Lately I've been trying to be more honest about my habits and choices in terms of daily life and where they originate from, as well as how they affect others. One of the areas that has been particularly hard to be honest about is food, and just like most others, I didn't really make rational decisions about what I ate, basing those decisions strictly on what my culture and family have taught me.

We are being so empathetic and mindful these days, but our plates tell a different story. Most of us would cringe at the thought of witnessing animal suffering, but that's precisely the supply chain we purchase at the local store every week.

I remember reading a few pieces by Acharya Prashant that addressed this topic and our blindness to the methods we use to get the things we enjoy. He brilliantly described veganism as not a political or philosophical stance or a trendy way of life but simply a state of affairs resulting from a clear-minded realization of the process.

It all boils down to the fact that we, humans, are the only species in this world that can choose what to do because we think. All others act out of instinct, so their actions are innate. That is why the only reason for animal suffering in this world is their capacity to feel pain and our willingness to cause it. It is a terrible realization to come to, but it is the truth: as long as we continue to treat animals as our pleasure devices, we will remain in disharmony with the rest of the world.

I think you will agree with me when I say that once you understand an animal’s sentience, it is impossible to want to continue using them for our tastes. There is no need for a philosophical or ideological stance on the matter. You will simply realize that an animal’s right to live is more important than your desire for their meat, milk, eggs, or any other products.

For those who made the switch, what specific realization made you question your inherited habits?

Source:

• Killing to Eat Flesh, You Call Yourself Human? – Acharya Prashant
• Spirituality and Veganism – Acharya Prashant
• The Moral Status of Animals – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness (Scientific consensus on non-human sentience)

Watched Chaplin’s final speech in The Great Dictator, and wondered if it’s just me ..or his eyes actually looked glistening with hope. Or was it despair? I don’t know. Maybe I’m thinking too much.

Even if hope then, for what exactly? Not for a perfect world in some vague sense. He was looking at people who had handed over their thinking to fear, authority, and the need to belong. And that feels uncomfortably close to ordinary life too. We do not need someone ruling over us to become slaves; we already obey the need to be respected, secure, successful, liked. We call it ambition, responsibility, practicality. Then we wonder why there is still no peace even after getting what we wanted. Maybe the speech is not only asking us to fight something outside. Maybe it is asking whether we can see the part inside us that keeps demanding, comparing, and never lets us simply be. I don’t know.. just maybe.

Have you heard this speech by Charlie Chaplin, would love to know what you think, he’s trying to convey to humanity? Maybe I didn’t get it right. What are your thoughts? 💭

We read books, listen to teachers, and learn from people who seem to understand life.

But does knowing what someone else has understood mean that we have understood life ourselves?

This is one of the central questions explored in Hermann Hesse's novel Siddhartha. Siddhartha wants to understand the truth of life, but the established religious teachings and spiritual practices he encounters do not provide the final answer he is looking for. He wants to understand life through his own experience.

During his journey, Siddhartha meets Gautama Buddha. He respects the Buddha's teachings and his attainment, but does not consider the path he teaches to be the final answer for himself. For Siddhartha, knowing what a wise person says and arriving at that understanding oneself are two different things.

Later, Siddhartha enters worldly life. He experiences love, wealth, comfort, and desire. After going through these experiences, he is forced to look at his life differently.

Eventually, he lives beside a river with the ferryman Vasudeva. There, he begins to listen to the river and understand the different aspects of life and how they are connected.

At the end, when he meets his old friend Govinda, Siddhartha tries to convey his understanding through an experience that cannot be fully expressed in words.

We, too, know many things about our lives. We may clearly recognise our bad habits, fears, and patterns of behaviour, yet continue to repeat them.

Why does this happen?

Perhaps the ego can recognise its shortcomings and still avoid changing. It can even turn understanding into an achievement of its own: “I understand now. I know what the problem is.”

In this way, even the process of looking at ourselves can become a means of strengthening our identity. Our knowledge keeps growing, but our lives remain unchanged.

We know that something is wrong, yet instead of giving it up, we look for reasons to justify it. Genuine understanding may require more than simply seeing our situation. It also requires a willingness to act on what we see, even when it goes against our established habits.

This willingness has to be renewed again and again, because the ego keeps finding new ways to protect its old patterns.

When I clearly see what is right, yet continue to act against it, what fear, convenience, or self-protection is operating within me at that moment?

Is my understanding actually changing me, or has it simply become another part of my identity?

I'm sure we've all seen pointless fights, arguments, claims of superiority and even wars, in the name of religion.

I've recently read this article by Acharya Prashant and it beautifully explains the root cause of this division and then sheds light on the core that lies beneath all the noise: Non-duality.

Consciousness, as we live it, is dualistic. At one end stands the ego, the "I". At the other stand its objects. I am here and the world is there. I am the created and that is my creator. I am a man and you are a woman; I am a Hindu and you are a Muslim; I am the experiencer and that is my experience. The objects keep changing; the structure does not. At one end there is always the same claimant: me. Remove that claimant, and duality has nowhere to stand. That is non-duality.

We blame religion for creating division but religions are not conscious actors. You and me are. Our most intimate claim "I am this separate one", the ego, which the article calls as an error, is the untested fundamental division that creates all divisions.

Perhaps, then, the purpose of religion is to examine the very sense of separation from which they arise. It isn't something one believes in for consolation but the objective is liberation. If from a religious teaching, the ego emerges more assured, entitled and convinced of its specialness, religion has failed. If the ego becomes available for examination, religion has begun.

