Ian Gawler Blog: What distracts us?

Thought for the week

Whatever distracts us
Draws us back into the state of non-distraction.

One way to explain the point of  “Why bother to meditate?” is that meditation is a process that teaches us how to remain undistracted.

When we are undistracted, we are giving our full attention to where ever we are, what ever we do or who ever we are with. By doing so, we get the very best out of each and every moment of our life. The value in this is easy to rationalize and appreciate.

Yet the fact is modern life makes it so easy to become distracted. To be distracted.
All the busyness, all the complexity, all the good things to do. The bombardment from the media, the emails, the SMSs, the mobile phones. The pace, the hype, the rapid scene changes in movies and TV programs. The enticement, the engagement, the allure of advertising. The joys of families and friends and cafes and entertainment. The hopes, the fears, the worries, the joys.

Cripes! I hope I have not exhausted you just listing some of life’s potential distractions!

It is not to say that many of these things that can distract us are inherently bad; the real problem is that when we are distracted, it is so easy to live out of time. Our attention is taken by thoughts about the past or fantasies of the future. Or maybe we just spend time dissociated from the present. Living out of time, preoccupied with the past or the future, we are distracted and miss this precious present moment.

Meditation is a process that gradually brings our mind home. From being “out there”, lost in all the activity, busyness and distraction; meditation brings us back to the present moment; to being clear, calm, even more incisive and potent; present, alive, peaceful and active.

When it comes to learning to meditate, most of us benefit from having a focus for our attention – something to meditate on. Rather than allowing the mind to wander all over the place, we chose to focus on just one thing. This one thing may be the process and feeling of relaxing the body, the breathe, the sounds around about us, a mantra, even our thoughts themselves; whatever one thing that serves to hold our attention.

We focus on this initial support for our meditation lightly. As they say, 25% of our attention goes to concentrating on the particular thing we have chosen to concentrate upon. Another 25% goes to noticing how our concentration is going and if it wanders, to gently, kindly, bringing it back to the chosen focus. The remainding 50% we leave open and spacious. Like giving a wild horse a big paddock to run around in for a while and allowing it to find its own natural peace.

As we progress, we may not need a specific focus. We become more mindful, more aware of what it is that does come to out attention. There comes an ease, an effortless ease with resting contentedly in the meditation. Calmly. Simply being aware of our present moment experience.

And then we arrive at the state of non-distraction.

Now a key for stabilizing non-distraction in daily life. Once we have gained some initial stability in meditation, whatever distracts us serves to remind us to let that distraction go and to remain undistracted. This principle is a powerful key and is easy to apply in daily life.

Whatever distracts us, draws us back into the state of non-distraction.

NEWS

1. “Meditation in the Forest”, March 30 – April 5, is the only meditation retreat Ruth and I will lead in 2012. Amidst the tranquil beauty of the Yarra Valley for 7 days before Easter, it will be an ideal way to learn and deepen your meditation, whilst having some time to yourself for reflection and regeneration. These retreats always attract a wonderful group of like-minded people and booking soon is recommended as the numbers are limited. Full details: click here.


2. It is great to be receiving positive feedback from people using Mindbody Mastery. Those who are a few weeks into it now are reporting the daily emails are welcomed as an inspiration and a reminder to practice, as well as deepening their understanding of the many facets of meditative practice.

3. New National Food Guidelines – a chance to comment and contribute.

The National food Guidelines are being revised and are at the stage of public consultation. In the current draft, and I quote from Geoff  “the word "vegetarian" is used 29 times in the report, but, apart from a technical definition, it never appears without some kind of warning. The Guidelines make it sound like you need to be a bloody genius to balance your nutrient intake on a vegetarian diet. In UK and US studies of many thousands of people, vegetarians have lower rates than the general population of almost all major diseases. So why all the warnings?”

If you are interested in Geoff’s views on this, as well as his take on the essential amino acids in protein (that I will look into more myself and report on later) go to the link here; for the actual guidelines link here.

