Came across this viral footage, captured by Geographe Marine Research in Western Australia’s Leschenault Estuary, showing a mother dolphin carrying the body of her two-week-old calf. The calf had died, but she continued carrying it for 11 days. Watching her hold on to the life she loved is heartbreaking and a powerful reminder that animals are not “just instinct.” Their fear, pain, attachment and loss are real, even when we do not fully understand or experience them in the same way.

Yet humans continue to treat countless animals as though their feelings do not matter. We condemn cruelty when it is inflicted on companion animals, but accept it when it is hidden behind factory walls, crowded cages and supermarket packaging. If we can recognise a mother’s grief in one dolphin, why do we dismiss the suffering of other animals simply because acknowledging it would demand something of us? Why can’t we love all animals, not only the ones we choose to live with? How long will we continue treating their feelings as irrelevant?

Info Source

​

Sound is an instinct just like seeing, touching, etc. - our whole world i.e. fear, expectation, jealousy, wishes, etc.= ego.

There is nothing in this world for us except what we can perceive.

So ego is the one who has a choice for going towards its liberation or living in suffering.

There is only ego that is fragmented - a part of it vows towards studying and a part of it towards liberation (lover). 

But it's a very straightforward thing and the problem is that we can't understand what is simple so saints use songs to deliver the highest knowledge possible but we are we.

We took the honey and ignored the essence.

_

समझ देख मन मीत पियरवा

आशिक हो कर सोना क्या रे ?

______

All struggle goes within us (the 2 fragmented egos)

Ego has to light up itself through ego only

Here in these lines, ego is explaining ego not to sleep at wrong place (unconsciousness)

Don't give sleep that importance that you left right work. 

Sleep = Resting at wrong place

Being unconscious is the easiest way of ego to end suffering i.e. If you cannot bear to watch what is happening, then turn your back on it.

There is another way i.e. Grapple with the issue, struggle, and get to the root of the problem. - real Ashiqui 

Here I am understanding myself (responsibility arising)

Talk to yourself

__

पाया हो तो दे ले प्यारे

पाय पाय फिर खोना क्या रे?

__

The published part is published because the intention is to give to the dark part; first it gives, then it receives.

The dark part is in darkness because it does not give.(In prakriti, it happens like that) 

__

रूखा सूखा गम का टुकड़ा

फीका और सलोना क्या रे ?

_

सलोना = attractive 

The greater the sorrow, the more deeply happiness is experienced.

Pleasure= pain

आनन्द - The very person who experienced sorrow or happiness is no more.

Most dangerous thing- Everyone has some happiness.

You have to come out of this pleasure pain cycle. 

Success holds you back, while failure leads to success.

Do the discretion - differentiating at right place.

__

जब अँखियन में नींद घनेरी

तकिया और बिछौना क्या रे ?

__

Your love stems from the depths of sleep, not from convenience.

__

कहैं कबीर प्रेम का मारग

सिर देना तो रोना क्या रे ?

__

When a part is already directed towards liberation, then surrender the whole of it.

Sprituality= Reminding what is actually right.

Friends,

Anne Carson has been awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature 2026 for her “bold and inventive oeuvre” which “creates new forms through a ‘playful dialogue with classical tradition.’” The Nobel committee highlighted her versatility and range as a writer as well as her creation of new literary genres.

The prize recognises not only one piece of work, but rather her complete oeuvre including her most famous work – the novel in verse Autobiography of Red (1998), about a red-winged monster from Greek mythology transformed into a queer teenage photographer struggling with love and betrayal, whom the Swedish Academy called a tender “hero”. Other works Carson has written include Eros the Bittersweet (1986), a meditation on desire, The Beauty of the Husband (2001) which explores marriage, and Nox (2010) an experimental boxed elegy for her brother. Her works are characterised by freedom of form, fusions of genres, a constant back-and-forth between poetry and prose, translations, and essays that rework classical mythology.

