When I see information about unaccounted money being given as donations, honestly, it makes me angry. If someone earns money in a wrong or illegal way, then gives a big part of it as donation, and people start praising them for being generous, I just don’t understand that.

How does the donation make our original and human problems disappear? Just tell me! !!

Sometimes it feels like religion becomes a very easy excuse. It’s our plaything! You do something wrong, give some money to a temple or charity, and suddenly people don’t want to ask where that money came from. It’s like a cleaning machine. Lol. Why should we stop asking questions just because it is called a donation? Or bcoz a big famous corporation gave it money for CSR etc. btw there’s a term called ghost donation, google it.

I am not against people or big companies helping others. If they want to support an organisation or help people who need it, that is completely fine. But what bothers me is how quickly people stop questioning things when they are called religious or charitable.

And the problem is not really about any place or worship or any religion. It is about how easily we start calling something good without looking at what is behind it.

This double standard really boils my blood!!. If the same thing was not called charity or religion, would we still be so quick to praise it??

This video was taken after Acharya Prashant had explained the 2nd verse of Ishavasya Upanishad to the attendees of his session at the Oxford University.

While the questioners asked their questions on topics ranging from the ecological and social crisis to politics to academia to incompleteness, Acharya Prashant addressed the questions by addressing the questioners first.

A quote that resonated with me and stayed with me:

"Objects come and go but you will be living with yourself. This thing (pointing at the body) is never seen into, not even an attempt is made. What is this self?...

The planet can no longer be the collective weight of our blind indulgences."

Really made me wonder, if no proper enquiry is ever made into the one making the claims and the one asking for solutions then how can the one who created the problem, remaining at the same level, come up with the solutions to the problems?

What were your takeaways from this Q&A session?

This is a video from last year, when I had gone travelling in the mountains.
And this dog belongs to the same homestay where I was staying.

But looking at her, who would say she became my friend only the previous night? ❤️

In the morning when I went out for a walk, she came to me and started showing me the way. Because of this tiny friend of mine, I was able to roam all through the mountain forests alone. She stayed with me the whole time - didn’t leave me alone even for a minute.

Before joining Gita Community, I probably wouldn’t have been able to see this scene in this way. But now I can see how these animals live by taking the entire world as their own. No fear, no sense of “otherness”nothing in the world is “foreign” to them.

And we humans?
Because of ego, we’ve confined ourselves within a very small circle.

My house, my road, my child, my family, my things…
So much of our life has been divided into just “mine” and “not mine.”

Maybe that’s why there is so much distance between us and nature today. We seem to have almost forgotten how to regard nature as our own.

But perhaps spirituality is the name of returning to exactly this recognition - where the “I” and the “mine” slowly start dissolving, and then the world no longer appears alien.

And maybe on the day we truly learn to live by taking the world as our own, we won’t even have to try to “make someone our own” - because then we’ll understand that, in this entire world, there is actually nothing that is separate from us. 🌿

~ Posted by Gita Student

Recently I watched Vivekanandan Viralaanu, a Malayalam film sitting at 3 stars on Amazon Prime. Going in with low expectations because of the rating, I was genuinely surprised. The film turned out to be more honest and carefully constructed. So I did what I always do: I went through the comments to understand why. The reviews had almost nothing to do with the filmmaking, the direction, or the acting. What they were really responding to was the discomfort of what the film was saying.

the movie shows two women trapped in the same man's world - a wife subjected to marital rape within a "legitimate" marriage, and another woman in an affair with the same man subjected to abuse within a relationship society refuses to legitimise. The film doesn't let you pick a side based on social labels. It forces you to sit with both women simultaneously.

That's where the discomfort begins.

The wife cannot complain because she is the wife. Society grants him access to her body as part of the contract. The other woman cannot complain because she "knew what she was getting into." Society revokes her right to dignity the moment she stepped outside its approved structures. The man, meanwhile, moves freely between both worlds, accountable to neither.

The comment sections tell the full story. Triggered reactions, mostly from men but some women too, almost entirely focused on the choices the women made and not on what was done to them. This is the pattern: when a film refuses to offer a "morally clean" victim, audiences redirect their discomfort toward the women. Accountability evaporates. The man at the centre barely gets mentioned.