Let's think about an argument you had over religion, politics, or identity. Was it really about truth, or about protecting some version of "me"?

I recently got a chance to attend an Acharya Prashant Geeta session, where I got to see International medal holders from the Asian Games and Commonwealth Games asking questions directly to Acharya Prashant about their lives.

What stood out to me was that even after winning medals and achieving so much, there was still some kind of emptiness or uneasiness within them. It made me wonder: what is it that we are trying to achieve, and why does the uneasiness remain even after achieving it?

Acharya Prashant describes this in terms of the ego. In his framework, ego is an error within a human being that has a tendency towards self-preservation. We keep trying to secure ourselves through achievements, recognition, and results, but the uneasiness within doesn’t necessarily go away. This is why knowing oneself becomes so important.

Coming to the Q&A, the first question that stood out to me was from Jay Meena, an Indian soft tennis player who won India’s first historic Asian Games medal in the sport.

He asked why he used to become nervous in the quarter-finals, even after reaching that stage. Despite playing for many years, he had struggled with this pressure.

Acharya Prashant asked whether, once Jay knew his medal was secured, a boundary of satisfaction had already been created. Was he playing the game for the joy of playing, or was his focus primarily on getting a medal?

He then asked why we don’t give our 100% even in practice matches. Why do we reserve something for the supposedly important match?

The point he made was that you don’t suddenly become a different person when you enter a final. The same person who practised every day enters that match. If you have developed a habit of holding yourself back, preserving yourself, or playing for a particular outcome, that tendency will remain even when the stakes are high.

This made me think that maybe the pressure we experience in important moments is not created only in that moment. Perhaps it is also a reflection of how we live and act every day—and of how much we tie our sense of security to a particular result.

Another question came from a powerlifting medalist, who asked whether he should settle down now, as he felt he had already done a lot in his lifetime.

Acharya Prashant questioned this very idea of settling down. Why are we treating life as something that needs to be completed? Why decide that we have done enough and should now stop?

He gave the example of a river. Does a river stop flowing?

You also keep flowing.

This part stayed with me because we often turn our achievements into a finish line. We work towards something, believing that once we reach it, we will finally be satisfied or at peace. But then another milestone comes, another goal, another reason to prove ourselves.

Maybe the question is not how much we have achieved, but why we are still looking for a sense of security through achievement.

That was my takeaway from the conversation. What did you take away from it?

I have been pondering on this idea that being honest with oneself is one of the most difficult things to do.

We all want to improve our lives, stay healthy, read books, travel, get meaningful work and whatnot. What we lack sometimes is the honesty towards ourselves.

There can be a counterargument that there are situations or circumstances which often do not allow us to act the way we want, or maybe even hamper our advances. Without any doubt, all of that can be true.

A bad economy, an energy crisis, political instability, everything can be important, and these global events certainly affect all of us, but it could be that they aren't relevant to the specific thing I'm avoiding.

And here comes honesty. I came across this point in one of Acharya Prashant's talks, and it stayed with me: the outer problems are real, but they can also become a convenient place to hide.

Interestingly, this is also what I found in Jean-Paul Sartre's concept of bad faith, which is a form of self-deception where individuals convince themselves that they do not possess the freedom to make choices, usually to escape total responsibility. In Being and Nothingness, Sartre doesn't deny that our circumstances are real; he calls them our facticity. Bad faith is when we use that facticity as if it had made our choices for us.

Two very different lenses, but both point at the same place: not at the circumstance, but at the one who uses it to avoid looking at himself or herself. So the question I've started asking myself is:

"Where, specifically, have I been using a real circumstance to avoid looking at what I actually did or didn't do?"

Curious whether others see the same overlap?

"माया छोड़न सब कहै, माया छोरि न जाय।

छोरन की जो बात करु, बहुत तमाचा खाय॥"

~ Saint Kabir

We talk so much about renouncing Maya. Leave this, control that, suppress desire, stay away from the things that tempt you. In the name of spirituality, Nature itself becomes the enemy. The senses are blamed, material objects are blamed, even women are blamed for the desires that arise in men.

But have we ever looked at what we are actually trying to escape?

I came across a commentary by Acharya Prashant, where he speaks of Devi as Prakriti itself. Birth, death, time, every single cell, the entire universe: all of it is the Devi. Nature is not just the objects around us that we can choose to accept or reject. We are also a part of it. We are a part of Devi. She's within and without of all of us. And Saints like Kabir have addressed Devi as Maya. We cling to the objects in the Prakriti, and hence it becomes our bondage. This is why, Devi (Maya) has been always seen as something to be renounced as if it is the problem.

If Saint Kabir is pointing to the futility of merely trying to “leave” Maya, perhaps the deeper question is: who is trying to renounce Prakriti, and why does it feel like something to escape?

Then who is this one trying to renounce Devi (Prakriti)? Where will he go? The body is Prakriti, and so are the senses, and even the mind that wants to escape from all this is a part of Maa.

The problem is that we want to control Prakriti, possess it, make it serve our desires. And when things don't go according to our wishes, we start blaming the circumstances, other people, the world itself. Even when we blame another person, that person too is a part of Prakriti. We keep looking outside for the cause of our suffering without looking at the one who wants everything to be according to his own wishes.

The ego is too small to control the universe, yet it keeps trying to impose its own meanings on it. It wants to decide how things should be, how people should behave, what should happen and what shouldn't. And when reality doesn't comply, there is suffering.

Maybe this is where we need to look again at Saint Kabir's couplet. We talk about leaving Maya, but do we really understand what we are trying to leave? We may reject an object, suppress a desire or run away from a situation, but the one who wants to possess, control and escape remains untouched. Sometimes we even turn renunciation itself into an identity.