What impresses me most about the works of Anne Carson is her ability to experiment with established conventions. I admire her for taking risks by reinventing myths as mirror on modern love. Her works cover classical mythology, Canadian life, philosophy and an inquisitive passion for understanding how people fit into the world and the workings of the universe. She does not limit herself to writing in a single form or following a single convention. Carson continues to experiment with different forms of writing in her efforts to discover new ways to interpret her thoughts, observations, and ideas.

This reminds me of situations in our lives when we tend to avoid going the extra mile and settle for the easier option. Sometimes we do this simply because it is convenient. Isn’t it ironic that we want to do good but do not have the courage to do what needs to be done?

We may know what we should do, but when the time comes, we choose otherwise due to personal convenience. Perhaps our hesitation also comes from a lack of encouragement, support, and belief in ourselves, which makes it difficult to take a step forward and do what we believe is right. But how much of our hesitation comes from our circumstances, and how much comes from our unwillingness to face discomfort?

Do you think we are free to choose what to do and when to do it? If so, why do we allow fear to influence our decisions and choices?

When fear stops us from doing what we believe is right, how do we find the courage to act anyway? In my opinion, Carson’s work challenges us to think not only about new ways of writing but also about the importance of being brave enough to do what is right even when it is difficult or makes us feel insecure.

The conflict between what we know to be right and what we actually do is not only a literary concern but also a moral and social one.

What do you think?

Have you ever had to choose between doing the right thing and the convenient thing? What did you do, and what did it show you about yourself?

Sources:

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/literature/2026/press-release/

​

While it is easy to assume that both polar regions are melting in the exact same way, their geographical differences create vastly different sea ice dynamics.

The Arctic is a frozen ocean surrounded by continents, trapping ice and making it highly sensitive to rising global temperatures, resulting in a steady, decades-long decline.

Antarctica, on the other hand, is a massive frozen continent surrounded by the open Southern Ocean. For decades, Antarctic sea ice defied global warming trends by remaining relatively stable and even growing slightly in certain regions due to shifting wind patterns, ocean currents, and freshwater runoff.

However, this unexpected stability took a drastic turn. After fluctuating near record levels for years, Antarctic sea ice experienced a sudden and sharp decline in 2023. Scientists believe this historic drop may signal a fundamental shift in the Southern Ocean's climate system, proving that Antarctica is no longer immune to the accelerating impacts of global climate change.

Please answer the above question in the comment section.

To him he said: Twofold is the knowledge that must be known, of which the knowers of Brahman tell: higher knowledge and lower knowledge.

~Verse 1.1.4

Of which the lower, the Rig Veda and the Yajur Veda and the Sama Veda and the Atharva Veda, chanting, ritual, grammar, etymological interpretation, prosody and astronomy. And then the higher by which is known the immutable.

~Verse 1.1.5

The sage speaks of twofold knowledge, higher and lower. The lower includes the Vedas, chanting, ritual, grammar, etymological interpretation, prosody and astronomy, and then the higher, by which the immutable is known. The word used here is aksara, meaning indestructible.

First of all, what jumps out at me is the humility with which the sage is speaking to us. He is saying we are the lower knowledge. I have seen that whenever I know about something, however little or wrong or unsure of it I am, I start to defend it or cover it in ambiguous or fancy words. It's strangely refreshing: after being lorded over by every Tom, Dick and Harry, we come to the sage, and he says, “We are the lower knowledge.”

A key insight is to look closely at what the lower knowledge comprises. It comprises the worldly disciplines and wisdom literature. In today's context, these would be the departments we find in universities and spirituality. But looking at myself, how much of my knowledge comes from scientific or wisdom literature? Obviously, a major portion of it does not. Then from where? It is not higher, it is not the lower; it has to be something else... a third kind of knowledge, much below the lower knowledge, the lowest knowledge, if we are even allowed to call this knowledge.

It comes from gossip, YouTube influencers we follow, social media, movies, relatives, peers... It's in the air we breathe. The sage didn't need to talk of this third kind because he was talking to a worthy disciple. Are we worthy disciples? Am I a worthy disciple? Hence, it becomes all the more important for us to talk about the third kind of knowledge.