RESOURCES

Mindbody Mastery: online meditation program

Meditation - an In-depth Guide by Ian Gawler and Paul Bedson


Meditation in the Forest: retreat with Ian and Ruth Gawler

My biography: The Dragon's Blessing by Guy Allenby

You Can Conquer Cancer:  documents my cancer work

The Gawler Cancer Program: the CD that presents the paradigm I work with


Programs: The Gawler Foundation

And another thing…

Firstly a big thank you to all those of you who have contacted me in the last week to offer support and reassurance in the face of the rather bizarre and false suggestion that I never had secondary cancer (The Age 31 12 11).

The personal messages, the letters to the Editor (see the comments section this week), and the many comments on last week’s blog (that make for inspiring reading if you have not checked them out yet) have all been very heartwarming.

There seems to have been a concerted challenge going on for the last few years that has centred on attacking the validity of my medical history, with the implication that somehow that undermines the work I have been involved with.

Much of this I have chosen to ignore, but maybe there is value at this time in clarifying the key points.

Firstly, it should be obvious that my work is not my medical history. It is true that this work grew directly out of my personal history of recovering from widespread, advanced bone cancer. But then from that initial starting point, some elements have been confirmed while others have evolved based on the next 30 years of continual research and formal study, the many workshops and conferences attended, as well as the input of the many great colleagues I have been fortunate to work with. But even more important in the development of what I have to offer, has been the vast amount of knowledge and experience gained from the thousands and thousands of people I have worked with over those 30 years.

Now that work has two elements. Firstly it offers hope, and secondly it has the lifestyle based self help techniques I and others teach.

The hope began with my own recovery and many people continue to take heart from the fact I am still alive. However, 30 years later there is even more hope available based on the recorded experiences of so many people who have used the techniques I have advocated.

Regarding the techniques, there is nothing “alternative” about what I teach. I have always been committed to an Integrative Medicine approach.

Integrative Medicine (IM) combines the best of what conventional medicine has to offer with the best of Complimentary Medicine and the best of what a person can do to help themselves. IM attends to the body, emotions, mind and spirit. IM practitioners function within a multidisciplinary context, working collaboratively towards the best health outcomes.

So within that IM context, my actual work focuses on what people can do for themselves. The work is about empowering people, and focuses on improving quality of life and extending survival times for those affected by cancer and MS particularly, as well as preventing illness and generating long-term happiness and wellbeing for anyone who is interested!

My cancer work was first documented in “You Can Conquer Cancer” way back in 1984. So anyone who was or is confused about what I may or may not recommend could easily check. If you want to know what I have to say about a vegan diet, why question what I actually did during my own recovery, consult the book and be clear about what I actually recommend in current time.

This is why I did not take the earlier challenges in the Medical Journal of Australia about my own recovery too seriously. For a start they came from my ex wife. Then Prof George Jelinek and my current wife Ruth responded in the MJA directly, and so at the time, no comment from me seemed the best response. Now it seems some more clarity may be useful.

Much of that earlier criticism revolved around mistaken timelines. It has to be noted that my medical history is complex. Despite my best efforts, the media nearly always tells it with some errors. Even Dr Ainslie Meares got some bits out of sequence when he first recorded my case in the MJA in 1978. I did not make anything of this at the time because it seemed of little consequence. It seemed like arguing over whether a woman was 3 months pregnant or 6 months pregnant at a particular point in time. She is still pregnant, she will still have a baby and by the time the child is 30, who cares?

Sure accuracy is important and that is why I agreed to my biography (The Dragon’s Blessing) being written by Guy Allenby, a respected journalist who was encouraged and authorised to speak with all my doctors, family, colleagues etc, and to get the facts right. If you do want the facts, check the biography.

But really, it is the work and the outcomes recorded by many other people that warrant the most attention.

