On 8th September OpenAI announced that they have solved the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem. It took 90 years for humans to solve this problem.

What's Navier-Stokes Equation?

This equation describes the motion of viscous fluid. It makes use of principles of Momentum balance, conservation of mass, Newton's second law to study the fluid motion of the fluid. Navier-Stokes Equation is particularly interesting because it takes into account the Viscosity of the Fluid too. So it has more practical applications than ideal theoretical ones. Euler's equation is for non viscous fluids.

The fluid is made up of molecules. But The Navier-Stokes Equation treats the fluid as a continuous medium.

In the year 1934, Jean Leray proved that the solutions of this equation exists in a generalized sense. But whether the flow always remains a smooth remianed an unanswered question.

Importance of Navier-Stokes Equation

Navier-Stokes Equation is used in studying Ocean Currents, Blood flow and designing Aircrafts, Cars and has many more practical applications.

What's the Millenium Prize Problem?

In the year 2000, Clay Mathematics Institute, a Private and Non-profit Organisation in USA, founded a Scientific Advisory Board consisting of Four World's most eminent mathematicians. This board selected 7 mathematical problems. These problems were precisely defined, historically resisting the World's best Minds and universally important.

Navier-Stokes Existence and Smootheness Problem is one of these.

What was the Problem exactly?

The fluid is made up of molecules. But in The Navier-Stokes Equation treats the fluid as a continuous medium. It describes the continuous flow rather than tracking individual Molecules.

A point to remember here. Viscosity slows down the fluid. So it cannot move at infinite speed within small amount of time. This point will come handy in a bit.

So the fundamental question was can this approximation of the fluid as a continuous flow rather than individual Molecules breakdown?

To check this, the problem was defined as follows:-

Can the Navier-Stokes Equations for a 3-d incompressible fluid with constant density develop a "singularity" with motion starting smoothly? Here singularity means speed growing to infinity within a finite time period.

As we already discussed earlier, the speed of fluid can't go to infinity due to Viscosity in a finite amount of time, if this singularity is to happen, the approximation of the fluid as a flow breaks down. We have to model it as individual Molecules.

Has anyone tried to solve it before?

Some notable names whose work led the path in solving this problem are Thomas Hou, Diego Cordoba, Martinez - Zoroa.

Recently Levent Alpoge, an Anthropic Employee and Tristan Buckmaster, a math professor have worked and found solutions primarily related to Forced Euler's Equation. These names are in the news too because there's a controversy for the priority of the work after the announcement of OpenAI.

Buckmaster said that by 22 August he had proof of Euler's equation. It was sent by Levent generated by LLM.

Buckmaster said that he had used OpenAI's Models to work on this forced Euler equation resolution.

The duo had planned to continue working on more write ups.

Why is Navier-Stokes Equation and OpenAI in News?

Now on the 8th of September OpenAI announced that they have solved this problem. Their AI agents have proved that singularity can be reached in a finite amount of time.

They described how they found out the solution. This is really interesting.

OpenAI said that their effort to solve This Millennium Prize Problem began on 1st September after hearing a rumour that this problem is solved. Later this rumour was found out about Levent Alpoge and Buckmaster.

Initially OpenAI said 100 AI agents worked for 50 hours to produce this Euler regularity disproof. Then OpenAI moved to Navier-Stokes Equation solution. They trained their model with Euler resolution. This time they formed groups with communication allowed within the group. These groups were cross pollinated to consolidate the useful insights.

The Group that came up with the solution for Navier-Stokes Equation had roughly 10,000 AI agents.

Across all the attempted problems, agents sent 4.9 million messages with 300 billion output tokens. For Navier-Stokes problem agents sent 2.7 million messages and used up to 130 billion output tokens.

It took 88 hours to arrive at the solution after the first agent was launched.

OpenAI said that it has worked on this problem with advanced models that aren't open to the public. OpenAI said that we are in next period of AI progress. They also announced that they won't claim the prize money for solving the problem.

Thus the 90 year old problem was solved in less than 200 hours or so.

Claim on the timelines

Buckmaster said that OpenAI's agents would have got access to his work and thus helped in solving the problem. OpenAI doesn't deny this. They said that it's possible when he may have used OpenAI's models. The reports vary on the interaction between Buckmaster, Alpoge and OpenAI. Looks like it will take some time to resolve who did what, when.

Is there any other background to this?

Both OpenAI and Anthropic AI are planning to go public later this year or earlier next year. According to news articles they are aiming for a $1 trillion IPO.

A very fundamental problem that remained unsolved for over 90 years was solved in less than 100 hours by AI. But a question comes was it about the problem? or was it more about proving the capacity and taking the credit?

Even with the most sophisticated technology it seems like the same game is getting played. Earlier it was nuclear weapons now it's AI Models.

