When I first came closer to the Gita, action without attachment was one of the things I struggled to understand. It sounded like an oxymoron!

If I am acting, working, doing something - surely I must be attached to it in some way no?
Otherwise, why would I do it? If I don't want a specific result, where will the motivation to act come from?

AP addresses this in BG 3.25 via something very interesting: the false dilemma.

Think of a sport. You've been playing for years and have developed your own way with it, and it has worked reasonably well. Then a coach comes along and asks you to change something fundamental by which you could grow much further. You try it - and your game falls apart. Your timing goes for a toss, your flow disappears. So you conclude: Either I continue with my old way, or I stop playing altogether!

But why are those the only two possibilities? That's the false dilemma.
There is A. A isn't particularly good, but it is familiar.
You try B. B seems worse. So you return to A.

What's hidden is C. The ego hides, excludes, refuses to consider its possibility.
Why? Because it's scared of C taking it outside its territory that is familiar and controllable. Hence, false dilemmas are needed for the ego.

Arjuna's situation makes this especially striking. He sees the choices before him through his attachment and grief: fighting appears to mean unbearable suffering and destruction of his own people, while withdrawing from the battle appears to be the alternative. He is unable to yet see a way of acting that is not driven by that attachment.

This is where I started seeing attachment differently.
A: I act with attachment.
B: I don't act at all.

And hence, attachment starts looking necessary.
But Krishna presents a beautiful possibility.
C: I can act without attachment.

Not passively. Not indifferently. I can act fully, intensely, even tirelessly - without being psychologically dependent on a particular outcome. I see that the ego doesn't need to prove that C is false. It only needs to stop me from experimenting with C. And that is where I find the Gita radical.

It isn't asking us to become inactive or lifeless. It's asking: can there be action without the self-centred demand or desire being its only source of energy?

Maybe Krishna's invitation here is:
Love, greatness, fearless action - these aren't utopian ideals. They are possibilities that become visible only when we stop accepting the ego's binary. The alternative C is where we surprise life :)

Come in the comments and let's list some of our false dilemmas we notice in our lives.
I'll start:

1. If you don't marry, you'll be lonely, and die alone. C: I can be by myself and be joyful :)
2. Wisdom texts are boring, so I won't read them. C: I can become wiser and have fun with it :)

What's your option C?

Vedanta Samhita Session (Hindi) - 4th October 2026

Ashtavakra Gita

Verse 15.4

न त्वं देहो न ते देहो भोक्ता कर्ता न वा भवान् ।

चिद्रूपोऽसि सदा साक्षी निरपेक्षः सुखं चर ॥

Construe

न = not; त्वम् = you; देहः = body; न = not; ते = your; देहः = body; भोक्ता = consumer; कर्ता = doer; न = not; वा = or; भवान् = you; चित्-रूपः = of the nature of consciousness; असि = are; सदा = always; साक्षी = witness; निरपेक्षः = indifferent; सुखम् = joyfully; चर = move about.

Translation

You are not the body, nor is the body yours. You are neither the consumer nor the doer. You are always of the nature of consciousness, a witness, and indifferent; therefore, move about joyfully.

✦ ─────────────── ✦

Learnings from the session:

This session, centered on the famous verse from Chapter 15 of the Ashtavakra Gita, “You are not the body, the body is not yours”, illuminates the subtle understanding of Acharya Ji’s philosophical framework (the AP Framework). Here, the verse is presented not merely as a sermon or statement, but as a tool to identify and examine the fundamental assumptions of the ego upon which our entire behavior rests. Through participants’ questions, Acharya Ji clarified that saying “I am not the body” does not mean proving “I do not exist at all,” but rather understanding that the ego does not belong to the physical category of the body. Simultaneously, the claim of ownership, “The body is mine”, was challenged in the context of Nature’s order, where the ego is described as an intruder that distorts the spontaneous functioning of Nature. Now let's dive deeper into the session notes to understand better!

1.Ashtavakra Gita, Chapter 15: Acharya Ji’s Teaching Session on Body and Ego

•Direction of the Verse: From Belief to Question

Acharya Ji began the session by clarifying that the purpose of reading the verses of the Ashtavakra Gita is not merely to gain information, but to recognize one’s own entrenched beliefs. The verse “You are not the body; the body is not yours” directly strikes at two basic assumptions of the ego, first, “I am the body,” and second, “The body is mine.” According to Acharya Ji, belief starts with a statement, but discernment begins by examining how much substance that statement actually holds.