However, now the personal attacks have gone deeper. Haines and Lowenthal have questioned whether I even had secondary cancer in the first place. This confusion arises because I did contract TB as a complication of my secondary bone cancer and TB can occasionally lead to calcification within the body. The esteemed doctors speculate that the boney lumps that were confirmed at the time to be metastatic osteogenic sarcoma (bone cancer) were in fact just TB and I did not have cancer secondaries.

To summarise what I wrote in last week’s blog, this is not correct because the authors, amongst other errors, failed to take adequate account of three crucial pieces of evidence.

i) The clinical experience and the medical records of the treating physicians

The authors did not consult the treating doctors: Mr John Doyle (surgeon in Melbourne), Dr. Ivon Burns (Oncologist in Melbourne), Dr. Alistair Robertson (Oncologist in Adelaide) and Dr. John Piesse (GP in Melbourne). They did not access their medical records, including their clinical histories and the extensive diagnostic investigations that were carried out.

An example of what might have helped them to draw a more accurate conclusion comes from the radiologist’s report from the initial diagnosis of the secondaries in December 1975:
“ Mottled calcified areas of varying size from 1.5 to 3 cms in diameter are demonstrated overlying the right sacroiliac region, the appearances of which are those of glandular metastases”.

If Haines and Lowenthal had spoken to my doctors, they would have clarified the basis for their initial diagnosis and how, years later they stand firmly by it.

ii) The available histology

The authors say that I did not have a biopsy at the time of the first diagnosis of my secondary cancer, but then discount the fact that histology was performed on a large boney mass removed from my left lung following pneumonectomy in 2004. That report cited:
“foci of coarse sclerotic and heavily calcified bone which are devoid of viable osteocytes. The latter appearance in particular is recognised as a change which may occur in osteosarcoma after chemotherapy”.

 iii) The effects of cancer related chemotherapy on active TB

The authors have overlooked the significance of me having received chemotherapy in 1976 with Adriamycin, Vincristine, Cyclophosphamide and D.T.I.C. (Dacarbazine). This treatment was administered because my condition at the time was actively advancing. It is well known this combination of chemotherapy is powerfully immunosuppressive. To give strong chemotherapy to a patient with widespread, active TB would almost certainly result in miliary TB and a rapid death. By contrast, I experienced no significant side effects.

Finally, having decided to speak up, there is one more matter. The Age quotes Haines: ''I've seen beautiful young girls with their whole lives ahead of them and they go into these holistic therapies and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and then in the end we have to look after them. They all eventually get to us''.

Last weeks blog comments contain great responses to the “beautiful young girls” and the costs and “they all eventually get back to us”. But just to be clear, “You Can Conquer Cancer” costs $27.95, my day workshops are usually around $100, the 12 week non-residential program that I set up in 1981 and continues to be presented by the Gawler Foundation staff and other people I have trained around Australia and in New Zealand, costs $450 at the Foundation, while those with a Health Care Card can attend for $120. The 10 day residential program at the Foundation’s Yarra Valley Living Centre – fully inclusive of meals and accommodation, costs from $2990 to $3490(all inc of GST).  Subsidies are available for those in real need and have been made possible by the Foundation’s fundraising efforts and big support base.

So what to do? 

It does concern me a great deal that some vulnerable and needy people may be misled by Haines and Lowenthal’s article and that the subsequent newspaper coverage may well prevent some people affected by cancer from realizing they can do a lot to help themselves. Therefore, in my opinion, what the two have done is dangerous.

How can you help?

It seems incredible that after 30 years there is still a need to get the self help message out there and to assist people with cancer to realize that they can help themselves significantly by attending to their lifestyle.

If you know of people who are confused by all that has been going on, please do refer them to my blogs of these last two weeks.

Letters to the papers, to doctors, hospitals, even politicians will be helpful; maybe you have something you would like to say to Assoc Prof Ian Haines at Cabrini Hospital, Malvern or to Prof Ray Lowenthal at the University of Tasmania; maybe add a comment on the blog.

And thanks for reading a long blog!

Next week, my workshop, Conference and retreat plans for 2012.