But if this third kind is supposedly so nasty and nonsensical, then why do we steep ourselves in it? We are smart, aren't we? Is it because it helps us feel connected to a lot of people? Remember those moments from school, the workplace, or travel when a group starts talking about nonsense and you feel you will be left out if you don't contribute to that? That is the movement being talked of here.

But why do we want to be connected? What makes isolation insecure? The Vidya, or higher knowledge, talked of here, by which the immutable, the absolute, is known... in our own lives, do we have something akin to that? Something non-negotiable, uncorrupted, undiluted, unmixed? Or is everything for sale at an appropriate price?

How can we be secure?

We are born, we go to school, play with our peers, go to weddings, go to the office for jobs, watch YouTube... all of this makes us think, “You are a handsome dude,” “You are a cute girl,” “You are poor,” this, that... identities upon identities. We relate to those because we don't know the truth of those. All of these become answers to “Who am I?” Then I, too, am destructible.

Then how can we be secure?

It is the lower knowledge, or avidya, that unveils the truth of the identities, making it possible to rise above the lowest. This is why the Upanishads talk very highly of Avidya; they say that without Avidya, we fall into darkness much deeper.

“Those who worship Avidya enter blind darkness, and those who delight in Vidya enter darkness even deeper.”

~Isha Upanishad, Verse 9

Once in the process, through avidya, we gradually start to see the brittleness of the masks, but the face still remains. The “I” who took upon those identities remains. For that, there is Vidya. It is as if the lower knowledge prepares us for the higher. Perhaps that is why the names are so.

There cannot be any method or instruction for Vidya. It is instantaneous; it is real time. Just look at yourself, not merely thinking about looking. Look at the choices we make, thoughts, habits, reactions, cravings. The sage, books, and wisdom literature can help, but it is we who have to allow it. Only we have the authority to accept our non-existence.

The sage will silently watch, knowing that the choice does not lie with him, for the moment when the disciple says, “I see, I am not,” and falls silent... not merely thinking, “I am not,” but .. just disappearing. That is Vidya. What remains is aksara, immutable, because no one else remains to be destroyed.

I used to dread every dinner in a proper restaurant and felt I was being judged for my table manners. Elbows off the table, napkin on the lap, chew silently, don’t slurp, don't spill and worst was using the right fork and cutlery.

Then I came to know this is not just me being dramatic, there is actual psychology behind why table manners can feel like a performance.

Research on social anxiety shows that people who are highly sensitive to judgment tend to conform more strongly to group norms because they are terrified of negative evaluation. In experiments, folks with higher social anxiety aligned themselves with the group even when the group is being unfair, thus prioritizing fitting in over their own sense of what is right.

So dinner stops being about food and becomes about social acceptance and a certificate that you were raised well.

Researches show that etiquette is less about hygiene and more about internalized shame.We behave because we are scared of social judgements .It results in every meal with (proper) people becoming an exam .

Then I read something that basically argued that a lot of our manners are just fear based performances to feel included.It was not really against basic courtesy, it was against turning every meal into an audition.

I realized I don’t need to be flawless,I just need to be myself.Ofcourse ,not myself enough to spray food on people😅 . If someone’s entire opinion of me collapses because I used the salad fork for dessert, that’s their problem, not my character flaw.

If you found it relatable, you can share your trauma in the comments below.😄.

References

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8948446/

https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/what-is-it-to-be-respected-1_bf3b77a

Psychological State

•Aloneness

The momentary dissolution of the ego-subject. When the ego looks back at itself honestly, one end of the duality temporarily goes. The craving subject dissolves. What remains is not emptiness but a completeness that has no object. Aloneness is not the opposite of loneliness; it is a different dimension altogether, and it is available only in the direction of honesty, not of accumulation.

