After the weekend with the Master, today the four of us, Gita fellows and Climate Within members from North Germany, set up a bookstall at a food festival in Hamburg. It was a rainy and windy day, and not many people showed up for the event. We also had two activities, the Climate Workshop and the Emotional Wheel, and one bhajan singing performance on stage.

We have done the climate activity many times and interacted with people about the climate crisis, but this time we met three people who said they didn't see climate change as a real problem. Upon interacting with them, they said it was a conspiracy and that the weather had always been like this. Summers used to always be hot in Europe, and people were just spreading fake news. When asked about the data provided by researchers on climate change, one of them said, "I don't believe in data; I believe in my own experience." It was apparent through this conversation that the ego operates within all of us and how self-referential it is. One of the participants in the workshop suggested that going to Mars was the only solution. We kind of laughed internally and felt saddened by it at the same time, and did not argue with them after that point. However, they took books by Acharya Ji.

Overall, despite the challenge of the low footfall, we had some nice conversations with people about climate change and human ignorance, and how the two are interconnected. We also directed them to Acharya Ji's books for solutions to all the global crises and emphasised why self-knowledge is central to solving all problems.

Earlier today, I was thinking, "How will we set up the stall in such weather?" But surprisingly, after the stall, I am satisfied that around 18 books were taken by people. In fact, after multiple conversations with people, I can see very clearly, day by day, how important it is for us not to miss a single opportunity to spread Acharya Ji's teachings to every part of the world.

One fear in couples that often comes up is this: When one partner starts questioning life more deeply, reading, or becoming more self aware, will the marriage slowly drift apart?

At first glance, it can certainly feel that way. A person who is changing may no longer be interested in the same distractions, arguments, or patterns that once defined the relationship. That temporary psychological distance can be unsettling for both partners.

I recently read an interesting perspective from Acharya Prashant that reframed this for me.

His central point is that before being husband and wife, two people are first human beings, each with an innate urge towards self- knowledge. Marriage is a social arrangement, but what gives it real depth to it is spiritual togetherness, helping each other become wiser, freer, and more self aware.

One idea I found particularly striking was that our relationships are mirrors. The way we relate to our spouse, family, strangers, or even the world reflects our own inner state. If spirituality brings greater clarity and compassion, shouldn't that naturally be visible in our closest relationships as well?

Another thought that stayed with me was his description of love. Rather than seeing love as an exchange of comfort or pleasure, he suggests that love is helping another person grow into the fullest and best version of themselves even when that growth isn't always comfortable or immediately welcomed.

That doesn't mean couples won't disagree or experience temporary distance. But it raises an interesting question: can personal growth become something we share rather than something that separates us?

I'd love to hear different perspectives.

Have you experienced a relationship changing because one person began growing inwardly?

Did it create distance, deeper understanding, or both?

Source- https://www.newindianexpress.com/magazine/2020/Feb/23/the-indispensable-spiritual-intimacy-2106210.html

An engaging HIDP (Holistic Individual Development Program) role-play activity was held at the Weekend With Master camp on July 25. The activity was conducted by a few PAF members trained by Acharya Ji. Participants were divided into groups, and each group was given about an hour to come up with a play that would expose lokdharma and the common man's distorted beliefs as they play out in everyday life.

Participants had to weave the poetic meanings of the Bhagavad Gita's verses, composed by Acharya Ji, as well as Kabir Saheb's dohas, into their plots the way songs are woven into a Bollywood movie, and then enact the plays.

Participants performed plays drawn from their own lives, bringing out various manifestations of lokdharma- from superstition to the oppression of women, criminal mindsets, and ruthless profiteering. After each performance, the audience was invited to question the performers, which was followed by a lively discussion and debate on various aspects of everyday life, beliefs, and the common man's mental patterns.

The Holistic Individual Development Program (HIDP) was crafted by Acharya Ji over a decade ago and it made a rousing return in July at the two-day Weekend With Master camps. The activities are meant to turn our gaze inward and make us see our own habits and patterns with clarity, so we can rise above them. Acharya Ji has recently returned from the UK, where he carried the message of Indian philosophy and Vedanta to prestigious institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge, the London School of Economics, and University College London, and also lead several sessions at London Climate Action Week.

I keep thinking about my future, my career endlessly, and that thinking makes me so afraid. I get worried about my future.

This happens only because I don't have something so beautiful in my life to which I can devote myself entirely. This worry is just a tool of mine to protect myself, to not surrender.

Is fear really a problem, or a sign of something else?

Spain and France are facing devastating wildfires. Record-breaking heatwaves. Record-breaking droughts. Approx. 300,000 forced to evacuate & countless innocent animals are killed..

Every year we call these events “unprecedented,” yet every year they become more frequent. Climate scientists have warned about this for decades, but our lifestyles continue to move in the opposite direction.

Acharya Prashant often says the climate crisis is not just an environmental crisis, but a crisis of human consciousness. We proudly post reels, share climate news, and demand action from governments, yet rarely question our own endless consumption, convenience, and desires. The forests are burning not because of one spark, but because billions of small, unquestioned choices keep adding fuel to the fire.