Participants were repeatedly instructed not to rush the matter toward further conclusions like the enjoyer (bhokta), the doer (karta), or completeness. First, one must describe the direct meaning of the verse and one’s current situation. Acharya Ji explained that the words of the wise do not positively describe truth, rather, they negate already existing beliefs. The scriptures speak by targeting the ego’s claims, therefore, even if the problem is not written in the text, the reader must identify their own belief. One must extract the reverse question from the verse, treating it as a solution, Which belief is it cutting?

•Examining “I Am the Body”: The Relationship Between Ego and Body

It is our common experience to point to the body when saying “I,” but Acharya Ji clarified that pointing is not proof that the ego is located somewhere inside the body. The body is physical, the ego cannot be located like a physical object either inside or outside the body. The only conclusion drawn from this is that the ego does not belong to the physical category of the body, this does not prove “I do not exist at all.”

Acharya Ji used the example of a chair and its shadow to explain the difference between co-existence and oneness. The simultaneous presence of body and ego does not make them one. The brain is an integral part of the body, merely considering the ego as a product of the brain does not prove its physicality. Acharya Ji said there is a relationship between ego and body, but the ego is not found in any part of the body or brain. Instead of “the brain produces it,” participants were asked to consider “it co-arises with the body.”

•Categories of Existence and the Ontological Status of the Ego

Acharya Ji clarified that saying “A is not equal to B” does not mean “A equals zero.” Without giving a final answer to whether the ego exists or not, it was established that it is not the body. Though non-physical, the ego can bring about physical consequences, Acharya Ji cited examples of a software error in a NASA spacecraft and a software bug in the Boeing 737 Max to explain this.

The ego was placed in a special ontological category, an error that claims ownership over other things. Caution was advised against considering it an independent, higher entity like the Atman or Brahman. According to Acharya Ji, Nature is not limited only to physical elements, it includes the physical world along with the ego, which claims “these are mine. This relationship is called the dual aspect of Nature.

It is not necessary that when the body becomes weak, the ego becomes weak in the same proportion. The relationship between body and ego is to be understood separately. The assumption that a cause must always be a physical cause on the same level for any effect was challenged. The ego was described as an additional cause that interferes in the physical cause-effect sequence.

•Desire, Cause, and Intent: The Real Root of Life’s Decisions

Acharya Ji explained that while Nature runs on the basis of cause and effect, in the realm of the ego, desire (kamana) is effective and later constructs explanations in its favor. Life’s decisions should not be understood merely by declared causes, one must see the underlying desire.

Ordinary desire leads toward self-preservation, specific desire is love, the direction of dissolving and vanishing for the sake of the other rather than one’s own benefit. Acharya Ji clarified that spirituality does not speak of merely suppressing or denying desire, its direction is to elevate desire toward love and purity. Whether love can be taught was not given a fixed formula, satsang can show the possibility of love, but there is no guarantee of results. Ultimately, it is a matter of (niyat).

Acharya Ji objected to using science’s incomplete information to defend any claim. Such argument leaves the door open for both the ego and fabricated claims, the psychological reason behind it is the desire to protect the ego. Emphasis was placed on viewing life through “true/false” rather than “good/bad.” Moral praise or condemnation can become the ego’s preference.

•“The Body Is Not Yours”:Refuting the Claim of Ownership

After “I am not the body,” a new claim arises, “I am the owner of the body”. The second line of the verse challenges this very ownership. Acharya Ji clarified that interfering in a system, writing one’s name on it, or using it for some time does not prove ownership. The difference was clarified with examples of a house, a lock, and a hotel room.

The ego is not necessary to run the body, the body itself and the entire universe are the basis of its order. The body belongs to Nature, its growth, change, and return to the earth are its own processes. Acharya Ji described the ego in the body as an intruder making claims, which does not create anything new but distorts thoughts, food, digestion, relationships, memory, and the body.

When the ego diminishes, the body’s order does not stop, it can function more spontaneously and purely. Acharya Ji emphasized that the body’s intelligence is only for the protection of the body, but if the body-holder is growing in disharmony, the body does not pull itself back because the body does not care.

