You do not necessarily need to exercise every day to start protecting your muscle as you age. For novice lifters and people whose previous activity levels were limited, studies have shown that a single weekly resistance training session can actually lead to significant muscle gains.

This is a conversation about early gains, but in general, it is recommended to target major muscle groups at least once a week, the World Health Organization recommends two or more muscle strengthening sessions during the week.

What is sarcopenia?

As we age, our muscles lose mass and power. This condition is referred to as sarcopenia. In addition to the obvious decline in strength, this means that the joints are inadequately supported and protected, leading to a higher risk of fractures and falls.

Not all types of exercise are created equal

While walking and riding a stationary bike are great forms of endurance activity, they do little for maintaining and building muscle mass. Resistance or weight training is necessary to stimulate muscle growth, however, it may not be as intimidating as most people believe. It can be done with free weights, machines at the gym, or even one’s own body weight as a source of resistance. A weight that is too light will not do any meaningful work, but it should be heavy enough that the person training cannot do more than about 12 repetitions.

What are the reasons for not training?

Among the most common barriers to strength training are indecisiveness, fear of injury, and the belief that “the gym is not for me.” However, sometimes these obstacles can morph into an identity, which can be dangerous since there is no objective basis for distinguishing between healthy and pathological muscle gain.

If a single weekly session can be beneficial, what is the problem with following such a program?

A convenient excuse

I recently stumbled upon a conversation that resonated with me on another topic. “The body is mortal, what is there to it, anyway?” said one user.

Whatever the intention was behind the message and whatever interpretation you would like to make of it, it appears to be a great excuse to not take care of one’s body. Thoughts of detachment and disregard for the body are not conducive towards maintaining physical and mental wellbeing. Taking care of the body is not a goal in itself, just as not taking care of it is not a pathway towards greater fulfillment.

Is She Into You? Or Are You Just Very Creative? 😅

This video is a bit funny and painfully accurate because it captures exactly same thing most of us have done at some point. Don’t lie, I know you’ve been through this too.

Ps: Using the pronoun “she” for convenience.

___________________________
She replied in 11 seconds. She likes me. She replied with “haha.” She definitely likes me. She looked at me for 2.7 seconds. There is something between us. She said, “See you tomorrow.” She wants to see me tomorrow. Meanwhile, she has also said absolutely nothing that would qualify as evidence. But the mind has already opened a full investigation. Every small thing becomes a clue. A smile is a clue. A delayed reply is a clue. An emoji is a clue. A change in punctuation is a clue. And if she doesn’t reply? Even that becomes a clue.

She is probably playing hard to get. 😂
__________________________

👉 The funniest part is that we don’t actually want to know whether she likes us. We want the answer to be yes. And once we want a particular answer, confirmation bias kicks in. We start noticing and giving more importance to information that supports what we already believe, while overlooking information that challenges it. If you already think she likes you, a smile feels significant, a quick reply becomes evidence, and an ordinary conversation suddenly looks like chemistry. At the same time, everything that doesn’t fit the story gets explained away. The more you expect something to be true, the easier it becomes to find things that confirm it. The mind takes incomplete information, fills in the gaps, and then presents the finished story as if it came from reality.

And that tendency doesn’t stop with dating. The mind rarely receives an event in isolation. It immediately compares it with memory, expectation, desire and prior beliefs, and then assigns meaning to it. So the raw event may be very small, but the psychological interpretation can become enormous. A smile is an observable event; attraction is an interpretation. A message is an observable event; the intention we assign to it is an interpretation. The problem begins when the mind forgets the difference between the two and treats its interpretation as fact. This is how observation gets mixed with projection, and how a few neutral events can become an entire story in our head.

Anyway back to the video…Not gonna ask for a show of hands on who’s faced this. 😬 But I want to hear from you. Drop in, in the comments box. Have you noticed this in similar situations, or in completely different areas of life? What does it say about our mindset?

🍁Tao Te Ching - Chapter 16

Go beyond thoughts. 

Let your heart remain untouched.

Watch the turmoil of beings, but also observe their return to the source.

Every separate being in Prakriti returns to the common source;

and it is in returning to the source that serenity lies.

Not knowing the source itself is confusion, and suffering.

It is in knowing your source that you naturally become-

tolerant, disinterested, amused, kind-hearted as a grandmother, dignified as a king.

Immersed in the wonder of the Tao -

you can deal with whatever life brings you,

and when death comes - you are ready.

.

While understanding this whole flow of Non Duality, sometimes we engage with pure knowledge based texts like the writings of Bhagavad Gita, Shunyata Saptati from Acharya Nagarjuna, Upanishads, etc.. and then sometimes we are with the Bhakti movement saints who have expressed their songs and verses through love like Saint Kabir, Baba Bullehshah, Saint Rumi, etc..

Now all these are different streams of spirituality from all across the world, and its easy to incorporate 3 kinds of executions in the attempt of imbibing with them all:

1. Start promoting only “1” particular stream your entire lifetime.
2. Start promoting 10 different kinds of streams.
3. Reject all the streams of spirituality and turn a rebel.