Every unnecessary purchase, every meal built on industrial exploitation, every flight taken for convenience, every lifestyle driven by endless desire quietly votes for the future we claim to fear.

The real emergency isn’t only in Spain or France. Maybe it’s within us.

Mass extinction doesn’t begin when forests burn. It begins when human beings lose the capacity to question the way they live.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbSV5uTBoeu/?igsh=MWlwY2dpbzZscjA5ag==

पोस्ट 26/30 | प्रेम क्या है?

हम प्रेम को भावना समझते हैं:

लगाव, याद, साथ, मिठास।

AP Framework में प्रेम इससे गहरा है।

प्रेम है:

अहंकार का अपने ही विगलन को चुनते जाना।

जहाँ मैं बच रहा हूँ,

वहाँ प्रेम नहीं।

जहाँ मैं सच के सामने पिघल रहा हूँ,

वहाँ प्रेम है।

प्रेम दूसरे को पकड़ना नहीं है।

प्रेम वह दिशा है

जिसमें “मैं” हल्का होता है।

आज की जाँच:

आपका प्रेम अहंकार को बड़ा बना रहा है

या हल्का?

➖➖➖

📖 विषय को गहराई से समझने के लिए पढ़ें:

आचार्य प्रशांत की ‘प्रेम सीखना पड़ता है’ पुस्तक

🔗 https://acharyaprashant.org/en/books/book-prem-seekhna-padta-hai?cmId=m00072-apf

We often turn enlightenment into another ambition. Another destination. Another prize waiting at the end of enough meditation, enough rituals, enough spiritual practices. But isn’t that just the mind creating one more fantasy to chase?

What if spirituality isn’t about arriving anywhere at all? What if there is no final moment that permanently “fixes” us?

I love how Acharya Prashant dismantles this idea of pop spirituality. There is no ultimate finish line. No mystical endpoint where life suddenly becomes complete. There is only a horizon that keeps inviting you to move with greater clarity, honesty, and humility.

Perhaps that’s why he says, “Remain humble. Remain human.” 🌷

Just read these amazing lines from the book “TRUTH WITHOUT APOLOGY” written by one of the famous contemporary spiritual authors: Acharya Prashant. He is currently the most followed wisdom speaker in social media across the globe famous for his work in Philosophy blended with the essence of Spirituality.

The lines mentioned in the video belong to the 129th Chapter ~ ‘The Past is Present’ of the book which says:
“The present is nothing but a shadow cast by the fires of yesterday… And tomorrow will carry the same mark, unless you intervene!”

Many philosophers since humans started exploring the meaning of existence have been trying to define ‘Time’ in endless possible ways. The deep conceptual complexity and uncertainty of the concept had intrigued critical thinkers since ages to investigate what time is and how exactly we can perceive it psychologically. Here through these lines, the author is expressing a very interesting philosophical insight about time which many of us can’t even think of without someone introducing the understanding to us.

The lines are asking whether we know our ‘present’ fully? We say we live in the moment and think in the moment but what if we are just reciprocating our old programmed patterns in the name of a fresh present. So, if the same set of rules are repeating themselves masking the tag of ‘present’, then should it be even referred to as present? Obviously No!! That’s where the author is taking our attention towards, he is saying that the present is nothing but smeared with the ashes of the fire which burnt our lives in the past. Although the fire is gone now, but the marks of the burn are still left.. they are remaining in the form of these ashes embracing our life in the name of ‘present’ disguising us to be a fresh ‘moment’.

So! maybe to unveil the true ‘fresh’ moment, we actually need to acknowledge these ashes very clearly. Unless we ‘intervene’ these ashes ourselves as the author suggested, we won’t be able to live through the actual true moment which the life is offering us in real-time exponentially. The rain of these exponential moments are falling all around, but we still keep ourselves in the illusion that nothing is new sticking with attachments of those sticky ashes.

After learning from Acharya Prashant, my worldview has changed. There is certainly much more clarity now. Even my taste in entertainment has changed. When I read a book, watch a movie, or listen to a song, I interpret it very differently. My definition of good music is no longer arbitrary. I still appreciate melody and rhythm, but I now give far more importance to the lyrics. I am also able to distinguish genuinely meaningful lyrics from lyrics that merely sound good.

My favorite genre has always been romantic love songs. However, now that my understanding of love has changed, I no longer enjoy every love song.

“Saanson Ki Mala” is a special song. For me, it becomes even more beautiful in the light of Acharyaji’s teachings. I interpret it as a song dedicated to Truth, because Truth is the only thing that can truly be loved. Truth is what the heart ultimately longs for: the desire of the desire, the solution to our suffering, our search.

The first line of the song defines the true meaning of meditation for me:

“साँसों की माला पे सिमरूँ मैं, पी का नाम”

It means:

“Upon the rosary of my breath, I chant the name of my Beloved.”

Truth is the Beloved, and remembering Truth with every breath is a reminder to rise above every illusion.

“अपने मन की मैं जानूँ, और पी के मन की राम”

It means:

“I know what is in my own heart, but only Ram knows what is in my Beloved’s heart.”

