Rolling her eyes, my neighbor described a health breakthrough shed read about. She was mirroring the same attitude of hope with reservations that many have when they hear those ads promoting the latest treatment for diseases.

Of course the draw to breakthroughs is great. Everyone wants to be well.

Attempts to find health solutions often start with less invasive methods restrictive diets, lifestyle changes, mindfulness meditation. Others hope in a prescribed regimen of meds or in a new technology. The need to be well keeps us looking.

Yet, instead of bringing assurance, physicians critiques of current practices are increasingly causing tremors. For example, a recent article, Heralded Treatments Often Fail to Live up to their Promise, concludes that the verdict is still out on many new drugs and procedures. And an article by Luis Collar, MD, critiques with a breathtaking some might say bewilderingly honest view of current allopathic practices. He cites the need for more rigorous, scientific thinking, unaffected by economic demands or status-quo positions. A Business Insider article cites research proving that gluten sensitivity, the concern that propels 30 percent of Americans to buy gluten-free foods, actually doesnt exist. Maybe in a bid to allay dismay, that article opened and closed with a cheer for science: It works.

But cheer or not, the fact remains that the scientific thought process that impels researchers does work.

It is producing more voices in biological, neurological, psychological, and other types of research, all looking at thought processes that govern the body in more depth than ever before, including expanded use of mind-body, and even spiritual, techniques.

Humanity has always individually explored spiritual methods, but research into how spiritual thinking offers added health value is a relatively new phenomenon. And considering spirituality and science together in the same context is even more cutting edge.

But that focus isnt new. When Mary Baker Eddy published that Jesus was the most scientific man, she explained and proved in healing outcomes that his cures were based on the power of God as the divine Principle or Cause. She concluded: He plunged beneath the material surface of things, and found the spiritual cause (Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, p. 313).

Her research included spirituality and science in the same context. Many today have concluded that the spiritual qualities of compassion, tolerance, joy, gratitude are health-giving. Improved physical well-being is now widely recognized as linked to spiritual thinking and living. A pivotal question is, Is this linkage a provable science?

Years ago I was not looking for a linkage between physical well-being and spirituality but for spiritual meaning in my troubled life. Then in my early 20s, while in a hotel, I suddenly collapsed in paralysis and extreme pain. Without sight or speech in a condition later identified by a medical intern as imminently fatal, I could only listen as my husband held me and read from Science and Health, a book which hed recently found. What happened next stunned us both: I felt a deep peace, and all symptoms immediately stopped. Intuitively I felt that here was a dependable, unconditional Love that I wanted to understand. It was a science to learn and live (see Christian Science Sentinel, April 12, 2004).

Originally posted here:
The next health breakthrough: Where will it come from?

I guess you can call the movie sci-comma-fi as opposed to sci-dash-fi, writer-director Mike Cahill said of his new film, I Origins, which continues his exploration of science as an engine for emotional storytelling. Building from ideas involving iris biometrics eyes as a unique identifier Cahills new film exists at the intersection of the headier (some might say trippier) aspects of modern science with all-too-human issues of identity, spirituality and love.

In the film, Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is a scientist determined to give sightless worms the ability to see, jump-starting the process of evolution and thereby disproving the existence of God or intelligent design. While working intensely with his assistant-turned-lab-partner Karen (Brit Marling),his head and heart are turned by Sofi (Astrid Berges-Frisbey), a bohemian free-spirit. A few years later, Ian is with Karen, committed to each other and their work. Then a database of human eyes turns up a match to Sophie somewhere in India a seeming impossibility that implies some divine intervention. Ian goes to India to find those mystery eyes.

As an artist, youre trying to transmit emotions to an audience, and the landscape, the frontiers, discovered by science are new lands to tell new stories in, said Cahill of the connection he sees between science and storytelling.

The film opened last weekend in Los Angeles and New York and will be platforming to more cities. As part of theL.A. Times Indie Focus Screening Series, Cahill, Pitt and Marling appeared for a Q&A after a showing of I Origins.

In the freewheeling conversation, the trio spoke of the creative process behind the film. Cahill recalled photographing exactly 273 pairs of eyes for the film its all on a hard drive, he said of the specific count while also noting more than 200 visual effects shots are in the film.

Marling and Pitt recounted how the trio went to Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore to spend time with researchers there, learning the basics of working in a laboratory.

I dropped somebodys thesis in a petri dish, and it shattered, Marling said. We broke some hearts at Johns Hopkins.

