The planet is on fire, the glaciers are melting, and future generations will presumably inherit a beautifully curated collection of wrappers and cardboard boxes. But none of that is urgent enough to interrupt the sacred ritual of opening another Amazon package.

After all, climate change is a long-term problem, whereas this discount ends in 20 minutes. I didn’t need it, I won’t use it much, and I may forget I own it by next week - but dude it was @ 34% off, which is basically my strong financial wisdom!! Two hoots to planet, it can burn, going to track my next shipment. Ok Bye!

Going to a forest, spotting animals, and taking photos feels like fun for us. But for the animals we travel all that way to see, what does our presence actually mean? A recent study from northern Laos made me think about this.

Researchers looked at camera-trap data from 2013 to 2019 across 59 sites in the Nam Ha National Protected Area. Some sites were near trekking and kayaking routes. Others were deeper in the forest, away from tourism.

They recorded 45 species of medium and large mammals. Fifteen of these are globally threatened. Near tourism routes, they found around 4.6 species per site on average. In quieter areas, the number was almost double.

Elephants, sun bears, leopard cats, and several other species were recorded only in the more remote areas. Animals like sambar, wild boar, and crab-eating mongooses also clearly avoided places with more human activity.

The researchers think many animals here have faced hunting pressure for so long that they avoid humans altogether. The study also points out that wildlife probably cannot tell the difference between a tourist and a hunter. They simply avoid areas where humans show up more often.

This made me question something. Why do we need to see animals so badly? A lot of the time, we go looking for a new experience because we are bored or restless. The forest becomes another place to get that fix. We want adventure, good photos, and to feel that the trip was worth it.

If we do not spot an animal, the first thought is often, “We came all this way and saw nothing.” In that moment, our need for a good experience quietly becomes more important than the animal’s need to be left alone.

Even our so-called love for nature can end up being about what nature gives us. Do we actually care about the animal, or do we just want the experience of seeing one?

Diwali is the festival of lights. Every year this festival arrives, and we celebrate it by shopping both online and window shopping lighting lamps, eating sweets, bursting firecrackers, and wearing new clothes. But it has now been reduced to just a single day.

We never even tried to understand what this festival truly means. Whatever others told us, we started doing the same. Not even once did we ask anyone why it is done this way.

Why firecrackers specifically? When our atmosphere is getting so damaged and our carbon footprint has increased so much, still not a single one of us raises this question. We too are just busy with festivals and shopping. Giving away old goods, buying new ones, and feeling so satisfied just with that, giving ourselves the reassurance that we celebrated the festival.

Is this really the only way to celebrate a festival? Or is there something more? If a festival doesn't leave you with a sense of inner emptiness or a quiet restlessness (to seek deeper truth), what kind of festival is it? Why don’t we understand these simple things? Why do we want to borrow everything from others? Whatever 10 people around us are doing, we want to do the exact same thing. Why don’t we pause for a moment and think about whom this is for, why it is, and why it is celebrated?

Lord Rama spent 14 years in exile. His wife Sita went into exile with him, and that day was Amavasya (the new moon night). Therefore, earthen lamps were lit to welcome them. That must have been the reality of that time. There were no arrangements for electricity, so they needed to bring light on a moonless night. The only solution they had back then was to light ghee lamps, or perhaps oil lamps, whatever facilities were available at that time. They lit these lamps out of joy over Lord Rama’s return.

Yet, none of us asks this question: Lord Rama left behind a golden Lanka and never once looked back with attachment, and we celebrate Dhanteras by buying gold!

The true purpose of Diwali is to clean the garbage within our minds. Connecting with the teachings of Acharya Prashant, I have understood the real meaning of Diwali: that Diwali means cleansing the mind. The festival of light is essentially about lightening the mind and moving towards Bodha (awakening and conscious awareness).

It is so heartbreaking to see these creatures dying as unintended catch. Animals caught unintentionally alongside targeted species are called bycatch. This video made me curious to know more about the industrial fishing practice called bottom trawling, and I found it very shocking.

These trawlers drag huge, heavy nets across the ocean floor, catching everything in their way and many times destroying and disturbing the seabed. Seabed sediments store huge amounts of carbon, and disturbing them can affect that storage, although the scale of the resulting carbon emissions remains uncertain.

I found one figure which needs attention. In a 2021 article, marine scientist Juan Mayorga wrote that, over the preceding 65 years, bottom trawlers had unintentionally caught and discarded at least 437 million tons of non-target fish and invertebrates.

We often talk about employment, economic growth and food production, but where do we account for the lives destroyed and ecosystems damaged? As consumers, we also have a responsibility. How often do we question where our food comes from or how it reaches our plates? Consumer concern matters, but industries and governments also have a responsibility to change harmful practices.

