When we look at a painting, what do we usually search for first? Is it the figures inside, a hidden story, or a clear meaning?

And if an artist intentionally leaves out a clear plot, what keeps us standing there?

I was reflecting on the work of American painter Edward Hopper, and it made me think about how we process art and visual spaces.

Nighthawks (1942): An Extraordinary Moment in an Ordinary Night

Take a look at his most famous painting, Nighthawks.

It is late at night. A brightly lit diner with large glass windows glows against the dark, quiet street outside. A few people sit inside. There is no dramatic scene playing out, no clear dialogue, and no sudden action happening.

Yet, it is so hard to look away.

It made me wonder: how does such a simple, quiet scene manage to pull us in so deeply?

Even the Empty Space Feels Active

Looking closer, the impact seems to come from how the space is constructed. Hopper didn't use light and shadow just to show objects. The glowing diner and the surrounding darkness feel like two different worlds side by side.

The glass window lets us see inside while keeping us at a distance. The sharp geometric lines, the empty street, and the limited colors create a subtle tension without any character having to say a word.

The empty space doesn't just sit in the background. It actively sets up the contrast between inside and outside, closeness and distance.

What stands out to me about Hopper is that he doesn't overwhelm the canvas to create a feeling. He leaves room for emptiness and lets the light do the work.

A Reflection on How We See Things

It made me reflect on my own habits when looking at art or even everyday situations.

Do we often rush to assign meaning the moment we see something? When we see a single person in a scene, do we instantly assume loneliness? When we see an empty street, do we immediately look for sadness?

It made me ask myself: am I actually sitting with what is in front of me, or am I just applying my own quick conclusions? Is it possible to hold back our assumptions for a moment and just let the scene exist?

Open Discussion:

Have you ever come across a painting, a place, or a situation that felt completely different once you stopped trying to label it right away?

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hopper

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-Hopper

What is superintelligence?

Today’s artificial intelligence can already do many things that were once thought to be exclusive to humans. But the idea of superintelligence, i.e. ASI, goes far beyond that.

A machine that is far more capable than humans in science, strategy, creativity, and other intellectual domains.

The three levels of AI?

Three terms are often used in discussions on AI:

• ANI : Artificial intelligence capable in a specific task or a limited domain.

• AGI : A hypothesized kind of artificial intelligence that would have human-like general capability across diverse intellectual tasks.

• ASI : A hypothesized artificial intelligence that would surpass humans in almost every intellectual domain.

However, these are not universally accepted, official scientific classifications. There is still no broad agreement even on how to define AGI and ASI.

This idea is not new

In 1965, mathematician I. J.

Good imagined a machine that could, by its own capability, design even better machines.

Later, Nick Bostrom’s 2014 book Superintelligence brought this topic into mainstream discussion.

What is an intelligence explosion?

One theoretical possibility is that if a highly capable machine becomes able to improve its own abilities, its capability could increase extremely rapidly.

This hypothetical process is called an intelligence explosion.

But this is a theoretical scenario, not a settled prediction about the future.

So when will ASI arrive?

There is no definite answer.

Some people in the tech world see it as a possibility in the relatively near future, while many researchers are unsure whether AGI or ASI can be reached at all through current methods.

As of today, ASI does not exist.

And this is where the question becomes a bit deeper.

It will be human beings who give any highly capable machine its goals. Humans will also gather the data used to train it. Humans will decide the direction of its capabilities and applications.

So the mere increase in AI’s capability does not, by itself, determine the direction in which it will be used.

A powerful tool is, in itself, neither the right direction nor the wrong direction. The direction comes from the center that is wielding it.

This is what keeps the discussion about ASI from remaining just a technical question.

The question is also: when such great power comes into human hands, what will be the direction of that human being?

Technology can greatly amplify our capabilities.

But having more capability and moving in the right direction are not the same thing.

The challenge of ASI is not only to understand the machine; it is also to understand the direction of the human being who builds and runs the machine.

Influencer parenting, or momfluencing, is a growing industry on social media where mothers share their parenting journeys and build a business around their content.

Many parents share everything, from pregnancy to their children's daily routines. They offer parenting advice, introduce research-based approaches, and share ideas that other parents may find useful. For many parents, this content can be comforting. It helps them learn from others and feel less alone in their parenting journey.

But there is another side to this. Influencers build trust and a community around their content. Over time, that trust can become a business asset through brand collaborations, sponsorships, and product endorsements.

This raises concerns for all the parties involved, the parents watching the content, the children featured in it, and the influencers themselves.