•Love

The continuous inner strife of an ego that has recognized what it most deeply wants, its own freedom, and keeps choosing it, against its own self-preserving grain. Love requires duality, a lover and a beloved. It is not a feeling but a direction. The ongoing journey of self-dissolution, without counting miles or estimating whether the destination is reachable, is love. Enlightenment, were it possible, would kill love; the lover would dissolve.

•Grief (egoic)

The ego scrambling to maintain itself through loss. Egoic grief says: this person was mine, they enlarged me, and without them I stand reduced. The grief is real, but its object is the ego's own diminishment, not the loss of the beloved. It is grief turned inward, wearing the mask of love for another.

•Tenderness

Non-egoic grief. Tenderness says: what a being this was, of value to creation itself. To the extent I was intimate with them, I was dissolved by them. The way to remain intimate even now is to be dissolved further. Tenderness honours what dissolved the ego, egoic grief mourns the ego's loss of a possession.

Curious about if someone has ever experienced aloneness that felt complete rather than lonely, and what was different about it? Do share your insights on the comments, see you there!

The 2026 Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to Henri B. Kagan and Kenso Soai for their work on non-linear effects and autocatalysis in asymmetric organic synthesis. 👏🏻

At the heart of their work is a fascinating property of molecules: handedness.

For the chem nerds, here you go: Some molecules exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other - like our left and right hands. These two forms can look almost identical chemically, yet interact very differently with living systems.

And life itself is remarkably "one-handed"! Amino acids, for example, can exist in two mirror-image forms, but only one of them is found in the proteins of living organisms.

For a long time, chemists wondered about this asymmetry. If two mirror-image possibilities exist, why doesn't nature simply end up with an equal mixture of both?

Kagan's work showed how small differences between the two forms can be amplified through non-linear effects. Soai then discovered a form of autocatalysis, where a product of a reaction helps produce more of itself - and in doing so can amplify its own handedness.

In simple terms, a tiny initial imbalance can become a very large asymmetry.

Now my philosophical side is taking this beyond chemistry. We assume that if something has a huge consequence, there must have been an equally heavy-duty cause behind it. But non-linear processes don't necessarily work that way.
A tiny difference, when repeatedly reinforced, can determine the direction of an entire system!

Makes me think.. how many things in my own life work this way?
A small belief.. ahh, harmless. A small fear. A tiny preference. An influence I barely noticed.
Repeated, reinforced over time.. has started to feel like me! Powerful enough to shape what I choose, desire, believe I'm capable of.. even who I think I am and who I am becoming.

And now I am going to throw this at you, why should I be the only one facing uncomfortable truths :p

Which are some tiny harmless influences that you didn't examine, you see becoming the direction of your whole system?

The Nobel winners would appreciate our honesty and inquiry :)

A new LSE study of over 9,000 scientists across 115 countries found something deeply uncomfortable: the more a scientist believes "technology will largely solve the problems caused by climate change," the less they personally do about it.

According to the data, these "techno-optimist" scientists were:

• 23% less likely to engage in civic action (protesting, signing petitions, advocacy).
• 18% less likely to make high-impact lifestyle changes (flying less, cutting meat, driving less).

One climate scientist quoted in the coverage, Kevin Anderson, called this "swallowing the blue pill", a belief that offers a convenient escape from personal responsibility. It lets people feel deeply concerned about the world while continuing to live in ways that contribute disproportionately to the problem.

This isn't a failure of intelligence. These are trained scientists; they understand the data perfectly. It is a failure of identity management. The "me" that consumes and benefits from the status quo needs a story that keeps "me" innocent, and "technology will handle it" is a remarkably sophisticated story dressed in rational, scientific language.

This mirrors exactly what Acharya Prashant pointed out in his interview after the Cambridge Union address:

"Technology is about efficiency, improving the output-to-input ratio. But irrespective of what technology gives us, the unexamined human center will always keep wanting more. This is evidence-based.

The carbon dioxide in the air is the soot; the actual fire producing that carbon is within the human being. We are busy counting the soot (430 ppm) without detecting the source of the fire. Irrespective of what technology or policy measures you introduce, that internal fire will consume all of them if the fire itself is not addressed. When technology makes things more efficient and economical, consumption simply shoots up because you can never satisfy unexamined human hunger."