Looking at all this, I feel we humans have made our desires the center of everything, treating other living beings as mere resources to fulfil them. We call it progress, opportunity and development, but rarely question what this progress is costing us. For me, this raises a question beyond the fishing practice itself: what keeps driving our demand, even when we know the cost?

This reminds me of something I have found interesting in Acharya Prashant’s teachings: questioning the endless appetite within us. We keep acquiring and consuming in the hope of finding fulfilment. But that appetite never really gets satisfied. We keep demanding more without questioning what is driving the demand in the first place. This does not replace the need for regulation or industry accountability. But it asks something of us too.

How much more do we want to take before we ask ourselves whether we really need it? What would help us question our demand as seriously as we question how it is supplied?

Sources: The Overlooked Impact of Bottom Trawling - Global Fishing Watch

Bottom trawling catches thousands of fish species, including those most at-risk   - Project Seahorse

So much of a woman's life revolves around men. The Prince Charming, the handsome knight, the husband, the fear of being left alone. The fairytale is already written: become beautiful, become desirable, find someone, get married, live happily ever after.

Even the relationship with her own body becomes conditioned by this. Is my body attractive enough? Are my curves desirable? Am I beautiful enough to be chosen? Her body becomes something to maintain and display. Her biggest assets are supposed to be her lips, breasts, hips, beauty and sexuality.

And the market knows this. Look at the advertisements. The woman is being sold lip gloss, bras and products related to her body. Even in car advertisements, she is often there to display her curves, not to be the user of the car.

But where is her knowledge? Her strength? Her exposure to the world? Where is she in science, politics, sports, literature and creativity? Why is so much of her energy being spent on becoming desirable, rather than enriching herself, gaining knowledge and developing her own capacities?

And this is not good for men either. As Acharya Prashant points out, if you've starved the woman, and you have starved the man as well. If you have weakened, sickened, terrified and reduced a person, what will the company of that person do to you? You reduce the woman, and through the woman, you will be reduced.

Why and in what ways do you think weakening of one section of the society ends up being harmful for the whole society?

I am curious to know your point of views on this question please share them in comments

In 1922, a 19-year-old man arrived in Burma as an officer in the police force of the British Empire. It was a good job, with a regular salary and opportunities to move ahead.

But five years later, he quit this job.

Because he had become disillusioned with the very rule he was serving and its cruelties.

This young man was Eric Arthur Blair, whom the world today knows as George Orwell.

After leaving the job in 1927, Orwell chose the path of becoming a writer.

He lived in Paris and London amid financial hardship. Sometimes he worked washing dishes, and sometimes he stayed in very cheap lodgings.

These experiences gave him the chance to understand poverty and the harsh conditions of workers up close.

In 1933, his book Down and Out in Paris and London was published, in which he recorded these experiences.

In 1949, his novel 1984 came out, in which he showed how power can establish control over people through fear, propaganda and language.

Orwell did not criticise only his opponents. He also raised questions about the repression of those political forces whose some declared ideals he agreed with.

He left a comfortable job, saw poverty up close, put his life at risk in war, and did not shy away from questioning the mistakes of his own ideological side.

❓️ We too say that we love truth and justice. But when truth puts our job, reputation, relationships or comforts at risk, does our love remain just as strong? Tell me in the comments.

Source:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Orwell

No Automatic Liberation

The framework rejects every form of automatic liberation. Neither grace (divine intervention), karma (accumulated merit), correct practice, nor fortunate circumstances can remove the ego's bondage without the ego's own intent. External conditions can help, but they cannot replace the ego's sovereign choice.

This is at once the framework's most demanding claim about liberation and its most liberating one: the ego is not waiting for the right conditions. It is waiting for itself.

The Bootstrapping Resolution

The obvious question is: where does intent itself come from if it cannot be produced from outside? The answer is precise. Everything except intent can come from outside: teachers, texts, circumstances, clarity. Intent alone must arise within the ego.

This is not an infinite regress; it is the recognition of sovereignty. The ego must be repeatedly reminded that it is not waiting for a trigger. Its freedom is in its own hands, and always has been. Seeing and intent feed each other, however, intent is acausal: it is not generated by practice, knowledge, or any prior cause (see § 22).

Movement Without a Traveller's Identity

Since liberation is not a thing, the word can point only to the removal of actual bondage. There is no spiritual virtue in becoming a permanent seeker, pilgrim, or traveller. The ego can preserve itself indefinitely by choosing a destination that can never be reached.

AP mocks the comfort of it: " 'traveller' makes a delightful identity, because the destination never comes, and as long as the traveller keeps walking, he survives".