Ruth and I will be leading one meditation retreat in 2012, “Meditation in the Forest”, pre Easter (March 30 –April 5) at the Gawler Foundation.

Related Blogs

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Recovery from cancer is possible


It only has to be done once

Link to The Age article

          to Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition

Resources

My biography which documents my case: The Dragon's Blessing by Guy Allenby

You Can Conquer Cancer which documents my cancer work

The Gawler Cancer Program: the CD that presents the paradigm I work with

Mindbody Mastery: online meditation program

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

For the Monty Python fans, remember their skits where in daily life situations the Grand Inquisitor would dramatically sweep onto the scene while the soundtrack trumpeted “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition”?

It was the scene that came to mind when one of the most surprising propositions of my life was put to me recently. At first the suggestion seemed laughable.

“Would you like to put your name to a scientific paper with me that will claim you never had cancer and that what you really recovered from so famously was widespread TB?”

Think about this. How would you respond if what you believed in deeply were to be questioned? Would you simply dismiss it? Would you investigate, or would you attack it? Maybe just stay silent and let it all blow over? Or observe who else may like to take up the argument?

This is the situation I found myself faced with back in March 2011 when Associate Prof. Ian Haines put the suggestion to me that I never had secondary cancer. I feel some explanation to my readers is warranted, and have submitted an edited version of this piece to The Age as an Opinion Piece.

Haines had approached me as a friend. He had spoken at a Gawler Foundation Conference, we had worked on other projects together; he had even been in charge of treating my father who had died of bowel cancer.

But then to confuse the matter further, the article was already written and the co-author was Prof. Ray Lowenthal, a long-term critic of my work. What to do?

In my experience, the mind is like a parachute; it works best when it is open. I have always had a deep commitment to seeking the truth and to responding to the best evidence available. There was no choice.

I checked with all my original doctors. All were confident all the necessary tests had been performed to confirm the clinical signs that the boney masses that appeared around my body were secondary cancer and not TB. A biopsy was not included in these tests as it was deemed unnecessary and to biopsy a bone cancer can necessitate a surgical procedure under general anaesthetic (as it did for my original diagnosis).

All my specialists confirmed I had both secondary cancer and TB. Two had expertise with TB. Dr. Alistair Robertson said
“I certainly do not think that it is at all likely that you just had TB”.
Dr. Jonathan Streeton said
“One gets calcification from TB, but nothing remotely of the appearances of your calcification”.

Furthermore, in 2004 my left lung was surgically removed due to damage caused by the TB and the cancer. The lung contained a large boney mass and the examining pathologist reported its histology was consistent with “osteosarcoma after chemotherapy”. There was no suggestion that this cancellous bone could be from TB, just cancer.

Another crucial point is that I did have a course of heavy chemotherapy after the secondaries were diagnosed. Such treatments are well known to severely depress immune function, thus making even minor infections potentially life-threatening. If I did actually only have widespread TB, not only would my oncologist Dr. Ivon Burns have been negligent, but the chemotherapy would have killed me.

So, for Haines and Lowenthal to contend “unequivocal evidence that the patient was cured of widespread metastases is lacking” insults the doctors who established my diagnosis. The article was not based on speaking with the treating physicians or examining the large number of X rays and pathology reports. In my view their theoretical speculation is scientifically sloppy and mischievous.

It attacks me personally and they clearly aim to imply that if my case history was invalid then my work is invalid. In my view this makes their article dangerous, as it could lead vulnerable and needy cancer patients away from self-help measures that could improve their quality of life and their chances of survival.

So, I said “no” to Haines and the Medical Journal of Australia refused to accept it without my permission. However, Haines and Lowenthal went ahead and published it (against my expressed wish) in the Internal Medicine Journal, which must have different standards.

And then came the front page of The Age and a few other newspapers. Last time I was on the front page of The Age was in 1981, 30 years ago when it announced my plan to start the first Melbourne Cancer Support Group.

What has changed since? A paradigm is a particular way of thinking about a subject. It is common to accept things that reinforce and to reject everything that conflicts with our point of view.