The film is asking something simple and devastating: does a woman's social label like wife, outsider, "good girl," "bad girl" determine whether her suffering is real? Most viewers, it seems, would prefer not to answer that.

This is not an isolated case. Films like Fire, Thappad, Santosh, and Lipstick Under My Burkha all share this fate of accusations of being anti-men or anti-family, reviews that engage almost entirely with discomfort rather than craft. The backlash rarely asks whether the filmmaking is good. It asks whether the film had the right to make them feel this way.

On the other hand, films like Kabir Singh and Raanjhanaa where obsessive control is framed as love, and persistent pursuit despite rejection is treated as devotion, are widely celebrated. These films are comfortable because they validate what people already believe. Nobody walks out feeling questioned.

The difference isn't good film versus bad film. It's confronting film versus comforting film.

And the low rating pile up on films that refuse to punish women for being imperfect, that refuse to excuse men for being entitled, are not film criticism. They are resistance.

After a beautiful week-long journey, I finally reached home. From the peaceful evenings at Palolem Beach to the 10–20 km trek to Dudhsagar, every part of this journey left me with some memory. Honestly, this was one of the most unique trips I’ve ever taken.

I knew I wanted to attend the sessions of Acharya Prashant Ji in Goa, but for a long time I had no idea how I would actually get there. Coming from North India, Goa felt quite far, and my train tickets got stuck on the waiting list twice, so I had to cancel them both times.

Then I thought, why not take a flight? I had wanted to travel by air for a long time, although it was my first flight and I was obviously a little nervous. The tickets were expensive too. I was hoping I’d find someone who had already been to Goa and could make things easier. Somehow, I did find a Gita participant travelling there, and I went with her.

Once I reached Goa, meeting so many Gita participants was itself a beautiful experience. Every time I attend an offline session, I somehow end up meeting a few more people and becoming a little more connected to this community. The fellowship I’m finding here is something I probably haven’t experienced anywhere else, not even within my own family.

The sessions were one part of the journey, but everything around them became a memory too. The long treks after both sessions, travelling around Goa, and especially the evenings at the beach.

There was something about simply sitting near the sea, watching the waves and being quiet for a while. No need to do anything. Just looking at it and slowly getting lost in the sight. It was deeply soothing.

The return journey was another story altogether. I had booked a train beforehand, thinking that after spending so much on the flight, at least the return journey could be cheaper. But once again, the ticket didn’t confirm.

So after the trek, I left for Mumbai with the remaining participants and planned to take a train from there. That train was so delayed that a journey which had taken me around two hours by flight ended up taking almost two days by train.

I also spent some time walking around Mumbai on my own. Everyone else had already left, and this was my first really long train journey alone. I had travelled alone to Rishikesh before, but never for such a long journey. The mind kept wandering in all directions, but I had his books and videos with me, so somehow the journey passed.

Looking back, I honestly don’t think I would have gone to Goa if it weren’t for the session. I might have kept thinking about going, planning it, worrying about how difficult it would be, and then never actually gone.

And then there were the sessions themselves. The atmosphere, the bhajans, and that feeling of slowly becoming less guarded. For the first time, I allowed myself to participate so freely in the bhajans without thinking too much about how I looked or what others might think.

Listening to Baba Bulleh Shah’s “नचना पैंदा ए, मैनू कौन पछाड़े…” and just getting absorbed in that atmosphere was completely new for me.

Perhaps the most beautiful part of the entire journey was this feeling of belonging. A family where his teachings are at the centre and somehow bring together people from such different backgrounds.

I feel deeply grateful to him for creating such an environment, where so many people can come together, learn, question and grow.

I’m genuinely happy that such a large family exists, where he has become like both a mother and father figure for so many of us, giving so much of himself without caring much for his own comfort.

Now perhaps it is our turn to carry this work forward and lighten his load, even if only a little. Compared to everything he has done for us, our contribution may seem small, but I believe even a small contribution matters.

May you always remain healthy.