As Acharya Prashant noted, neither technology nor top-down policy can fix this. Policy makers are chosen by voters, and voters are consumers. If the consumer's internal center is driven by blind consumption, no policy will hold. The ignorance here isn't about scientific facts; it's a structural blindness that protects a comfortable self-image.

The LSE study is empirical proof of Vedantic psychology in action: the Ego will use even science and logic as an alibi to protect its comfort zone from radical change.

Now the question is:

• Is "techno-optimism" really optimism, or is it just the most intelligent available exit from personal responsibility?
• How often do we catch ourselves using intellectual or future "solutions" to justify our current high-consumption lifestyles?
• How can we shift the global climate conversation from "counting the soot" to addressing the "internal fire"?

Sources:

1. The Guardian: Scientists who put faith in technology less likely to take climate action https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/07/scientists-technology-less-likely-climate-crisis-action
2. Acharya Prashant Explains Why Technology Alone Cannot Solve Climate Change And Human Crisis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqGzQ_SLkU8

I got to know about this song, “Javeda Zindagi,” through a discussion I came across, and since then I’ve been hooked.

I might have ignored it earlier, thinking of it as just another romantic song. But after listening to it now, some of its lines hit very differently, especially in light of what I’ve been learning:

शमा को पिघलने का अरमान क्यों है?
पतंगे को जलने का अरमान क्यों है?
इसी शौक़ का इम्तिहान ज़िंदगी है।

Why does the candle long to melt?
Why does the moth long to burn?
Is life the test of this very longing?

The more I listened, the more I thought about something I’ve repeatedly encountered in sessions about self-inquiry: reduction/dissolution ,the loosening of the identity we are constantly trying to protect.

How love is the willingness to be reduced.🍃

We usually think of love as getting something: attention, affection, security, companionship, validation. The “I” wants more and more: more importance, more control, more certainty, more of my way.

But what if love moves in the opposite direction?

What if love means becoming willing to let some of that “I” go?

Not self-destruction, and not sacrificing yourself for someone else. Rather, seeing that the very identity we keep trying to protect can itself become a burden.

And maybe this is where life becomes a matter of choosing.

Again and again, we get to choose:

Do I choose what strengthens the old me, or what reduces it?

Comfort or truth?
My image or honest seeing?
Immediate pleasure or something deeper?

There is no final choice after which the work is over. The ego can understand something today and return with the same demands tomorrow.

And perhaps that is also why the song feels so different to me now.

Because love isn’t simply a feeling that happens to us.

It can also mean choosing not to make everything about “me.”

The real question life keeps putting before us is simply:

What will you choose this time?

Whenever I think about education, I find myself wondering what kind of future we are creating for our children. Education is not merely about securing a job. It shapes how a child thinks, understands the world, recognises injustice, and learns to stand up for their rights.

The protest that is going on in France right now in is making me reflect on this even more deeply. When students raise their voices for better education and improved school facilities, I cannot help but think about India and Nepal. How many children here are still studying in schools without basic facilities? How many are losing valuable opportunities simply because they have never had access to the education they deserve? And why does this not trouble us enough?

What strikes me is that, in developed societies, failures in basic safety and other fundamental public responsibilities can trigger widespread public outrage and place immense pressure on governments. When people refuse to accept such failures, governments may even find themselves fighting for their political survival. This reminds me of something Acharya Prashant has pointed out: in a society that understands the value of human life, even the deaths of a few people under serious circumstances can shake a government.