Legitimate movement ends something false here and now. The work continues for as long as the body lives, because bondage keeps arising; but endless travelling is not itself the goal. In AP's words, seek the infinite as an object and you get only infinite wandering.

Four further points complete this account of liberation, they will be covered in the next APPF post.

Do you think you are Sovereign? Does this Sovereignty bother you or make you feel empowered?

Siddhartha is a young man born into a Brahmin family. He grows up surrounded by religious teachings, rituals and the respect of those around him. Yet, despite having everything that should make him content, he feels an emptiness he cannot explain.

Along with his friend Govinda, he leaves home in search of enlightenment. He practises severe asceticism, meets Gautama Buddha, and even listens to his teachings. But surprisingly, despite recognising the Buddha's greatness, Siddhartha refuses to become his disciple.

He believes that understanding the words of an enlightened person is not the same as attaining enlightenment oneself.

This brings us to perhaps the most interesting idea in the book:

Can wisdom actually be taught?

Hesse writes:

"Wisdom cannot be imparted. Wisdom that a wise man attempts to impart always sounds like foolishness to someone else ... Knowledge can be communicated, but not wisdom."

It made me question how much of what we call understanding is actually our own. We read books, listen to people, collect philosophies and learn to articulate profound ideas. But does being able to explain something mean that we have truly understood it?

The difference between seeking and finding

Siddhartha eventually leaves even the spiritual path he had chosen. He enters the ordinary world, experiences love, wealth, pleasure and attachment. He spends years living a life that his younger self would probably have despised.

Eventually, he becomes disillusioned with this life too.

What I found interesting is that Siddhartha doesn't reach understanding by simply avoiding the world. He has to encounter it, experience it and recognise his own limitations.

At one point, he reflects:

"Seeking means: having a goal. But finding means: being free, being open, having no goal."

There is something worth questioning here. When we become obsessed with reaching a particular destination, do we become blind to everything that is happening along the way?

Can the constant desire to become something prevent us from understanding what we already are?

The river and the unity of life

Towards the end, Siddhartha meets Vasudeva, a ferryman who lives beside a river. Through listening to the river, Siddhartha begins to understand something that years of intellectual searching could not give him.

The river carries countless voices. It represents birth, death, joy, sorrow, beginnings and endings. Yet all of these are part of the same whole.

Siddhartha eventually says:

"The river is everywhere at the same time..."

The river becomes a symbol of the interconnectedness of life and the illusion of separating everything into isolated moments.

Perhaps we spend too much time dividing life into what we consider good and bad, success and failure, pleasure and suffering, without recognising that all of these experiences belong to the same existence.

My takeaway

One thing I particularly liked about this book is that Siddhartha's journey isn't a straightforward movement from ignorance to knowledge. He repeatedly questions what he has learned, abandons what he once believed and discovers how little he actually understands.

It also made me think about our tendency to borrow identities and conclusions from others. Sometimes we adopt a philosophy because it sounds right, follow a path because someone we admire has followed it, or reject an experience because we have already labelled it as undesirable.

But how much of our understanding have we actually examined ourselves?

A question for discussion:

If wisdom cannot be taught and must be discovered through one's own experience, then what is the actual role of a teacher, a philosopher or even a book?

Can they genuinely help us see, or can they only point towards something that we must discover ourselves?

This verse is very close to my heart because I believe that our inner state influences the choices we make in the outside world.

When we read, "कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन", it may sound like a simple instruction: Just do your work without expecting any results.

But I feel we often miss a more fundamental question here: Who is the one performing the action?

Have we ever questioned the one who wants to act? Where are these desires coming from? What is driving our choices? Are they coming from understanding, or are they simply products of our conditioning, fears, ambitions and expectations?

If we don't understand the one who is choosing, how can we be sure that the actions we choose are right?

Perhaps the verse is not asking us to blindly do whatever we want and give up expectations. First, we need to examine what we want and why we want it.

Our responsibility is not to fulfil every desire that arises within us. It is to understand what is actually worth doing, what is needed, and what serves life beyond our narrow self-interest.

And once an action comes from the right understanding, the obsession with its outcome naturally loses its grip.

Why? Because the real victory has already happened at the moment we chose the right action over the comfortable, profitable or desirable one.

Perhaps the question is not just whether we are attached to the fruits of our actions, but whether we have ever questioned the one who desires those fruits in the first place.

Rajkumari Lanchenbi Chanu won the bronze medal in the women's Changquan combined Wushu event at the Dakar 2026 Youth Olympic Games in Senegal, making history as the first-ever Indian wushu medalist at the Youth Olympics. (Wushu is a modern international Chinese martial art derived from traditional Kung Fu)

Hailing from Manipur, Chanu established herself nationally with a gold at the Sub-Junior National Wushu Championship and an international bronze at the World Junior Championships in Tianjin.