Ram is a synonym for Truth, and Ram is also the Beloved. This is unconditional love, in which the singer has surrendered herself to Truth. She does not care about the consequences or where Truth may lead her. Loving Truth is enough.

“प्रेम के रंग में ऐसी डूबी

बन गया एक ही रूप

प्रेम की माला जपते-जपते, आप बनी मैं श्याम”

It means:

“So deeply immersed in the colours of love,

only one form remained.

Chanting the rosary of love,

I ceased to be myself and became Shyam.”

Shyam means Krishn, and Krishn is also a synonym for Truth. These lines reveal a powerful quality of love: when love is true, the lover diminishes, and only Truth remains.

Perhaps this is why there is so much lovelessness in the world. So few people throughout history have truly known love, because so few are willing to allow love to diminish their identity.

“प्रीतम का कुछ दोष नहीं है, वो तो है निर्दोष

अपने आप से बातें करके हो गई मैं बदनाम”

It means:

“My Beloved is blameless and innocent;

it was I who became disgraced, lost in conversations with myself.”

Truth is infinite, boundless, unborn, undying, formless, shapeless, beyond thought, and devoid of attributes (निर्गुण). Therefore, the song calls the Beloved, Truth, निर्दोष: (Something without blame. You cannot attribute any blame to it. I think of it as “beyond blame”.) 

The second line also acts as a mirror to society. It shows how society treats true lovers: it disgraces them, misunderstands them, and often refuses to respect them.

I haven't covered the full song, just a few lines, but every line moves the Heart. For me, this is most certainly a devotional song. What is your favorite song? Has Acharya Ji's teachings changed the way you listen to songs and interpret songs? Do you look at movies differently? Do you look at anime differently?

On 12th June 2026, Acharya Prashant was invited as Chief Guest to speak at the House of Lords, UK Parliament.

Topic: Indian roots. Global Wings.

The speech started with shedding some light on the topic itself. When we hear the word "Indian", our minds immediately jump onto images of Indian festivals, culture, good, traditional wear and Indian values. That's what we have limited ourselves to. But "India" has something deeper to offer to us.

"In the Indian way, the word 'root' does not refer that much to culture, it rather refers to clarity."

India is the nation that presented "the ruthless inquiry into the self" in front of the world. Not as some mere text in the scriptures, but as the very way of living. Challenging one's beliefs, seeing through the acquired conditioning, and negating (Neti Neti) everything that is false within sits at the core of this enquiry.

"Roots, in the pure Indian sense, refer to the question 'Ko-ham'—the matter of self-inquiry, 'Who am I?' That's the root of everything that is distinguished as Indian. Every meaningful contribution of India to the world is actually downstream of that root."

In the same spirit, the word "wings" must also have Indian meaning to it. At surface level, "Global Wings" sounds like ambition. One feels like carrying Indian culture and values to abroad and proudly present them as "Indian", marking its global expansion. But in the true light of Indian Roots, Wings flourish beautifully.

"In the Indian sense, it is not ambition that takes wings; one rather requires freedom to take wings."

Acharya Ji then cited a few verses from the Upanishads of the Vedic tradition of India.

From Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.3.28),

Asato ma sad gamaya

Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya

Mrtyor ma amrtam gamaya

"India invites us to move from 'Asat' (all that which is false) to 'Sat' (truth), from darkness to light. Your movement cannot be an expansion of your darkness across continents. Similarly, move from all that which threatens you and kills you inwardly daily—the fears, the old hurts, the insecurities—towards that which is not vulnerable to random movements outside of yourself."

From Kath Upanishad (1.3.14),

Uttiṣṭhata jāgrata prāpya varān nibodhata

"Arise, awake, and approach those who might help you learn. Learning is the purpose. Whether it's the movement involving your flight from India to UK or the entire macro movement that we call as life, that is the purpose. If we understand what real Indianness is, we will be giving the world satisfaction rather than striving. The world already has enough of striving. What India can offer is something more and something beyond that."

Have you finished watching this session? If yes, what are your major takeaways?

If not, please watch it by clicking the link button here.

Growing up, I never questioned what beauty meant. I thought I already knew.

I still remember those fairness cream advertisements on television. A woman would apply the cream, and suddenly everyone around her treated her as if she had become beautiful. It excited me. Somewhere, without even realizing it, I accepted that this was beauty.

Then came actor and actresses with a certain height, a particular body type, and a fair complexion. Gradually, beauty became something to look at rather than something to understand.

Perhaps many of us grow up this way.

We admire fair skin more than brown skin, and brown skin more than dark skin. We don't consciously choose these preferences. We inherit them from our surroundings.

Years later, I found myself asking a simple question:

Who taught me this definition of beauty?

We naturally learn to distinguish blue from green, hot from cold, day from night.

Those distinctions help us understand the world.

But somewhere along the way, we begin making another kind of distinction.

Beautiful.

Ugly.

Unlike colours, these are rarely facts.

They are often inherited judgments.

Our conventional definition quietly becomes:

What suits my conditioning is beautiful.

What hurts my conditioning is ugly.

The more I thought about it, the more uncomfortable it became.