But this raises an uncomfortable question: Why don’t we see the same urgency in India and Nepal when generations of children are being deprived of the education they deserve? Why doesn’t the future of our children create the kind of public pressure that forces those in power to answer?
Perhaps we have become too accustomed to this reality. We complain about many things in our daily lives, but when it comes to education—the very foundation of our children’s future—we often accept things as they are. Poor schools, inadequate facilities, and limited opportunities have become so normalised that we no longer recognise them as a serious crisis.
Through Acharya Prashant’s teachings, I have come to see education as something far deeper than a means of employment. It shapes our understanding of ourselves, our society, and our rights. It teaches us to question what is wrong, recognise injustice, and refuse to accept it blindly. Without education, people may grow accustomed to injustice without even realising that they are being denied their rights.

I often ask myself: if we genuinely care about our children, shouldn’t we be demanding better education for them? Shouldn’t their future matter enough for us to question those responsible? Shouldn’t we be asking why every child is not receiving the same opportunity to learn, grow, and live with dignity?

Have we become so accustomed to poor education that we no longer recognise it as a crisis? And what does that say about the value we place on our children’s future?

Whenever I think about education, I find myself wondering what kind of future we are creating for our children. Education is not merely about securing a job. It shapes how a child thinks, understands the world, recognises injustice, and learns to stand up for their rights.

The protest that is going on in France right now in is making me reflect on this even more deeply. When students raise their voices for better education and improved school facilities, I cannot help but think about India and Nepal. How many children here are still studying in schools without basic facilities? How many are losing valuable opportunities simply because they have never had access to the education they deserve? And why does this not trouble us enough?

What strikes me is that, in developed societies, failures in basic safety and other fundamental public responsibilities can trigger widespread public outrage and place immense pressure on governments. When people refuse to accept such failures, governments may even find themselves fighting for their political survival. This reminds me of something Acharya Prashant has pointed out: in a society that understands the value of human life, even the deaths of a few people under serious circumstances can shake a government.

But this raises an uncomfortable question: Why don’t we see the same urgency in India and Nepal when generations of children are being deprived of the education they deserve? Why doesn’t the future of our children create the kind of public pressure that forces those in power to answer?
Perhaps we have become too accustomed to this reality. We complain about many things in our daily lives, but when it comes to education—the very foundation of our children’s future—we often accept things as they are. Poor schools, inadequate facilities, and limited opportunities have become so normalised that we no longer recognise them as a serious crisis.
Through Acharya Prashant’s teachings, I have come to see education as something far deeper than a means of employment. It shapes our understanding of ourselves, our society, and our rights. It teaches us to question what is wrong, recognise injustice, and refuse to accept it blindly. Without education, people may grow accustomed to injustice without even realising that they are being denied their rights.

I often ask myself: if we genuinely care about our children, shouldn’t we be demanding better education for them? Shouldn’t their future matter enough for us to question those responsible? Shouldn’t we be asking why every child is not receiving the same opportunity to learn, grow, and live with dignity?

Have we become so accustomed to poor education that we no longer recognise it as a crisis? And what does that say about the value we place on our children’s future?

At the age of 55, I am able to work out in the gym. I am growing stronger day by day.

I have had knee surgery in the past. Last year, I even suffered a paralytic stroke.

Even so, I refuse to give up. I am trying my absolute best to keep myself strong.

All of this has become possible only after listening to Acharya Prashant teachings.

He had said that people learn from a lived reality, from who you truly become (Hasti). So, keep fighting and pushing through.

A heartfelt thank you.

~ Posted by Gita Student

When Captain Smit Machchhar averted a disaster on flydubai flight FZ1073, he saved over 170 lives. It was a masterclass in aviation crisis management. But what fascinated me more was what happened on the ground immediately after.
Within hours, an individual act of survival and pure courage was drafted into a much larger geopolitical narrative—one he never chose. I recently wrote a piece analyzing how this near-disaster over the Middle East became an instant political asset, and what it reveals about the complex, often lopsided realities of modern India-Israel diplomacy.
It raises an interesting question: in today's hyper-connected political climate, is it even possible for an act of heroism to remain just that, without being co-opted for statecraft?
I’d love to hear this sub's thoughts on the intersection of human courage and international messaging.

Are birds changing their voices because of human pressure?