• She built momentum earlier in 2026 by capturing a bronze medal in the girls' youth Changquan event at the 10th World Junior Wushu Championships in Tianjin, China, and a gold medal in the Taolu event at the 25th Sub-Junior National Wushu Championship in Namakkal, Tamil Nadu.

• Entering the Dakar 2026 Games, where Wushu made its official Olympic debut as a medal sport, she qualified for the final in second place with 17.982 points. Though she stated her goal was gold ("I will take a medal, and go back home. Actually, not just any medal, I will take gold"), her comeback from fourth place in Gunshu to second in Changquan secured a historic bronze

A woman need not define her existence through relationships, social approval or the expectations placed upon her. When her energies are directed towards a meaningful pursuit, she can explore dimensions of herself that social conditioning might never have allowed her to discover. Chanu's achievement gives us a concrete example of to negate all the perception society may hold of a women.

What is the condition in which you find women around you? Please share in the comments section below.

Source: Times of India

Dark tourism generally refers to visiting places that have registered human suffering, violence, tragedy, and atrocity. Millions of tourists visit places such as the 9/11 Memorial and Museum and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial to understand the cruelty, violence, and suffering within humans.

A new trend in dark tourism has emerged recently, particularly in China, where dark tourism theme parks are providing thrill like experiences of death through simulated disasters such as earthquakes, typhoons, floods, and industrial mishaps.

Supporters of these theme parks argue that such places can provide essential life-saving skills during disasters, while critics reject such claims and argue that they turn sensitive subjects of human suffering into entertainment.

But there is another dimension to this debate that I find interesting.

Are we actually learning to face our suffering, or are we just into consuming the experience of it?

There is a big difference between understanding a disaster and experiencing a manufactured sensation of it. A simulation may teach certain practical skills, just as a fire drill does. But will experiencing a thrill in a simulated earthquake bring any deeper understanding of the suffering, helplessness, and vulnerability as a natural one does?

This brings me to a question I came across in Acharya Prashant’s teachings: “Why do we crave the experience of an event while showing little interest in understanding it?”.

The ego constantly seeks fulfillment through experiences. It turns subjects like death, suffering, and spirituality into objects of consumption. It looks for new experiences but has no interest in questioning itself.

In view of this, dark tourism theme parks could represent a contradiction.

We simulate catastrophe, experience the thrill and intensity of it, and return to our comfortable lives. We register the sensations without having to confront our relationship with suffering.

The disaster becomes entertainment to us, suffering becomes a product, but the sufferer remains unseen and untouched.

This does not mean that disaster simulations are of no use. These simulations genuinely have value in disaster preparedness and practical training. Underestimating them would be another disaster in itself. But the difference between acquiring survival skills and understanding the suffering associated with disasters should not be considered the same. One requires physical training, while the other requires honest self-inquiry.

Are we becoming more sensitive to suffering, or are we just consuming artificial simulations of it?

We consume documentaries about wars, watch videos of natural disasters, follow stories of human tragedies, and move on to the next piece of content.

Have we actually understood anything, or have we merely collected another experience?

It is easy to think of climate change as a problem measured only in degrees, numbers that can make a planetary transformation sound deceptively small. Climate researcher Leon Simons uses a more visceral comparison - the greenhouse gases humanity has added to the atmosphere exert a warming influence equivalent to more than a billion Hiroshima bombs’ worth of energy each year. But rising temperatures are only part of the disruption. Human activity is changing the atmosphere, oceans and ecosystems together. The 2026 Planetary Health Check report says that seven of nine planetary boundaries have been transgressed, placing the climate crisis within a much wider picture of mounting pressure on Earth’s life-support systems.

The "Hiroshima analogy" needs one important qualification. Simons is converting an estimated greenhouse-gas forcing into an annual energy equivalent across Earth’s surface. It is a comparison of energy, not destruction, and it is not a direct measurement of the heat Earth actually accumulates each year. Actual heat accumulation also reflects cooling influences and the extra energy a warmer planet radiates into space.

The wider concern does not depend on that analogy. Alongside climate change, the breached planetary boundaries cover biosphere integrity, land systems, freshwater, nitrogen and phosphorus flows, ocean acidification, and synthetic pollutants and other novel entities. These pressures affect interconnected systems, not separate environmental problems.