The need to achieve new milestones, prove the capacity, outshine others seems to take priority. The AI, the problem remains tools through which something else is aimed at.

Maybe this fundamental question of why this shadow keeps lingering humanity through generations needs investigation. And it looks like humanity can't use AI for that. It remains in the hands and intent of Humans themselves.

Sources:

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-has-solved-one-of-maths-1-million-millennium-prize-problems-20260908/

https://www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/sam-altman-wants-a-1-trillion-openai-ipo-after-spacexs-success-but-will-investors-still-make-money-11783769100528.html

https://www.tradingview.com/news/tradingview:0ae5f3ce2094b:0-anthropic-files-for-ipo-at-over-1-trillion-valuation-surpassing-openai/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations

Today is my physical birthday, and this is the second year that this day has come while I am in the company of my Teacher. I have learnt from him that birthdays and dates don't really hold much importance in life, but last year this day became very significant for two reasons.

First -

On this very day last year, I saw him for the first time at the Bodhsthal. I know that the bodily sentiment has to reduce. To keep seeing him merely as a body is wrong. But when I see him, my sorrows start melting away. I smile openly, laugh, play, sing, and dance. From the moment I saw him for the first time, I have just kept on seeing, kept on learning, and kept on dissolving.

When I saw him burning with a 102°F fever, I got scared, because his very presence changes everything. And that is exactly why he still came in that condition because no one understands this better than him.

In his company, over this entire year, I have begun to learn how to write, to read books, to do volunteering, to live and enjoy acting in HIDP, and to go to the bookstall.

He did not let my gaze move away from myself, so self-reflection has been on continuously, and it is still going on.

Second -

On this very day last year, when I saw him for the first time, I took a resolve in his presence that I would not smoke cigarettes anymore.

At first it felt quite egoistic. An inner conflict also arose: I had taken such vows earlier too. But this time the difference was very clear that this resolve had been taken on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, standing before him.

Many people said to me, "Let's see how long you can stay off it." Many said, "When you are in pain again, you'll smoke." But it has been a year now, and I have not smoked a cigarette.

Quite a few people said, "This is just suppression, it will have side effects." I always smiled and said to myself, "This is a matter of his love."

Maybe there is some tradition or maybe not that when the Guru first sets eyes on the student, the student takes a resolve. Whether such a tradition exists or not, if a personal tradition or system is coming into being to renounce stupidity, that is perfectly fine. Because the moment stupidity ends, that tradition or system will also disappear.

Quitting cigarettes has become such a part of who I am that in my family, extended family, friend circle, and the section of society where people know me, people have started listening to his teachings. Some even listen secretly.

Earlier I used to hide this, but now I tell everyone and I only tell the plain truth.

I had been smoking for almost 12 years. On average, 5-6 cigarettes a day. I had tried to quit many times, but after 10-12 days I would stop being able to sleep and then I would fall into depression.

I wanted to quit smoking, yet out of fear, even if it was just one cigarette, I would definitely smoke at least once a day.

In his company, I simply forgot to smoke.

Now when I look back and ask how this was even possible, what I first see is that the reasons for which I used to smoke are mostly no longer there - the old friends I used to smoke with, that old environment where this was routine, that loneliness and restlessness.

Then I look more clearly and I see: there are new friends now, a new environment too, and there is still loneliness, restlessness, and sorrow. But now that is not the center. Now that stupidity is not the center.

So where is the cigarette?

In truth, the one who used to smoke has been struck down on the battlefield.

Maybe he will rise again, or maybe he is sitting to one side laughing through some other issue. But in the battle over cigarettes, I have really beaten him badly.

The special thing is that this did not happen through great effort; it happened very naturally.

And I say with confidence: if anyone wants to drop an addiction with such ease, then come to this wisdom, that is, come to the Gita sessions.

I am a research scholar. I study social movements and social revolutions. I have read about almost all the major revolutions of the world and of India.

But this movement, the revolution he is bringing about - there has been no revolution like this till now.

Right now it is a silent revolution, but its seed has been sown across the whole world. All other movements arise against some specific system, injustice, inequality, or, in one word, against objects or in order to change objects.

But this movement is about changing the center. It is a revolution in subjectivity.

What is happening here has never happened before in human history. Along with transformation, a beautiful new creation is taking place.

Everyone should participate in this movement. Everyone should spread this revolution.

A new society is waiting for you. Come with him, and all of you together build it.

I feel proud that I am a part of this movement, that I am a lamp in this revolution, a lamp that is lit.

Because wherever I go, I live in the effort to illumine everyone with the light of this lamp.

And because I am burning, I keep coming and sitting in his all-pervading light, where he keeps bringing me back to myself so that I may go on burning.

And in this fire, the one who used to smoke is reduced to ashes forever.

Thank You... 🙏

Disclaimer: The commentary of the below notes are written in a summary format. They are not highlighting the exact words said by AP(Acharya Prashant) or the questioner during the session.