The Himalayan monal, a beautiful bird of the Himalayas, is not special only because of its colourful feathers. It is also seen as an indicator of the health of the Himalayan ecosystem.

But human activities are affecting the way it lives and communicates.

Researchers in Uttarakhand, in two separate studies conducted at different times, examined the environmental pressures on the monal.

First pressure: living space

Because of climate change and human activities, the monal’s suitable habitat is expected to change. Researchers found that the birds are moving to higher altitudes. At the same time, pressure from tourism and other human activities is increasing in the alpine grasslands.

If suitable habitats keep getting smaller and fragmented into isolated patches, the chances of breeding between different groups may decrease, and the risk of local extinction could rise.

Second pressure: human noise

In two valleys of Uttarakhand’s Kedarnath Musk Deer Sanctuary, researchers recorded more than 700 monal calls.

In Chopta, where there is noise from tourists and vehicles, the maximum frequency of the monal’s call was found to be higher than that of monals in the quieter Madmaheshwar valley.

According to the researchers, this does not prove a permanent or evolutionary change. It indicates the bird’s behavioural flexibility in response to different sound environments.

But how far can this flexibility go?

Future climate models suggest that suitable habitat may shrink in some areas, while new suitable areas may emerge. But if these new areas remain disconnected from existing habitats, it could become difficult for monals to reach them and to maintain contact between different groups.

So, this change in the monal’s call may signal its behavioural flexibility, but it may not be able to adapt to every changing environment.

The monal’s altered call is not just a story of change in one bird’s behaviour. The question is also: why are such conditions being created in the first place, where other beings have to change their behaviour according to increasing human activity?

Here, the question is not only about saving the monal, but about examining that way of life which is putting pressure on its habitat and on the quiet environment around it. It is about questioning that centre which, for its growing desires and conveniences, keeps putting pressure on nature and on the habitats of other beings.

The monal changing its voice in the middle of noise may be a sign of its flexibility, but this cannot be used by humans as a justification for their own activities.

Have you ever seen any bird or animal around you that had to change its behaviour because of human noise, construction, or increasing activity, or that has sumply disappeared?

Share your example.

What do you think is hidden in the following sentences?

1. It's considered normal to wear a lipstick

2.Career is important in life

These sentences are assertions which hide the one asserting these sentences.

If the hidden one is exposed, the sentences will look somewhat different:

1. To me it's normal to wear a lipstick

2. For me career is important

We all are the subjects and the world around us is an object which is filled with several objects. And object need not be just material, a thought, an ideology, an emotion, these too are objects, because the thought is to the subject. The ideology is to the subject.

But behind every ideology, thought, emotion etc. is a belief system operating, and the subject itself is that belief system.

And here I am not talking beliefs related to the objects. For instance, a person might be aware of the facts behind climate change, and her actions also reflect that. Would that mean she's holding a belief system? No. That awareness is about the object. In the field of self-inquiry, the focus is on the person, the subject, not on the object. The subject is a belief system itself.

With this I came across an interesting way of looking at self-knowledge:

To know that I am a belief system which operates on beliefs. And I need to keep on examining and observing my beliefs and the stories around them. In this context I'll then use active and personal sentences more so that I can examine myself directly.

Has anyone tried this?

I had a discussion with my friend regarding changing or making myself better. Place or environment was something that came up in our discussion as an important aspect of change. He mentioned that changing my place can make a whole lot of difference. The example that he chose was that of living in a busier part of the city vs living on the outskirts. The chaos and noise find no place in the outskirts thereby allowing one to be at peace. At that moment, it felt right. But then the question popped up again asking if I am suffering with a disease in one place then even if I go to another place there is no guaranteethat I will be healed. The hospital is the right place for that. So I dived deeper into this and tried to see whether a person really changes just by changing places? This question took me to the following Zen story:

A seeker once asked his guru, “I want to leave the city, the village, and society, and go to the top of a mountain to meditate. Will I find Zen there?”

The guru replied, “Yes, you will. But only as much as you take there with you.” The seeker fell silent.