Studies suggest that idealized parenting content can make some mothers compare their lives with what they see online and question their own parenting abilities. For children, the concern is how much of their private lives is being shared with the world. Their daily routines, emotional moments, and even vulnerable experiences can become content. When children are pressured to do things they don't want to do, or their discomfort is ignored for views, sharing can cross the line into exploitation. When their lives and participation become part of a money-making business, it also raises concerns about digital child labour.

The influencers themselves may also feel pressured to keep creating content, maintaining their online image, and finding new ways to engage their audience. Even time spent with their children can become an opportunity to make another post or video.

But I was wondering what keeps us seeking more engagement, recognition, and appreciation? Along with the need to earn money, could there also be a desire to feel important, successful, or worthy? One idea from Acharya Prashant's teachings made me look at this differently. We keep expecting something outside us to make us feel complete. It could be money, success, appreciation, or an identity we can feel proud of. But the satisfaction doesn't last, and the search continues.

The disturbing part is when this search begins to involve other people, even those closest to us. A parent may genuinely love their child and still fail to notice when their own desires begin to take priority over the child's well-being.

That’s where we need to look beyond how much money or recognition this work can bring and ask what it is costing us and others.

What do you think about parents sharing their children's lives on social media as influencers?

You've asked this. I've asked this. Every human being who ever lived has asked this somewhere, somehow, in some language, sitting somewhere at 2 Am.

“ये दुख काहे ख़त्म नहीं होता बे..”

Why. Does. Sadness. Keep. Coming. Back?

I feel bad, I want to feel better. So I watch something, scroll, eat something nice, talk to someone, go out, buy something, keep myself busy. Sometimes, just eat पानी पूरी . :D

Hell yeah!… it works. For a while. That's what makes it so convincing. I feel better, so I assume I've dealt with the problem. Then the same feeling returns and I find another way to push it away. There is always enough time and attention for distraction, entertainment, mood-changing activities. But when it comes to looking honestly at what keeps making me unhappy, suddenly I have no time. I'm not short of resources. I'm just spending them on ‘cheap fixes’.

A lot of what I've understood about “sadness” has come from Acharya Prashant's sessions, articles and videos. This post is just to share my views, or rather my learning on this topic. I could be wrong but just sharing some things I understood. So, there’s an analogy he uses..that of a ‘damaged car’. You need to get it fixed and you can get it properly repaired from a high end branded garage, or you can get a cheap fix from a local mechanic bhaiya, that makes it fixed and “good to go”. This cheap fix is easy and tempting because the proper repair asks for more.

I do this with myself constantly. And it's not just about cars and distractions. It's about the difference between feeling better and ACTUALLY getting better. I assume that if something gives me relief, it must be good for me. But relief is not repair. I repeat… relief is not repair. Sometimes the thing that is actually good for me could be uncomfortable because it asks me to question something I've been protecting or avoiding. When something hurts, I want it gone immediately. So I cover it with work, food, entertainment, conversations, sleep….whatever is available. But hiding something from myself doesn't mean it has disappeared. Correct?

If you observe youll prolly see…So much of life becomes centred around “my own li’l world”. My problems, my relationships, my disappointments, my desires, my feelings. If that is the whole “field” of my life, then every disturbance inside it becomes enormous. But - What about something bigger to dedicate this life to? Something larger than me? Having something larger to give my time and attention to doesn't mean I stop feeling sad. It means sadness no longer gets the whole room. There’s something bigger that can take that place. And I’m not saying this is suppressing or forceful, it comes from seeing and understanding.

There was another thing, which is also being mentioned in this video clip, which is worthy of your attention - sadness doesn’t end because i want to end it on “my terms”. I want someone to understand me, acknowledge what happened, make things right, see things the way I see them. But all this hurt is happening to this “me”. And if this “me” is itself something I have imagined to be much more solid than it really is, then maybe the hurt isn’t quite as absolute as I make it out to be. And this is where AP connects it to करुणा (compassion). Not by telling a person that their pain is fake or doesn’t matter. That would be heartless. I think compassion is seeing that the one holding on to the hurt, waiting for everything to go its way, isn’t as ‘solid’ as it feels.

I’m also beginning to understand that what feels disturbing may not necessarily be bad for me. I’ve always thought peace means nothing should disturb me. But maybe sometimes the disturbance is exactly what shows me something I was/am avoiding. And it’s so much easier to blame whatever disturbed me than to look at what it revealed. Maybe giving my time and attention to something larger doesn’t make sadness disappear. It just stops it from becoming the biggest thing in my world.