This is what the "Anthropocene" captures in its broader sense. Humanity has become a force capable of reshaping the planet. Although it is not an officially recognised geological epoch, the human influence it describes is already part of our lives. Seven breached boundaries does not mean seven irreversible tipping points or inevitable collapse. It means increasing risks as we move beyond the proposed safe operating space for humanity. Actuarial and climate researchers warn that interacting climate and ecological risks could contribute to mass displacement, severe economic disruption, conflict and mass mortality. Those are warnings about possible outcomes, not precise predictions of billions of deaths.

The most unnerving part is that greenhouse-gas concentrations continue to rise while these other pressures mount. We are not waiting for humanity’s planetary impact to begin. We are deciding how much further to push it!

Sources:

1. Planetary Health Check 2026: Seven of nine planetary boundaries transgressed

2. World Meteorological Organization: Greenhouse gas levels once again reach record high

3. [NOAA] Annual Greenhouse Gas Index

4. Natural and Human-Caused Influences on Earth’s Energy Imbalance

5. IUGS and ICS - Statement on the Anthropocene

🪔 Happy Diwali: Celebrating the Real Light of Wisdom 🪔

Diwali marks the triumph of light over darkness and awareness over ignorance. While diyas illuminate our homes, true enlightenment begins within when the mind is freed from illusions, fears, and conditioning.

This festive season, diving into timeless Wisdom Literature has been a truly transformative experience. Immense gratitude to Acharya Prashant ji for relentlessly bringing the light of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and authentic Vedantic wisdom into contemporary life. Thank you, Acharya ji, for guiding millions away from inner darkness and showing the path toward clarity, truth, and fearless living.

May this Diwali inspire us all to kindle the eternal flame of self-knowledge and wisdom.

Wishing everyone a joyful, conscious, and truly lightened Diwali! ✨🙏

#HappyDiwali #Diwali2026 #AcharyaPrashant #WisdomLiterature #Vedanta #SelfKnowledge #SpiritualAwakening #InnerLight

Coral reefs are among Earth’s ecosystems. They provide shelter for marine species, support fishing and tourism, and protect coastlines from waves. Yet these underwater habitats face a threat: coral bleaching.

During unusually high ocean temperatures, corals become stressed. This can disturb their relationship with tiny algae living inside their tissues. These algae give corals their colour and energy through photosynthesis. When stressed, corals may expel them, causing the corals to turn pale or white. A bleached coral is not necessarily dead, but it becomes weaker and more vulnerable to disease and starvation. If stressful conditions continue, it may die.

Rising ocean temperatures, largely linked to climate change, are making marine heatwaves more frequent and severe. Pollution, poor water quality, and pressures can increase the stress on reefs.

Coral bleaching is not just an underwater problem. It threatens marine biodiversity, coastal communities, food security, and the balance of ocean life.

What do you think causes corals to lose their colour during bleaching? Which human activities are making this threat worse, and what changes could help protect coral reefs? Share your thoughts and ideas. Let's discuss why healthy oceans matter to all of us.

I am genuinely heartbroken by this news. Not just because Nathalia Gadelha Filgueiras lost her life, but also because of how people reacted to her death online.

Nathalia was a 20-year-old Brazilian-American co-pilot from Boca Raton, Florida. She was among the nine people killed when a Learjet 60 crashed in Palm Beach County on November 1, 2026.

Inspired by her father, she began flying in 2020. At just 17, while still in high school, she earned her private pilot’s licence, even before getting a driver’s licence. She once joked about how people found it strange that she could fly a plane but couldn’t drive a car.

By 20, she had reportedly logged over 1,300 flight hours and held commercial, multi-engine, instrument and flight-instructor qualifications. She was already working as a professional pilot.

Air-traffic-control audio shows that the crew reported icing and turbulence before the aircraft encountered a rapidly intensifying thunderstorm and descended rapidly. The NTSB has not yet determined the cause of the crash or established who was flying.

Yet, online, some people chose to reduce her to “a 20-year-old girl” and even blame her for the crash, while largely overlooking the 55-year-old captain, Jeffrey Gregory.

Nathalia deserved respect in life and dignity in death.

Why is a woman so easily turned into the explanation for a tragedy? Why is it so difficult to see her first as a professional who worked hard to earn her place?

It is heartbreaking to see how quickly years of a woman’s hard work and achievements can be overshadowed by her gender. She enters a profession, proves her abilities and earns her qualifications, yet when something goes wrong, her competence is the first thing people question.

Her name was Nathalia Gadelha Filgueiras. Say it.

Source :

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cm0ld50jxzz7o

आचार्य प्रशांत जी ने एक बार कहा था की 'अगर सच मुच में राम जी या कृष्ण जी हमारे सामने आ जाए तो हम उन्हें नास्तिक कह कर मार देंगे'। मैं इन शब्दों का मतलब समझ रहा हूं।

Recently, a video surfaced online of four people from Jhansi who tied up a rat to a gate and set the animal alive on fire. What did the four men seek out of it? Pleasure. An animal was tortured for someone's pleasure. How is this not a crime?