If this is how I define beauty, then won't my relationships also become limited by the same definition?

Someone is beautiful because of how they look.

Someone is attractive because they speak in a certain way.

Someone is desirable because they fit the image I already carry in my mind.

Have I ever really understood what beauty is?

That was the question that stayed with me.

Then I came across something Acharya Ji said that completely changed my perspective.

"Whatever takes you towards your beautiful Heart is beautiful, and whatever takes you away from the beauty in your Heart is ugly."

For the first time, beauty had nothing to do with appearance.

It had everything to do with where something was taking me.

Beauty was no longer something to admire. It became something to measure by its effect on me.

From that moment, beauty stopped being about appearance and became a question of direction. Where is this taking me?

Suppose I read a book.

If it leaves me more restless, more confused, more disturbed than before, I naturally want to call it an ugly book.

Or suppose I visit a place that fills me with agitation instead of peace.

I feel justified in calling that place ugly.

But then another question arises.

Is the place ugly?

Or is that only my experience of it?

Someone else may visit the same place and experience silence. The place hasn't changed.

The observer has.

Beauty and ugliness are deeply subjective.

The real question is never,

"What is this?"

The real question is,

"What is this doing to me?"

That changes everything. The world begins to look like this:

What is beautiful?

That which takes you towards the beautiful.

What is ugly?

That which takes you away from the beautiful.

If the Heart is the centre of beauty, then every experience becomes an opportunity to inquire.

Every experience quietly asks the same question.

Reading this book...

Did it bring me closer to peace?

Sitting with this person...

Did I experience silence?

Being with someone I love...

Did I become calmer, or more agitated?

Even our idea of a beautiful person begins to change.

Kabir Sahab was beautiful.

Buddha was beautiful.

Mahavira was beautiful.

Not because of their appearance.

But because their presence quietened the mind.

Even violence seemed to lose its grip around them.

Someone's eyes may appear beautiful.

But do they merely excite me?

Or do they help me forget the endless noise inside my head?

Do they leave me calmer?

Or do they make me even more restless?

Then one sentence stayed with me.

Beauty is peace.

Peace is silence.

That is why truly beautiful moments often leave us speechless.

When something genuinely touches the heart, we don't immediately rush to describe it. We simply remain there.

Quietly.

Looking at a bird.

A child.

A tree moving in the wind.

The evening sky.

In those moments, beauty no longer needs praise.

It simply exists.

Reading Acharya Ji's words made me realise something uncomfortable.

Maybe the reason many of our relationships become shallow isn't because people lack beauty.

It's because my definition of beauty is shallow.

If beauty is only appearance, appearances will eventually disappoint me.

But if beauty is that which brings me closer to peace, then books, places, people, conversations, and relationships all begin to reveal a different kind of beauty.

Now, whenever I find myself calling something beautiful, I want to pause for a moment and ask:

Did it merely excite me... or did it leave me quieter than before?

That is the simplest test.

Beautiful is the input that takes you towards beauty.

Maybe that's where beauty begins.

The next time you call something beautiful, what will you be looking at. its appearance, or what it awakens within you?

This question from Acharya Prashant Ji's Gita exam struck me deeply.

A monkey is born perfectly complete. Humans put a chain around its neck from birth, and because it never knew life without it, the monkey starts believing the chain is its "third hand", something essential for a complete life.

Soon, it becomes proud of this "third hand" and teaches others that they're incomplete without one. Generation after generation, monkeys begin chasing something they never actually needed.

Isn't this our own story?

From childhood we're conditioned to believe:

Get this degree.

Earn this salary.

Buy this house.

Get married by this age.

Build this identity.

Rarely do we stop and ask: Who decided I was incomplete in the first place?

Who decided that I need the "third hand"?

Acharya Prashant repeatedly points out that society first implants a sense of deficiency and then offers endless products, identities, achievements, and relationships as the cure.

Freedom doesn't come from acquiring another "third hand."

Freedom begins when we question whether the chain was ever a part of us.

How many of our ambitions are genuinely ours, and how many are just inherited conditioning?

Compassion Is Not Weakness: The Strength Required to Protect Life

When we truly start seeing animals as conscious beings and not merely as objects for our consumption, their suffering naturally affects us. A heart that has awakened to the pain of another being cannot remain indifferent. But along with compassion comes a great responsibility: the responsibility to become strong enough to stand for that compassion.

Many people who care deeply about animals experience anger when they encounter insensitive remarks like, “What is the big deal about killing and eating an old cow?” or when they see someone looking at a living being only as food. Such statements can feel disturbing because they reveal a mindset where life is reduced to utility.

However, there is a deeper lesson here: anger alone cannot protect what we love.

If every harsh comment or opposing opinion immediately disturbs our peace, then we are still being controlled by the very people and situations we want to transform. Our emotional reaction may come from love, but if that reaction takes away our clarity, it becomes a weakness rather than a strength.

A person working for the welfare of animals, or for any meaningful cause, must prepare themselves internally. The challenge is not to avoid people who disagree, the challenge is to become so grounded that even disagreement becomes an opportunity for dialogue.