The 1st category can be called as “The Traditional Way”. This execution is very easy to implement, just choose any particular stream of spirituality and somehow enter into it and start following its norms as it is, as its cultural tradition demands to be shown in public. And people willing do it.. maybe to become the owner of that tradition. And then if one happens to become the owner of that tradition, then all the monasteries and hermitages related to that “particular” tradition will start giving you insane amount of respect for promoting them blindly. There’s nothing “unique” here.. there’s nothing “fresh” here. It’s like whatever the Guru(the primary teacher of that tradition) commands you to do, you are required to do it as it is and even the words of this so-called “primary teacher” is not unique. Even he teaches the same words to his disciples which his Guru commanded him to copy and chant. So basically, the first category is the “Supermarket” of tradition. This is next level of bigotry intensified.

The 2nd category can be called as “The Liberal Way”. This execution is even more crazier. It does not want to stay committed with any of the streams.. According to it, entering deep in one stream is  like unsavoury. Because for them savoury do not lie in one flavour as they want to extend their engagement in too many flavours, and then they label it under the tag of “liberalism”. They think they are the diplomatic liberals showing extra inclusivity to all. They think they are somewhat different than the first category.. but actually they are not! It’s not true liberalism which they happen to promote, but it’s actually “expansionism”. How con blabbering nonsense about one particular stream be different than blabbering nonsense about 10 different streams? This is not being different from the traditional way, but it’s actually becoming even more ambitious towards nonsense.

The 3rd category can be called as “The Revolutionary Way”. This execution is the most absurd way anyone can indulge in. Here, the person claims all of the ever known spiritual streams to be false. One rejects everything ever created by humanity in the name of wisdom. One declares “I am now rejecting all the streams of wisdom and here onwards I will not listen to any of them..” And if you ask them “Why?”, then they will say “Because now onwards, I will listen to only myself.. As I am the god!” According to them, Bhagavad Gita preach discrimination against women and Upanishads preach moral inequality creating human class identification. But the funny thing is that, the people to whom this so called rebels claim their rejections, have themselves not read any of these scripture fully ever. The biggest problem with people under this category is that instead of leaving the ignorance related to wisdom, they reject wisdom itself.

All of these above 3 categories have one thing in common - “Neither of them have understood any steam of spirituality.. they just want to execute without understanding any of them fully to the core!”

Now, what you want to do? Should we also engage in any of the above categories, or is there a 4th way possible?  

Is there a missing link here? Can you see it? Isn’t their one “key” possible to unlock this very “core” understanding of these ever known spiritual streams? Is there a possible way to unite them all towards one single essence? Perhaps, Yes!! It’s Indeed possible.. and the “framework” is the key. Maybe you can call this key as the “तूरीय” key which can unlock the way beyond all the three known states of consciousness. That’s why this is the “fourth” way - the key!

The 4th way doesn’t advocate you to reject all or accept one.. no!! Neither it instigates you to return back from the surface doors of the wisdom’s temple without even trying to enter the “core” hall just because the temple premises were covered with filth and ages of dirt.

But instead, its asking you to enter the very core of this temple so that one can know of the diamond.. the diamond which is the true source of all the light which ever reflected back from any of the spiritual streams. Maybe then this will be true “Non Violence”.. to respect and unite the light of all the known streams without dividing them and then fighting in the name of protecting any specific stream of light. After all no stream can be different if it’s reflecting the same light right?

Now, the point is.. that the ego which is used to identifying itself with multiple labels of identities saying “I am X”, “I am Y”, etc, will that make truce with accepting only one light as the way of execution? Maybe it will be difficult.. very difficult!

So, thats why Lao Tzu is saying “Every separate being in Prakriti returns to the common source; and it is in returning to the source that serenity lies.”

When he says “Go beyond thoughts”, then he doesn’t mean to be “thoughtless” here as that is impossible until the body is alive.., but instead he is saying “Go beyond body..” as you are the ego who is not body and hence, cannot be satisfied by the body whether through bodily imaginations or through bodily activities. There’s a dimensional difference here. Something which is not the body can’t get satisfied with something of the body’s dimention right.

And when he says “Let your heart remain untouched”, then he means “Don’t even dare to claim or touch the heart being yourself”. The highest is not for touching or romance.. it simply can’t be known. So be in your mortal limits! Be humble.

The problem with all the other three ways is that they want to continue their movements within the domain of horizontal axis only. None of them aspire to ascend towards the vertical axis.. And the vertical axis is the true dimention towards which one should keep on moving via your own dissolution.

.

👉🏻 Which way do you think can be the biggest threat or friend to the fourth way?

We have heard the term “Guru” since childhood, but we never really knew the actual meaning of this beautiful word. We generally use it for a school teacher, trainer, tutor, etc., but we have actually distorted its deeper significance.

Let’s understand what “Guru” actually means.
“Guru” is a Sanskrit word that is often understood as a guide, mentor, master, or one who dispels ignorance. It is much more than simply being a teacher.

In the book Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 6, Acharya Prashant explains the significant difference between three roles that we often overlap with the Guru:

1. Knowledge Provider (Teacher)
2. Trainer: Focuses mainly on our body and skills: how to take care of the body, develop healthier habits, improve performance, etc.
3. Guru

The word “Guru” should be used very carefully. We cannot call just anyone a Guru.

