What are your spiritual goals?
What motivates me? That we are in this journey and adventure together makes it all the more worth taking.



When people wonder if the personality survives death, the answer is that the personality doesn’t even survive while we are alive. We are not the same person we were five, 10, or 15 years ago and it would be a sorry state if we were.
Our personalities are constantly evolving, transforming, growing. If the question becomes “Does the individual survive death?” the answer is “What’s an individual?” In reality what we call “me” is different from day to day, week to week, year to year. Which individual are you talking about, the young person who is in love and full of romance and desire, or the child who was full of innocence and wonder? Perhaps we must wait for the one who is senescent and dying. Which one would you survive as?
Perhaps none. Vedanta tells us that the afterlife brings the opportunity for a creative leap. As our choices continue to expand, we will experience a new reality that is far richer than the conventional notion of heaven.
The biggest difference is that in the afterlife the input of the five senses no longer stimulates us. The furniture of the mind has been cleared away, leaving a space that is both inside and outside ourselves. It is full of possibilities. Anything can be born there. In this dream space we realize the transience of all things and the immensity of the unknown.
The stage of “crossing over”–the temporary realm preceding the full experience of the afterlife–still feels personal. People report seeing their deceased friends and relations, for example. The dying person continues to see the room in which his body lies, and memories and associations keep tying him back to physical existence. The possibility of taking a creative leap has yet to be realized.
Adapted from Life After Death: The Burden of Proof, by Deepak Chopra (Harmony Books, 2006).

In modern life there are a seemingly endless series of options and avenues. At each turn, life seems to present numerous complications. It becomes hard to resist the allure of doing more things and trying to solve a myriad of problems. However, often we are consciously or unconsciously yearning for a more simple approach to life. If we can make an effort to bring more simplicity into our lives, we will find many benefits arise.
The simpler we can become, the sooner we shall reach our destination. A life of simplicity is a life of constant progress. It is in simplicity that we can make the fastest progress, progress which is everlasting. ~ Sri Chinmoy
“There are two tragedies in life. One is not to get your heart’s desire; the other is to get it.”
The nature of desire is that the more we get the more we want. When we get a new car, often after a while we are not satisfied and want to get something better. However real happiness comes when we are content with what we have and are free of desire



According to Roman mythology, Cupid was the son of Venus, the goddess of love and beauty. Cupid was known to cause people to fall in love by shooting them with his magical arrows. But Cupid didn't just cause others to fall in love - he himself fell deeply in love.
As legend has it, Cupid fell in love with a mortal maiden named Psyche. Cupid married Psyche, but Venus, jealous of Psyche's beauty, forbade her daughter-in-law to look at Cupid. Psyche, of course, couldn't resist temptation and sneaked a peek at her handsome husband. As punishment, Venus demanded that she perform three hard tasks, the last of which caused Psyche's death.
Cupid brought Psyche back to life and the gods, moved by their love, granted Pysche immortality. Cupid thus represents the heart and Psyche the (struggles of the) human soul.
| |
Blog posted by Tracy Viselli at Protect Women's Rights at care2.com
I don't know about you, but watching yesterday's Bank CEO's testify in front of Congress was extremely satisfying if not entirely useful. And have you noticed that every CEO or executive appearing before Congress has been male? I have, and I'm not the only one.
Would having more women in senior executive positions in the financial industry have prevented the world-wide financial crisis we are current experiencing? It's a question worth asking, and according to a Washington Post article published yesterday, that question is being asked by government officials, economists and everyday citizens in several countries whose economies have been effected by the behavior of so many "alpha males" who dominate the financial industry:
As the global financial crisis deepens, the first rumblings of a gender revolution are underway in an industry long controlled by men.
Banks, hedge funds and other financial organizations that have led the international economy's downward spiral are overwhelmingly male-dominated. The regulators and legislators assigned to oversee the financiers are also mostly men.
"There are quite a lot of alpha males with testosterone steaming out their ears," said Stuart Fraser, one of London's top financial sector officials.
Michel Ferrary, a professor at the business school Ceram in France, believes that gender balance is the key to taming the culture of risk-taking that has dominated the financial sectors of many nations. Ferrary recently conducted a study (see below) in which he found that banks with greater gender balance have navigated the economic crisis far better than banks with less gender balance.
While I'm never a fan of the kind of essentialist thinking that presumes women would behave better or more morally in situations simply because they are women, challenging ourselves and our culture on the issue of gender balance in the workplace can only help mitigate the alpha male behavior experts and officials are criticizing today. Not only would greater gender balance add new voices and perspectives to boardrooms and C-suites in all industries, greater gender balance also has the potential to counteract the unhealthy culture of risk prominently on display in yesterday's Congressional hearings.
CERAM Business School Research
“Women: the Antidote to the Financial Crisis”
So goes the headline for the article in Elle magazine, as well as Le Monde, presenting CERAM’s Professor Michel Ferrary’s research which shows that firms with a higher ratio of women in management have better resisted the financial crisis.
Nearly all of the French national press: Le Monde, Le Figaro, Libération, Les Echos, La Tribune, L’Express have run stories on Professor Ferrary’s research paper: “When Gender Diversity Protects Stock Prices from the Crash”. The international press is just beginning to pick up the trail on this story.
Michel Ferrary is a professor of Human Resources at CERAM.
Using data from companies in the CAC40 (equivalent to the FTSE 100 / Dow Jones), Professor Ferrary shows that the fewer women a company has in its management, the greater the drop in its share price since the beginning of the year; and the more women in management, the smaller the drop in share price.
Of French banks, BNP-Paribas has best resisted the crisis. Since January, its stock only decreased by 20% ; 38.7% of its managers are women. By comparison, Credit Agricole’s stock decreased by 50% and only 16% of its managers are women.
Firms with a highly feminized management like LVMH (56% female managers), Sanofi (44.8%) have gone down less than the CAC40. While stocks of more male-managed firms like Alcatel-Lucent (8.68% women), Renault (21.77% women) have fallen more than the CAC40.
“Feminization of management seems to be a protection against financial crisis. Currently, financial markets value firms that took less risk and are doing more stable business” Explains Ferrary in his paper.
“Several gender studies have pointed out that women behave and manage in a different way than men. They tend to avoid risk and to focus more on a long term perspective. A larger proportion of female managers balances the risk taking behaviour of their male colleagues.”
Ferrary highlights two remaining questions:
• More female managers = better business performance ?
or:
• More gender diversity in management = better business performance ?