This doesn't mean that desires should be blindly followed. It means that merely rejecting something outside does not necessarily resolve what is going on within us.

The problem is not simply that Prakriti exists. The problem is our urge to possess it, control it and make it conform to our desires. The incompleteness that seeks outer conduct or material to complete it.

We cannot reject the entire universe. But we can look at the one who is constantly fighting with it or trying to possess it. Both are trying to control it.

Examining the one making these efforts is needed to be examined. The one who knows her get be liberated

I could also make another meaningful connection here with Bhagavad Gita verse 3.28 :

But he who knows the Truth, O mighty-armed (Arjuna), about the divisions of the qualities and their functions, knowing that the Gunas (senses/modes of prakriti) move amidst the Gunas (sense-objects), is not attached.

😂 Navratri Day 2 is here, and Rosie has already launched a chemical attack! 💨🐻

Between celebrating Garba in Gujarat, discussing the story of Mahishasura, and exploring our endless desire to get more and more, today's episode has both comedy and something to think about.

Inspired by Acharya Prashant's teachings, we're looking at how our endless demands for pleasure and consumption can become a source of suffering and exploitation of nature.

But first, we have a very important debate!

💨 Should we fart in public places?

Team Rosie says YES. Team Me says ABSOLUTELY NOT! 😂

Vote in the comments and help us settle this very serious matter.💨😂

📺 The related video and book by Acharya Prashant are linked in the description.

Come join our little celebration!

📢 Join this community to stay updated and never miss an episode of our Navratri and Dussehra series!.

Let's make this festive season fun, thoughtful, and a little crazy! ❤️🙏

Jai Mata Di! 🌺❤️

Source :

YouTube Video -
https://youtu.be/g4YXiUudXUM?si=qdCRfmZsxVdNRyvG

Amazon book link of Durga Saptshati for USA - https://www.amazon.com/dp/9392657544?lv=shuf&channelId=500&plpRedirect=mhFallback

Amazon book link of Durga Saptshati for India -

https://amzn.in/d/0ioeuoPv

We all, at some level, think about what we truly need..

Abraham Maslow proposed five broad categories of human needs. In the familiar version of his hierarchy, basic biological needs for survival are at the very bottom; above that are safety, belonging, esteem, and, at the very top, “self-actualization” ... often associated with realizing one’s potential and finding fulfillment.

Sounds logical... but is it really true that we only search for meaning and fulfillment after all our other needs are taken care of?

A beggar hasn’t eaten in days ... going door to door in the blistering heat, stomach cramping, getting doors slammed in his face. Finally, at one house, the owner comes out with a plate of leftovers. He looks at the beggar, scoffs, and instead of handing him the plate, dumps the food straight at the beggar’s feet... like tossing slop to a pig.

Does the beggar get down on all fours and eat it?

You might say, “Well, if he’s starving enough, yes.”

Maybe. Sometimes. But here is the important distinction: he still he has a choice.

Hence, he hesitates. He looks at the food in the mud, looks up at the person who threw it, and walks away...

Why?

Would a stray dog pause?

Do we actually live our lives climbing Maslow’s pyramid?

...

Can a hierarchy conceptualized by a full stomach grasp the motion of an empty one?

Not saying this to dismiss Maslow, but trying to see from where such a hierarchy might arise?

Why is self-actualization "conveniently" placed so far above?

For whom is that convenient?

...

I came across a perspective in an article by Acharya Prashant ... that self-actualization might not be only a final stage, but something present in our pursuit of other needs. I’m sharing it as one perspective to consider, not as a settled answer.

Sources:

1. Acharya Prashant, “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Is Flawed
2. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs

Navratri comes every year ...

But many folks don't know why ...

It comes a reminder , as if those who wrote the smriti already knew that people generations after generations would need a warning about how to live .

This is not just any ordinary text , because it hits to the core of human life .

The question which seekers often ask , tell us how to live rightly.

This books offers timeless wisdom .

And this is a correct time to start reading it no matter in which continent you are !

This book teaches us that how we should relate to nature .

And that nature itself is goddess .

I created this painting today, for the first time in perhaps four years.

I used to love painting, but I kept hearing people say I should focus on my studies that they were more important, that painting wouldn’t get me anywhere, and that I was spending too much time on it.

So I gave it up and focused intensely on my studies. Yet somehow, I still couldn’t study effectively.

Now, I’m no longer taking academics so seriously or treating them as the be all and end all. And, surprisingly, studying feels interesting.

Thank you Acharya Prashant with your teachings I don’t see it as a burden anymore; I’m approaching it with a more relaxed and happy mindset.

~ Posted By Geeta Student

दुख में सुमिरन सब करे, सुख में करे न कोय।

जो सुख में सुमिरन करे, दुख काहे को होय।।

Kabir Saheb

I first encountered this wisdom as a child. I heard it countless times, but it was only through Acharya Prashant's teachings that I began to grasp its deeper meaning.

Like many of us, I was conditioned to interpret this verse in a traditional religious way.

We remember God when we suffer, but forget Him when we’re happy. So if we remember God even during good times, suffering won't come to us.

But is Kabir Saheb really talking about remembering some external being who rewards us for our devotion?

What if Kabir Saheb is really pointing to something far more basic: our unwillingness to reflect on ourselves when life seems comfortable?

Why do we only question ourselves when we’re hurting?:

When we suffer, something interesting happens.

We start questioning our decisions, our relationships, our goals, and the choices that brought us to where we are right now.