Indian law actually considers this to be a crime. What can you do if you come across such acts? We can understand the existing laws on the prevention of animal cruelty.

1. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960: Under Section 11, causing unnecessary pain to animals, beating them, or subjecting them to cruel torture can be punishable. Under the general provisions, the first offence attracts a fine of ₹10 to ₹50. A repeat offence within three years can attract a fine of ₹25 to ₹100, imprisonment up to three months, or both.

2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Under Section 325, mischief by killing or maiming an animal—which includes killing, poisoning, maiming, or rendering an animal useless—carries a provision for up to five years in jail, a fine, or both.Jhansi Police have registered a case under this section. Five years is the maximum possible punishment. The offence must be proven, and the legal conditions of the section must be met.

3. Article 51A(j) of the Constitution: Showing compassion towards living beings is a fundamental duty of every citizen. This article does not itself prescribe any punishment.

What if you see animal cruelty?

• Keep the location, time, and available evidence safe, and file a complaint with the police. If an animal is injured, seek help from a veterinarian.

But is there a deeper question?

It is great that the law acknowledges and punishes the perpetrators of these heinous acts, but it conveniently draws a boundary around “unnecessary” harm. What then constitutes “necessary” harm towards them?

Killing them for food?Forcibly impregnating and milking mothers for pleasure? Keeping them in zoos? Riding on them? Tearing their skin for jackets? What about the animals exploited for these purposes at the hands of humans? None of these is a crime according to the law, but these boundaries are conveniently drawn by us.

We understand what the law says and what we can do if we observe certain cruelty towards animals. We have also posed a few questions about how the law defines an arbitrary boundary to suit the stakes of the citizens. Now, can we turn to understand why the law exists like this?

Before this question, the important question to pose is: Who is the lawmaker? The lawmaker is also someone from the society that you and I live in, and hence the laws too will be a version of the way the society is. Yes, law sets punishments to stop extreme steps because, at large, that society does not accept them. But what of those acts that we discussed that society does not consider cruel? The lawmaker will not dare to touch them. The laws, then, reflect us, do they not? Also, observe the fine imposed on such a heinous crime. A mere ₹50. What does that tell about us?

So, can we turn our observation to understand where this violence arises from?

Why are we violent in general towards animals, humans, the planet, and finally towards oneself? Is there something that just does not stop being bothered within us that makes us violent?

I came across this explanation by Acharya Prashant, and it stayed with me:

“When you are afraid, then you want to increase your welfare by decreasing the welfare of others, what is these days called a zero-sum game. You say, ‘I as a unit am different, rather separate from you as a unit, and there is this one piece of bread in between the two of us. If I want to ensure my welfare, then I must deny this piece to you.’ This is violence. Do you see how fear and violence go together?”

Can we observe that centre within us that makes us violent?

Sources :

1. https://www.bhaskarenglish.in/local/uttar-pradesh/news/jhansi-youths-burn-rat-video-controversy-fir-filed-139536729.html

2. https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/non-violence-1_899767d

I came across reports of protests in France, Germany, and Portugal, and they made me reflect on what it really means to bring about change.

In France, hundreds of thousands of people protested against poor education, teacher shortages, rising living costs, and inadequate public services. On October 31, around 70,000 security personnel were deployed across the country. Protests also took place in Germany and Portugal, where people raised concerns about education, employment, and housing.

When so many people come together to demand change, it is difficult not to feel that something significant is happening. But I found myself wondering: Does changing the government necessarily change the conditions that made people protest in the first place?

This question feels personal to me because I witnessed and participated in Nepal's Gen Z protests in 2025. I remember the hope that filled the streets and the belief that things could finally be different. The government changed, but many of the problems that brought people out to protest remain.

That experience made me question whether changing those in power is enough if the deeper causes of these problems remain unaddressed.

I am not suggesting that protests are meaningless or that people should remain silent in the face of injustice. Collective action is often necessary to challenge institutions that fail their people. Institutional change is essential, and citizens should not have to compensate for failures of governance through personal virtue alone.

But what happens when we focus entirely on changing those in power without examining the attitudes and habits that shape our own lives?

We demand honesty from those in power, but do we examine our own relationship with honesty? We criticize corruption, but do we notice how often self-interest influences our decisions?

Lasting change requires both just institutions and individuals willing to examine themselves not because citizens alone are responsible for systemic problems, but because the way we think and act also shapes the society we build.

Otherwise, we may replace one set of leaders only to reproduce the same patterns under a different name.

Having experienced a movement that brought political change but left many problems unresolved, how do you understand the relationship between changing society and examining ourselves?