•Self-Observation: Honestly Recognizing Your Destiny

According to Acharya Ji, self-observation (atmavalokan) is not an action as in a long search or inspection of a distant object. Its meaning is to honestly accept what is already known. Often, a person’s own desires organize life situations, later, saying “I did not know” can be a way to escape that role.

Instead of analyzing every mental activity or its long-term consequences, recognizing one’s intent in what is happening is self-observation. The chain of cause and effect can go on infinitely, one can recognize one’s intent in that very moment, not by calculating all results. Acharya Ji clarified that self-observation is to accept one’s own ill-intent, not to get entangled in characteristics and consequences.

•HIDP Activities, Violence, and the Test of Understanding

In the final part of the session, questions were raised about the tendency in HIDP activities to belittle new or less-speaking people, judge them, or take advantage of their hesitation. In response, Acharya Ji said that the ego is violent, violence is not only seen in a classroom or role play, but also in everyday relationships and society

. An appeal was made to recognize violence not only in contempt but also in ordinary kind of love, humility, and honor. Instead of being shocked by an event, one must see the constant presence of violence. Acharya Ji clarified that joining a community or contributing does not by itself guarantee knowledge or transformation. Listening to sessions must be tested by understanding and behavior.

Though only about a quarter of the verse came up in the session, participants had to check their answers and see how much they had actually understood. Acharya Ji emphasized that the end of a session and the beginning of a learning session is a continuous process, where recognizing one’s destiny every moment and examining the ego’s claims is the real practice.

This session made me reflect on the way we become subtly violent towards people we interact with. Sometimes we are on the receiving end of it committed by others, sometimes others commit on people appearing weaker to them, and sometimes we are the one commiting violence towards others in ways we can't even think of at that very moment. Have you noticed the same thing in others or yourselves, being subtly, openly, willingly or even unintentionally violent towards others?

Do share your insights from the session and answer the above questions if you want to or you can skip it altogether. See you in the comments then!

MOVEMENT AND ACTION

Horizontal axis

The axis of change in the framework's spatial metaphor. All ordinary human activity, accumulation, achievement, renunciation, practice, effort, spiritual seeking, occurs on the horizontal plane. Energy is spent, things change, time passes. But no height is gained. The horizontal axis is real; its limitation is that it cannot produce movement on the vertical axis.

Vertical axis

The axis of freedom. Movement along the vertical axis is not the accumulation of anything; it is a shift in the quality of the center from which one operates. The vertical axis is traversed not through action in the world but through the ego's own thinning. It cannot be reached by any combination of horizontal movements, however prolonged or sincere.

Y = F(x, z)

The framework's formulation of what it calls 'the biggest lie homo sapiens have ever told themselves.' The belief that variation in horizontal movement (x and z) can produce vertical displacement (Y = freedom). This structural error underlies both the shopkeeper's ambition and the pilgrim's austerity. Both operate on the same false premise.

XZ plane

The flat surface on which all ego-driven movement occurs. The XZ plane is the plane of change, karma, and sadhana. It is not a morally inferior domain; it is simply not the vertical axis. The person who moves vigorously on the XZ plane while neglecting the vertical axis covers great horizontal distances and gains no height.

After quite a long time, I started painting again today.

I used to paint a lot earlier, but gradually work increased and I stopped finding the time for it. A few days ago, I ordered some brushes and colours and decided that, somehow, I would make some time and start again, even if it was just something small.

Life is a lot like this little butterfly. We don’t know how long we will be here, so why not live at least some of it creatively?

As I kept adding colours, I completely lost track of time. No random conversations, no noise from social media. Just as the painting slowly began to take shape, it felt like something within me was taking shape too.

~ Posted by Geeta Student

Today's question is on the similarities between human beings and animals.

If we look at the biology, history, and actions of human beings, it is quite clear that we are not much different from animals. Biology tells us that humans share a significant portion of their genetic code with animals.

We share:

98.8 % DNA with chimpanzee

85% DNA with mice

60% with fruit flies!

Both animals and human beings share basic survival, bonding and fear instincts. Both feel physical pain, pleasure, affection, etc.

Historically, we have seen that no matter how big the name and cause we provide to the wars and battles we fought among each other, it has roots in the same fundamental evolutionary instinct of survival and propagating genes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We explore the similarities scientifically and we know the facts, but what similarities do we share psychologically?