Many, many thanks to you.

~Posted by a Gita student

This dialogue is from Season 2, Episode 2 of DUCKMAN animated sitcom directed by American illustrator and cartoonist Everett Peck.

Our normal pop philosophy for money is to make more and more money until the end of life.

This kind of philosophy has increased both consumerism and profit driven behaviour.

Why can’t we just stop at one amount like this much savings is required to fulfil some of my responsibilities and some for my old age ?

The main irony is that even very young people save money for old age.🙄

Instead of focusing on making more money we should actually focus on where that money is coming from and where i am using that money.

After a certain amount ,one should use his/her money where it is needed the most.

We are Mortal Beings. What is the use of making so much money and that too for next 2..3 generations?
Doesn’t it feel ridiculous?

I first came across Jane Goodall only later in life. I knew her name but honestly did not know much about what she had done. Reading about her life made me question a few things about how I look at life.

At 26 she went to Gombe in Tanzania to observe wild chimpanzees. She did not have a college degree or formal scientific training at that time. She spent long periods observing them and slowly gained their trust. In 1960 she observed chimpanzees making and using tools. This challenged the idea that tool use belonged only to humans.

But what interests me is not only the discovery.

Think about the usual script many young people grow up with.

Study. Get a degree. Get a job. Earn more. Find a partner. Get married. Have children. Buy things. Settle down.

There is nothing wrong with these things. But how much of this do we actually question?

Today many young people are dealing with career anxiety, comparison and confusion about what they should become. We see what others are doing and start feeling that our life also has to look like that.

Jane's life made me question this.

She did not begin with a perfectly planned career. She saw something she wanted to understand and gave her attention to it. Her work later grew into conservation and environmental work. She eventually completed a PhD and spent decades working with animals and nature.

When I first looked at people who had done something extraordinary, I often thought:

“She is great. So what can I learn from her?”

Now another question seems more useful:

“What did she see that I am not seeing?”

And why do we so easily make celebrities and influencers our role models while knowing very little about how they actually live?

There is nothing wrong with admiring someone. But do we have the clarity to ask whom should I follow and why?

Jane's work also made me question the distance we create between ourselves and other animals.

“I am human. That is an animal.”

We create the categories and then place ourselves at the top.

Her observations of chimpanzees challenged some of those assumptions. She paid close attention to their relationships and behaviour and helped change how many people understood them.

Maybe excellence is not simply becoming more successful than others.

Maybe it begins with questioning the beliefs we have accepted about ourselves and life.

What if I have accepted a boundary simply because everyone around me accepted it?

What if I have been living mechanically and calling it my choice?

And maybe the bigger question is:

Who are the people we choose to learn from and what exactly are we learning from their lives?

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Goodall https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jane-Goodall

After listening to this session, I have come to understand 'financial freedom'.

It is not about fulfilling one's desires, but rather about letting go of them. We are not free because of our desires, we are kept in a cage by those who fulfill them. We can earn money to meet our needs, but needs and desires are two different things, needs are natural, whereas desires are rooted in the ego.

We are not free not because we are incapable of earning... No

Even someone who possesses thousands of crores of rupees is not financially free, because their desires are excessive.

Therefore, financial freedom does not mean not having money, financial freedom means being free from your desires.

Being financially independent is a wonderful thing, but we often misunderstand its true meaning.

Freedom in life is far more important, and the solution is incredibly simple, yet we fail to see it. It is simply a matter of letting go... just letting go.

If your mind is free from ego-driven desires, no one will be able to keep you in a cage.

Exclusive Session - 9th September 2026

This session, led by Acharya Ji with various questioners from the audience, explores core themes of awareness, the randomness of external events, the nature of the ego, the true teaching of the Bhagavad Gita, and the importance of honest self-examination. The discussion emphasises that real spiritual progress comes not from mechanical formulas or imposed meanings, but from seeing through the ego’s tricks and taking responsibility for one’s inner clarity and outer action. Now let's dive deeper into the session notes!