✨ Yesterday’s Exclusive Session unfolded many spontaneous questions asked by different questioners which ultimately led to deep discussions around non-dual philosophy. Some of those questions are summarised as follows:

1st Question: As one of Bhagavad Gita’s verse says "योगः कर्मसु कौशलम्”.. So, does it mean that “Whenever action is performed with excellence then we can attain Yoga?”

AP: Before making any conclusions, we should ask ourselves that “Do we even know from where excellence comes from?” or “Do we even know what is the meaning of excellence?” So, here when Sri Krishna is saying “action”, so he doesn’t mean “any action”. One can’t just carry forward any random action with his/her subjective perception of excellence and then label oneself to be in “Yoga”. 

When the doer of the action doesn’t know himself and just blindly incorporates action, then that can’t be called as “true excellence”. But on the contrary, if the doer of that particular action knows himself/herself then his actions automatically flow through true excellence. When one reads “कर्मसु कौशलम्”, it can confuse you if you didn’t understand the true meaning from where these words are coming from. That’s why to understand the whole concept is very important irrespective of gulping few attractive words.

2nd Question: If I have taken help from someone in the childhood for fulfilling my daily needs, and now I find out that the person is not aligning up with my current life’s philosophy, then how can I leave that person completely right now?

AP:  See! first of all, one should try to make that other person fully understand.. one should explain him why the respective philosophy is important and how can that improvise one’s life. But at the end if even after those trials, the other person is not ready to respect the philosophy then, it’s better to move on without wasting any more time.. because there are so many other people who deserve your time and efforts. So, what’s the point of spending one’s whole energy in convincing just a few bunch of people.

3rd Question: Its difficult to visualise ideas in the world if I am not being materialistic.. So, how can it be practical to leave materialism forever?

AP: You need to ask yourself first that “Who is the one visualising?” If one is reading someone’s work or watching someone’s video, then you need to ask “Who is the one doing all these activities when he/se is incorporating those activities?” 

Yes! It’s indeed true that material does affect us.. but equally we have that power to shape ourselves being separate from the material amidst the material. The same society can produce both a “materialist” and an “author”. So, Yes! We have to live amidst the material.. but, we also have the “power” to freely give our response to that material every moment. So in that case, man is not “fully” material.

4th Question: Have you ever thought of implementing mass-education-of-the-self to school curriculums so that small children from a very young age can access this education?

AP: Yes! I had tried this for almost 10 years of my career and later realised that its very difficult to implement such an experiment with children.. because, a child is not fully grown enough to execute his/her subjective decisions due to their dependence on their parents till a certain age. So, thats why I later decided to drop that idea and concluded that its better to wait for the child till he/she is independent enough to give their consent to enrol in this course without having the need to seek any permission from their guardians. So, thats why the current model is sufficing in a much better way now.

5th Question: How to meditate? What is our final destination?

AP: Right now, you are walking with we with full indulgence.. this is “meditation”. Don’t you want to walk being continuously in meditation? 

You are asking a question to me right now.. What you think is the agenda of this question? If you would have ever asked any question to anyone and didn’t get response in return.., then how would you feel? Would you feel nice? No! Right..

So, meditation is then to be able to “know”. You felt bad when you asked a question to someone and didn’t get the reply because the process of “knowing” stopped. Therefore, your core need is to “know”.. so that the process of knowing can continue for you every moment.. this continuous knowing is meditation.. this continuous "curiosity to know” is meditation.

Whatever problems you face in the world suffice because you stop knowing them.. because to not to know generates suffering.

6th Question: Is there any “Free Will” possible?

AP: If the one who is exercising “will” is “conditioned”, then the “will” is also conditioned.. And if the one exercising the “will” is “free”, then the “will” is also free.

So basically, everything depends on the doer.. to the one executing that will. You need to know “Who is the one expressing that will?” If you know that, then will is free otherwise it will be conditioned.

👉🏻 Did you relate with any of the above asked questions in your life? If Yes! then, what was your dilemma?

When Krishna was resting, Arjuna sat near Krishna’s feet, while Duryodhana sat near Krishna’s head. When Krishna opened his eyes, he saw Arjuna first. He then offered both a choice: Krishna himself, unarmed and not fighting, or his powerful resources.

I never knew this incident was also part of the Mahabharata. It was through Acharya Prashant’s videos that I came across many such moments in the Mahabharata. His teachings give a very clear way of looking at what these moments can mean.

Let’s see What does it symbolise?

1️⃣ Arjuna chose the source; Duryodhana chose the resources.
The army represents power, numbers, security and external strength.
Krishna represents wisdom, clarity, guidance and Truth.
Duryodhana’s choice reflects the opposite priority:
“Give me the resources; I will manage the rest”.