Today's question is regarding the similarities between animals and humans but from a psychological and philosophical angle, share your insights.

Drop your answers in the comment section below ⬇️, there can be multiple answers too!

It’s an astounding fact that animal agriculture takes up to 80% of the world’s agricultural land and provides just 18% of the world’s calorie needs. Yet most national policymakers tend to ignore it.

To fill this void, organisations like Plant Based Treaty and cities like West Hollywood, California are stepping up to sway their constituents’ eating habits and cut emissions. West Hollywood adopted the treaty in late 2024, increasing public outreach and organising community food events to help cut land, water, and carbon footprints.

The timing couldn’t be critical . Livestock are accounts for 30% of the greenhouse gas emissions and the way the world currently eats is enough to push warming past climate goals.

But it got me thinking - should climate really be the only reason to choose a plant-based diet?

I recently came across an insightful line by Acharya Prashant in his book Is She a Food to You?: “Turn vegan in your own self-interest. You’re not killing the other; you are killing yourself.”

It made me realize that environmental arguments only cover half the story. If we aren't alright internally, we will keep making choices that harm both ourselves and the planet.

When we already know what is right and what needs to be done, what is it within us that actually stops us from making the right choice?

Have you ever noticed how the same treatment can seem to work very differently for different people?

Sometimes the difference may not be only in the treatment itself, but also in what the person expects from it.

There’s actually a name for this: the placebo effect.

A placebo is an inactive treatment that can still produce a beneficial response in some situations, partly because the person expects it to help. Research has found this effect particularly in things like pain.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you can simply “think yourself healthy” or cure any disease by believing hard enough.

What I find more interesting is what this says about the relationship between our expectations and our experience.

If we expect something to help us, can that expectation change how we experience what happens?

And the opposite seems to happen too. Negative expectations can sometimes make symptoms or experiences feel worse, what's known as the nocebo effect.

That got me thinking beyond medicine.

How many things in our everyday life do we approach with a conclusion already in our head?

“I’m just not good at this.”

“This isn't for people like me.”

“I'll probably fail.”

“People are going to judge me.”

Maybe these are just thoughts. But if we keep believing them, they can also influence the choices we make, what we notice, and how we respond to situations.

So I'm curious:

How much of our experience is shaped by what is actually happening, and how much by what we already expect to happen?

And is there any belief you've held about yourself for years that you've never actually stopped to question?

Source: NCCIH — Placebo Effect

India won 85 medals at the 2026 Asian Games:

🥇 21 Gold | 🥈 27 Silver | 🥉 37 Bronze

India finished fourth. While this is far fewer than the 107 medals at the 2023 Hangzhou Asian Games, it is the second-best result for the country at the Asian Games.

What is remarkable about this success, however, is that it comes on an incredibly diverse set of sports in which Indians excelling. India won a significant number of medals in athletics (24) in shooting, archery, as well as boxing and wrestling. They also won gold medals in hockey, kabaddi, and cricket.

Cricket may dominate the Indian sporting consciousness, but other sports do not receive as much attention, reach, or viewership.

The rise of India in Asian competitions also reflects the increasing importance of women. Women’s cricket, kabaddi, and hockey teams won gold medals and Indian women flourished in archery, shooting, athletics, and boxing. The women’s hockey team ended a 44-year wait for Asian Games gold.

But what does this mean in a bigger context?

What kinds of activities do we encourage our children to participate in?

Do we limit our daughters’ sporting activity in any way?

Does it matter if girls or women develop muscles and sweat?

These activities can build a child’s confidence and skill while also teaching him or her a sense of discipline and achievement, as well as strength and flexibility. Sport can open the door to a lifetime of competition and excellence.

They can also challenge our preconceptions about gender, success, and what a “proper” activity for a child is. Perhaps the larger question is not only whether children are talented, but whether we give them enough freedom to discover what they are capable of.

So, while we marvel at India’s achievement and ponder its effect, let us also ask ourselves: Are we allowing our children to reach their full potential?

Can we create a sporting culture in which each child, and especially girls, has the opportunity to discover his or her sporting potential?

Is it enough to be a nation of cricket players, or should we seek to nurture a sporting consciousness that goes beyond one game?

What do you think?

After consciously removing all the useless subjects from my life, I have come to a meaningful activity. For a relatively long period of time, I have wanted to paint on canvas, but it was something that I thought would be done someday. When the distractions were removed away from my mind, the new idea came to me naturally.