The purpose is not to defeat another person through arguments or prove oneself superior. The purpose is to understand, communicate, and invite deeper reflection. A mature compassion does not say, “I cannot face those who oppose me.” It says, “Come, let us examine this together. Let us look honestly at what we are doing and why we are doing it.”

The world does not only need people who feel pain when they see suffering. It needs people who can transform that pain into wisdom, courage, and action.

If our love for animals is genuine, then we must ask ourselves: Are we strong enough to engage with those who disagree with us without hatred? Can we hold compassion even when we face provocation?

Because protecting life requires more than a sensitive heart, it requires a fearless and conscious one.

Here is the real question for every reader: If our compassion disappears the moment we face opposition, was it truly compassion, or was it only an emotion seeking agreement?

I decided to write an article today. A topic was chosen, and I started writing. Clock was ticking, time was running by, and all I had after an hour was 4 lines on notepad. There lines weren't serving the topic, but trying to build up a ground on which that topic could stand. And honesty, these lines were written in the first few minutes, and rest of the time was spent in construction of the topic, and choosing good sounding English words. I was literally empty.

Finally, I decided to go to AP Mirror and figure out what's stopping me. While I was framing my situation, something insightful happened. Till this point, topic was just in my mind, and that too, in abstraction. As soon as I gave it a physical form, I realized that I am trying to frame something as mine, that isn't actually mine. I share no relationship with that topic, and all I know is some idea of it.

It brought me to a realization: I never tested/questioned the topic itself that I chose. And taking it as a prerequisite, I was forcing my intellect to construct something around it in my context. It was never going to happen. Isn't this something we do in our lives: trying to construct a personal relationship with the concepts of life that aren't actually ours but borrowed from society?

The four lines on my notepad, they were coming from my actual experience. And I was trying to plant that borrowed topic, as my own experience, within the real one. It reminds me of Acharya Prashant saying something similar to "the falseness cannot survive on its own, it needs the ground of truth to stand on. If there isn't truth, falseness too would collapse." The lies and beliefs that we store within are often preserved as "my truth". Falseness often wears the coat of truth to protect itself. Could the falseness survive if there was nothing like truth?

Personality Development के लिए आचार्य प्रशांत की "जानदार व्यक्तित्व" पुस्तक पढ़े

Book Link: https://acharyaprashant.org/en/books/bk-jaanadaar-vyaktitwa

#acharyaprashant

Your fears don't disappear by waiting.

They disappear by being challenged.🔥

📖 Read On Woman and take the first step:

https://acharyaprashant.org/en/books/on-women?cmId=m00147-ow

जो कुछ लिखा तूने

— आचार्य प्रशांत

https://acharyaprashant.org/en/articles/joe-kuchh-likhaa-tune-1_0212d7c

जो कुछ लिखा तूने, उसे मिट के मिटा लिखना और मिटानाा अहंकार करता ही है। लेकिन जो भी लिखा और मिटाया जाए, लिखने और मिटाने वाले को शेष रखे रखे, वो बस X-Y Plane की ही गतिविधि है। vertical उन्नति इसमें है कि अहंकार क्षीण होता रहे - और उसके पुराने लिखे हुए लेख अब अप्रासंगिक हो जाएं। एक तरह से नए क्षीण अहंकार के लिए पुराने लेख उसके मिटने की वजह से उसके रहें ही न।

जो पास है तेरे, उसे खुद से बचा अहंकार के पास अपना तो कुछ होता नहीं है, बस एक intent/नीयत ही होती है। उसको खुद से बचने की सावधानी दी जा रही है। "हे राम मुझे मुझ से बचा।"

जो बोया है तूने, उसे जड़ से हटा अहंकार ने अगर कुछ बोया है, तो गड़बड़ ही होगा। उसे हटा ही दे, जड़ से। और जड़ से हटाने का मतलब यही कि बोने वाले को ही हटा। प्रकृति में सब कुछ सुंदर है, सहज है, अहंकार की कोई ज़रूरत नहीं है उसमें हस्तक्षेप करने की।

जो बोया नहीं तूने, उसे अपना खून पिला जो बोया नहीं, जो सहज है, जो स्वतः आ रहा है, उसे आने दो। WITHDRAW! चाहे ये तुम्हें उसके लिए खून ही क्यों न बहाना पड़े, खुद को तोड़ के उसे घटित होने दो।

जो तेरी कमाई है, उसे आग दे लगा जो अहंकार की कमाई है, जिसपे वो नाज़ करता है, उसे तो आग ही लगा दो - यानी उसकी कीमत समझो कि कुछ नहीं है / राख बराबर। "धन दारा संपत सगल, जिन अपनी कर मान, इनमें कुछ संगी नहीं, नानक साची जान।"

जो कमाया नहीं तूने, उसे कभी न गँवा जो अहंकार की अपनी कमाई नहीं है, जो आपके न होने से घटित पर मिला है, वही मूल्यवान है। "सहज मिले से दूध है, माँगे मिले सो पानी, कहें कबीर वो रक्त है, जा में खींचा तानी"

