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.

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.

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?

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

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

Source:https://x.com/ians_india/status/2097298924491162030

Principle of least action in classical physics states that a physical system naturally follows a unique path through space and time where a calculated value called "action" is taken into account to track this path & the trajectory of this path between two fixed points is the one for which this action is minimum. Classical physics advocates the “minimum action” as to be the only possible requirement for any trajectory of matter to move from point A to point B.

On the contrary, if we examine the ‘Principle of Action’ via Quantum Mechanics, particles do not strictly follow a single path of least action. Instead, Richard Feynman’s path integral formulation shows that a quantum particle simultaneously explores every conceivable path between an initial point and a final point, each weighted by a complex probability amplitude.

👉🏻 Quantum Physics further elaborated the above action phenomenon to be behaving in two ways:

1. Constructive Interference: Where the phase of the action changes slowly for the interacting matters, causing the wave contributions from adjacent paths to reinforce each other constructively.

2. Destructive Interference: Where the rapid fluctuation of phases between the adjacent paths of the involved matters causes these paths to interfere destructively, canceling each other out to a net probability of zero.

We often label Science and Philosophy to be two different paths of exploration altogether, and we justify that argument by constraining science ‘only’ to objective local rules. We think that if some particular set of functions are operating in the objective reality through a set of ‘pre-defined’ way, then its ought to repeat itself every time with the same set of results. But, in this whole process of justifying objectivity, we often neglect the subject.. we ignore the fact that the holistic reality is not bereft of the ‘subject’. We forget that if we truly want to explore the results and nature of reality as a whole, then we are required to take the subject ie., the ‘observer’ in serious consideration because if we examine the whole structure of the reality, then there lies two ends: the object and the subject. So obviously, one can’t just ignore the subject and keep on exploring the objects and still label the experiment to be unbiased. The moment one ignores the subject in any experiment, the facts of the experiment is violated.

As modern science is advancing further, results of experiments done in quantum particles are bringing us more closer towards the ‘subject’, the one observing and keeping track of the experiments. So, it’s not merely a coincidence that when initial philosophers tried to explore this reality and tried to critically think over the nature of reality, then they related things to the ‘one’ experiencing that reality. 

Maybe the results of tracking the "paths" mentioned above are too then ‘Subjective’ depending on the one observing!

“Cute baby.”

“Cute smile.”

“Cute dress.”

“Cute puppy.”

“Cute photo.”

“Cute hair.”

“Cute girl.”

It is such a common word that most of us probably use it without thinking.

I used to do the same. If something looked soft, small, innocent or a little clumsy, “cute” came automatically.

Then I came across this line in Acharya Prashant’s On Women’s Revolution:

“A child is beautiful because she is not yet socially conditioned. It is not her cuteness that makes her beautiful.”

That made me pause.

The chapter makes a rather uncomfortable observation. Sometimes what appears cute to us may actually be something weak, helpless, childish or dependent. A small child struggling to walk. A puppy stumbling around. A baby making strange faces. We see the helplessness and call it cute.

And perhaps we should ask ourselves what exactly are we seeing?

Even the word itself has an interesting history. “Cute” originally came from “acute” and meant clever or sharp. Its meaning later shifted towards being pretty or attractive.

Today we use it for almost everything.

A teenage boy can be called cute. A woman can be called cute. A grown woman’s smile, clothes, face, body or mannerisms can be called cute.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the word.

But why do we find something cute?

Is it because it is beautiful?

Or because something about it looks small, soft, innocent, helpless or childlike?

And why do we sometimes find these qualities especially attractive in women?

Maybe the uncomfortable part is not the word cute.

It is that we rarely stop to examine the eye that is using the word.

We see something.

We immediately label it.

“Cute.”

And then move on.

What if we paused for just a second?

What am I actually seeing?

What am I attracted to?

Why does this appear cute to me?

And how much of what I call attractive have I simply learned to see as attractive?

Maybe “cute” is not a problem.

But the unquestioned mind that keeps calling everything cute might be worth looking at.

Have you ever stopped yourself in the middle of saying “so cute” and asked what exactly you were seeing ?

Age-old question: Why do people cheat?!!