Rethinking the Food Pyramid: Mindfulness - the Missing Ingredient
by Pavel Somov, taken from intent.com
02/14/2009
Eating changes both body and mind, the total of who we are. What we eat and how much we eat changes who we are physiologically. Why we eat and how we eat changes who we are psychologically.
Mindlessness is Blindness
When we eat mindlessly, the body expands (to the extent to which mindless eating leads to overeating) and the mind shrinks (to the extent to which mindless eating denies us the experience of eating). After all being mindless means just that: being of less mind. Mindlessness hides the reality and robs us of the experience.
I am sure you are familiar with this experience of having no experience: you get into the car, you start driving, half an hour later you are at your destination, but as you look back you don't remember the actual experience of driving. We've learned not to be puzzled by that. "Highway hypnosis," we think and move on. It's the same with eating, a kitchen-table hypnosis of sorts. You shop, you cook, you set up the meal, you turn the TV on and several mindless minutes later, you are done: your stomach is full but your mind is empty, and you are craving seconds just to have the very experience of eating you missed in the first place.
Mindfulness is Vision
When we eat mindfully, the body shrinks (to the extent to which mindful eating reduces mindless overeating), and the mind expands. After all being mindful means just that: having a full mind. Mindfulness is vision. Mindfulness reveals the reality of what is, in all its nuanced, complex and unique such-ness. The traditions of saying grace (to infuse a moment of spiritual gratitude into a meal), the Zen tradition of Oryoki (a form of meditative eating designed to facilitate here-and-now presence), the veganism movement (with its attempt to manifest one's ethics of compassion through eating) -- these and many other traditions have all recognized that eating can serve as an invaluable existential platform for awakening the zombie in us. Whereas mindless eating robs us of the experience, mindful eating allows us to reclaim the eating moments of our lives.
According to the Center for Mindful Eating, a multidisciplinary forum for "developing, deepening and understanding the value and importance of mindful eating," "mindful eating has the powerful potential to transform people's relationship to food and eating, to improve overall health, body image, relationships and self-esteem." The recent years have witnessed an emerging self-help and clinical literature on mindfulness-based counseling for overeating and binge-eating.
Therefore, it would appear that mindful eating is, indeed, the missing ingredient of the USDA Food Pyramid. The addition of an eye atop the food pyramid would cue the public to the importance of eating with both short- and long-term vision, with here-and-now tactical awareness of the process of eating and with the strategic vision of how the behavior of eating fits with their overall living philosophy.
The symbol of the all-seeing-eye-at-the-top-of-a-pyramid traces its origin back to ancient Egypt and indicates "that the dead god is entombed in the underworld but is still watchful," and "the open eye is his soul that is still alive, so he knows what is happening in the world" (Sandra Forty, Symbols, p. 11). The symbol, however, has been sufficiently secularized by the fact that it appears on the $1 bill and has become largely accepted as a legitimate part of American iconography.
Eating is physiologically inevitable, but mindfulness isn't. Associating eating with mindfulness, one meal at a time, can help us not only manage weight (by reducing mindless overeating) but also to nourish and enrich the mind.
Pavel Somov, Ph.D. is the author of "Eating the Moment: 141 Mindful Practices to Overcome Overeating One Meal at a Time" (New Harbinger, 2008).
Additional reading from The Center for Mindful Eating: The Principles of Mindful Eating - PDF 110kb
A teacher teaching math to 7-year-old Arnav asked him, "If I give you one apple and one apple and one apple, how many apples will you have?” 