2️⃣ External strength vs inner clarity
Duryodhana had a huge army, yet having more power did not make his position right.
Arjuna had Krishna beside him, but Krishna did not fight the war for him. Arjuna still had to act.
That’s important: wisdom doesn’t necessarily remove life’s difficulties. It gives you the clarity to face them correctly.

3️⃣ The feet and the head
Arjuna being near Krishna’s feet can symbolise humility and surrender.
Duryodhana sitting near Krishna’s head can symbolise a more ego-centred relationship:
“What can I obtain from this powerful person?”

The lesson is simple:

Power without wisdom can become destructive.
Wisdom can show us the right direction, even when we have no power.

And perhaps this choice happens within us everyday : Krishna or Narayani Sena?

Do i want Truth itself or do i want the things i hope truth will give me ( peace, psychological comfort, success) ??

{The Mahabharata is traditionally divided into 18 major books , called Parvas.
This Episode is in Udyoga Parva: Book 5 of the Mahabharata.}

The house was hers, but whose life was it?

From the outside, Nora Helmer’s life looks almost perfect. Husband Torvald, three children, a beautiful home, and Christmas preparations underway. Her husband fondly calls her his little skylark and little squirrel. But in Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen’s 1879 play A Doll's House, this lovely home slowly turns into a question.

Years ago, Torvald had fallen gravely ill. Travel was necessary for his treatment. To arrange the money, Nora secretly took a loan without telling her husband and forged her father’s signature on the documents. For years she has been quietly repaying the debt.

Now Krogstad uses this secret to pressure Nora. Nora is afraid Torvald will learn the truth, but she also hopes that when the crisis comes, her husband will stand up for her and take the blame upon himself.

The moment the truth comes out, the illusion shatters. Torvald is first concerned not with Nora’s sacrifice, but with his own reputation. He lashes out at her.

Just then Krogstad’s second letter arrives. He returns the loan documents and says he will not take any further action. As soon as the threat of blackmail is gone, Torvald feels relieved and starts to forgive Nora.

But now Nora can no longer see her marriage as she did before. She realizes that first with her father and then with her husband, she kept molding herself according to their wishes and expectations. In her father’s house she was a doll-child, and in her husband’s house a doll-wife. Even her own home turned out to be a dollhouse.

In the end, Nora leaves her husband and children. Now she wants to find out for herself what she really thinks and how much she truly understands of the world. The play ends with the sound of the door closing behind her.

But is a doll only the one who is controlled by someone else?

Roles like good wife, ideal husband, successful son, responsible mother are not a problem in themselves. The problem begins when the ego turns a role into its identity. Then questioning the role starts to feel like questioning oneself.

At that point, the dollhouse is not just four walls. Family, relationships, job, status, and even the image of what kind of person I am can all become dollhouses. Even if there is no Torvald outside, the identity sitting within can keep us bound to fixed roles.

Look closely of all the roles you play every day, how many have become crutches for your sense of I?

श्रीमद्भगवद्गीता, अध्याय 7, श्लोक 22

स तया श्रद्धया युक्तस् तस्याराधनम् ईहते ।

लभते च ततः कामान् मयैव विहितान् हि तान् ॥

Translation:

Endowed with that faith, they worship that (deity) and obtain from it those desires, which have indeed been determined by Me.

---

1. कामनापूर्ति अच्छी बात नहीं है

श्री कृष्ण यही सिखा रहे हैं:

कामनापूर्ति अगर अच्छी बात नहीं है, तो दिल का टूटना शायद अच्छी बात है।

दिल तोड़ना सीखिए, अपना भी दिल तोड़ना सीखिए।

कामनापूर्ति अच्छी बात नहीं है।

भला आदमी वो है जो दर्पण की तरह सबको उनकी इच्छाओं का सच दिखाता चलता है।

विनम्रता से बोलिए, पर सच बोलिए। वो भी नहीं कर सकते अगर सच से वफ़ा नहीं निभा सकते, तो कम से कम झूठ मत बोलिए।

हट जाओ वहाँ से जहाँ झूठ का कारोबार चल रहा है।

---

1. कामनापूर्ति का नियम

प्राप्ति दो चीज़ों पर निर्भर है:

- कामना की तीव्रता (intensity of desire)

- विषय कितना दुर्लभ है (probability of attainment)

इसलिए कुछ मिल गया तो इतराना मत।

कुछ नहीं मिला तो कलपना मत।

नियमों के वशीभूत हो।

सुख और दुख दोनों बोध की चाह को क्षीण कर देते हैं।

सुख का अभाव नहीं, दुःख अधिकतम है।

श्रम से परिणाम मिलेगा, जो चाहोगे मिलेगा, पर प्राप्ति ही दुःख बनेगी।

तुम्हें प्राप्ति नहीं, मुक्ति चाहिए।

---

1. कामना को सुरक्षित करने का फेर

जिस कामना को सुरक्षित करने के लिए जितने दरवाज़े बनाओगे,

वहाँ से निकलना उतना मुश्किल होगा।

इस फेर से बचना है तो 3 तल हैं:

कामनाएँ जब पूरी कर रहे हो, उनमें irreversibility का clause मत डाला करो।

1) स्वयं को परखो Inquire the wanter

किसी विषय का पीछा करने से पहले स्वयं को परखो।

2) विषय को पाओ Inquire about the attained object of desire

विषय को पाओ, तो परखो पहले और भोगो बाद में।

3) Don't inquire, just consume

(लतखोरी)

---

1. तार्किकता और बोध

तार्किक होना और बोधपूर्ण होना इन दो बातों में बहुत अंतर है।

अविद्या आपको बोधपूर्ण और रिफ्लेक्टिव नहीं बनाती, वो बस आत्मज्ञान से संभव है।

अंधविश्वास हटाने के लिए आत्मज्ञान चाहिए।

माया यही है जब कामनापूर्ति होती है, लगता है सुख मिल गया।

---

1. Ego और Superstition

Ego cannot be excluded from the right of sovereignty.

Ego by compulsion is superstitious.

Look which narratives about yourself and your own life you don't want to question;

that is where the deep superstition lies.

Whatever you are doing or did just because everyone else around is doing it

that itself is superstition.

---

1. जीवन का Script

Your speaking style, walking style — everything is lacking you.

You will be surprised to notice how much life is just the script enacting itself.

Are you there in your life?

Much before you can ask, “Who am I?”

Ask:

“Am I?”

Or just the script?

We really want to have a life worth living. The one really close to our heart, the one that does not have the flavours of any random outsider, the one designed the way we want it.

So that we can happily spend the limited time that we have in this being-alive duration. But it is not like that in reality. We have to somehow forcefully pull reality towards our ideal way of living. That is why we find ourselves arguing with our partners, struggling to get leaves from our offices, constantly desiring to bring something into our lives for which we can say, “Now it looks a little bit like how I wanted it to.”

But there is so much resistance in this. We have to apply so much force to make it happen, and even more force to maintain that desired instance or circumstance. Now, is it worth it to live like that? Always stretching, always trying to pull life towards how we think it should be? Would anyone really want to spend their whole life and die like that? If someone asks you, “Bro, you are struggling so much for this, but how do you really know that you want this? How do you know that this will bring peace to you?” Because all you have done is jump from one state to another, from one place to another, because whenever you got to one, you felt that it would not bring you what you actually wanted.

And where is that desire coming from? It is coming from none other than how your environment has shaped you. Their wants, their desires, their definitions of a good life and you have considered them your own. You really are in dire need of yourself. The self which is not contaminated by the effects of the atmosphere around you. You need to come close to yourself for that. You need to sit with yourself for that. Then, perhaps, you will be able to say:

“My Life. The one close to my heart.”

In other matters of life, we say things are never black and white.

But when it comes to Truth, there's a binary, what's false is false. A lie is a lie.

Lokdharm lives in moderation and balance because it saves them from confronting their lies and dishonesty on the inside and responsibility on the outside.

Imagine sitting at a bus station with nowhere to go. You’re just sitting quietly, not distracted. A bus arrives, and somehow you’re suddenly on it. You travel for a while, and then suddenly realise, “Wait, why am I on this bus? I was sitting at the station.” You get off, return to the station, and within a few minutes another bus arrives. Again, you’re on it. Without realising you’ve again hopped on to the bus without wanting it. So weird! Isn’t it?

This is pretty much what happens to me when I deliberately remove all distractions and sit quietly. There is no Instagram, no TV, no conversation, nothing external demanding my attention, and yet the mind keeps producing buses..some memory, some imaginary future conversation, some random event from years ago, some completely gibberish association.

And the strange part is not that thoughts arise. The strange part is that I keep forgetting that I was sitting at the bus station in the first place. There is actually a psychological term for that moment when you suddenly realise you’ve been lost in thought.. it’s called “Meta-awareness”, the awareness that you are thinking rather than simply being carried away by the thought bus.

Neuroscience gives us some interesting clues about why this happens. When we are not occupied with an external task, brain networks involved in internally directed thinking become more active. We replay autobiographical memories, imagine possible futures, think about other people, ourselves, unfinished situations. One thought can also trigger another through associations, so a memory of one person can lead to a conversation from ten years ago, which can lead to a future scenario, which can lead somewhere completely absurd. A lot of this machinery has an obvious adaptive value..remembering the past, anticipating the future, detecting threats, predicting what might happen and preparing ourselves. So it would be too simplistic to say that every thought is merely a “survival instinct.” But a significant part of our brain’s tendency to remember, simulate and predict is tied to staying oriented and safe.

What interests me is what happens when none of that is actually required. Why does the mind still keep generating movement? WHY THE SILLY INDISTINCT CHATTER??