Joked Pitt: I saw his heart shatter. She took like seven years of his life.

But for a good cause. It was a good movie, right? countered Marling.

Marling and Cahill previously collaborated on Another Earth, directed by Cahill and co-written by the pair. That film supposed that a parallel planet just like ours existed elsewhere in the universe, an offshoot of the scientific ideas known as string theory.

See the rest here:
Mike Cahill, Brit Marling and Michael Pitt on science of 'I Origins'

Title - New Dimensions of Yoga; Author - Osho; Publisher - Penguin Ananda; Pages - 200; Price - Rs.299.

Title - Nowhere To Go But In; Author - Osho; Publisher - Penguin Ananda; Pages - 429; Price - Rs.499.

As he travelled across India in the 1960s speaking against politicians and institutionalised religion, Chandra Mohan Jain (born 1931) came to be known as Acharya Rajneesh and, later, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. He was one of the most controversial among Indian mystics and spiritual teachers. He accepted divinity but rejected god, angering many. (He called the Vedas and the Bible paper boats!)

The sprawling ashram Rajneesh set up in 1974 in Pune attracted hordes of foreigners as well as Indians but soon became notorious for its permissive climate, leading many to dub him a "sex guru". With tensions mounting vis-a-vis Pune residents and the Indian government, Rajneesh left for the U.S. where he set up a commune at Oregon in 1981.

But conflicts developed there too, both with the locals and the American authorities. The commune collapsed in 1985, Rajneesh was arrested after he admitted to crimes committed by his followers, and was deported. With no country ready to admit him, he returned to Pune, where he died in 1990.

Notwithstanding his notoriety, Rajneesh's teachings - he wrote hundreds of books and delivered hours of lectures - have commanded a huge following, their popularity seemingly soaring after his death. It is not clear if the two books under review are from unpublished question and answer sessions he had with his followers or have been published earlier.

Osho, as he became known, was a great votary of yoga and meditation and proud of their Indian roots. He himself believed strongly in Zen and meditative therapy. Underlining that yoga is a science and not a belief, Osho called the ancient Indian teaching "a systematic methodology of scientific experimentation in the search for the truth of life". He preached: "Meditation is a lifestyle, not an activity."

For all the criticism he faced, Osho was extremely well read and could talk on any subject with authority. His knowledge base was vast. In the volumes here, he dwells at length on body and mind, disease, death (a favourite subject for him), duality, sharing, family life, the Hindu mind, the Quran, mantras, godliness, sex and celibacy, and more.

One may not agree with everything Rajneesh says. That of course goes for any spiritual guru. Nevertheless, both books make for great reading, more so for those interested in spirituality or Osho.

(21.07.2014 - M.R. Narayan Swamy is Executive Editor at IANS. He can be reached on narayan.swamy@ians.in. The views expressed are personal.)

Continued here:
Osho on yoga and meditation (Book Review)

parenting

Lisa Flam TODAY

2 hours ago

In her 55 years, Barbie has worn many hats: Shes been a princess and an aerobics instructor, a presidential candidate and police officer. Now, the wildly popular yet often controversial doll is joining the ranks of the Girl Scouts, and causing a stir once again.

The Girl Scouts teamed up with Barbies maker, Mattel, last year. Scouts can earn a Barbie Be anything, Do everything participation patch, the first ever with a corporate sponsor, and a Girl Scout-inspired Barbie doll is rolling out in stores.

Although corporate sponsorship is everywhere, from athletic stadiums to youth baseball jerseys, critics believe the partnership is a bad fit for the Girl Scouts. With her passion for fashion and impossible hourglass shape, consumer groups feel that Barbie in a scouting uniform sends the wrong message.

Barbie is basically a terrible role model for girls, and shes not about what the Girl Scouts principles are, which have to do with leadership and courage, Susan Linn, a psychologist and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, told TODAYs Janet Shamlian.

The Girl Scouts strongly defended the partnership and the new doll, countering that Barbie has a wholesome image.

Girls and moms alike associate this doll with the outdoors, camping, giving back in your community, and we think that those are really positive messages to all of our girls, said Kelly Parisi, spokeswoman for Girl Scouts of the USA.

Mattel stood by its three-year deal with the Girl Scouts, saying in a statement to NBC News that Barbies mission is a good fit with the scouts, inspiring girls imaginations and showing them they can be anything they want to be.

See more here:
Barbie: Inspiration or 'terrible role model'? Girl Scout partnership sparks controversy