains from wrong sexual desire, encourages others to abstain from it, and speaks in praise of such abstinence."
In the Bahitika Sutta, Ananda is asked how to distinguish between praiseworthy and blameworthy behaviour. He answers that any behaviour which causes harm to oneself and others could be called blameworthy while any behaviour that causes no harm (and presumably which helps) oneself and others could be called praiseworthy. The suggestion is, therefore, that in determining right and wrong one has to look into the actual and possible consequences of the action in relation to the agent and those affected by the action. The Buddha makes this same point in the Dhammapada: "The deed which causes remorse afterwards and results in weeping and tears is ill-done. The deed which causes no remorse afterwards and results in joy and happiness is well-done." This is what might be called the consequential principle, that behaviour can be considered good or bad according to the consequences or effects it has.
The third way of determining right and wrong is what might be called the instrumental principle, that is, that behaviour can be considered right or wrong according to whether or not it helps us to attain our goal. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is Nirvana, a state of mental peace and purity and anything that leads one in that direction is good. Someone once asked the Buddha how after his death it would be possible to know what was and was not his authentic teaching and he replied: "The doctrines of which you can say: 'These doctrines lead to letting go, giving up, stilling, calming, higher knowledge, awakening and to Nirvana' - you can be certain that they are Dhamma, they are discipline, they are the words of the Teacher."
This utilitarian attitude to ethics is highlighted by the fact that the Buddha uses the term kusala to mean 'skillful' or 'appropriate' or its opposite, akusala, when evaluating behaviour far more frequently than he uses the terms punna, 'good', or papa, 'bad'. The other thing that is important in evaluating behaviour is intention (cetacean). If a deed is motivated by good (based upon generosity, love and understanding) intentions it can be considered skillful. Evaluating ethical behaviour in Buddhism requires more than obediently following commandments, it requires that we develop a sympathy with others, that we be aware of our thoughts, speech and actions, and that we be clear about our goals and aspirations.
Having briefly examined the rational foundations of Buddhist ethics we are now in a better position to understand what sort of sexual behaviour Buddhism would consider to be wrong or unskillful and why. The Buddha specifically mentions several types of unskillful sexual behaviour, the most common of which is adultery. This is unskillful because it requires subterfuge and deceit, it means that solemn promises made at the time of marriage are broken, and it amounts to a betrayal of trust. In another passage, the Buddha says that someone practicing the third Precept "avoids intercourse with girls still under the ward of their parents, brothers, sisters or relatives, with married women, with female prisoners or with those already engaged to another." Girls still under the protection of others are presumably too young to make a responsible decision about sex, prisoners are not in a position to make a free choice, while an engaged woman has already made a commitment to another. Although only females are mentioned here no doubt the same would apply to males in the same position.
As homosexuality is not explicitly mentioned in any of the Buddha's discourses (more than 20 volumes in the Pali Text Society's English translation), we can only assume that it is meant to be evaluated in the same way that heterosexuality is. And indeed it seems that this is why it is not specifically mentioned. In the case of the lay man and woman where there is mutual consent, where adultery is not involved and where the sexual act is an expression of love, respect, loyalty and warmth, it would not be breaking the third Precept. And it is the same when the two people are of the same gender. Likewise promiscuity, license and the disregard for the feelings of others would make a sexual act unskillful whether it be heterosexual or homosexual. All the principles we would use to evaluate a heterosexual relationship we would also use to evaluate a homosexual one. In Buddhism we could say that it is not the object of one's sexual desire that determines whether a sexual act is unskillful or not, but rather the quality of the emotions and intentions involved.
However, the Buddha sometimes advised against certain behaviour not because it is wrong from the point of view of ethics but because it would put one at odds with social norms or because its is subject to legal sanctions. In these cases, the Buddha says that refraining from such behaviour will free one from the anxiety and embarrassment caused by social disapproval or the fear of punitive action. Homosexuality would certainly come under this type of behaviour. In this case, the homosexual has to decide whether she or he is going to acquiesce to what society expects or to try to change public attitudes. In Western societies where attitudes towards sex in general have been strongly influenced by the tribal taboos of the Old Testament and, in the New Testament, by the ideas of highly neurotic people like St. Paul, there is a strong case for changing public attitudes.