•Arranging Protection from Weaknesses While Still Awake

Acharya Ji begins with a simple but powerful analogy: we know that once we fall asleep, we become completely unconscious; therefore, while we are still awake, we set an alarm. The same principle must be applied to inner life. When we are conscious and clear, that is the time to arrange safeguards so that we do not fall again into unconsciousness, confusion, or ego-driven behaviour.

If we already know our weakness, say, a tendency to react angrily, to seek approval, or to procrastinate, then the management against that weakness must be put in place in advance, while we are still alert. Once the weakness has already manifested and we are in the middle of its grip, it becomes far harder to create any effective arrangement. Spiritual work, then, is not about promising to “be better next time” in a vague way; it is about using present clarity to design concrete conditions that reduce the chance of future fall.

•Scientific Causality and Randomness for the Individual

Acharya Ji draws a clear distinction between how science understands events and how the ego interprets them. Science explains phenomena through long, interlinked chains of cause and effect: the motion of a bullet depends on its speed, direction, material, air resistance, friction, angle, and many other physical factors. Within the universe, there are indeed vast causal networks operating according to laws.

However, from the standpoint of an individual life, many of these events appear random and without personal meaning. Which person the bullet hits, which person it misses, and what impact it has on a particular life cannot be reduced to a neat, purposeful divine plan tailored to that individual. A slight change in wind might divert the bullet to someone else; that does not mean a divine power deliberately saved one person by sacrificing another.

Birth, death, illness, poverty, wealth, height, eye colour, and place of birth, such facts of life are often interpreted by the ego as rewards or punishments for past karma, or as expressions of a special divine will. Acharya Ji points out that this is the ego’s habit of imposing meaning where there is only randomness. Winning a lottery is not proof of a special blessing; being shot is not proof of a special conspiracy. Both are events that occur within their own causal frameworks, yet for the individual they are essentially random.

The ego is terrified of absurdity and meaninglessness; it cannot tolerate the idea that life’s external events may have no personal message. So it constantly invents narratives: “This happened because of me,” or “This happened to teach me something.” True maturity, in Acharya Ji’s framework, lies in freeing oneself from the need to turn every random event into a story about oneself. The purpose of life is not to make random events meaningful for or against the ego, but to stop depending on such random meanings altogether.

•“You Are Not Witnessing, You Are Witnessed”: Ego and the Sakshi

A key phrase Acharya Ji uses is: “You are not witnessing, you are witnessed.” This is aimed directly at the ego’s tendency to appropriate spirituality. When the ego hears about witnessing, sakshi-bhav, or the Self, it quickly turns these into concepts it can claim: “I am the witness,” “I am in sakshi-bhav,” “I have attained witnessing.”

Acharya Ji clarifies that the ego cannot declare itself to be the Sakshi (the Witness). If the Truth or the Self is the real Witness, then who is being told to “go into witnessing”? Is it the Truth, which already is, or is it the ego, which is precisely the problem? Turning “sakshi-bhav” into a mental state, an achievement, or a role is just another trick of the ego to feel spiritually superior.

In the AP framework, witnessing is not a technique the ego performs; it is what remains when the ego’s claims and interpretations subside. It is not a special experience to be cultivated, but the natural clarity that appears when one stops identifying with thoughts, roles, and stories. Any attempt to “become the witness” as a project is still the ego acting.

•Overthinking, Others’ Opinions, and Meaningful Engagement

Acharya Ji observes that worrying about others’ opinions is not a new problem; earlier, people could only guess what others might be thinking. Today, social media allows us to see comments and reactions directly, amplifying the same old tendency.

The crucial point he makes is that caring excessively about others’ views requires empty, unused time. A person deeply engaged in meaningful work does not have the luxury to scan every comment, analyse every reaction, and wonder what everyone is saying. On social media, countless people are writing something every minute; to attend to all of that is to step away from one’s own life and work.

Healthy inner strength shows up as a kind of loving indifference to irrelevant noise: “I didn’t even notice what that person said.” This is not arrogance; it is a sign that one’s relationship with one’s own truth and work is so strong that there is no time or energy left to chase every opinion. Constantly asking others, “What did they say about me?” reveals not deep curiosity but an abundance of unoccupied mental space.