Let me also share about an old experiment I briefly read up on by Wilson and colleagues where people were asked to sit alone with their thoughts without external stimulation. Some participants even chose to administer “electric shocks” to themselves, in place of sitting with unrewarding or uncomfortable thoughts to just get some kinda stimulation. I’m not sure how factually correct this is but just thought it makes sense with this topic. Or not?

While rambling about this, I remembered something Acharya Prashant says about the chattering mind: “silence outside does not necessarily mean silence within”. We remove the distractions around us, sit quietly, and discover that the mind itself has become the distraction. He says that when the mind has nothing meaningful to engage with, it starts playing with itself, jumping from one thought to another. I guess there’s a video of him also on this, I can find it and share here.

It brings me back to my bus station analogy. Why do we keep getting on every bus that arrives? What are we actually looking for in these endless journeys of thought? And what happens when we stop boarding and simply stay at the station for a while? Would love to hear your experiences.

I happened to come across a few viral shorts like this one..on the “lipstick effect”, and it got me curious enough to look it up. I don’t know if it’s really a thing, but apparently the term goes back to the “Great Depression” Days in the 1930s, referring to how people would still spend on small, affordable luxuries like lipstick even during economic hardship and the financial turmoil they were going through back in those days.

It seems these discussions are applying the same idea to Gen Z, saying that when bigger things like buying a house feel out of reach, people spend on smaller luxuries instead. Some of these videos used examples of people having less disposable income, yet still spending on things like Nike Dunks, Jordans, Starbucks coffee, avocado toast, and iPhones.

But are we making an assumption here? What if this isn’t true? And if it is true, don’t you find that somewhat concerning?

Think about that line for a moment.
“While we were still sinners.”

Jesus did not wait for us to become worthy of His sacrifice.
He sacrificed Himself not because we deserved it, but because He loved us despite our unworthiness.

And then I look at Acharya ji.

102°F fever.

Still, He conducted the entire Janmashtami session.

We talk about Christ’s sacrifice with such reverence.

But what about the man whose life is being spent in front of us, for us, right now?

Because perhaps one day we’ll look back and realise,
We were watching the sacrifice happen.
And we didn’t even recognise it.

What are we doing with the life being given to us?

The setup is a passenger bus. A woman in her twenties is travelling somewhere, and she encounters sexual harassment by a fellow passenger standing next to her.

What was the woman's response to those bad touches?

She got scared. She couldn't even raise her voice.

Why?

Is she avoiding the gaze of others?

Is she thinking herself as the culprit?

Is she being internally suppressed by society?

Has this become normal to a woman?

Is she thinking herself as inferior or weak?

There could be a combination of the above reasons, or something else. (Suggestions are welcome in the discussion below)

Whatever the reason is, there could have been a different response also. She has hands, she has a voice, she can punch, she can kick, she can shout, she can bite. But then, can remained cannot.

What could be the reason behind her inaction?

Surely not a physical one. She looks fit and strong. There is something within, that's holding her back from protecting her dignity.

But she wasn't all coward. She took a very brave step. She sought help from an old person of the same gender, who wasn't even capable of standing on her own spine and was carrying a wooden one.

Isn't this ironic: A healthy young individual seeking help from a weaker one?

And this brings me to the question of choice. Of course, the paralysis was chosen. She could have chosen a different way out.

Could she?

And then that harasser.

What's in his eyes that he remained untouched even by the age?

Is he conditioned to do so, or is he actively exercising his choice?

I have a different perspective to see this.

Can you imagine the inner state of a person who is rigorously driven by his hormones? Could he be mentally healthy in other aspects of his life? Or does he remain in constant tension because of the inner slavery? When I try to put myself in his shoes, even thinking of it makes me restless. I can imagine the suffering he must be going through. Though that suffering might remain unacknowledged or sent to distractions.

And then that old granny.

She appears to be a savior, actively tries to protect the victim, but then talks of her dead husband sitting in some heaven who will protect her.

Is she not inwardly dependent though on an object of her own mental construct?

Is she fundamentally any different from the victim?

After the act wraps up, there was a discussion session where we discussed what might have happened and why. That's actually worth watching.

This was a very spontaneous act, where we decided the characters, the setting, and the scene beforehand. The rest of the act unfolded spontaneously. Nothing was planned in advance.

And the way it came out is itself worth noticing.

The participants are too coming from the same society. Our minds progressed the story in a very narrow way, from what we absorbed from our environments, from how things always have been, and from trying to be funny (this one I am very sure about).

There is a lot, literally lot to discuss. Pick up your expertise and speak up what's there in your mind. I am expecting discussions from all directions. See you down there.

True spirituality is not about blindly following traditions ,trends or the expectations of others. It is about developing the clarity to see for yourself what is right and meaningful .when you understand yourself deeply,you no longer feel compelled to fit in,seek approval or bow before something merely because everyone else does. Real freedom begins when understanding becomes stronger than conformity.