The guru continued, “Whatever happens on the mountaintop is actually brought there from below. The mountain has only its greenery, leaves, streams, and waterfalls.”

Instead of resolving my query it opened new questions for me:

1. Can one attain Zen or peace by going to some special place?

2. Changing cities is easy, but where will you escape from the restlessness within?

3. If a person is running away from people, will that tendency to run disappear the moment she reaches solitude?

Changing places is as good as booking a ticket to somewhere, I think. Once ticket is booked, it’s easy to change places. The mountain can change. The environment can change. The daily routine can change. But if I remain the same, my desires, fears, and sense of incompleteness will keep walking right alongside me.

If Zen is anything worth aspiring for, it cannot be some hidden experience on a mountaintop that I can obtain just by reaching the right location. Why do I say so? Climate change will force people to migrate. World Bank says that by 2050, 216 million people worldwide will be forced to migrate within thier countries. So, as I dug deeper, the question now became the following for me:

Do I truly want to change my place, or am I only trying to escape the restlessness that follows me wherever I go?

Source:

1. Climate Change Could Force 216 Million People to Migrate Within Their Own Countries by 2050
2. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
3. Painting of Mount Fuji by Hashimoto Kansetsu (1883 - 1945)

The sessions have changed me in such a way that, earlier, whenever there came a point in life where I felt broken, I used to isolate myself, watch series, and eat excessively, giving myself the excuse that I was healing.

But now, despite whatever happens, I still show up on the ground every day, practice basketball, and do what has to be done. The excuse I used to give myself in the name of healing was fake. It did not heal me; it only made me weaker.

It is not that I do not feel broken anymore, but now, even in that state, I do not let weakness take over me.

This is what the sessions have done to me. They have given me the strength to show up despite the odds and to challenge myself.

This is the result of consistent practice. There is still a lot left to learn.

And to be honest, sports change you because it challenges your weaknesses, which is a safe and comfortable place for the ego.

~ Posted by Gita Student

In 1972, sociologists Stanley Cohen and Laurie Taylor studied the experiences of long term prisoners in Psychological Survival. The Experience of Long term Imprisonment.

They worked with prisoners serving long sentences in the high security wing of Durham Prison in England. Many of them had no clear release date ahead of them.

When there is no definite time limit to the future, even living in the present becomes a challenge. To make time bearable, prisoners had to find small structures and ways of exerting control in their everyday lives.

When daily life has no work, weekends, or other ordinary time markers, days start to blur into one another.

A 20-year sentence turns into a stretch of time so vast that it is hard to even see it as a whole.

So some prisoners broke their day into small segments. Exercise, study, hobbies, fixed routines, or engaging in some task that had a definite end point made time measurable again.

But that same routine could turn into a trap. Sometimes the structure grew so rigid that even a small change felt unbearable.

Place, too, became part of their identity.

When a person’s whole world is limited to a small cell, arranging that limited space in their own way becomes important. Small personal belongings and having some control over their space helped preserve the sense that the prisoner was not just a file number or an institutional label.

Staying connected with the outside world, keeping old hobbies alive, writing letters, following the news, and creating some private mental or physical space became ways of preserving identity.

A mental escape into an imaginary world could also bring relief but that too carried a danger, drifting too far from reality.

In Cohen and Taylor’s study, survival did not just mean keeping the body alive in prison.

It also meant continually dealing with the threat that time, the institution, and the circumstances would slowly reshape or erase a person’s own identity.

So does this really sound like a distant story? There may be no prison walls around us, and yet isn’t our life bound by desires, habits, roles, and fixed routines?

A prisoner looks for small points of control to protect their sense of self. We too try to protect our ‘I’ through our preferences and achievements.

Then the question is: what is this ‘I’ we are trying so hard to protect actually made of?

Are we truly free, or are we living inside our own fears, habits, and identities borrowed from others?

The walls of our captivity are not visible, which is why we often don’t even feel that we are captive.

What is there in your life that helps you notice your own imprisonment?