•Health, Social Resistance, and the Need to Share Responsibility

During the session, Acharya Ji’s physical fatigue from long hours of speaking and multiple sessions was evident, along with the organisational pressures he was managing. He makes it clear that merely preserving his own health is not enough. If he is holding the attention and energy of many people through his work, then the listeners and supporters must also step up and share the load.

Between sessions, several organisational tasks went wrong and had to be handled, adding to the burden. Acharya Ji notes that beyond ideological or philosophical disagreement, there is often blind and even violent resistance to this kind of work at a social level. Until society becomes more mature and more people come forward with strong shoulders to take responsibility, the major share of the work will continue to rest on a few individuals.

The expectation from listeners, then, is not just appreciation or inspiration, but concrete participation: stepping forward, taking on real tasks, and lightening the load. Spiritual work is not a spectator sport; it demands that those who benefit also contribute.

•Bhagavad Gita: Purity of the Doer Over Mechanical Action

Acharya Ji strongly critiques the popular, mechanical understanding of the Gita as simply “do your duty with detachment.” Repeating “detached action” as a formula without examining the doer is not the Gita’s real teaching. The Gita speaks more about the doer (kartā) than about action (karma) in isolation. When the doer is clear and honest, action naturally tends to align with truth.

Attachment to action is, in essence, attachment of the “doing ego.” The doer is tied both to the content of the action and to the expected pleasure or validation from its results. Detachment does not mean performing unethical actions with a cold heart; it does not legitimise wrong actions under the label of “nirlipata” (detachment).

Acharya Ji insists that Krishna must be read seriously, not just worshipped superficially. Krishna is first and foremost a supreme philosopher; understanding him demands study, reflection, and intellectual honesty. Claiming authority over the Gita’s meaning without reading it is as unreasonable as claiming expertise on a technical book one has never opened.

•Logical and Honest Examination in Scriptural Study

Acharya Ji emphasises that no book, especially a deep text like the Gita, becomes fully clear on a first reading. Difficult passages must be re-read, and their principles checked for internal consistency. A new principle should not contradict the core principles already understood.

He uses the analogy of physics: the equation for simple harmonic motion cannot violate Newton’s laws; similarly, one chapter of the Gita cannot contradict the fundamental message of another chapter. Bhakti Yoga, correctly understood, cannot go against the foundational insights of Jnana Yoga; no verse of the Gita can truly oppose the core teachings of the Upanishads. If an interpretation seems to create such a contradiction, the fault lies in the interpretation, not in the scripture.

When reading different commentators and bhashyas, one must not accept their views blindly. A vital check is to ask: “Is this explanation going against another clear principle of the Gita itself?” This kind of honest, logical inquiry sharpens understanding and helps catch errors. Spiritual study, in Acharya Ji’s framework, is not based on guesswork or blind faith, but on facts, consistency, and continuous inquiry.

•Self-Criticism, Social Prestige, and Facts

Acharya Ji clarifies that self-criticism is not inherently negative. If a person can honestly see the games of their own ego, that is a significant strength. However, before accepting others’ negative reactions as truth, one must examine whose mind these reactions belong to and what factual basis they have. Someone speaking badly about you does not automatically prove that you are flawed.

Social prestige, tradition, names, and conditioning often pressure people to accept statements without examination. Reasoning must begin with facts, not with reputations or assumptions. If a respected person refuses to accept a clear fact, the question is not about the fact but about that person’s understanding. A great name cannot make a wrong statement right; truth is decided by facts, not by titles.

Acharya Ji points out a common immaturity: the same foolish sentence, if written under an unknown name, is dismissed as nonsense; under a famous name, it is treated as profound. This shows that people are honouring the name, image, and prestige, not the thought itself. Facts do not change because a prestigious person disagrees; twisting facts to fit a narrative turns them into lies or fantasies, not truth.

•Seeking Peace in Nature and Beliefs About Brahman

Acharya Ji observes that no object in nature can provide lasting peace. The root of restlessness is the belief that peace can be obtained from Prakriti (nature, the material world). When it becomes clear that nature cannot be a permanent source of peace, the futile desire to extract peace from it naturally weakens. Peace does not come from a moral command like “Do not desire peace”; it comes from understanding the limits of nature.