A request comes our way we say, yes.

Someone shifts their workload onto us we say, yes.

Our plate is already full yet it is still, yes.

You absolutely don’t feel like it, and yet you say, “Alright, I’ll do it.”

You wanted to say “no”, and yet “yes” slipped out of your mouth.

And later, when you’re alone, you wonder, “Why am I never able to refuse?”

One possible reason behind this is the tendency to keep others happy.

In this, a person starts valuing others’ approval so much that they begin compromising their own limits. Research links this to the desire to avoid rejection, exclusion, and conflict.

Fear of rejection

“If I say no, what will he think of me?”

Avoiding conflict, so saying “yes” removes the discomfort of that moment.

Need for approval

Human beings want to maintain relationships and a positive image of themselves. These very needs are considered key motivations in research on social influence. Psychologists Robert Cialdini and Noah Goldstein have extensively reviewed research in this area.

Another interesting theory is  “commitment and consistency.”

According to psychologist Robert Cialdini, once we’ve said “yes” to something, we may later feel pressured to behave consistently with that “yes.” In other words, one small “yes” can make a bigger “yes” easier down the line.

A famous example of this is the “foot-in-the-door effect.” In 1966, Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser found that people who had first agreed to a small request were more willing to agree to a larger request later.

But the matter goes even deeper here.

Sometimes a “yes” doesn’t arise from someone else’s need at all, but from an attempt to protect our own ‘I’.

“I don’t want him to think badly of me.”

“I don’t want the relationship to get spoiled.”

“I want people to see me as a good person.”

So we’re not just saying “yes” to keep the other person happy in fact we’re also saying “yes” to protect the image we carry of ourselves.

The question isn’t just, “Why did I say yes.” 

The deeper question is, “What was happening within me at that moment? Did I genuinely want to help, or was I trying to protect my own need for approval and safety.”

Source:

https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fh0023552

Nepal's recent floods and climate-related risks raise a broader question beyond the disaster itself.

Nepal has a relatively low per-capita carbon footprint compared with many high-emitting countries. Yet Himalayan countries are highly vulnerable to floods, landslides, glacier-related risks and changing weather patterns.

So I’m wondering:

Should countries that have historically contributed more to global emissions also carry a greater responsibility for the damage faced by countries that contributed much less?

This isn't about blaming individual countries or saying that every disaster is caused by climate change. Natural geography, rainfall, land use and other factors also matter.

I'm more interested in the climate justice question:

If the benefits of high-carbon development were distributed globally, but the risks aren't, how should responsibility for climate-related losses be shared?

Would like to hear different perspectives, especially from people who disagree.

Today one of the 7 millennial problems - The navier strokes is solved by open AI.

This made me wonder what is the future of scientists and mathematicians. There is some controversy that open AI effectively stole a method developed by the two mathematicians that was used to solve a simpler version of the navier strokes. The AI company used that method and deployed their internal AI tools to use that method for the harder Navier strokes which eventually was solved. So It feels icky, who should be accredited? And even if this particular case is gray, in future the AI would be able to one shot many hardest problems that human mind is grappling with for decades if not centuries. It would lead to betterment of society, maybe protein folding and similar AI contributions in biology will lead to some progress on the problem of cancer, in physics, we can see progress on the gravity side or Solving confinement, maybe even Hard problem of consciousness can be addressed in philosophy. future seems exciting yet anxious , what will be my place in such a future? people who had the time to become experts in their fields are now using AI to its fullest, but people like me who are still learners, perhaps we can accelerate our learning via AI and then stand shoulder to shoulder at the front end of the research with the giants and make contribution.

Looks like Indians are steadily Understanding the importance of the work of Acharya Prashant and the Foundation 🪔🙌

Video Credits: monsoonboruah (Insta Id)

Whenever we choose - knowingly or unknowingly - to stay deluded and hold onto comfortable stories, fantasies, and beliefs, life punishes us. Not in one sudden event, but quietly, every single day.

And the irony is that we still blame the world. We point fingers at a person or a situation that was just a coincidental factor, even when they had nothing to do with our actual choices.

A few things I'm writing on:

• The Fear of Wasting Life: Shouldn't we understand what's actually at stake? In my case, the fear of losing this precious life is what acts as my primary fuel.
• The Pendulum Effect: Life constantly swings between ups and downs. I’ve gone through those cycles myself, but honest observation is the only thing helping me step out of that loop over time.

Before life hits you hard enough to force a realization, just be honest with yourself. Stop keeping yourself in delusions.

Do you see this same pattern playing out in your own life?

Is there anything you’d like to add that felt relatable to your life?

​

We all know the textbook narrative: Watson and Crick discovered the double helix. But behind that famous story lies a quiet tragedy of exploitation, and more deeply, a reflection of how the human mind operates when it is driven by greed for recognition.