What would you do if you were a cancer specialist who had an experience that did not match your paradigm?

I know that for me one of the biggest obstacles I needed to overcome to recover was my Veterinary training and the belief that secondary osteogenic sarcoma, the bone cancer I had was uniformly and rapidly fatal.

But what if you were a busy oncologist and somebody did do just that; recover from advanced secondary bone cancer? Would you dismiss it? Would you investigate? Would you attack?

I have been attacked quite a deal over the past 30 years.

Of course I believe in good diagnosis. Of course I believe in appropriate medical treatment. Of course I believe that people can influence their own wellbeing and the course of their disease.

What I recommend is best described as Lifestyle Medicine. It is to do with what you eat and drink, your exercise and emotional health, the power of your mind and techniques like meditation. This is not “alternative” medicine. It is good medicine. It is safe medicine.

There is a need to make it clear my life is not work. My work started with my life and my recovery, but 30 years later that work has evolved in response to new experiences and research and now stands in its own right.

Happily my life is fully congruent with what I teach. Anything I recommend I either did or more likely, continue to do. I have never heard of an oncologist trying a course of their own chemotherapy to find out what it is really like. That would be absurd, but to claim that what I do is dangerous or risks taking people away from effective treatments is equally absurd.

No one I know of ever died from eating well or meditating too much. However, are we allowed to say that people do sometimes suffer inordinately and die from chemotherapy and its complications?

There needs to be a realistic and balanced perspective and patients need to be helped to make well informed decisions.

My understanding of science is that it advances by observing unusual events and investigating them. Thirty years later I have observed many people recovering from cancer against difficult odds.

Around 20 years ago on ABC TVs Couchman show Lowenthal challenged me to present my 50 best cases for evaluation. I readily agreed but he subsequently claimed that he was unable to gain funding for the research. My feeling is that project would have been a much better use of energy.  Maybe it is time for a cooperative investigation and a real sense of everyone working together.

If you feel motivated, letters to the Editor of The Age or The Sydney Morning Herald would still be useful.
Or add a comment below.

Happy New Year. May 2012 be a year of peace, good health and deep seated happiness.

Link to The Age article

          to Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition

Resources

My biography which documents my case: The Dragon's Blessing by Guy Allenby

You Can Conquer Cancer which documents my cancer work

The Gawler Cancer Program: the CD that presents the paradigm I work with

Mindbody Mastery: online meditation program

A small miracle – and 2 fun links

Just a short Happy Christmas blog, recounting a rather remarkable Christmas miracle, and then links to two great short videos that are bound to cause a smile.

For many years I have always had a live Christmas tree. When my children were growing up, we had a new one each year and then planted it out. So on our old farm there developed the Christmas tree avenue, made up of all the different pine trees, cedars and like minded trees.

In more recent times, we have grown the Christmas tree on in a pot until it really is large enough to demand planting. So where Ruth and I live currently, there is only one ex-Christmas tree in the ground.

A couple of years ago our oldest grandchild was getting to the age of questioning Santa. Fancy that! Anyway, it was a hot year and a good deal of tree watering was required. Having checked the trees on Christmas Eve, I went out to water them on Boxing Day. Imagine this. Under the ex-Christmas tree were two deer horns! Each about 4 – 5” long, or 10 – 15 cms in the new money. They looked for all the world like baby reindeer horns!

Now you may think I’m dreaming, but never having seen such things in our area, or even heard of anyone else finding them, what are the chances? Not one, but two, they turned up Christmas Eve or night, under the Christmas tree and they are real deer horns.

Moral of the story? The grandchild still believes in Santa!

On a completely different note, one of our good friends has been holding a wonderful Christmas Eve get together for 38 years. The tradition is you do not bring anything other than an act to perform for the fairly large group that gathers. People sing, some even dance, others tell stories or jokes, and there is the occasional serious bit of input. A great community gathering.