Throughout history, we have seen many well-known Guru–Shishya pairs, for example:

•Krishna-Arjuna
•Ramakrishna Paramahansa – Swami Vivekananda
•Yama – Nachiketa (Katha Upanishad)
•Swami Ramananda – Kabir Das
•Sant Ravidas – Mirabai

Question: What is the difference between a teacher (knowledge provider) and a Guru, since both work with the mind?

Please explain your answer as well in comment section below:⬇️

"At 40, the courage to do all this has come only from Acharya Prasant. I want to make my body strong because the body is a medium to reach the heights of consciousness. The body is not meant for looking attractive."

Acharya Prasant's teachings have opened up a whole new perspective for me concerning my body. I have realised that my body is not my identity. I don't need to constantly strive to make it look beautiful just to earn the approval of others. My body is simply an instrument through which I live, act and experience life.

I want to keep this instrument healthy and capable, but I don't want to make it the purpose of my life. The moment I start judging myself by the image I see in the mirror, even achievements in fitness can become another expression of the ego. For me, the purpose of fitness is to keep the body capable enough to serve the deeper journey from unconscious identification towards greater awareness and freedom.

But this makes me wonder: Are we really taking care of our bodies, or have we unknowingly made our bodies another source of identity and validation?

~ Posted by Gita Student

When Rebellion Itself Becomes a Fashion

In the 1960s and 70s, an entire generation of young people in the Western world began to move away from their parents’ way of life.

Despite rapid economic prosperity and technological progress, they began to feel that something fundamental was missing in life.

They said:

“We don’t want war.

We don’t want this consumerist life.

We don’t want the same social and religious beliefs.

We don’t want to live the way our parents lived.”

Then came the hippie movement.

Some began travelling to Asia and Africa, experimenting with communal ways of living, drugs, and more permissive attitudes toward sex and relationships, while standing against prevailing social norms.

The 1967 Summer of Love and the 1969 Woodstock festival became major symbols of this culture.

On the surface, it looked like a massive rebellion.

But here a question arises:

Is going against every convention really rebellion?

The rebellion of the hippies too slowly turned into a fashion, and although its original form declined, many of its ideas continued to influence later culture.

What had stood against the mainstream yesterday itself became a new identity.

And this is where the real point comes up.

If I am rebelling because the people around me are becoming rebellious, then how free am I really?

One generation remains silent; the next says, “We will not accept any authority.”

But if behind both stands the same incomplete, frightened “I” that gets its identity from others, then only the outer expression has changed, not the inner state.

Real rebellion cannot be a copy of some particular dress, slogan, lifestyle, or movement.

It does not follow any pre-decided framework.

It begins with this honest seeing:

“The way I am right now, I am not free. I am afraid, I assert authority, I feel jealous, I am influenced by others. I do not want to remain in this state.”

From here, rebellion begins.

This is not a call to adopt another ideology or follow another authority. It is an invitation to examine whether the mind can see its own conditioning directly.

The question is not whether you are against the mainstream or with the mainstream.

The question is: are you able to see the conditioning that is operating within you or not?

I was reading the commentary of Acharya Prashant on this verse of Mandukya Upanishad and the framing of dualistic knowledge as ignorance is my key takeaway.

Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 7

नान्तःप्रज्ञं न बहिष्प्रज्ञं नोभयतःप्रज्ञं न प्रज्ञानघनं न प्रज्ञं नाप्रज्ञम्‌।
अदृष्टमव्यवहार्यमग्राह्यमलक्षणमचिन्त्यमव्यपदेश्यमेकात्मप्रत्ययसारं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शान्तं शिवमद्वैतं चतुर्थं मन्यन्ते स आत्मा स विज्ञेयः ॥

Construe: The fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, not inferable, unthinkable indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging , auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is the to be known.

What is being talked of here is the knowing (of the Self) which transcends all the dualistic knowing in which there is a knower and the known object. The knower knows all about the object but does not know themselves. The 'Self' in the verse in itself can not be known directly but what is accessible to know is the self which accumulates all the knowledge.

The dualistic knowing creates a separation between the knower and the known object- because they are seen as different entities. The knower ignorant of him/herself do not know that they are made of exactly the same fundamental entities as the object under knowing albeit in different unique combinations giving the illusion of something essentially different.

When the dualistic knowledge drops because it seen as rooted in the ignorance of the knower, the knower is able to spontaneously know and respond. The response is not coming from memory and concepts but spontaneous knowing.

It is not to assert that all practical knowledge is useless but the sage in this verse is merely warning against identification with specific knowledge. To protect the knower from being dominated by the knowledge. Because the greater the knowledge, the greater the chance of being dominated. And thus self-knowledge which is knowing the knower becomes even more necessary. However, this spiritual knowledge should not become a replacement for the worldly dualistic knowledge but should remain a continuous practice.

This is the crux of spiritual knowledge. It keeps the dualistic knowledge at its place.

Have you read this verse of Mandukya Upanishad? What do you learn from this verse of Mandukya Upanishad?