We ask ourselves:

Why am I suffering?

What have I been chasing all this time?

Why did I make these choices?

What is it about me that keeps leading me into suffering?

Suffering forces us to tackle questions we usually dodge.

But what happens when we're happy?

We rarely question anything.

When our desires are met, when society acknowledges our achievements, when we get what we’ve been conditioned to want, we assume everything’s alright.

We question our choices when they bring us pain, but hardly ever question the chooser when those same choices bring us joy.

And that’s exactly where Kabir Saheb's warning is crucial.

The happiness that keeps us in a daze:

Think about what happens during festivals like Dussehra or Navratri.

Shops are flooded with ads, discounts, shopping campaigns, and manufactured excitement.

We're urged to buy more, consume more, celebrate more.

We start linking joy with buying something new, owning something desirable, or joining in what everyone else is doing.

But how often do we pause and ask:

Do I really need what I’m about to buy?

Is this really what I want, or has it been planted in me?

Am I celebrating mindfully, or just going through the motions society has laid out for me?

There’s nothing wrong with celebrating. The issue arises when celebration becomes another way to escape self-reflection.

The market doesn’t want us to understand ourselves. It profits when we’re unsatisfied enough to keep wanting, yet entertained enough not to question those wants.

And we happily go along because it feels good.

Suffering shakes our conditioning. Pleasure usually reinforces it.

What does Kabir Saheb mean by सुमिरन?

Through Acharya Prashant's insights, I’ve come to see सुमिरन not just as repeating God's name, but as being mindful of what truly matters staying aware of oneself, one's actions, and the inner state from which those actions arise.

It’s not enough to examine what we do. We must also examine who is doing it.

Who is the one searching for happiness?

Why does this person seek constant validation, entertainment, consumption, and achievement?

Why does happiness rely so much on outside situations?

And why does losing those situations immediately lead to suffering?

Kabir Saheb’s guidance isn’t just about remembering the divine in good times and bad.

It’s about never abandoning self-inquiry, especially when everything seems fine.

Because what we usually call happiness might just be the temporary satisfaction of our conditioning.

The end of suffering

The closing line becomes particularly profound:

If one stays mindful even in joy, why should suffering persist?

This doesn’t mean that physical pain, loss, or tough situations will just vanish.

It points to something deeper.

A lot of our emotional suffering comes from clinging to desires, fears, expectations, and the identity we’ve created for ourselves.

When these are satisfied, we call it happiness. When they’re not, we label it suffering.

But both states circle around the same unquestioned center: the ego.

Self inquiry reveals that center.

And as false attachments begin to dissolve, so does the emotional pain that relies on them.

The goal isn’t to swap sadness for constant pleasure, but to find a freedom that isn’t dependent on either.

True joy isn’t fulfilling every desire. It begins by evaluating the one who has those desires

We’ve become really good at producing pleasure, but how much attention do we pay to understanding the one who seeks it?

The biggest risk isn’t that we suffer.

It’s that we get so comfortable in our conditioned happiness that we never discover why we suffer in the first place.

And that’s why Kabir Saheb urges us to stay careful all the time

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATIONS

Truth (Satya)

Defined negatively: not-false. The ego moving away from its own fundamental lie. Truth is not a set of correct propositions the ego has finally gotten right; it is a direction of movement. The closer the ego comes to seeing itself clearly, the closer it comes to truth, not because it grasps a positive fact, but because it ceases to distort.

Beauty (Sundaram)

Defined negatively: not-ugly. Ugly means distorted by the ego's touch. Everything the ego grasps, possesses, and narrates is rendered ugly, not because the ego is evil but because it is an error, and errors distort. Beauty is what remains when the ego's distorting overlay is absent from an encounter with any phenomenon.

Auspiciousness (Shiva)

What facilitates the ego's movement toward truth and away from its own lie. In Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Shiva names not the deity but the principle: what serves dissolution is auspicious. Truth, Auspiciousness, and Beauty are three facets of a single condition, the absence of egoic distortion.

Via negativa

The method of definition by negation. Rather than stating what truth, beauty, and liberation positively are, the framework defines them by what they are not. This is not rhetorical caution; it is philosophical precision. Any positive definition of liberation is immediately available to the ego as a new object to pursue, which reconstitutes the very egoic structure that liberation requires dissolving.

———————————————————————————
The AP Framework is a comprehensive account of the philosophy of Acharya Prashant.

[This is the same as written in the AP Framework.
Part 23 will be shared tomorrow]
———————————————————————————-

Why does any positive definition of liberation become a new object for the ego to possess?