This year Ruth and I assisted by two of the children decided to go all out and do the Peter Cook and Dudley Moore routine of the One-legged Tarzan. Some may remember seeing this when they first performed it on TV. I certainly do, but if you have not seen it before, check it out on the link and understand why when we do it some people just about wet themselves, while others are not sure how to react. Personally, I rather like the idea of becoming the next Tarzan, but I am still waiting for the call.

Finally, in a similar vein, check out The amazing expanding universe.

Happy Christmas, enjoy some regenerative time amidst the spirit of Christmas, and may 2012 be filled with good health, happiness and peace.

Ian Gawler Blog: Love, Christmas and the whole damn thing!

First, a brief reminder Mindbody Mastery (click here to connect to the website), my recently released downloadable meditation program will make a wonderful Christmas present and if you use the code IJG-SM you will receive a healthy discount as well. With its initial 8 week program and 6 months of support to establish and deepen your practice, I do hope many of you will use it and feel the benefits.

And then Christmas. This is the time when we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. Christ quite literally represents the embodiment of pure love. Unconditional love.

Now there are many forms of love in this world of ours. There is love for a parent, for a child, for a lover, for our self, an animal, a thing, a cause etc.

These worldly loves often have an element of the relative about them. Relative in the sense that they are related to attached conditions: I will love you if… (you love me back, make me laugh, look after me...etc). I will love you when… (you have a better job, loose some weight, do not get so angry…etc). I love you because…(you do this for me, you make me look good…etc), etc, etc. In this sense, for many of us, if we do take the time to reflect on it, love can have some aspect of being more like a deal than a pure state of mind.

It is easy to observe many people are confused by these different aspects of love. This was often apparent after people came to any of the Gawler Foundation programs, particularly the residential ones.

The fact is that these programs reliably bring out the best in people. Participants quickly come to really care for each other. The staff consistently put their own issues aside and really care for the participants. People begin to feel something of that unconditional love.

As an aside, it is my sense it is just this, the experience of unconditional love, that often explains the wonderful, positive and often profound transformations that occur during the programs in the physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health and wellbeing of participants.

But then, as these people head home, often they experience the confusion that many others feel independently of attending such a program. If pure love is unconditional, and I want to love all, how do I manage the difficult people in my life?

The key resides in understanding the difference between relative and absolute. This is one of the great gifts of examining our minds. When we do so, we realise there are such things as the relative and the absolute. On the absolute level we all have an intrinsic goodness, an intrinsic purity. In Christianity we say we are made in God’s image. Cannot get much purer than that. In Buddhism we say that in their essence, everyone has Buddha nature – again that notion of fundamental goodness and purity.

Yet on the relative, worldly level it is clear peoples’ actions, emotions and thoughts can be complex and often problematic. The fact is some relationships can be very difficult, even quite toxic and there may well be a need to discriminate about whom we hang out with!

Now it is true that difficult relationships can teach us so much about ourselves, about patience, tolerance, compassion etc. And enduring some relationships can lead to healthy outcomes for all. However, in some situations it can be clear that to remain in a relationship will only create more problems and it may well be the loving thing to avoid such a relationship.

Personal awareness requires discrimination. It is not about suffering endlessly, it is not about neglecting the treatment of illness or the working on difficulties. It is about right action. Working as much as possible from a position of unconditional love, recognising the fundamental goodness in all and so having a deep respect and real compassion for all, while at the same time recognising the limitations of others and ourselves. Doing the best we can and making every effort to continue to learn and to be a better person. To be increasingly comfortable with our own capacities and those of others.

Christmas then is a perfect time to contemplate the place of love in your life. To consider when for you love is unconditional, when it is more like a deal with its conditions, and when it is better avoided. Christmas often brings families together in a way that these issues are brought to the fore, so be gentle on yourself and others, take time to contemplate and meditate, and may you experience something of the true meaning of Christmas – unconditional love.

RESOURCES

Mindbody Mastery: link here to the website and remember when you register to use the code IJG-SM so you receive your discount.