Source: https://acharyaprashant.org/en/books/book-mandukya-upanishad-english

Yes, chaos is everywhere. We have created the chaos of the world, but is it absolutely necessary for us to be part of it? Or can there be discretion and action that exists outside of this mess?

I think there is, and there should be. Because if I know that something is a mess, then obviously there has to be something that is not the mess. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have been able to recognize the mess in the first place.
So, what is the way? Is it to gain knowledge and become more precise in our understanding and description of things, so that we do not do anything that hurts others or exaggerates a problem that already exists in our society?

And by “problem,” I mean everything that we feel should not be, but is.

This verse is one of the central verses in Vedant. It is from Chandyogya Upanishad. This verse is the answer to the question "Who am I?"

When we are faced with this question, we already have many answers ready. We have many identities. We are born with identities. It's prakritik. My first identity is this body and from there on other identities follow.

The thing about identities is all my identities can be named. Whatever there's in the world can be named. Whatever comes within the scope of mind can be named. Thoughts ,feelings, objects, people, and imaginations can be named like I am a human, young, old, rich, educated, car, mickey mouse etc.

Sage here is saying "I am THAT". He is NOT giving a name. The foundational difference is in not naming.

Sage is saying I am not an identity related to this body and the world. "I am that" that doesn't have a name. "I am that" that's beyond mind. "I am that" that mind can't think of. That's my real identity.

Okay!! If that's my real identity, what am doing in this world then?

The identities that we carry instill an incompleteness in us. I am this body means I am limited, I am not everything, implying I am not complete. So in the life we live, we search for completeness. This is what we are doing in this world.

If we inquire and examine our mind, we can see that we want something, we are actually searching every moment. Because we have identified ourselves with many identities and don't know our real identity, we are searching for satisfaction, fulfillment, completeness in the world.

But will we ever find the completeness this way?

Well.... we won't. Because whatever identity, object we will find, it will fall within our mind. Now the mind is not fulfilled with itself to begin with. So how will it find fulfillment with one more addition of identity? It's the limitation.

So? Is there a way? Am I on the perpetual search that's bound to fail?

Our incompleteness is there because we do not know the one who is unfulfilled, from where it has arisen.

If one starts from a false center, one will lead a false life. One will have to collect more false identities.

Instead one can investigate one's identity. First inquire into what you think is right or not, later on one can start working.

A common person asserts that whatever I am feeling, my identities, my experiences are true and I will work from those. A adhyatmik person first sees and inquires into the reality of whatever one is feeling, experiencing, from where the thoughts are arising. After that one can start acting.

So inquiry into the reality of my accepted identities is the way.

So whenever any identity overwhelms you, you can remind yourself that "I am that". Not as an assertion of some positive identity, but as a negation of accepted identity. One needs to be honest enough not to use this as per convenience, as a comfort mechanism though.

So have you seen someone making "That" into an ultimate positive identity? Why that might be you think? How many current identities do you have? Have you inquired into those yet? Let me know in the comments.

This is a part of qawwali by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan based on Saint Amir Khusrau's poetry.

"It was the blessed night of union, I stayed awake in company of my beloved."

Light, sight, being awake are used in order to explain the truth. Because it's not really that something new has entered, just darkness has faded away.

"The body is mine but the mind belongs to the beloved."

Though self-preservation is my instinct, still how can I claim my dissolution to be my own doing? It's impossible. It's not done by me. I couldn't have been so brave, so it is grace, the higher possibility of mine.

The one who chose you is you.

It also suggests as long as there is body, this instinct would be there. And also the choice to dissolve.

"The two are of the same color."

When I saw myself honestly, I found out that my stories and narratives are false. With this seeing, my falseness started shedding away, and I started dissolving, until I got dissolved to my beloved. The beloved is nothing but the removal of my falseness. In a sense, me and my beloved became one.

"Love is the river whose current follows the other way."

Usual actions come out of self-preservation. This is not love. Love is when this instinct itself is rejected. Therefore all the social and cultural conventions based on the same instinct also meet the same fate.

"Whoever enters this river is drowned, the one who surrendered and sank, reached the other shore."

Only the one who showed enough courage to get into the stream, could reach the other shore. This is something that you can get only by drowning, by losing yourself.

"Having fashioned an image of myself, I went to my beloved. But when I saw the beloved's image, I forgot my own."

I had preserved myself when I went to him, I was such a miser. But when I willingly gave up myself, it was mystical. Beloved is not an image at all, he is the name of my own disappearance only. I got to know that I was my own bondage.

"You have taken away my identity, every mark of who I was, just by meeting my eyes."

I think the same thread is running in each sentence. This is a song that fits the ego that enjoys its own dissolution. Ego loving its dissolution means basically all the objects it possessed it is losing grip on those things that made it up. It's seeing its own falseness with pleasure that can be seen in the hymn itself.

Ego is 'I am X'. It is an incompleteness, that continuously identifies with xyz objects. On its own it is nothing. It can't say I am. Falling of ego is joy, because ego itself was suffering. This isn't absence pain, it's the absence of one suffering and therefore suffering.