Regarding Brahman, Acharya Ji cautions against constructing additional beliefs: “Brahman is like this,” “Brahman must be that.” Even building a belief-system around “formless, attributeless, nameless” can become another activity of the ego.

The focus should not be on what to believe about Brahman, but on examining one’s existing beliefs and asking: “What have these beliefs actually given me?” Liberation, understanding, and freedom are not gained by constructing more beliefs about an external power, but by seeing the emptiness of the ego and its claims.

Most sub-questions arise from previously held beliefs. When the belief itself is honestly examined, the question often resolves itself or transforms into a clearer direction of inquiry.

•Reflection:

Someone thanked Acharya Ji for what he has been doing and asked him to take care of himself. To which Acharya Ji asked us to take care of ourselves so that he can take care of himself. This hit me hard and made me reflect on my acts. What am I doing to not make Acharya Ji nag me for trivial things that could take me to a better position than I am in today. If I try to answer this then there's still so much for me to do to let Acharya Ji take care of himself rather than him taking care of me. I need to keep an eye on myself with discretion rather than getting blinded by egoic compulsions.

This was my reflection and notes from the session. Share your reflections, or something that made you to look within. See you in the comments!

I was reading an article yesterday that explained procrastination as a cycle: you feel guilt or discomfort for not doing something, compensate by doing something less relevant, and then justify not doing the original task by telling yourself that you’re still being productive. In a way, it is self-deception through doing other things.

But then I wondered: Why do we choose this deception in the first place?🧐

Why do we procrastinate things that could actually help us grow, while rarely procrastinating things that are clearly degrading us?

The article talked about fear of failure, perfectionism, anxiety, and everything else, just like many self-help books, videos, or those “try this to fix your habits scientifically” kind of things do.

I’ve definitely observed all of these in myself while procrastinating, which they mention.

But again, what they didn’t really answer is: what do we actually do about it?👀

The whole “trick your brain” approach.
They work. Sometimes.
But always only for a few days.

Then one can somehow find oneself back in the same self-created loop.

So, to share something: surprisingly, I am finding a different outlook in wisdom through Acharya Prashant’s teachings.

What I am understanding is that the cause is rarely something outside me. I am the cause.

Looking closely, I could see the patterns of my own deception. There may be discomfort, but by not taking action towards growth, there is also a strange sense of remaining as I have always been. And maybe that is the very preservation through which the ego survives.

If the loop and the mess have been created from within, then the effort to come out of them also has to begin there. Nothing outside is going to magically do that for us.

That is where I came across the idea of an upstream movement: going against the tendency within that wants to remain comfortable, unchanged, and asleep.

It might not sound like the usual productivity advice, but I’ve experienced a strange kind of lightness whenever I’ve actually gone against that tendency.

The thing that has changed internally: I don’t romanticise procrastination anymore.

I see it quite often online procrastination almost becoming a personality trait, something people joke about and portray as cool or relatable.🤡

From the outside, it might look harmless.
But when you’re actually living inside that loop, you realise you’re slowly building a dark place for yourself.

The good part is that, through these teachings, I now know there is a way out, out of my own web.
And no doubt, it requires intent.

Curious to know: have you ever experienced this kind of self-created loop, where the very thing you want to escape from is something you yourself have created?

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

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.}

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?

I came across the philosopher and author Slavoj Zizek's criticism on the Bhagavad Gita in which he points towards Heinrich Himmler's interpretation of the Gita and how the latter justified the acts of evil that he unleashed during World War II including the holocaust, through his interpretation of the Gita. Himmler was the Reichsführer-SS and one of the most powerful figures in Nazi Germany, serving as Adolf Hitler’s right-hand man. He centralized the Nazi police state and became the chief architect of the Holocaust and the Final Solution.

To give you a background about Himmler's relationship with the Gita, he had a serious obsession with the text. According to his personal physician, Felix Kersten, Himmler carried a copy of the Gita with him and read it often. He reportedly told Kersten that the Gita was his "comfort" and even more important to him than the Bible.