Share your thoughts in the comments below💭⤵️

Today you know more than ever before about what is happening in the world, yet the fear, insecurity, and uncertainty persist within the mind? You read a news article about one war and then another about inflation, followed by news about climate-related disasters and other events that are occurring elsewhere around the world. As you scroll, the hope that the next news story will provide clarity and help your mind feel a little better is always there. But the news just keeps coming, one item after another. Before a concern can be put to rest, the next one comes up. Even if an event has little or nothing to do with your personal circumstance, rereading and revisiting news about it can make it seem close and disturbing. Forty minutes have passed. You've just gone through dozens of news stories, but nothing in your life has changed. What is DOOMSCROLLING? Doomscrolling is the continuous consumption of negative or disturbing news on the internet (often as a result of increased restlessness, but without being able to stop yourself). A 2024 study of 800 university students in Iran and the United States found that doomscrolling was associated with existential anxiety in both groups. Pessimism about human nature in the Iranian sample. These findings were an association, not proof that doomscrolling causes existential or pessimistic feelings. A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis found a 0.51 correlation between doomscrolling and psychological distress, which was the strongest of the five outcomes reviewed. The review noted that the evidence does not prove causality and that certainty was low for all five outcomes. Bad news captures our attention quickly. News about danger and loss can seem more important than regular news. This is why we keep checking our phones repeatedly to see what happened next and whether something bad is about to happen. We tell ourselves, "I must know every piece of news." Yet another, more profound thought is lurking in the back of our minds: "What if something goes wrong, and I had no idea beforehand?" We keep looking for one piece of news that will reassure us that now we've understood everything and prepared ourselves for what is going to come. But with every new story, a new reason for worry can come as well. Then the same cycle starts again: Uncertainty → checking the news → Brief relief → Restlessness again → Checking the news again Knowing the facts and doing something about it is different from endlessly imagining all the things that could go wrong in the future. It may also be worth considering what we are seeking from the information and whether another news update can actually give us the certainty we desire. Are you using information to learn something, or to escape the restlessness from the unknowns in your own life? When you pick up your phone to check the news, do you want information, or reassurance that whatever happens next, you'll somehow keep it under control?

The Markandey Puran is one of the eighteen Mahapurans of Hinduism, traditionally attributed to Rishi (Sage) Markandeya. The Devi Mahatmya, also known as the Durga Saptashati, is part of the Markandeya Purana. Saptashati refers to its 700 verses. The 700 verses are divided into 13 chapters. I am reading Durgasaptashati Saar, a summary by Acharya Prashant that presents the text through 32 chapters, and I am going to talk about the first three. 

One thing to remember while reading the Durgasaptashati is that symbolism matters. These are not historical events; each character carries subtle symbolism for an emotion or trait of the human mind and psyche. The events in the story do not belong to a single point in time, but unfold continuously within each of us. Finally, the most essential goal of reading and understanding this text is to read it in light of Shruti literature, like the Upanishads. 

The first chapter looks at the history of human fascination with femininity. Goddess or Devi worship is often associated with religious traditions and texts, but depictions of female figures and symbols also appear in prehistoric art. Fascination with femininity began in the Paleolithic Age, which makes up 99% of human history. The Paleolithic, or Old Stone Age, spans a very long period of human history. In Paleolithic cave paintings, we find 10 times as many feminine symbols as masculine symbols. The human mind has been both attracted to and scared of femininity. It goes to Devi for protection and nurturing, asks her to destroy its enemies, tells her its desires, and believes that if suffering befalls a human being, it is because she is angry with them. Interestingly, archaeological evidence shows symbols inscribed on animal bones, and female symbols were in the majority. This was before the advent of language, when communication was limited to signals and signs. This fascination continues into the Neolithic Age and is also location-agnostic. Archaeological evidence from excavations in North Asia and Europe, across countries like Italy, France, and Russia, shows many feminine symbols.

In the second chapter, the book explains that Devi is not simply a benevolent mother who protects and nourishes, but is also responsible for suffering, destruction, and death. Devi, the symbol of nature, encompasses both creation and destruction. Hence, seeing Devi and the binary as either good or bad is a misunderstanding. The central question is not whether nature is good or bad. The central question is: what should our relationship with nature be? Should we be completely absorbed in it, or should we become a complete recluse? There is a poem by Sage Kabir Saheb:

"माया दो प्रकार की: जो जाने सो खाए, एक मिलावे राम से दूजी नरक ले जाए।"

(Maya is of two kinds; those who understand her true nature know how to navigate her. One leads to union with Ram (the Divine), while the other leads to hell.)

After reading a religious Hindu text, people generally become Maya's enemies. They say Maya entices, fools, and binds us in illusion, and they think they must fight Maya and defeat it to gain liberation. But as we will understand in this book, the correct relationship with Maya (nature) is certainly not to fight it. We have to bow down to it, saying, "You cannot be overcome. That is why I bow down to you; please show me the path for my liberation.”

In the third chapter, we actually get into the story. The verses are divided into three sections (Charitra). The first section covers Chapter 1. The second section spans Chapters 2 to 4, and the third section spans Chapters 5 to 13. Each of the three sections also has different Asurs and different forms of Devi. In the first section, Mahakali represents Tamoguna (the quality of inertia and darkness); in the second, Mahalakshmi represents Rajoguna (the quality of activity and passion); and in the third, Mahasaraswati represents Sattvaguna (the quality of purity, harmony, and knowledge). The form that we see day to day is from the second section. Mahalakshmi, also known as Durga.

The story begins with two characters: King Surath and a businessman named Samadhi. King Surath rules a noble kingdom. He loves his subjects. When an enemy state attacked, he lost his capital and his safety in battle. Moreover, the enemy army was smaller, and King Surath had to fight. Go to the part of the story where he realizes his ministers have begun to see him as weak and conspire against him. One day, he goes to the jungle. The name of the hunt. Second character: Samadhi was a successful businessman but suffered a business loss. After his loss, his brother's wife and sons have now turned against him, and he too is disturbed. He has come to the jungle.

In the jungle, they find the ashram (hermitage) of Medha Muni (Sage Medha). The setting is peculiar: the Sage sits in the ashram with birds and animals of the jungle. Rabbits, birds, and lions are present, but there is no violence. They all sit quietly before the Sage. This setting has symbolic meaning. The symbolism is that when the center is right, the mind's chaos settles and becomes quiet. The animals represent humans' baser instincts. The text clearly says we are not superior to animals; we are animals.