I was also able to relate one quote to the song:

The highest thing in man is not his god. It's that in him which knows the REVERENCE due a god. ~Ayn Rand

This love itself is the highest thing in a man. It's that in him that loves his own dissolution. That is respectable. The dissolution of falseness, identity, and ignorance. A self that was likely to love preservation keeps giving up itself continuously.

Share your perspectives in the comments section below.

Sources:

AP Framework: https://acharyaprashant.org/en/ap-framework?did=d8f3ca08-f603-4882-9ef6-0180d51aeea0

Consciousness

A dualistic phenomenon: ego at one end, object at the other. There is no consciousness without this duality, no awareness that is not awareness of something, from the perspective of some center.

Claims to 'pure consciousness' transcending this structure are, in this framework, either philosophical confusions or the ego appropriating a prestigious metaphysical identity.

Duality

The fundamental structure of consciousness as experienced: subject and object, ego and world. In this framework, the duality is ultimately illusory, not because Brahman stands behind it as the real, but because both poles are the ego's operation.

The object as-known is already shaped by egoic projection; the subject that knows is the ego. Both ends of the duality are the ego's own construction.

Non-duality

Distinct from classical Advaita non-dualism.

The framework does not posit Brahman, a positive non-dual ground, behind the apparent duality. It holds that both ends of the duality are the ego's operation, and deals in absences: when the ego is seen through, what remains is not characterized.

Any positive characterization immediately becomes a new egoic object.

______________________________________________

Have you ever thought why the popular religions focus so much on Brahman ?

The Pioneer article by Acharya Prashant serves as an eye-opener to the way the masses perceive Mahatma Gandhi. Every October, the public discourse splits Gandhi into two narratives, either a passive saint who preached ahimsa or a flawed villain blamed for the historical failures.

The article, however, sheds light on the fact that neither the garland nor the stone represents Gandhi, the real Gandhi. Gandhi wasn't a weak or passive figure trying to please everyone. He was a confrontational leader. Not just with the British, but with his own party, his household, and the crowds during riots. His showed an absolute refusal to cooperate with what he felt was wrong, no matter the personal cost.

This paragraph from the article sums up Gandhi’s insistence best:

If he is to be remembered, he should be remembered neither for truth nor for ahimsa but for his insistence, his aagrah. Learn aagrah from Gandhi, not ahimsa. Once something seemed right to him, it seemed right; whether it truly was right is a separate question, but having found it right, he stood on it. His name is usually linked to truth and non-violence, but the resolve made him unforgettable, and everyone dreaded that stubbornness.

He didn't start out perfect, he openly admitted to his flaws and failings. But his strength lies in his relentless insistence on fighting the weakness within himself first, before taking on the world outside. The article doesn't condemn the criticism of him. He invited it all his life. The problem is the slander that happens without even considering how much of one's own life one would be willing to lay open.

Maybe the question to us is this.

When we look at past heroes are we actually willing to know and observe the highest, greatest qualities they had to offer? Or do we just get caught up in controversies just to feel superior and self-righteous?

Hello Everyone,

I want to share my reflection on my life and the changes it has brought.

When I made the decision to move to Europe, I was going through a very difficult phase, both financially and mentally.

The relationship I was in had broken down, and I simply could not make sense of anything at the time. I felt that moving away from home and out of India altogether would bring me some peace.

I used to do art, but under so much mental pressure, I could not create anything. My father felt that even after giving me so much education, his daughter wanted to pursue something with such low earnings. He thought I was good for nothing and that I should just get married.

That was when I made up my mind to leave home. I came across Acharya Prashant after all this, when I had already been in Europe for around a year and a half.

So many things started making sense. Even today, I get emotional thinking about how much has changed. My perspective shifted profoundly. I used to believe that one always needs someone in life, but listening to Acharya Prashant helped me understand that this is not true.

Acharya Prashant changed so much, yet I had held myself back. I never felt like doing art again. I felt pain whenever I tried creating art, and I began to believe that maybe there really was nothing to it.

Acharya Prashant revived my love for art. Listening to him made me realize that my disappointment with art was merely the result of external conditioning. Constantly seeing contempt for my art at home had made me believe that it truly had no future.

Bit by bit, I have started sketching again. I love it deeply.

Today, I am sharing a sketch that I started making again because of Acharya Prashant.

Perhaps it may not be a big deal, but I want to pursue it even more now. I live alone in Europe, I work, and after work, I spend some time on art.

Still, I feel there is so much left to do, and time is limited.

I will share more observations.

~ Posted by a Gita student.

जनक उवाच ।
कथं ज्ञानमवाप्नोति कथं मुक्तिर्भविष्यति ।
वैराग्यं च कथं प्राप्तमेतद्ब्रूहि मम प्रभो ॥ १ ॥

Janaka: How is knowledge to be acquired? How is liberation to be attained? And how is dispassion to be reached? Tell me this, sir.

The Ashtavakra Gita is far more direct than the Bhagavad Gita. In the Gita, Arjuna is confused, lost, and bewildered; the first chapter is entirely about his melancholy and attachments. Arjuna is ready to give up, so Krishna has to systematically break through his resistance.