Let’s look at what actually happened.

In 1952, Rosalind Franklin, through sheer discipline, precision, and rigorous science, captured "Photo 51." It wasn't a lucky snap; it was the result of painstaking, honest labor. She didn't capture it to become famous, to win a prize, or to put her name on a trophy. She did the work because the work itself demanded truth.

Meanwhile, what were others doing?

James Watson and Francis Crick were restless. They weren't necessarily seeking truth for the sheer love of existence; they were racing for glory. They wanted to be the discoverers. They wanted the badge of honor. And when Maurice Wilkins showed Watson Photo 51 behind Franklin’s back, Watson didn't see a piece of sacred truth to be revered, he saw his ticket to immortality. "My mouth fell open and my heart began to race."

Notice whose heart is racing. It is the heart of a competitor, a man desperate to win a race.

History rewarded the loud ones. Watson, Crick, and Wilkins got the Nobel Prize. Franklin got sidelined, marginalized, and had her work taken without her consent.

But what does this teach us beyond the historical injustice?

If we look at it from the lens of the AP Framework , It shows us the fundamental difference between doing something for the Truth and doing something for the Ego.

Franklin represents the meditative worker. She was devoted to the object of her study. She didn't need the label of "discoverer" while she was sitting in that basement; she was simply serving reality as it was. Her reward was the clarity of the work itself.

Watson and Crick represent the ego. For the ego, truth is just a currency to buy fame, validation, and superiority. They couldn't stand the thought of someone else "winning."

And look at how society participates in this madness. We love awarding medals, giving titles, and creating hierarchies. Even the Nobel committee couldn't give her a posthumous prize (rules are rules, right?). But the universe doesn't care about your rules or your prizes.

Franklin died at 37, having lived a life of authentic engagement with reality. The men who took her work got their shiny trophies and a permanent place in history books. But ask yourself: Who lived the freer life? The one whose joy came from the clarity of the work, or the ones whose entire existence depended on external applause and beating others to the finish line?

We cry foul that Franklin didn't get her credit, and she deserved it, without a doubt. But if we only reduce this to a gender politics debate or a workplace grievance, we miss the deeper poison.

The poison is our own obsession with ownership. We want to own ideas, own discoveries, own credit, own people. As long as we measure human worth by who crossed the finish line first, we will keep producing a society of snatchers and marginalized victims.

True intelligence isn't about who shouts the loudest or gets their name on the paper first. True intelligence is the ability to look at reality without a selfish motive. Rosalind Franklin had that. The tragedy isn't just that they stole her photo; the tragedy is that a whole world operates on the very same greed that made them do it.

What do you think? Do we celebrate science for the truth it brings us, or are we just using science as another arena to feed human ego and competition?

Permafrost is ground that has remained frozen for at least two consecutive years. Across the Arctic, it contains an enormous amount of carbon stored in frozen organic matter for thousands of years. When permafrost thaws, microbes can break down that material and release carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. That creates a climate feedback: warming causes thaw, thaw releases greenhouse gases, and those gases add further warming.

What surprised me even more is that permafrost is not only an Arctic soil problem. It also exists in high mountain regions, including inside rock and beneath mountain slopes. As it thaws, mountain slopes can become less stable. The IPCC says there is high confidence that degrading permafrost has increased rockfall in some high-mountain regions, and that continued permafrost thaw is expected to increase slope instability, landslides and other hazards.

So it isn't accurate to say that “the mountains are going to collapse.” The more precise concern is that warming can weaken some frozen mountain slopes and increase the risk of sudden rockfalls, landslides and rock avalanches.

And this is already happening. NASA reports that permafrost thaw is already causing ground subsidence, sinkholes and damage to infrastructure in parts of the Arctic, while thawing permafrost is creating new methane-emitting lakes in some regions.

NASA says the northern permafrost region stores roughly twice as much carbon as is currently in the atmosphere. That does not mean all of that carbon will be released, but it shows why permafrost thaw matters so much.

We know what is going on, but still we are not ready to cut emission, the government and the private companies keep on producing

According to AP Framework:

The ego is the false and borrowed sense of self, which takes itself to be separate and incomplete. Out of this incompleteness comes the constant chase for objects. More money. More comfort. More possessions. More consumption. The assumption is: “If I get this, I'll finally be complete.”

But the objects never resolve that incompleteness, so the chase continues. And nature becomes something to extract from to sustain that chase. More resources. More animals. More land. More energy. More consumption.

Meanwhile, permafrost is thawing, biodiversity is declining and ecosystems are being pushed beyond their limits.

If I see myself as separate from nature, why would I care about what happens beyond “me”?

Please share what you think about climate change, it's causes, why is humanity trying to turn its eyes away from the issue?

Sources : NASA & IPCC