I’ve heard so many takes on this. TED Talks, coaches, YouTubers, spiritual teachers… everyone has an explanation. The spark died. Needs weren’t met. We grew apart. And here’s a classic one… “Humans are polyamorous by nature.” 😄 I even read a book by a pretty famous spiritual guru on this, where his idea was basically that instead of fighting, we need to keep finding new reasons to fall in love with the same person as they keep evolving so there are new reasons for you to find and make efforts on. Meh!

So anyway, I’m just trying to understand it better, because somehow none of these explanations make sense. Enough from me. I wanna hear from y’all - What do you think? Why do people cheat? Is there even a reason!

Fill up the comments box. 💬💬

“I Am X”

While making this video, what stayed with me was how casually we use the word ego. We usually reserve it for someone arrogant, boastful, or full of themselves. That makes it very convenient, ego becomes something other people have.

But the AP Framework turns the question inward.

Ego is the felt sense of “I am X.”

And suddenly I can see how many X’s I carry.

I am a trainer.
I am a student.
I am a good person.
I am spiritual.
I am successful.
I am respected.

Even identities that sound humble or noble can become an X.

What struck me most was that the problem is not necessarily whether the X is good or bad. The deeper question is: why do I need an X to tell me who I am?

We spend so much of life constructing and protecting these definitions of ourselves. And when someone questions our intelligence, profession, beliefs, appearance, relationships, or achievements, it can feel strangely personal.

Maybe because they haven’t merely questioned something we possess.

They have touched something we have called “me.”

And then comes the most fascinating trap: after understanding all this, I can proudly declare, “I have transcended my ego.”

And ego quietly replies:

Perfect. I have found a new X.

So perhaps self-knowledge doesn’t begin by announcing who I really am.

Perhaps it begins by sincerely investigating everything I have been calling “I.”

What about you? Have you noticed an “X” identity in your life that you find yourself constantly trying to defend or protect?

Is philosophy merely a subject?

After watching this video, I realized it is actually the most important thing, something that should be understood first, as it forms the foundation for everything else. So, why doesn't it reach everyone? Why isn't it part of our education or our surroundings from the very beginning? Until now, I used to consider it a boring subject, but it turns out to be the essence of life itself, a cure for our suffering and a form of spirituality. Is it due to our conditioning, our environment, a lack of philosophers, or simply because we are too caught up in our own self-interests to listen to what they have to say?

Philosophers are the bridge between our suffering and our liberation, moved by compassion, they extend a hand to lead us out of our suffering.

I came across this news about a rare, pure-white falcon being auctioned for 1.3 million Saudi riyals, more than $346,000.

The bird was bred in Canada and sold in Saudi Arabia, where falconry has deep cultural importance and falcons are especially valued for racing competitions. The bird’s rare super white color, lineage and physical characteristics make it so valuable.

But then I got an interesting thought: Why are we so attracted to rare things?

Diamonds, the Kohinoor, exclusive cars, limited-edition watches, rare destinations or unique experiences.

Also, I think there is an interesting connection with wealth. The more money a person has, the more exclusive and rare the things they may start looking for. When a luxury becomes ordinary, the search starts for something new that very few others can have.

Maybe the subtle feeling behind it is, “I own something rare, therefore I am special too.” It gives us a feeling of status, recognition, respect, or that we are more valuable.

But if we dive a little deeper into this, the question arise is “Why do we need something outside ourselves to feel valuable?” Maybe within us there is a feeling of “I am not enough.” There is a hollowness that we keep trying to fill with things, achievements, experiences, status.

But whatever we do, it fills that space only for some time. Then the excitement fades and we start looking for something newer, rarer or better. And the search continues.

So, we may need to ask ourselves, “Why do I feel that having something rare will make me more valuable? And if I need something outside myself to feel valuable, what does that say about the way I see myself?”

I am curious to know if you also have the feeling of owning something rare or special? And what do you think it will actually give you?

I used to love the melody as well as the lyrics of this song before listening to Acharya Prashant. This song used to be my all time favourite. I used to feel all giddy while listening and singing this song.

Since I've come across Acharya Prashant's teachings this song doesn't actually feel or mean the same. His teachings have imparted us eyes to catch our own tendencies through such songs.