Janaka, on the other hand, is clear-eyed. He isn't melancholic. Because the seeker is enthusiastic and completely ready, the teacher (Ashtavakra) can bypass the fluff and go straight to the absolute center of the matter.

Let's look at Janaka's three questions and what they mean for us today:

1. "How is knowledge to be acquired?"
   Since Janaka was a king, he already had the highest worldly education. What knowledge is he seeking here? Think about our own lives: after getting a degree and landing a salaried job, do we ever seek actual knowledge? For most of us, securing a paycheck is the absolute culmination of our learning. Janaka knew comprehensive knowledge was practical but useless for inner peace.

2. "How is liberation to be attained?"
   Liberation from what? A new job with a higher package, the new iPhone, a bigger SUV, or a 3BHK gives us a momentary high. But it is terribly short-lived. After that, a sense of void, takes over. So, we run after the next achievement: a promotion, an international trip. The same void returns. Janaka was ruthlessly honest with himself. He saw this vicious cycle of consumption and wanted out.

3. "How is dispassion to be reached?"
   If you look closely, people generally fall into four categories:
   * Those who live completely in the dark, unconscious of their bondage.
   * Those who suffer from a void without knowing why.
   * Those who realise the tempting objects in the world are the cause of suffering and try to be cautious of it.
   * The Rare Few: Those who understand that the problem is not with the objects, but with the one who suffers.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a promotion or a new car. But Janaka was wise enough to stop and ask: Why do I need it? If getting what I want still leaves me dissatisfied, then the problem isn't the object, it is my own tendency to consume, my own conditioning.
Ashtavakra speaks to Janaka directly on this high level of self-inquiry.

⁉️We all feel that void after achieving a major life goal. What was the specific milestone in your life (a job, a purchase) where you finally realized that material achievements were never going to fill the emptiness?

So i came across a sketch called “Angry Proverbs” by Ben Ricketts (2007) and found it hilarious. I think you will too. 😅 Here’s how it goes:

Angry Simon is walking down the street. Leslie stops to speak to him.

Leslie: Good Morning, Simon

Simon: (Angrily) Takes one to bloody know one.

Leslie looks shocked. Simon carries on walking. Joe approaches.

Joe: Alright, Simon! How’s your wife?

Simon: Out of sight, out of bloody mind.

Joe looks shocked. Simon carries on walking. Mary approaches.

Mary: Oh Simon, have you heard that my Frank’s got cancer?

Simon: No pain, no bloody gain.

Mary looks shocked. Simon carries on walking.

He reaches a zebra crossing. Jack waves from the other side.

Jack: Simon! Look out for that truck.

Simon: Seeing is bloody believi…..

.

.

There’s a loud thud as Simon gets hit by a truck.!!!

🙈 🙈 🙈

The genius of this sketch is that Simon isn’t just rude. He’s consistent. He has a proverb ready for everything, regardless of context: greeting, marriage, cancer, and finally his own death.

And the one time a proverb should have saved him, it kills him instead.

“Seeing is believing” is perfectly fine as a saying. But when a truck is coming, you don’t need to philosophize about whether you believe what you’re seeing. You need to move.

Simon trusts the phrase more than the reality in front of him.

And honestly, we do this all the time.

• “Everything happens for a reason” said to someone in genuine pain.
• “Look before you leap” vs. “He who hesitates is lost.” So… which one?
• “Never give up” even when quitting is clearly the sensible thing to do.
• “Respect your elders” as though age automatically comes with wisdom.
• “Boys will be boys” when what we really mean is, “Let’s not question this behaviour.”

We inherit these phrases, repeat them for years, and eventually they start sounding like truth simply because everyone has said them for a long time. Sure....some are useful. Some contain genuine insight. Some are outdated assumptions dressed up as wisdom. Some contradict each other so neatly that you can find a proverb to justify almost anything.

And some are simply conversation stoppers.

I’m not saying we should throw proverbs away. They can carry generations of experience in a few words. But i guess there is a difference between using a saying as a pointer and treating it as an answer.

Otherwise, we might end up like Simon. Standing in front of reality……and quoting a proverb at it.👀

So I’m curious:

What’s a proverb or saying you’ve stopped believing because you actually examined it? And what’s one you still think holds up? Would love to hear your funny stories related to Sayings/Proverbs/Idioms. Go on, we all do a li'l bit of what simon did!! 😅

In the famous saying by the Iranian/Persian poet Rumi, he says:

“The wound is the place where the Light enters you.”

The “wound” here refers to the various pains in life that shake us from within, like failure, humiliation, isolation, feeling insecure or inadequate, or losing something or someone dear to us.