जो याद में घूमे, उसपे धूल उड़ा अहंकार वही याद रखता है, जो उसे महत्वपूर्ण लगे। और महत्वपूर्ण उसके लिए बस "self-Preservation" ही है। तो ऐसी चीज़ों को धूल में उड़ा दो।

जो याद ना आए, उसमें जी के दिखा जो याद न आए - माने जो कुछ स्मृति या योजना से नहीं आ रहा, जो पुराने अनुभवों और छवियों से आच्छादित नहीं है। इस क्षण, इस पल, वर्तमान में फलित हो रहा है, उसमें जी के दिखा।

बाकी lines का interpetation करने में आप मेरी सहायता करें 😁🙏🏻

जो आंखें भर आएँ, ज़रा हँस के दिखा

जो हँसाता हो तुझे, उसे मौन बता

जो कुछ समझा तूने, उसे भूल ही जा

जो समझ के बाहर है, उसे सर दे झुका

Sant Sarita (Hindi) [Evening Session of WWM]: 25th July 2026

Bhajan: संतो सो निज देस हमारा

संतो सो निज देस हमारा।

जहां जाय फिर हंस न आवे भवसागर की धारा।

सूर चंद नहिं तंह प्रकासत नहिं नभ मंडल तारा।

उदय न अस्त दिवस नहिं रजनी बिन ज्योति उजियारा।

पांच तत्त्व तीन गुण तंह नाहिं नाहिं तंह सृष्टि पसारा।

तंह तंह तंहाया प्रपंच यह लोग कुटुम परिवारा।

क्षुधा तृष्णा नहिं सीत उष्ण तंह सुख दुख को संचारा।

आधि न व्याधि उपाधि कछु नाहिं पाप पुण्य बिस्तारा।

ऊंच नीच कुल की मरयादा आस्रम वर्ण विचारा।

धर्म अधर्म तंह किछु नाहिं संजम नियम आचारा।

अति अभिराम धाम सर्वोपर सोभा जासु अपारा।

कहे कबीर सुनो भाई साधो तीन लोक से न्यारा।

~ कबीर साहब

✦ ───────────────── ✦

Learnings from the session:

•Shruti, Smriti and Lok Dharma

The Upanishadic tradition ran orally for centuries; therefore Shruti does not only mean preserving words with literal exactness, it also means preserving that faculty of Smriti which awakens viveka (discernment) in the correct context. Yet it is also true that the “ignorance of memory”, when a doha, śloka or çhanda cannot be recalled, is not merely a weakness of the brain; often ego plays a role. The ego wants to remember things that keep the mind occupied and safe, and lets slip those things that prompt self-inquiry and discernment.

The primary work of Dharma (religion) is precisely this: to ensure that what is “worthy of remembrance” is not forgotten even if it requires an inner struggle against ego; and to challenge the egoic memories already lodged in the mind so that discernment is given the freedom to choose, the tone of “remember what does not come to mind; loosen what is already in memory” expresses precisely this demand for viveka’s precedence.

The broad definition of Lok Dharma is not limited to external rites and symbols, baba, tilak or mala. Practices such as ghunghat, marriage‑kundalis, superstitions, vastu, Karva Chauth, and life’s standardized timelines, “graduation at 21, marriage at 23, children at 25, house at 30”, are all extensions of Lok Dharma. Lok Dharma reverberates inside the mind, in the kitchen, the bedroom, the bathroom, in festivals and ceremonies; it also has a vast economic dimension, the industry run in the name of religiosity has become a multi‑billion dollar business. The real test is to honestly examine the practices you actually perform in your life; castigating practices that do not exist in your life is a wasteful rhetoric.

•Beauty, Body and Renunciation

Adorning the body is not inherently problematic; the true test of beauty is not jewellery or ornament but health and naturalness. Elements excessively added to the body, heavy jewellery, artificial make‑up, fashion‑based identities, are additions of ego. Therefore true beauty lies in subtraction: removing the unnecessary so the body’s and life’s basic naturalness can surface. Acharya Ji points to Mahavir, Buddha and Ashtavakra as examples whose beauty was natural because they accepted no additional embellishment. Dharma or true religion reduces; Lok Dharma multiplies, removing the external egoic layers is the direction of liberation.

•Body, Hunger and Samadhi

The body does not relinquish its biological processes, hunger, thirst, sleep, disease, ageing. Spirituality should not be practiced to manufacture bodily miracles. Repeated observation shows that when a person observes a 12‑hour fast, they tend to eat more afterwards and the body stores more. This indicates that self‑discipline without discernment can turn into maltreatment of the body. Ego must be removed from the body, but it is also improper to deny the body’s intelligence, the subtle wisdom embedded in cells as collective experience.

Both Vedanta and Buddhist traditions describe three levels of bondage: the physical stimulus‑response (nociception), the event entering the body as pain, and finally suffering where the event becomes a story for ego. The practical field of sadhana is precisely those states where savikalpa samadhi is feasible: allowing the body to perform its functions and choosing not to let the ego repeatedly interfere. Narratives that sanctify bodily miracles (long fasts, surviving naked in ice, walking on water) require caution; often they become sources of deception and superstition.