We will now briefly examine the various objections to homosexuality and give Buddhist rebuttals to them. The most common Christian and Muslim objection to homosexuality is that it is unnatural and "goes against the order of nature". There seems to be little evidence for this. Miriam Rothschild, the eminent biologist who played a crucial role in the fight to decriminalize homosexuality in Britain, pointed out at the time that homosexual behaviour has been observed in almost every known species of animal. Secondly, it could be argued that while the biological function of sex is reproduction, most sexual activity today is not for reproduction, but for recreation and emotional fulfillment, and that this too is a legitimate function of sex. This being so, while homosexuality is unnatural in that it cannot leads to reproduction, it is quite natural for the homosexual in that for her or him it provides physical and emotional fulfillment. Indeed, for him or her, heterosexual behaviour is unnatural. Thirdly, even if we concede that homosexuality "goes against the order of nature", we would have to admit that so do many other types of human behaviour, including some religious behaviour. The Roman Catholic Church has always condemned homosexuality because of its supposed unnaturalness - but it has long idealized celibacy, which, some might argue, is equally unnatural. Another Christian objection to homosexuality is that it is condemned in the Bible, an argument that is meaningful to those who accept that the Bible is the infallible word of God, but which is meaningless to the majority who do not accept this. But while there is no doubt that the Bible condemns homosexuality, it also stipulates that women should be socially isolated while menstruating, that parents should kill their children if they worship any god other than the Christian God and that those who work on the Sabbath should be executed. Few Christians today would agree with these ideas even though they are a part of God's words, and yet they continue to condemn homosexuality simply because it is condemned in the Bible.
One sometimes hears people say: "If homosexuality were not illegal, many people, including the young, will become gay." 'This type of statement reflects either a serious misunderstanding about the nature of homosexuality or perhaps a latent homosexuality in the person who would make such a statement. It is as silly as saying that if attempted suicide is not a criminal offense then everyone will go out and commit suicide. Whatever the cause of homosexuality (and there is great debate on the subject), one certainly does not 'choose' to have homoerotic feelings in the same way one would, for example, choose to have tea instead of coffee. It is either inborn or develops in early childhood. And it is the same with heterosexuality. Changing laws does not change people's sexual inclinations.
Some have argued that there must be something wrong with homosexuality because so many homosexuals are emotionally disturbed. At first there seems to be some truth in this. In the West, at least, many homosexuals suffer from psychological problems, abuse alcohol, and indulge in obsessive sexual behaviour. As a group, homosexuals have a high rate of suicide. But observers have pointed out that such problems seem to be no more pronounced amongst African and Asian homosexuals than they are in the societies in which they live. It is very likely that homosexuals in the West are wounded more by society's attitude to them than by their sexual proclivity, and, if they are treated the same as everybody else, they will be the same as everybody else. Indeed, this is the strongest argument for acceptance and understanding towards homosexuals.
Christianity grew out of and owes much to Judaism with its tradition of fiery prophets fiercely and publicly denouncing what they considered to be moral laxity or injustice. Jesus was very much influenced by this tradition, as have been the Christian responses to public and private morality generally. At its best, this tradition in Christianity to loudly denounce immorality and injustice has given the West its high degree of social conscience. At its worst, it has meant that those who did not or could not conform to Christian standards have been cruelly exposed and persecuted. The Buddhist monk's role has always been very different from his Christian counterpart. His job has been to teach the Dhamma and to act as a quiet example of how it should be lived. This, together with Buddhism's rational approach to ethics and the high regard it has always given to tolerance, has meant that homosexuals in Buddhist societies have been treated very differently form how they have been in the West. In countries like China, Korea and Japan where Buddhism was profoundly influenced by Confucianism, there have been periods when homosexuality has been looked upon with disapproval and even been punishable under the law. But generally the attitude has been one of tolerance. Matteo Ricci, the Jesuit missionary who lived in China for twenty-seven years from 1583, expressed horror at the open and tolerant attitude that the Chinese took to homosexuality and naturally enough saw this as proof of the degeneracy of Chinese society. "That which most shows the misery of these people is that no less than the natural lusts, they practise unnatural ones that reverse the order of things, and this is neither forbidden by law nor thought to be illicit nor even a cause for shame. It is spoken of in public and practiced everywhere without there being anyone to prevent it." In Korea the ideal of the hwarang (flower boy) was often associated with homosexuality especially during the Yi dynasty. In Japan, a whole genre of literature (novelettes, poems and stories) on the love between samurais and even between Buddhist monks and temple boys developed during the late mediaeval period.
Theravada Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Burma had no legal statutes against homosexuality between consenting adults until the colonial era when they were introduced by the British. Thailand, which had no colonial experience, still has no such laws. This had led some Western homosexuals to believe that homosexuality is quite accepted in Buddhist countries of South and South-east Asia. This is certainly not true. In such countries, when homosexuals are thought of at all, it is more likely to be in a good-humored way or with a degree of pity. Certainly the loathing, fear and hatred that the Western homosexual has so often had to endure is absent and this is due, to a very large degree, to Buddhism's humane and tolerant influence.