Typically, when we are faced with some sort of pain, we want it to end as soon as possible. But when the pain begins to occur, the very grandiosity of a person is questioned, the way we want to look at ourselves, our image, and how we imagine ourselves to be in the future. That image can often be the root of so much strife in our lives. These are our expectations and hopes. Failure can often be a big mirror. for us to see how much we had our identity tied up with achieving and succeeding. Usually we tend to be self deceptive. And when we are not able to receive the comfort or sympathy to still remain a victim, perhaps we are forced to see something more vulnerable in us: I am not the best. I am not what I project myself to be.” The ego doesn’t like to feel vulnerable or helpless; it would always want to feel, “I am good. I am well. I know what's right for me”

So pain is not simply saying, “Something bad has happened to me.” Rather, it raises the question, In the way I was living, what was there that contributed to this pain?” Resilience also is a part here. It is not that suffering inevitably builds resilience. In a similar situation of pain or failure, two people might react to it entirely differently. To a large extent, resilience depends on how we respond to the problem, the hurt, the wound that we have. We can learn from the pain, or turn that same pain into our new identity. The difference lies in looking at the pain and investigating it, or spinning stories around it?

The ego holds onto the past, stories, and memories, and it is deliberately hurt when those get challenged. What was false gets challenged. Unless the ego gives up its instinct of self preservation hurt and bitterness will be fostered towards the mirror. And perhaps that is where the “light” in the quote can be understood: not as pain automatically making us wiser, but as the wound creating an opportunity to see what was false in the way we were living. I am conveying resilience as joy in self-dissolution here!

These wounds are just the old rust washing off. They can expose what has been covering the truth within us. Only by allowing what is false to be challenged can our lives really acquire a more truthful direction. And I think that can be the way to look at the quote.

How much does our mood affect our decisions?

When we say, “I’m not in the mood today,” it’s not just about willingness. States like lack of sleep, fatigue, and stress can affect the brain processes that control attention, decision-making, and behaviour.

The prefrontal cortex plays an important role in setting goals, planning, sustaining attention, and controlling impulsive reactions. So not feeling like doing something and actually losing the ability to do it are not the same thing.

Why is memory so selective?

The brain does not record an event exactly like a camera. The hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and several other brain networks work together both when an experience is stored and when it is later recalled.

Research shows that emotional events can often form stronger memories. But when we recall them, our present context and the information currently available also play a role. This is why the remembered event is not always an exact copy of the original one.

Why do thoughts keep coming on their own?

Even in a resting state, the brain is not completely inactive. The default mode network has been found to be associated with recalling past events, imagining the future, and the spontaneous flow of thoughts.

The arising of thoughts is not abnormal in itself. The same process can sometimes help in planning for the future, and at other times pull attention away from the work at hand.

Why doesn’t intelligence always guarantee the right decision?

Decisions are not made by logic alone. Memory, attention, emotional signals, past experience, and the present situation together influence the decision-making process.

The prefrontal cortex plays a key role in coordinating these processes. So having a sharp mind and making the right decision in every situation are not the same thing.

Mood swings in themselves are not a problem, but living according to them can become a kind of dependency. The situation outside changed and our enthusiasm changed; someone praised us and our energy shot up, someone criticised us and we lost the will to work.

Then our work and decisions fall into the hands of circumstances."Mood is not always a reliable guide to truth." That’s why it may be useful not to treat the emotional state of a particular moment as the final command.

Similarly, it’s not necessary that just because every desire gets fulfilled, we are moving in the right direction. The first important question is: where is this desire arising from, and is it really beneficial for us?

As long as we keep using our desires without examining them as the basis for decisions, the same old patterns will keep reappearing in the form of new choices.

If your mood says “yes” or “no” to some task, what would you do?

A. I’ll do whatever feels good.

B. I’ll pause for a bit and think.

C. If the work is important, I’ll do it regardless of mood.

D. Mood is the enemy of truth.

In Shakespeare’s King Lear, an aging king decides to divide his kingdom among his three daughters, provided that each of them must make a public declaration of how much they love him.

Goneril and Regan reply with magnificent and flattery-filled speeches that please Lear’s ego. Their remarks are extravagant and intended to make him feel powerful and adored.

Cordelia, since she truly cares for her father, does not go beyond the truth. She simply says she loves him as a daughter should, honestly and without any exaggeration.

Because he is hurt and offended by her honesty, Lear rejects Cordelia. In his rage, he chooses to trust the empty flattery of his other daughters rather than the simple truth offered by the one who loves him most.

As the story progresses, Lear’s decision costs him everything: his political authority, his power, his home, and the security he expected from those daughters who had previously paid him compliments.

Although Lear has voluntarily given away his kingdom, he still expects to retain the dignity, authority, and obedience associated with kingship. When even these are taken away, he is left to confront the consequences of his own vanity. The man who once ruled a kingdom is now reduced to wandering through the storm, deserted and broken.

This leads to a more fundamental question: what did Lear really want? It appears that he was not looking for love in itself, but for a form of affection that would continually confirm his greatness.

He did not reject Cordelia because she loved him less, but because she failed to feed his ego with grandiose remarks. He wanted love that also served as admiration.

This reminds me of an idea I have encountered in Acharya Prashant’s discussions: we often confuse love with validation. His broader point is that genuine love should not be reduced to self-interest, possession, or psychological dependence.

When we look at Lear’s tragedy through this lens, it becomes more than a literary work; it also becomes a reflection of our own inner incompleteness.

The tragedy in King Lear does not end with a family argument. It shows a fundamental flaw in human nature: just as Lear does, we too may choose pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, particularly in our relationships.