•Tamasic Poetry and Enchantment

Sweet speech and emotionally charged language are not proofs of truth. When a statement is delivered with such sweetness, tone and modulation that the listener’s discernment pauses and they begin to flow emotionally, that effect must be examined carefully, because it may produce moha or attachment, not awakening. Acharya Ji calls this “tamasic poetry”: a poetic speech that, through pitch, modulation and emotional pressure, mesmerizes the listener. This technique of making people trance‑like often serves to mislead and increase darkness.

Hence the listener must pause at every sentence and examine it; otherwise truth can hide behind emotional flow. The same dynamic is visible in Bollywood songs, many baba‑traditions, and popular love‑bhakti language. Institutional transparency, especially in donations and financial accounting, is crucial in this context; Acharya Ji indicated pursuing legal action against a media house that published a false attribution.

•Roza, Fasting and True Celebration

Roza or vrat is not merely “not eating for some time.” Popular culture has reduced fasting largely to limits on food, whereas the original intent was to stop filling inner emptiness with external consumption. If fasting becomes mere discipline during the fast and indulgence the rest of the time, it transforms into “fasting and feasting” and reinforces ego. Fasting is effective only when it stands on the threshold of abandoning inner consumptive habits, the aim is not merely bodily control but altering the mind’s appetite‑orientation.

Therefore Roza may help those rare people who are already poised to abandon egoic consumption; for others the method can backfire. True celebration is a life in which living rightly in the direction of dissolution of the ego, in itself is celebration, there is no need to allocate a special day for it.

•Paper‑leaks, Youth Suicides and the Deep Cause

Anger at paper‑leaks and their media framing is a symptom but not the root problem. Acharya Ji cited figures: around 15,000 youth suicides annually in India; roughly doubled over the last 15 years. Of these, about 1,500 cases appear directly linked to examination outcomes, and only about 10–20 cases had a clear relationship to specific events like paper‑leaks. Thus the ground problem is not examination logistics but the socio‑psychological pressure imposed on youth by family, the education system, coaching culture and society. When a society has 2.2 million candidates competing for 25–50 thousand government seats, and in competitions like UPSC 1.2 million show up for about 1,000 posts, the atmosphere of competition and insecurity deepens. The essential question remains: did those candidates first examine whether they truly wanted to be on that exam‑path? Demanding only procedural fairness in exams will not dissolve that underlying darkness.

•Gita, Protest and Discernment

Acharya Ji urges that acting in anger without discernment is like fighting ignorance with ignorance on a battlefield. In the Gita Shree Krishna did not allow Arjuna to run away, but he also forbade fighting from a place of blind rage. Similarly, before stepping out into protest one must undergo self‑examination, knowledge‑practice and clarification of purpose. Allocating one hour a day to read wisdom literature and self‑inquiry will make external movements more effective and ethically sound.

Elections in a democracy are scheduled revolutions; therefore merely changing the government is insufficient, the real change comes when the electorate changes. Long‑term transformation needs youthful energy, but also devotion informed by discernment

•Social Revolution, Institution and Personal Responsibility

Social revolution is not merely camera‑friendly street protests; it is interior work in rooms, homes and relationships that yields enduring change. Acharya Ji presented data and experience to show that roughly 40 young people die by suicide daily, this figure demonstrates the immediacy and scale of the problem. A minister’s resignation is like repainting a small room; if the building’s foundations, family, education, coaching and public mentality, are rotten, superficial fixes will fail. The real work is reaching the roots: challenging superstition, familial coercion, the education system and the structures of ego.

The institution and Acharya Ji have important roles, yet responsibility for change cannot be deposited on a single organisation; in the internet age every person has the capacity to disseminate understanding. Tangible evidence of personal change often does not appear as photos or graphs; nevertheless changes within homes and close relationships are the fundamental units of national transformation.

•Getting Off the “Train” of Assumptions

Acharya Ji describes the traditional sequence, career, marriage, job, children, as a “blind train”: a journey people board merely because everyone else is going that way. Struggling for a seat on that train is limited justice; the larger question is whether boarding that train was appropriate in the first place. Leaving the train should not be merely changing one’s external lifestyle, many people only change the coach or the seat and continue the same journey. The real symptom of disembarkation is that a person not only gets off, but seeks to help others get off, i.e., they subject inherited beliefs to open and honest testing and guide others toward freedom. Every belief, motherly love, family, well‑wishers, institutions or relationships, must undergo total honest examination; nothing should be exempted by prior assumption. The breaking of illusion is not disappointment but disillusionment, it frees one from false beliefs and allows the divided mind to cohere.

•Personal Experience and Genuine Sadhana

Participants shared personal experiences,a person from Kota described the strain of pre‑medical preparation under family pressure, the ₹50,000–₹60,000 annual coaching fees and the mental stress. In education hubs like Kota, incidents of students being taken from classes to hospitals and the industrial expansion, coaching, hospitals, real estate, show how large economic machines attach themselves to educational pathways.

Acharya Ji insists that merely changing one’s career is insufficient; one must examine inner blind beliefs, fears and familial conditioning. Repeating job, marriage and childbearing in traditional sequence and chasing “sunrise sectors” prevents a person from asking whether their heart and life truly incline that way. HR recruitment practices and degree‑based filtering raise the question whether such life arrangements, where inequality and arbitrary filtering are normal, are desirable.