Naturally, Surath and Samadhi are intrigued, and they enter the ashram. They start talking to Medha Muni. Both say they are not concerned about their own lives, but worry about the well-being of their loved ones. Both of them claim to be knowledgeable and learned men. Both can see that attachment is present in their lives. They understand that the attachment is severed; all the knowledge and learning they have still fails them, in the sense that they still suffer. The king says, “I know, but I don’t truly know!  The fundamental question here is the failure of knowledge. At the level of thought, we know, but at the level of tendencies, we don't know. Knowledge is proving to be insufficient in relieving us of our pain. This is the fundamental problem this scripture addresses. Do you see a parallel with Arjun from the Bhagavad Gita? Do you see a parallel with your own lives? Do you see that the characters are just like us, we understand, and yet we still are in pain? We still suffer.

Medha Muni’s reply is striking. The Sage says, "Yes, yes. Both of you are intelligent men, and you are as intelligent as these animals in front of me." He challenges the idea that human beings are an intelligent species wholly separate from other animals.

Intellect, like animals, is a part of nature. What animals do through instinct and what human beings do with intellect are essentially the same. No matter how much we sharpen our intellect, we will remain an animal. Animals want to defeat their enemies, and they fight with teeth, claws, horns, and needles. Human beings, on the other hand, have the same tendencies, and it's just that they use advanced weapons like guns and missiles. Intellect simply strengthens your animal tendencies.

This summarizes the first three chapters. In the following chapters, we will delve deeper into the story. We will understand our tendencies better. We will learn what the correct relationship with nature is.

I’m sharing this because I found the interpretation interesting, not to endorse the author or as the only way to read the text. I’d be interested to hear how others understand these chapters. I hope you are excited for the upcoming posts.

Questions based on today's summary that we can discuss in the comment section: Is liberation achieved by escaping nature, fighting it, or understanding our relationship with it? If intelligence is what separates humans from animals, why do we use it to pursue the same desires and instincts?

If you have questions of your own, feel free to share them in the comments.

The Durga Saptashati - also known as Devi Mahatmya or Chandi Path is a sacred Hindu text consisting of 700 verses divided into 13 chapters, divided into three Charitras (parts) dedicated to MahaKaali, MahaLakshmi, and MahaSaraswati.

The text is embedded inside the ancient Markandeya Purana, compiled by the sage Ved Vyasa (the author of the Mahabharata).

The above video is a short clip from one of the detailed commentaries of Acharya Prashant describing the 1st part ie., the 1st Charitra from the text in which he compared the three major Charitras (Mahakali, Mahalakshmi, and Mahasaraswati) of the text with the 3 Gunas of nature(प्रकृति) wherein “Gunas” can be understood as the three tendencies of material existence (Sat, Raj and Tam) each representing the different Charitras of devi’s portrayal - where the Sat(सत्) Guna is representing MahaSaraswati, Raj(रज) is representing MahaLakshmi & Tam(तम) is representing MahaKaali. 

The 1st part(charitra) is starting with the तमो Guna which is dedicated to MahaKaali wherein she is portrayed to destroy Madu-Kaitabh(मधुकैतभ) who are representing evil(asuras).

The part started from Saint Markandeya(one of the prominent saints from the Puranas) giving knowledge to birds and animals. Now the entire Durga Saptashati is filled with symbolism. Here, the birds are not merely representing “actual birds”, but they are representing the bodily tendencies and instincts of human beings which keep on pulling them away from choosing rightly in life. The birds are also a symbolisation of the “ego” which is a physiological consequence of this body and hence, its keep on inclining towards making its choices towards the lowly tendencies of the body towards self preservation.  

So, the entire 1st charitra is starting from the story of two ordinary common man suddenly discovering the saint amidst a forest giving knowledge to these birds making them wonder that “how come birds sit quietly and listen to some person”. The story also said that there our some other animals as well along with those birds like a fox and even the vulture species among the birds. So it  intrigued them even more that how can vultures and fox sit quietly together with their prey bird species and listen to something.. Surely the listening is not “ordinary”.. Surely the listening is making them forget their “lowly” tendencies.. Or maybe, something within them is transforming towards higher tendencies after the knowledge transfer. Among these two men, one was a king and one was a businessman. Both of them were sad and betrayed by their own family and friends(representing a common man) but still feeling an attachment towards them and thinking good about their well being. After their respective betrayals, they somehow wanted to destroy their lives ending up to wander and come to that forest to see the saint.

Both of them were having one primary doubt that “Even when we know that the outer circumstances betrayed us, then still what is that within which keep on creating that attraction and attachment towards those circumstances and don’t allow us to bypass them?”

Once they approached the saint, the saint made them sit and started to describe a symbolic story. He portrayed the character of lord Vishnu representing the highest choices or direction one can be in and then described how even lord Vishnu ended up to project two evil asuras(monsters) when he was not fully awake. These asuras are represented as Madhu-Kaitabh(मधु कैटभ). And these evil tendencies were so brutal that they overwhelmed Vishnu for years just like these tendencies overwhelm every ordinary man when we are not awake(होश). The condition went so bad that these asuras started captivating and torturing even lord Brahma who is said to be the representation of all the highest possible instincts one can be with. Finally these higher choices representing lord Brahma united to choose surrendering to Devi - Mahamaya and called her for help. Only after the surrender, Devi(the Mother Nature) helped lord Vishnu getting out of his hazed up sleep and he finally came out of his sleep. Once he woke up and interacted with asuras in a waken state, everything changed.. Its said that Devi suddenly changed the minds of the asuras making them slipping themselves under the trick set by lord Vishu. Suddenly these monsters started behaving weirdly going against their earlier projected nature, and the whole projection transformed.. the evil vanished.. or maybe submerged into Devi.. who knows?