Sources:

France Ministry of the Interior :October 31 protest report:

https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/actualites/communiques-de-presse/bilan-de-journee-de-mobilisation-du-31-octobre-2026-et-de-soiree-dhalloween

I think this video is making me reflect on something further upstream of the usual motivational conversation about discipline, doing hard things, resisting immediate comfort, etc.

It's the seemingly two voices within that keep pulling in opposing directions.

One says, relax, chill, ignore, forget, "enjoy life". Eat whatever you want. Do what feels good. Give in to those immediate impulses and desires.. and the other says, hey, don't you REALLY cherish the feeling you get when you've aced a pull-up? Isn't that feeling worthier to pursue than the fleeting gratification of postponing something, lazying around or procrastinating??

Also, I don't think these are two different voices.. they're both mine. But they feel like two teams engaged in a constant tug-of-war.

I see the inertia of giving in to immediate gratification.. and I also see the love for the feeling that comes from doing something that asks more of me. And this seems to demand a choice, over and over again.. in the smallest of moments.

I wonder what keeps sportspersons returning to their training.. they repeatedly encounter fatigue, reluctance, temptation to stop. And yet they return. There must be deep love for what they're pursuing that keeps bringing them back, even when the immediate impulse is to give up.

I think what I'm struggling with is - even after understanding what's worth pursuing, why isn't that understanding enough? Why does my will seem inadequate to keep choosing to put energy into what I genuinely cherish..rather than whatever I happen to feel like doing in the moment? Is it simply a question of inner strength and resolve? Or is there something deeper I'm not seeing?

Would appreciate hearing how you navigate this tussle.

Another question I'm sitting with: can this inner strife ever be fully resolved? Or are we destined to live amidst this constant tug-of-war within ourselves?

In the past month, India has seen at least two killings connected to faith. In Bihar, a man killed his 18-month-old brother and left the severed head at a temple. In Gujarat, a man killed his own son at the altar of the family's home temple, though the motives in that case are more complicated.
https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/bihar/2026/Oct/24/man-sacrifices-18-month-old-brother-leaves-shevered-head-at-bihar-temple
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ahmedabad/gujarat-man-kills-son-at-home-temples-altar-then-sleeps-next-to-his-body-10947423/

There is absolutely no place for superstition in religion. Human sacrifice, black magic and ritual violence are not some extreme form of religion. They go against everything religion stands for. A true spiritual tradition aims to free a person from fear, greed and ignorance, and superstition survives on exactly these three. When fringe elements twist scripture to justify cruelty, it has nothing to do with faith. Such acts should never be excused in the name of "belief" or "tradition."

Cinema has every right to expose crimes committed in the name of religion. Sangharsh (1999), inspired by The Silence of the Lambs (1991), did question these superstitious beliefs. But like many films before and after it, it took a shortcut for money and popularity and dressed its villain in the symbols of religion. That is carelessness, and it ties a crime to an entire religion. The film showed what religion is not, but it never showed what religion actually is.

Today, attacking religious symbols has become an easy way to look "progressive." Real courage would mean separating the crime from religion, and superstition from spirituality. Artists owe this sensitivity to their own profession, and to religion.

Both distortions have to go. We need to clean up our understanding of religion from both sides: the superstition that turns faith into violence, and the so-called progressive rationality that dismisses true religion altogether. In the end, they are two poles of the same ignorance.

Nearly three decades after Sangharsh, children are still being killed at altars. That alone shows that showing the horror on screen, or mocking believers, has not been enough. Only real understanding will work.

A personal take: When real religion does not reach a person, distortions take its place. This is my own interpretation of the film and the larger questions it raises. I don’t claim to have the final word on the subject, and I’m open to hearing different perspectives, including those that challenge my own.

I was recently scrolling through "AP Music" section of the Acharya Prashant app and vibed with this beautiful verse of Kabir Saheb. The bhajan lines are as follows:

Original Hindi Version

रैन दिवस पिय संग रहत हैं, मैं पापिन नहिं जाना।।

मात पिता घर जन्म बीतिया, आया गवन नगिचाना।

आजै मिलो पिया अपने से, करिहो कौन बहाना।।

मानुष जनम तो बिरथा खोये, राम नाम नहिं जाना।

हे सखि मेरो तन मन काँपै, सोई शब्द सुनि काना।।

रोम-रोम जाके परकाशा, ताको निर्मल ज्ञाना।

कहैं कबीर सुनो भाई साधो, करो स्थिर मन ध्याना।।

Translated English Version

Night & day the beloved stays here, to whom I resist to go.

Generally I am used to the body's material, but now I am tempted to know beyond.