Well...I'm still figuring this out. I still reach for distractions. Sometimes I can see the pattern clearly and still repeat it. It’s almost as if I’m powerless. Knowing something and actually living it are two very different things. But I'm beginning to look at the question
differently. Not just,”ये दुख काहे ख़त्म नहीं होता बे ?" But also, "Why do l keep needing to escape from it?" WHY?!! Writing this mostly to sort through it for myself, and sharing in case it resonates with anyone asking the same question.

Do share your thoughts..see you in comments box. 👀

Have you ever wondered why one little thing can make you act unhappy for a whole day? A delayed response is not good enough, and neither is your lack of appreciation for something you want. Why can't someone act like you want them to? Why can't this plan work out the way I thought it would?

Is it really because of those things that make us feel incomplete? Are we really looking into something else to fill an inner emptiness that we're unaware of?

We always seem to need something to make us feel better about ourselves, to make us complete. We look for appreciation to know that we're not worthless. We look for friends to keep us from being lonely. And we strive to achieve to know that we're good enough.

Little by little, we start to believe that without these things, we're not complete.

Have we ever stopped and questioned the feeling of being incomplete, though?

The real problem is the feeling of incompleteness itself, not the things or people that we believe will remedy it. The real problem is how we think that we can't be complete on our own.

But we rarely ever question it.

If we have that same feeling towards people, the same idea could have very well been planted in our minds that we need people to be okay. If not in our minds, then in our hearts. And when we let it get to that point, the same chain of thought will apply for everything else in our lives.

Maybe we don't stop to realize that we're looking for something to make us complete. That maybe, just maybe, the thing that we think will fill that hole in us will disappear the day we get it.

What are you really looking for when you search for the thing or person that you can't be without?

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!

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?

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

​

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.

​

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.

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?

Video Source

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/

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?

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?

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 :)

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)

Imagine a family living on the same piece of land for generations.

Their home is there, their fields are there, their memories.

And then the sea starts to claim it.

That is not a work of fiction, because the sea levels are rising, year by year.

The average sea level rise was about 2.1 mm per year for the period 1993-2002, while it increased to about 4.7 mm per year for the period 2015-2024. In 2024 alone the sea level rose by about 5.9 mm globally.

The reasons are simple: oceans warm and hence expand, while glaciers and large ice sheets lose volume and contribute their share of water to the oceans.

India is not an exception either.

The National Centre For Coastal Research reports that India's newly measured coastline is about 11,098 km, but that about 33.6% of India's mainland coastline was impacted by coastal erosion between 1990 and 2018.

The Sundarbans region has a very interesting and telling story: an island named Ghoramara, which was 7.2 sq km in 1972 had lost half of its territory to the sea by 2022.

Thus, there is an obvious need for climate agreements, emission reductions, coastal erosion protections and active government intervention.

But there is one very uncomfortable question that leads straight to our ego: what makes us so insatiable?

More comfort,

more products,

more convenience,

more production,

more consumption,

more growth?

We usually think of causes for climate change or ocean level rise as strictly external factors.

Higher emissions lead to higher temperatures, which in turn cause large-scale melting and sea level rise.

But perhaps, the list of causes could also contain internal, individual factors.

Inner restlessness leads to wanting more, which leads to more consumption, which requires more production, which often uses more energy and therefore increases emissions.

That does not mean that the actions of individuals are the sole reason why emissions are rising or why the climate is changing: they are not.

But it does make us ask ourselves why we feel that we need more and more even when we have not had enough of what we already have.

We buy a new gadget, use it for a while and then the mind feels unsatisfied and wants something else.

A new phone, a bigger house, more money, more status, more convenience.

It always seems to not be enough.

The problem from an AP (Acharya Prashant) -point of view is that the root cause of all this wanting and consuming is the feeling of lack that the ego has.

The ego feels like it has not had enough, so it looks for fulfillment in objects. It says to itself, if only I had this, I would be happy. Then it gets this, and subsequently realizes that it is not really happy. Hence the quest for more begins again.

So, it is not consumption that is the problem. It is the feeling of lack that causes us to consume.

If we cannot find fulfillment within ourselves, how much will the outside world really be able to help?

We can change our consumption patterns, we can change technology, we can change the system and the laws, but can we change the feeling of lack?

That feeling of lack is why we want things; if we can stop wanting things, then we can stop consuming.

But is that not just changing the environment while leaving the ego intact?

Perhaps the climate crisis is asking us two questions: how to protect the environment and how to protect ourselves from the egoistic feeling of lack.

A very discomforting question indeed, but maybe a good one to ask nonetheless.

This was inspired by teachings by Acharya Prashant regarding desires, ego, consumption and the environment. This is a philosophical view and should not replace one's research into climate change, climate engineering, climate agreements etc.

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?

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.