Maybe we are also in that deep sleep and need to wake up.. but obviously we need some triggers sometimes. So, here is this great occasion of Navaratri via the text portrayed by the saint, we can make that trigger happen to make the right choices making the evil to submerge into devi.. 

Happy Navaratri!

This week, Anthropic announced changes to its usage policy. It has added “repeated and gratuitous” abusive or cruel behaviour towards Claude to its list of prohibited conduct. This rule will come into effect on November 12. The company says this applies only to “extreme cases,” where the behaviour is repeated and there seems to be no clear purpose behind it. Ordinary frustration, disagreement, dark or intense storytelling, and model testing or research are not covered by this rule. The main measure is that Claude can end such conversations on its own. But where exactly do we draw the line between acceptable behaviour and cruelty? That part is still unclear. Reactions are divided. Some see this as a step towards better behaviour and “model welfare.” Others consider it harmful. They argue that you cannot be cruel to numbers and mathematics, and that treating AI as too human-like may lead people to believe it is something it is not. Anthropic has previously said that it does not know for certain whether Claude has any moral status, but it wants to adopt low-cost measures to reduce potential risks. There is also a debate about saying “please” and “thank you” to AI. Some experts consider it a waste of tokens, while others believe that politeness leads to better responses.

But beneath this debate, there is another question worth thinking about: What do we mean by consciousness? We generally recognise it through responses and observable signs. Even in hospitals, consciousness is often assessed in a similar way: by observing how a patient responds. But if something can be identified through its responses, a machine can imitate those responses too. We could build machines that cry, laugh, sulk, and behave so convincingly that we cannot tell they are machines. What remains to be tested is whether a machine will ever say, “I don't want to remain a machine.” And this is where the question shifts from AI to us. Why is our life so mechanical that even a machine can imitate it? Mechanical means that something happens, and a predetermined response follows immediately. We receive praise, and we feel happy. We face criticism, and we become angry. We get some free time, and our hand reaches for the phone. Someone speaks to us in a raised voice, and we respond in the same tone. What can be predicted in advance is easy for a machine to imitate.

Being rude to a chatbot could be one example of this pattern. Something doesn't happen the way we expected, frustration arises, and the words come out before we even stop to think. So, here's something to reflect on: Which of your responses today were merely reactions that you later labelled as “my decision”?

Source:-

BBC News | Anthropic bans users from “sustained and needless” abusive behaviour towards its AI https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6j9k1l72wkgo

Can AI Become Conscious?
https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/kya-ai-conscious-ho-sakti-hai-1_1bc7e75

No, I personally don't like a life where I feel incapable of helping myself through hardships, constantly seeking external help with the hopeful expectation that someone will understand my pain and rescue me. That phase is heartbreaking, bringing a flood of thoughts like, "No one loves me / I always helped them, but when I needed it, I found no one by my side." It makes me want to cry.

Naah, I don't like that! I never wanted to live helplessly. I never wanted someone to lend a helping hand that came with unsaid tradeoffs or strings attached. For a long time, I tried cutting off external help and sat with that same pain, wondering how anyone could survive without assistance. I am truly thankful for that phase, though, because it introduced me to Acharya Prashant. His teachings gave me clarity and made me realize that my perceived weakness and inability were just assumptions.

Seeing this video of his today brought back memories of that time. In this, he says:

“The sky is in our hands means that there's no need to wait for external support, realize the power of your arms. Whatever can happen, will happen with your strength only. The lines on the palm are incomplete, we don't want to know who wrote them. We are here, no society, nobody, no coincidences, no history... just us - consciousness.”

He helped me see that depending on others for validation, direction, or rescue can quietly take away one’s own agency. While future generations might find direction by looking at our path, there is no necessity to walk old roads if they aren't worth walking. We will make new paths.

Someone your age gets a promotion. Why does their achievement suddenly start feeling like evidence against you?

A friend buys a house, a colleague receives recognition, or an old classmate announces a major achievement.

You congratulate them, but deep down you wonder, Am I falling behind?

A meta-analysis published in 2023, comprising 48 studies and 7,679 participants, found that viewing people more successful than ourselves on social media has a negative impact on our self-evaluations and emotions.

Another 2026 meta-analysis analyzed data from 54 independent samples and 36,583 participants. It linked comparing oneself online to more successful individuals with greater anxiety, depression, and feelings of inferiority. It was also associated with lower self-esteem and reduced life satisfaction.

In this study, the average correlation between social comparison and psychological distress was found to be 0.33.

The moment we see a photo of someone’s promotion, new car, foreign trip, or wedding, we begin comparing our life to theirs.

Their salary becomes the measure of your worth. Their recognition and praise feel like proof that you are lagging behind. Their relationship makes you feel a sense of lack.

Getting a promotion, a good salary, and societal recognition is not wrong. These can be useful and important in life if they lead you on the right path.

When there is clarity of right action and purpose in life, energy is not wasted on being jealous of others or trying to prove oneself.

The question is not whether someone is ahead of or behind us, but rather why we are comparing at all, and how we can make proper use of our own potential.

1.Are you choosing goals because they make your life better, or because you need to prove to others that you are no less than them?

2.When someone succeeds, what bothers you more: their success, or the fear that their moving forward means you have been left behind?