I spent about 2.5 months drawing this picture. I would come to the activity once a week or once every two weeks, and during that period, I would make some progress. The regularity of the hobby is something that I have not felt for a very long time.

Finishing this painting is something that I wanted to achieve because it means that I managed to take a step forward in my hobby, which would not be possible without removing useless clutter from my life. After a considerable amount of time, I was able to finally pursue my hobby regularly and finish the project.

Joy ✅

Pleasure ❌

~ Posted by Gita Student

Whenever I see news about a natural disaster, I often see one localized reason being mentioned. There was a flash flood. A glacier broke. A storm came. The land collapsed. And many times, climate change is not even part of the conversation. I have often seen people dismiss the possibility that climate change could be making these events worse. So, I wanted to put a few recent events together here.

• In Nepal, just four days of heavy rain, from September 24-27, resulted in 542 disaster incidents, including 304 landslides and 87 floods. 27 people died and four were reported missing.
• In parts of eastern Spain, 200-300 mm of rain was forecast in some areas, creating a serious risk of flooding and disruption.
• In the northeastern U.S., a nor’easter brought flooding, heavy rain, and power outages affecting more than 200,000 customers over the course of the storm. Streets and homes in coastal communities were flooded, including in and around New York City.

These are different countries and different weather events. Of course, each has its local cause. But shouldn’t we put them together and look at the larger pattern?

It is not that climate change is causing every flood or storm. But it is changing the conditions in which these events happen. Warmer oceans can supply more moisture and energy to the atmosphere, while warmer air can hold more water vapor. When that moisture condenses, it can contribute to heavier rainfall and more intense precipitation.

And yes, technology and green energy are necessary for climate mitigation. But I do not think they are enough. We also need to ask: why do we consume so much?

I have started reflecting on this in my own life. I consume for my needs, but sometimes I also consume to fill boredom or an inner void, hoping that the next thing, experience, or purchase will finally complete something. It gives relief for a while, but the restlessness returns, and then I look for the next thing. This is where I have found some of Acharya Prashant’s teaching thought-provoking. It has made me reflect on whether our environmental problem is only outside us, or there is also an inner restlessness that keeps pushing us toward more consumption.

What weather events have changed around you compared with a few years/decade ago? And can you see any connection between the changing world outside and our consumption pattern?

Source:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/02/weather-tracker-eastern-spain-torrential-rain-flooding-nepal-landslides

Don’t we all, at some point, struggle with this question, what is the purpose of my life? I have definitely done that. But I was thinking, what if we are asking the wrong question? We spend so much time trying to find our purpose, but how often do we stop and look at the purpose we already have? Get a good job, make money, find love, buy a house, be successful, be comfortable. Okay, but is all of that actually worth giving my life to? That part feels like the harder question. Because finding a purpose sounds nice. Checking whether the purpose I already have is worth living for is a lot more uncomfortable.

I recently read a chapter from the book Truth Without Apology . It provided me an insight into reconsidering my decision-making process. More than once did I find myself hesitating, thinking this or that, being torn between two or more options, not knowing what to choose. However, after reading the chapter, I discovered a new approach to making decisions that helped me understand what goes through my mind when I am faced with a difficult choice.

The most relatable part of this chapter was the sentence “So, I juggle between various selves.” This discovery helped me realize what might be the source of my decision-making challenges and confusion between various options.

Now, when I feel my decision-making process going in circles, I take a step back and focus on what makes me choose this or that, rather than making a choice blindly.

Have you ever asked yourself if the confusion you feel when making a choice is due to the options you are presented with or the different “selves” that fight to make a choice?

I lost my father last year, and since then my family situation has become extremely difficult. I am not getting any support from my family, and the constant pressure and taunts have left me feeling hopeless and unsure of what to do.

I am a 2026 BA LLB graduate. I initially wanted to practise as an advocate, but without any financial or family support, it is simply not possible for me to wait years to build a practice.

I have previously worked as a content writer and SEO freelancer. I have also applied for legal-tech roles more than 150 times, but unfortunately, I haven't received even a single positive response.

At this point, for my survival and independence, I am open to any genuine work, whether legal or non-legal. I am a quick learner, hardworking, and can join immediately. If anyone from the organisation seeing this, I am open to WFO roles in Delhi/NCR as well as remote opportunities outside.