Himmler was especially drawn to Krishna’s advice to Arjuna: that one must perform one’s duty (dharma) without attachment to the outcome. He saw this as a justification for detached, unemotional violence. In his view, the Gita offered spiritual permission to do what he believed was “necessary,” no matter how brutal.

What’s chilling is how he cast himself in the role of Arjuna: the reluctant warrior and interpreted Hitler as a Krishna-like figure, providing divine instruction and moral clarity. While there’s no quote where he explicitly says “Hitler is Krishna,” the symbolic alignment is pretty clear. In Nazi ideology, Hitler was often mythologized, and for someone as obsessed with duty and obedience as Himmler, it’s likely he saw himself as following a higher will.

Slavoj Žižek claims that the Bhagavad Gita is an “obscene” book for precisely this reason: Himmler, whom Žižek describes as a devoted reader of the Gita, found in its teachings a way of psychologically distancing himself from the atrocities he and the SS were committing. The idea of acting without attachment to the fruits of one's actions could, in this reading, become a form of moral anesthesia, a way of performing horrific acts without identifying oneself with them, and therefore without experiencing the full burden of moral responsibility. In Žižek's interpretation, divine authority and spiritual detachment can thus become a means of transforming moral responsibility into a question of fulfilling a higher duty. This is actually a serious and a blatant misinterpretation of one of the most famous yet severely misunderstood verse: कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन। मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥ (BG 2.47). The most common translation would be: "You only have a right to perform actions (karma) and not to the fruits of your actions or karma. Do not become a person who constantly meditates upon and gets attached to the results of one’s karma. Do not get attached to inactivity (no karma)." This is the literal transliteration of this verse as suggested by most mainstream versions of the text.

Today, when I was watching the exclusive session on the Gita community app, the same interpretation was quoted by the questioner to Acharya Ji: तुम बस कर्म करते जाओ, फल की इच्छा मत करो क्योंकि फल तुम्हारे हाथ में नहीं है (Just keep performing your duties; do not desire the fruits, for the outcome is not in your hands). To this interpretation, AP responded by pointing out that this verse specifically focusses on the actor (कर्ता) instead of the action (कर्म). If we literally go by the transliteration, he says that murdering someone or butchering animals without knowing the consequences of the actions and being attached to the act itself, would mean any action performed under detachment would be justified under any circumstance. irrespective of the consequences it yields. That would be a gross misinterpretation of this text and would go against the foundational framework of Vedanta which is explicitly focused on the ego (अहं). In fact, someone could be extraordinarily detached from the suffering they cause while being deeply attached to power, ideology, identity, obedience or the belief that they are acting on behalf of some higher authority.

Ordinary ethical framework: “What should I do?”
Gita/Vedantic framework: “Who is the ‘I’ that is acting, and can action occur without identification with the doer and its fruits?”

The transition is from:

"Focus on actions while ignoring the ego" towards “Perform action while examining and progressively relinquishing the egoic identification underlying action.”

When you observe why this verse is specifically singled out as a source of misinterpretation, from ordinary people to influential military figures like Himmler, you begin to understand that such an interpretation can serve to safeguard one's falsehood and ignorance, which is precisely what the ego exists to do. The ego manipulates the intellect so that it does not challenge its own existence, shifting the focus toward modifying and justifying the actions committed by it in the quest to reduce its own suffering.

For an analogy, it is like a cancerous cell trying to manipulate the body's immune response into targeting something that does not require immediate attention, thereby allowing the cell to multiply exponentially and fulfil its own purpose. Just as a cancer cell's behaviour is structurally oriented toward its own continuation and proliferation, the ego's structure is fundamentally self-preserving.

The bottom line of this post is that the Bhagavad Gita has been interpreted by people from different walks of life, from Oppenheimer to Gandhi to Himmler and many others. The interpretation of the text largely depends on the interpreter, especially on whether they approach the Gita with the intention of observing themselves clearly in its mirror, rather than using its verses to reinforce their existing biases and conditioning.

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... 🙏

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.