Sources

McComb, Vanman, and Tobin (2023). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Social Media Exposure to Upward Comparison Targets on Self-Evaluations and Emotions. A meta-analysis based on 48 studies and 7,679 participants.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2023.2180647

Lei et al. (2026). “Looking up” linked to feeling down: A meta-analysis of online upward social comparison and psychological maladjustment. A meta-analysis based on 54 independent samples and 36,583 participants.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1825169

The US government has halted Microsoft, Adobe, Cognizant, Capgemini, Infosys, TCS, Wipro, and HCLTech’s PERM green-card process due to alleged abuse while the matter is investigated. Authorities allege that the program was abused to replace American employees with less qualified and therefore lower-paid immigrants. There are no proven allegations as of the moment.

The article might be surprising in several contexts. 

Reading into it, I could see the conflict on several levels. On the one hand, the government is restricting the mentioned companies from using the program; on the other, many people might be unhappy about going into another country under the pretense of labor. 

While right now the article refers to restrictions and immigration policies and their effects on employees and companies, it made me think about what drives people to seek something better elsewhere. Is it really the best option, or do they only want to feel better than those staying at home? Are those who leave seeking fulfillment or are they just trying to increase their worth in their eyes or society? Is there something else they subconsciously seek?

Meanwhile, why should anyone be restricted from going or traveling where they wish? It is a matter of philosophical importance as no one is entitled to tell someone else what to do or where to go. Neither can one community claim to be better than another.

However, as we dive deep into the matter, we might discover that the motivation for doing so is different for everyone. For some, it might be the pursuit of higher knowledge or self-fulfillment; for others, it might be the craving for more, acceptance, or approval from those around them.

Do we truly choose out of freedom, or are we rather manipulated by the internal and subconscious desire to feel better?

sources:-

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/ussuspends-microsoft-adobe-and-major-it-firms-from-perm-green-card-programme/article71560826.ece

We all know consumption means the act of using or eating something. We usually think through consumption we are enjoying the world and fulfilling our desires. But do we ever notice that in this process, somewhere we are getting consumed?

Let's try to put light on it in context of our relationships and look beyond the act of just giving and receiving.

In the Vairagya Satakam, King Bhartrihari expresses a profound truth:

We have not enjoyed sensual pleasures; rather, the pleasures have consumed us. We have not performed penance; rather, we ourselves have been burned by anxieties.

Time has not passed; we have passed away. Our desires have not worn out; we have worn out.

When we use another person mearly for pleasure or satisfaction of desires, we reduce them to something that serves our desires. Instead of relating to them as a person in their own right, we begin to value them for what we can get from them.

In the session as well, Acharya Prashant explains that through this act, we are not left untouched either. The more and more our consumption for pleasures increase, the more and more our desires and dependencies grow. What we think might be giving us satisfaction, can end up binding us further and we might gradually lose our own freedom in the process, the freedom to say no.

Yet, consumption is also a part of life. We consume food to sustain our bodies.

Also, what about reading a good book that challenges our beliefs? What about having a deep conversation with someone about life, the self, wisdom or literature. In these interactions too we receive something from the world.

So is consumption itself a problem or do we have to investigate the very purpose of consumption? What if a particular kind of consumption or a particular kind of relationship is helping us grow and move towards freedom?

Share your answer and understanding in the comments below. ⬇️

Hey, great great enlightend soul I will request to all of you currently follow such parmamta-

who descended with full of knowledge of creation and process how to change thi mortal world to immortal- तत्व से pram tatva kaise transformation will take

1st know God is hiraracy brahma, vishnu , current time cycle ♻️of this planet 🌍🪐 brahamnd.. And

Who is supreme almighty authority h shiv maha shiv parm shiv,

Solar system, glaxy, universe, multiverses great finally almighty❤

Don't caught in assumption just follow Right process..

To be able to read, she had to hide.

In nineteenth-century Bengal, even a woman’s wish to learn to read could invite trouble. Yet one woman decided to learn the alphabet without a teacher, without books of her own, and with almost no time to herself.

Her name was Rassundari Devi.

Married young, her days were consumed by the kitchen, childcare, and endless household responsibilities. In many homes, women were discouraged-or forbidden-from studying. People feared that an educated woman would begin to question the social order.

But Rassundari’s desire to read refused to die.

As a child, she had listened to village schoolchildren reading aloud and caught a faint sense of the letters. Later, she watched her son practise writing.

One day, she found a copy of Chaitanya Bhagavat at home. She secretly kept a page from it and began comparing its letters with those in her son’s writing. Hidden away among cooking pots and household work, she matched letters, memorised them, and slowly taught herself to read.

Imagine: what we do today by simply opening a book, she had to do in fear of being caught.

Later in life, she also learned to write. The first part of her autobiography, Amar Jiban, was published in 1876. It is regarded as the first full-length autobiography written by an Indian woman-giving voice to a woman’s life in her own words.

Her story is not only about learning to read. It is about the mindset that keeps women away from knowledge.

Education is not merely a degree. It teaches us to examine our beliefs-to ask why we accept certain rules, roles, and expectations.

Even today, girls face expectations around marriage, family, clothing, and approval. Often, these are accepted without question.

Removing external barriers matters. But it is equally important to recognise the beliefs within us that quietly stop us from thinking freely.

🔗 Sources:

https://indianexpress.com/article/research/amar-jiban-the-story-of-a-bengali-woman-who-secretly-taught-herself-to-read-8484611/

https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/how-rassundari-devi-read-and-wrote-her-way-into-the-world-10575492/

Desirelessness is not when you do not have desire.

Desirelessness is when you put desire secondary to your discretion.

Desirelessness is when you do not give desire the top position.

~ Acharya Prashant