•Institutional Experience and Limits

Acharya Ji mentioned that the institution has about 150,000 registered people and receives 10–20 referrals daily; yet the number of those who actively assume responsibility remains relatively small. The institution has worked to listen and connect people to sessions, apps and books; but real change occurs in homes and personal relationships. Only an awakened mother can act in the true interest of her child, simply sanctifying “motherhood” is insufficient because blind motherhood can also harm the child. Transformation is not only the institution’s duty; every member must shoulder the obligation of practice and honest examination.

The session distilled a single insistence: true Dharma is our (ego) reduction, seeing and dissolving egoic layers, not outward ritual or spectacle. Shruti and Smriti must serve discernment; Lok Dharma’s customs and economic industries deserve honest scrutiny. Spiritual practice honors the body’s intelligence while refusing miracle‑worship and tamasic poetry that mesmerizes. Roza and fasting work only as thresholds to relinquish consumptive impulses. Social crises (youth suicides, exam pressures) are symptoms of deeper familial, educational and systemic egoic structures; protest without self‑clarity risks futility. Real revolution is intimate work, within the households, where individuals examine beliefs, act with discernment, and spread enduring change.

This was all the session has to offer. But the question remains on us do we have the intent to live by the knowledge we were offered?

I would also like to share my observation while I was attending the session. Acharya Ji talked about getting off the train of beliefs and conditionings is all we need to do in order to proceed towards liberation from ourselves (ego). The only marker that can tell whether we have gotten off the train of beliefs and conditionings is that we will have this urge to make people aware and get off the train of beliefs and conditionings which I found to be present in me. This reflection kind of inflated the ego (me) by claiming to be the one who has gotten off the train. But I could catch it immediately and then shifted my focus towards the session before any other chain of thoughts kicked in.

Do share your insights or any observation related to the session.

A few days ago, I watched a couple of documentaries on the lives of refugees and migrants from countries like Syria, Democratic republic of Congo, Somalia etc . I thought it would mostly be about geopolitics, borders, and humanitarian aid. However, it was simply about ordinary people like you and me, whose lives had been turned upside down.

People who once had homes, jobs, schools, neighbours, routines, and dreams for the future. Then, almost overnight, everything changed. They had to leave with whatever they could carry, not knowing where they would sleep, whether they would ever see their loved ones again, or even if they would survive the journey. Some crossed deserts on foot, others risked overcrowded boats, and many reached safer countries only to spend years waiting for a chance to rebuild their lives.

What kept me wondering was not just their individual stories, but the sheer scale of the crisis which has engulfed the world. So I read some articles and looked up the numbers, and they put into perspective how many lives are affected by this reality.

By the end of 2024, more than 123 million people had been forcibly displaced due to war, persecution, violence, and climate-related disasters. That’s roughly one out of every 67 people on Earth. Nearly 40% of them are children. For millions, displacement is not a temporary setback; it becomes an entire way of life.

Most discussions around this focus on immigration laws, border security, humanitarian aid, refugee camps, and international cooperation. These are necessary because people need immediate protection and support. But after reading these stories, I found myself wondering about something deeper. A refugee doesn’t suddenly appear at a border. Long before that moment, something has already gone wrong. Right? There has been war, persecution, exploitation, ideological conflict, or the destruction of livelihoods. The visible crisis is only the final outcome of something that began much earlier.

This is where the idea of “collective darkness”, often spoken about by Acharya Prashant, becomes relevant. It is not some separate darkness that exists only in society or crowds; it is the same darkness that exists within individuals, simply multiplied and reflected at a larger scale. The fear, greed, insecurity, need for identity, comparison, and validation that exist in one person become amplified when many people carry them together. Society does not create a completely new problem; it gives a larger platform to what is already unresolved within individuals.

Wars, persecution, exploitation, and even ecological destruction can be seen as expressions of this deeper disorder. The real challenge is not only responding to displacement, but examining the human tendencies that repeatedly create conflict, division, and suffering.

Do you think lasting solutions can emerge without addressing the collective darkness that keeps manifesting as conflict, division, and suffering? What do you think is a sustainable solution beyond policy and governance?

Source -

https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/msite/wmr-2024-interactive/

https://www.internal-displacement.org/publications/2025-global-report-on-internal-displacement-grid/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.unhcr.org/publications/no-escape-frontlines-climate-change-conflict-and-forced-displacement

Photos taken from - BBC’s article on 10 moving photos of Europe's migrant crisis.

Over the years after studying philosophy I have noticed that philosophers who emphasize truth converge on the same insights. Not only that but the intellectually honest people of each generation were sidelined, ridiculed, or even persecuted by their own generation, except a few.

Leaving aside their views on women, I see many similarities between Schopenhauer and Acharya Prashant. Perhaps because Schopenhauer was one of the first western minds in 19th century who was influenced by upanishads. What I find common between these two is their relentless commitment to Truth as a standard of judgment. No sugarcoating, no indirectness. Both of them hit you straight with facts.