zebras always fall

again, i have finished some quilts. i had the flu pretty much the whole time i've been working on these (3 weeks now) so they're kind of screwed up. but that's okay cause i was just making them for me and they look fine from the front so no one ever has to know. i won't tell if you don't. these are all pieced from old t-shirts and quilted by machine in a freehand design we quilters usually call "stippling". i like to think of it as a thread scribble. okay, pictures:

Shirty 1

 that's the only one that has fluff in the middle. i decided not to fluff the middles of the others cause i'm using them as wallhangings. they could possibly be used as baby quilts eventually if one of my friends ever has a baby and doesn't mind if their crib blanket has a picture of a vargas pin-up girl on it or says bitch on it.

Shirty 2

Shirty 3

 that's all for now. i have two more i'm working on that should be done sometime next month. please, flu, leave already.

pointy stick for your convenience

i'm reading the book that my library categorizes as kurt vonnegut's biography and it keeps making me cough (which is how i laugh when i have the flu). its mostly new stuff, but i recognize some of these bits from his other books. here's one that i really liked from God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian and i kept wishing i'd copied it down when i was reading that book and now it seems i have been given a second chance:

"Why are so many people getting divorced today? It's because most of us don't have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.

A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos, the Kennedys.
But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the other person. The groom gets one more pal, but its a woman. The woman gets one more person to talk to about everything, but its a man.
When a couple has an argument nowadays, they may think its about money or power or sex or how to raise the kids or whatever.  What they are really saying to each other, though without realizing it, is this: "You are not enough people!"

A husband, a wife, and some kids is not a family. Its a terribly vulnerable survival unit."

and on why he's upset that smoking didn't kill him:

"The last thing I ever wanted was to be alive when the three most powerful people on the whole planet would be named Bush, Dick, and Colon."

*cough* *hack* *cough*    *splutter* *cough*

a sandbag becomes a spring

last blog, i posted the first two steps of the yogic eightfold path as described in my meditation book: the yamas (abstentions) and niyamas (observances). so, naturally this blog will contain the next 6 folds. didn't want to leave you in suspense. again, i have paraphrased mightily:

3. asana (body control): practicing yoga postures (or exercising) to keep your body strong and flexible so you can sit for long periods of time in meditation without your bodily discomfort causing a distraction. Also, yoga positions can be used as a form of "moving meditation" when your mind is fully focused on the positions.

4. pranayama (breath control): prana, the force of life that animates all living things can be taken in and replenished through the breath. Breath can also be the focus of a meditation.

5. pratyahara (detachment): learning to suppress the senses to minimize outside distractions during meditation.


6. dharana (concentration): focusing your full attention on a single point- a sight, sound, smell, or thought.

7. dhyana (meditation): going beyond concentraion and learning to quiet the mind and free it from preconceptions, illusions, and attachments.

8. samadhi (pure consciousness): an indescibable state of absolute bliss, nirvana, or enlightenment. this is the ultimate goal of meditaion for many, but even if you never reach this state, meditation can still be very rewarding.

and as long as we're all here and i have the book with me, here is the buddhist eightfold path (as described in the same book) to contrast and compare. i mostly just copied these ones:

1. Right Understanding: this step involves seeing life as impermanent and full of suffering, understanding the nature of existence and the moral law, and understanding the cycle of reincarnation that continues until the seeker has attained enlightenment.

2. Right Thought: this step requires that the mind be kept free from sensual desire, cruelty, and negative thinking. also, the mind should be ready to disregard anything that hinders its progress toward enlightenment, a single-mindedness toward liberation.

3. Right Speech: this step means not lying, gossiping, or speaking harshly of anyone. behind this step is the philosophy that thought and action are inseperable. what you speak, you will eventually live. right speech shouldn't be too loud or passionate or arouse the emotions of others. it should be calm, straightforward, sincere, unprejudiced, and kind.

4. Right Action: this step has five sub-steps:

1) Do not kill, but instead practice love and nonviolence (like in the yogic, some take it to mean vegetarianism)
2) Do not steal, but instead be generous.
3) Practice self control and do not abuse the senses (interpreted as 'Do not be unchaste' in my other book).
4) Do not lie, but instead speak with sincerity and honesty.
5) Do not drink alcohol or take intoxicating drugs, but instead be restrained and mindful.
5. Right Livelihood or Vocation: only pursue an occupation that is just, nonviolent, and not misleading to others. jobs that are traditionally viewed as "wrong living": arms dealing (including soldiers), slave trading, flesh trading (prostitution or selling meat; includes hunters and fishermen), selling intoxicating drink, selling poisons, or anything to do with financial greed. making money isn't the problem, just the selfish motivation. instead, the seeker of enlightenment should look for ways to serve humankind.

6. Right Effort: this step means working toward a better self by attempting to keep wise thoughts, words, and deeds in the forefront of the mind, while attempting to banish unhealthy or unwise thoughts, words, and deeds.