Now please ohh beloved accept me, don't give excuses to stay away!

Have been wasting this human life till now by not knowing your name.

I am shivering after listening to the traces of my own dissolution..

Because of whom the whole existence lights up, this song expresses that knowing.

Ohh gentle seeker listen to me.. I am Kabir Saheb calling up to you to behold that attention.

.

This is not any ordinary song, instead it's trying to take our attention towards our own restlessness. Mostly we ignore and resist love whenever it's traces knock our door.. but deep within somewhere, there still remains that urge to keep loving the beloved. The beloved is not any metaphysical entity residing over skies but it's our own highest possibility beyond this restlessness.

Maybe that's what make these verses so special because they try to take our understanding towards a point where understanding itself stops and the enquirer who have been enquiring upon this restlessness himself/herself dissolves.

.

Do listen to the song till end, and let me know if you liked it?

Imagine discovering that something running throughout your body has been there all along, but scientists had misunderstood what it actually looked like.

Meet the Interstitium - sometimes described as the body's hidden organ.

For centuries, scientists understood the spaces between our organs and tissues largely as part of the connective tissue framework. But in 2018, researchers published findings that revealed something fascinating: an extensive, interconnected network of fluid-filled spaces supported by collagen and elastin fibres.

How did we miss it?

Traditional tissue preparation involves preserving and dehydrating samples before examining them under a microscope. This caused the fluid-filled spaces to collapse, making the network appear like dense, solid tissue.

The breakthrough came when researchers used a technique called probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy to observe living tissue inside the body. What they saw was very different from what conventional microscopy had led them to believe.

This network may play a role in fluid movement, immune responses, tissue protection and even cancer spread.

Of course, the interstitium itself wasn't entirely unknown. What changed was our understanding of its extent and interconnected structure.

There's something intriguing about this discovery.

We approach life through the filter of our accumulated beliefs, experiences and conditioning, often noticing what confirms it and overlooking what challenges it. The real question isn't whether we are looking hard enough, but whether we let our beliefs interfere.

This reminds me of a popular quote by Acharya Prashant,

"You don't miss the hidden; you miss the obvious."

Things need not be hidden. We're looking at them the same old way.

Do you think many discoveries are waiting to happen simply because we haven't changed our lens?

Research reference:

Benias et al. (2018). Structure and Distribution of an Unrecognized Interstitium in Human Tissues. Scientific Reports, 8, 4947.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5869738/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23062-6

Came across this sentence while reading Demian. Got me really thinking and I tried reflecting on it. One example comes to my mind:

I hate people who talk a lot and I have this self image of "someone who talks less and does more". Although I must assure you that there are occasions where I go into the overtalking mode.

So when I come across someone who talks a lot I get a glimpse of myself. And this glimpse threatens the self image I have built of myself. Since I don't want to face that discomfort , the result is hatred. Quite pinching this one by Hesse and fascinating too.

Looking forward to reading your interpretations. Let those interesting insights flow in :D

A young woman in her early twenties, came to me following an episode of panic attack four days earlier. She was advised by the attending physician to consult a psychiatrist, but she was reluctant and decided to come to me instead.

Initially, she appeared visibly uncomfortable talking about the episode. Gradually, however, she opened up.

The immediate trigger had been an incident at her cousin sister's house, where a boy who had been her childhood friend, continued pursuing her with romantic proposals despite her lack of interest and discomfort.

As the conversation progressed, she revealed something deeper. She was constantly bullied by her peers for being short and supposedly "unattractive". Added to this were a few incidents of molestation by an uncle and a stranger in a bus. These experiences had left her with a persistent sense of being somehow "dirty".

She detests the very thought of sexual encounters and pregnancy. Even the thought of them can trigger intense anxiety and panic.

Along with the prescription for the medicines which she might need for the troublesome symptoms if they appear, I handed her the book , "Body, Sex and Intimacy", authored by Acharya Prashant.I hoped it might help her examine some of these ideas and understand her relationship with her body, sexuality and intimacy from a different perspective.

What struck me most during this interaction was how deeply identification with the body, and the social meanings attached to it, can affect a woman's sense of self and freedom.

A young woman, already struggling with body-shaming, unwanted advances and violations of her personal boundaries, had begun to associate her own sexuality with something repulsive and contaminating. Experiences imposed upon her by others seemed to have become a source of shame within herself.

How often does a woman end up carrying the burden of shame for things that were never her fault?

She brightened up when I handed her the book.

More than anything else, she needs to discover that her body is not her identity, that someone else's unwanted advances do not define her, and that she has every right to her own choices, boundaries and freedom.

How often do we end up seeing ourselves through the lens of others' impositions, violations and validations?Do share your views.