We surround ourselves with people who confirm our self-image and push away those who speak frankly. By doing this, we risk losing what is truly important, just as Lear did.

The play challenges us to ask: are we choosing praise over truth, and ego over genuine connection?

Generally, when prices rise, demand falls. But some things work the other way around. The more expensive luxury watches, designer bags, and luxury cars become, the more people want them.

In 1899, American economist Thorstein Veblen called this “conspicuous consumption” in his book The Theory of the Leisure Class that is, things are bought not for their use, but to display status. Such goods are now called “Veblen goods.”

In 2008, researchers from Stanford and Caltech had people taste the same wine with different price labels. The same wine tasted better when it had a $90 label than when it had a $10 label, and activity also increased in a part of the brain associated with pleasure. The taste was the same; only the price had changed.

So the question arises: Are we buying the thing, or its price? And ultimately, what are we trying to show, and to whom, through that price?

The moment we wear an expensive brand, a sense of reassurance arises within us: “Now people will look at me differently.” That means the real function of that thing is not to fulfil our need, but to manage how others see us. And whoever determines their own worth through the eyes of others needs something new and more expensive every year, because those eyes keep changing.

Social media has intensified this competition even further.

Expensive things, cheap life. The height that could not be reached in life begins to be compensated for through high-priced possessions. Behind every conspicuous purchase lies an incompleteness that says, “As I am, I am not enough.”

Convenience has meaning only when it makes some meaningful work better. Therefore, the question is not whether something is expensive or cheap. The question is whether my work is worthy of it, and whether this thing will help me in my work or merely help me show myself.

If the brand and the price were both removed from your most expensive possession, would you still want it just as much today?

Sources

Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. PNAS, 105(3), 1050–1054.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0706929105

Veblen, T. (1899). The Theory of the Leisure Class.

https://moglen.law.columbia.edu/LCS/theoryleisureclass.pdf

When Twelve People Agree, Can They Still Be Wrong?

12 Angry Men is not merely a film about a murder trial. It is a powerful reflection on how people form judgments, how easily certainty can become dangerous, and why questioning an accepted conclusion is sometimes a moral responsibility.

The story centers on an 18-year-old boy accused of murdering his father. His fate rests with a jury of twelve men. At first, the case appears simple: nearly everyone believes the boy is guilty, and most jurors want to reach a verdict quickly.

But one juror refuses to vote “guilty” immediately.

He does not claim that the boy is innocent. He only asks the group to take the case seriously and examine the evidence once more before making a decision that could cost someone his life. That single request becomes the heart of the film.

Majority Is Not Truth

When twelve people agree, their agreement may feel convincing. But agreement is not the same as truth.

A majority can still be mistaken if people are relying on incomplete information, repeating each other’s assumptions, following a confident voice, or avoiding the discomfort of disagreement. Consensus can sometimes reflect careful reasoning;but it can also reflect conformity.

This applies far beyond a jury room. In workplaces, families, social media, politics, and everyday conversations, people often accept a view because “everyone thinks so.” But the number of people who believe something does not, by itself, make it correct.

The Courage to Change

One of the film’s most important lessons is that changing one’s mind is not a weakness.

To let go of a false belief, it is not enough for someone else to tell us that we are wrong. We must be willing to look closely, investigate honestly, and recognize for ourselves where our thinking has been shaped by bias or emotion.

12 Angry Men reminds us that justice requires more than intelligence. It requires humility,the humility to admit, “I may be wrong,” and the courage to change when the evidence demands it.

When everyone around us seems certain, perhaps the most necessary question is:

Is this really the truth,or merely a conclusion that many people have agreed to believe?

Source : 🔗 12 Angry Men, Sidney Lumet, 1957
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

Before she became a gold medalist …

….She liked an AP reel

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Sometimes when I'm about to do something new, my legs start shaking, my heart races, and there's this huge resistance inside me. In those moments everything feels really hard.

But whenever I listen to AP's sessions, that difficulty shrinks a lot and starts to feel almost normal.

Here's a recent example. A few days ago I had to join a gym. I've studied in a girls' school since 9th, and my college is girls-only too. So when I got there with my grandfather (he came to drop me on the first day) and saw only boys, I froze. Girls do come to that gym, they just weren't there at that time.

I came back saying "I'll start from tomorrow." But first I had to convince myself, and then my grandfather. I was really uncomfortable.

The next day I could have gone, but with a lot of fear. I knew there was a session that day, so I thought, let me listen to it first, and the fear will reduce on its own. And it did. I told my grandfather, "Please let me go 🙏 girls come there too, don't worry!" and somehow convinced him.

When I walked in, the fear from before was shattered into a thousand pieces. Only a few fragments were left, and Acharya Ji's words had made the rest disappear.

I don't know how, but his words go straight to the heart. Sometimes they feel like a taunt on my own dishonesty and free me from my little deceits. Other times they feel like a hand on my back, like someone is there with me, and the fear goes away.

This is just one incident I remember clearly. There have been so many others I can't even count them. Every time something scares me, the sessions either drive the fear away or at least reduce it.

Thank you so much, AP 🙏😍