7. Right Mindfulness: keep constantly alert and aware of the state of the body, the emotions, the mind, and the intellect. mindfulness is thought to keep the seeker from being led astray by untruth. this is also a form of "living meditation" in which the intellect is kept active in order to make the seeker more in-tune with the true nature of reality.

8. Right Concentration: the goal of this step is to be able to concentrate so wholly and completely on a  single object so that all desire is overcome and true knowledge of the object is attained. With practice, right concentration can be attained and the five hindrances -sensuality, ill will, lethargy, restlessness and worry, and skeptical doubt- can be overcome. Eventually, the seeker will find the way to pure consciousness, or nirvana.

flox

something i thought worth copying out of my book on meditation. these are the first two steps (or folds?) of the yogic eightfold path (as opposed to the buddist eightfold path). i paraphrased a bit:

1. Yamas: things that are helpful to avoid
1) ahimsa (do no harm/ nonviolence): avoid violence in your words, actions, and even your thoughts. That includes controlling your temper and not physically harming people, but it can also include avoiding negative thoughts about others or even yourself. Not eating meat is a component of this yama for many yogis because to eat meat is to be complicit in the killing of an animal.
2) satya (do not lie/truthfulness): This involves more than avoiding the big lies; it also means being truthful about the little things like not telling a secret you promised to keep. Truthfulness builds character and personal integrity.
3) asteya (do not steal): The third yama is about refusing to steal whether that means a candy bar, a million dollars, or somebody else's great idea.
4) brahmacharya (chastity/nonlust): This yama is about holding the opposite sex (*ahem* or same sex!) in high esteem and only joining physically with your partner when you can do so virtuously, in a committed and loving relationship of mutual respect. It also means rejecting casual sex and sex solely for physical pleasure.
5) aparigraha (nongreed): Reject a materialistic way of thinking and living. It's about simplicity and learning to live only on what you need. Greed can manifest itself in other ways too: monopolizing conversations, jealousy, and dissatisfaction with your place in the world (<--doesn't mean you can't have aspirations, means cultivate satisfaction with unchangeable aspects of your life.)

2. Niyamas: things that are helpful to do
1) shauca (purity): maintain a study of the sacred texts to inspire and teach you.
2) santosha (contentment): Find happiness with what you have and who you are. This doesn't mean you can't improve yourself, but it does mean re-evaluating the obstacles in your path as opportunities and taking full responsibility for your own life.
3) tapas (discipline): Doing anything on a daily basis to improve your health is disciplined.  Like practicing yoga, doing aerobics, controlling your temper, and doing daily chores. Dicipline isn't easy, but the more you cultivate it, the easier all the other yamas and niyamas will become.
4) svadhyaya (self-study): Pay attention to who you are, what you do, how you feel and think, and what you believe. Do you act according to your beliefs? If not, are they really your beliefs, or do you have others you hadn't realized? Self-study can also involve shauca (studying the sacred texts to inspire and guide you).
5) ishvara-pranidhana (devotion): Focus on the divine, whatever that means to you. It doesn't mean you have to be religious or even believe in a God (or Goddess), although that could be one meaning. It can also mean letting go of your ego and self-focus and looking outward to the highest ideal, or having a devotion to life itself.

the smiley face parade

i just got done watching Sicko- the movie i was avoiding because i felt that in my current situation it would be too upsetting. yes, it was upsetting, but it brought home two important points:

1. it is not just people like me who are poor and uninsured that are being denied healthcare. everyone in this country (except maybe the rich and high-profile) is at risk of having what happened to me happen to them. Everyone.

2. i'm not going to die because i'm poor or because i was uninsured. i'm not being denied care because of something i did like having a poor diet or not taking vitamins or having premarital sex or not getting enough sleep or because i was depressed as a teenager or any of the other reasons my "doctors" have come up with for justifying their negligence. i'm going to die because i'm an american. not in spite of it, Because of it. and solely because i'm an american.

i don't know if michael moore is completely right. i don't know if the healthcare systems in other countries are so much better, but based on my own experience and the experience of anyone i know who has ever been ill, i do know that this system does not work. it is unfair to everyone: the citizens rich or poor, the doctors, the nurses, the pharmacists... everyone. and it has to stop.
hopefully, if we all vote for hillary clinton she'll be able to set things right. but if she doesnt' get elected, or if her system takes time to implement (and when you're fighting an illness that could kill you at whim, time is of the essence) or if any number of other impediments occur, what then? mass exodus to canada? we, the people, are strong and we hold more power than we think. i still say its up to us as individuals to come together and master our fear and demand our human dignity.
i want to know: where are the new leaders for social change?
when is the movement starting and how do i get there?