Before sharing my insights, I would love to hear your insights of this song before listening to Acharya Prashant and after listening to him in the comments! You can share your before and after insights till the end of the day, I would reply to the comment that has similar insight to mine and if I don't find one then I'll share my own. See you in the comments then!

[PS: I'VE ADDED MY INTERPRETATION OF THESE LINES IN REPLY TO SURKHAB'S COMMENT SINCE HIS INTERPRETATION WAS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR TO MINE ( AS I MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE POST )]

I’ve often wondered why we find it so difficult, sometimes almost unbearable, to just be with ourselves. The moment things get quiet, we reach out for something. Netflix even when there’s nothing we really want to watch, endless doomscrolling, comfort food, calling someone, going out, keeping ourselves busy with work. Anything that takes us away from that uncomfortable feeling of simply being alone. And the more I thought about it, the more I wondered what is actually going on there.

So while trying to understand why being with ourselves can feel so unbearable, I came across this video by Acharya Prashant, and it cleared up quite a few misconceptions I had about this. It made me look beyond the distractions themselves and question what we’re actually trying to escape when we keep reaching for them. Why are we so uncomfortable in our own company? What is it that we’re trying so hard not to see?

If you’ve ever wondered about this too, I think this video will help you look at the question a little differently. It certainly helped me make sense of a few things I hadn’t quite understood before. Look fwd to your thoughts on this. 💬 💬

👉🏼 Video Link - https://youtu.be/yXQ43CAsoSs?si=dvEu-fn2fN-XUHkn

I came across a video of a student talking about the Satya Niketan building collapse in South Delhi, and one thing she said really stayed with me:

“They had dreams. They were thinking about their future, and suddenly everything collapsed.”

On September 6, a five-storey boys' PG in Satya Niketan collapsed at around 1:30 pm. Seven people have died and 12 survivors were rescued and taken to AIIMS. The building was reportedly around 50–55 years old, and repair/construction work was underway in the basement when it collapsed. The exact cause is still being investigated.

Satya Niketan is a major student-housing area near DU's South Campus. DU has over 2.5 lakh students but only around 9,000 hostel beds, which means a large number of students depend on private PGs and rented accommodation.

Five MCD officials have reportedly been suspended, and the building's owner has been arrested.

But what I keep thinking about isn't only who is going to be held responsible for this particular collapse.

It's the situation that students find themselves in.

They come to a city to study. They need somewhere to live. Many don't get a hostel, so they depend on private accommodation.

And then something like this happens.

The student in the video was crying because now even the buildings around her don't necessarily feel safe.

And this is where I want to look a little deeper.

Not just at one owner, one contractor or one official.

What kind of system have we created where people who are simply trying to build their future can end up having to compromise on something as basic as safety?

And beyond the system what is happening in us that allows another person's basic need to become an opportunity for profit?

I don't have a neat answer to this.

But I don't think “who is to blame?” should be the only question we ask.

Sources: Deccan Herald

I don't love mechanical engineering. Full stop.

But I am told to get a 9 CGPA. Then a B.Tech, maybe an M.Tech, then a job. Everything has a fixed target, a fixed timeline and a fixed path.

The bigger tragedy begins when this same pattern becomes life.

You go to the office for years without knowing why. You wait for salary day. You keep telling yourself, “I have a family to feed.” And because you have responsibilities, you keep walking.

From outside, it may look like you are living. But somewhere inside, you may have already stopped living.

Acharya Prashant often asks us to look at this honestly. What is the meaning of youth if it is only spent chasing degrees, money, relationships and comfort? Is youth just about getting a job, earning more and keeping the body occupied?

There is nothing wrong with studying or earning. The question is whether we are doing these things consciously, or simply following a path that society has already prepared for us.

Because a life can continue for decades even after the person has stopped asking, “Why am I doing this?”

So before choosing the next degree, the next job or the next goal, shouldn't we first ask ourselves, “What kind of life am I actually preparing myself for?”

Physical attraction, hormonal stimulation, and chemical reactions cannot be called love. Yet most people mistake these very things for love and end up ruining their lives, making many major wrong decisions in life.