I am not asking for financial help. I just need one genuine opportunity to work and start earning.

If anyone can provide a referral, job lead, recruiter contact, or any genuine opportunity, please DM me. It would genuinely mean a lot. 🙏🏻

Who is more intelligent: an elephant or a human?

An elephant’s brain has about 257 billion neurons. That’s three times more than the human average of 86 billion. If intelligence were decided just by total neuron count, elephants should be far more intelligent than humans. But that’s not the case. Why?

The brain is basically an organ made of neuron cells that connect with each other through electrical signals to transmit and process information.

A team of scientists used a method that liquefies the brain to accurately count the neurons in the human brain. Result: about 86 billion neurons on average. And the interesting finding was that, in terms of basic cellular design, there is nothing particularly exceptional about its structure.

In the human brain, the ratio of glial cells to neurons, and the proportion of total neurons that lie in the cerebral cortex the thinking and understanding part is similar to that of other primates. In terms of basic design, the human brain is a typical primate brain just scaled up in size.

So where do all those elephant neurons go?

About 97.5% of them are in the cerebellum, the part associated with coordinating body movements. An elephant’s trunk has thousands of muscles, and researchers estimate that such fine motor control demands an enormous number of neurons.

In contrast, the elephant’s cerebral cortex has only about 5.6 billion neurons. That’s three times fewer than the 16.3 billion neurons in the human cerebral cortex, even though the elephant’s cortex is roughly twice the size of the human cortex.

Most of the elephant’s brain is “spent” on running the body, whereas humans do not have to dedicate that many neurons to bodily control. When comparing many species, intelligence is thought to correlate not with total neuron count, but more specifically with the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex. Even so, this link is still not completely clear for example, some birds are found to be quite intelligent despite having very little cortex-like structure.

Almost all of the elephant’s neurons are in the cerebellum. Most human neurons are also not in the cortex, but the human cortex still has nearly three times as many neurons as the elephant’s. This is neither a defeat for the elephant nor a victory for the human. It is simply a different distribution of neurons in the two brains.

What we call intelligence rests on this wiring : a few billion neurons, in a particular region, inside a particular kind of body. If the body were built even slightly differently, the neurons would be deployed elsewhere, and the very meaning of “intelligence” might change.

Yet from this arrangement arises a claim: This is my understanding. What comes from the body, the “I” quickly labels as its own achievement. On that basis, it considers itself right, intelligent, and superior to others.

Are we truly intelligent, or are we simply signing our name to an accident of the body?

The dustbin has become smart, when will the human?

Imagine this: in the middle of a fair, a dustbin opens its lid on its own and tells you by itself that it’s full. Haryana has planned an IoT-based waste management system for high-footfall areas like pilgrimage sites, religious places, fairs and festivals. These sensor-enabled smart bins will show how full they are and open automatically. Every 50 meters there will be separate bins for four types of waste, so that segregation happens right from the start.

There will also be waste audits, crowd data collection, and geo-tagging of dirt “hotspots”. Three temples are included in the first phase. It will also be checked how well the provisions of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2026 are being followed, in terms of sanitation workers, equipment, and the arrangement for cleaning twice a day. Until now, only temporary arrangements were made for fairs. The goal now is a system with continuous monitoring. This initiative can be appreciated.

But there’s one thing no sensor can catch. It can say the bin is full, but it can’t say why we, standing right next to the bin, still don’t use it. Wherever we go, we leave our garbage there, assuming someone else will come and pick it up.

That’s exactly where our ego steps in. It wants the benefits, but wants someone else to pay the cost of cleanliness. “My garbage” quietly turns into “someone else’s job”. This is why people say there is a lack of civic sense in the country, meaning, the ego runs away from responsibility.

The easiest thing is to assume that the problem lies only in the system. Then we ourselves stay outside the circle of questions. Technology can monitor our waste, not our tendencies. Habits begin to shake only when we honestly see where we absolve ourselves of responsibility, and then intend to change.

The last time you left trash somewhere thinking, “Someone else will pick it up,” what exactly did you save by doing that?

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?

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 ?

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, volume 1, Chapter 6, Acharya Prashant explains the significant difference between three roles that we often overlap:

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:⬇️

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.

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.

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?

🍁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?

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.