u/LordDK_reborn

I mean whyyy.??

The left and the right both support the traditional lokdharmic interpretation of Gita.

Can we introspect instead of just celebration? Celebration is good but what if the same things that enslaved us are still alive today as a part of us?

Going from faking confidence to having inner clarity:

If you want to be recognised in your workplace and there's a presentation and your salary and future aspirations are on the line then you are bound to have the fear of messing up and so need to act confident on surface but still shake in terror underneath.

If you know that the reason behind your presentation is simply to do your best work and that others opinion do not really matter. You do your work because it's important to you over anything else. Then neither confidence or willpower are needed. Clarity is enough.

Just thinking this won't remove your need for fake confidence tho, if you just think like this or adopt this as an attitude but still want all those things underneath then you'll shake anyway, for clarity you need to observe and question who you are right now, acknowledge what you desire and see that your fear stems because of it. Then little by little you leave the things that enslave you behind you.

Planting trees already isn't that effective if we actually want to stop climate change but we remove old trees and forests on top of that which were absorbing lots and lots of CO2 for us.

It's not just a mistake by contractor or government, it's a refusal to acknowledge the real problem.

Planting trees already isn't that effective if we actually want to stop climate change but we remove old trees and forests on top of that which were absorbing lots and lots of CO2 for us.

It's not just a mistake by contractor or government, it's a refusal to acknowledge the real problem and the real solution it requires.

In controlled trials it has never predicted better than random chance but still many people ask about astro chat apps, websites, horoscopes, palm reading, face reading, a** reading etc

Why is our generation so afraid and insecure about their life and what'll become of it?

What's going on?

Today all kinds of Babas and 'Spiritual teachers' are posting on this. They say "such and such is how a real guru should be and I'm the real guru today so come follow me".

Don't fall for people who say these. Whenever you see someone claiming to be the real guru, run away from there.

Sonam wangchuk sir reading Truth Without Apology.

This is a US podcast (Digital Social Hour) where Acharya Prashant (Indian author and philosopher) broke down exactly why our generation is so lonely and addicted to our screens.

We always blame the algorithm, but he put it in a way that made me rethink my own habits. He talked about the "exponential proliferation of objects"—basically, we have infinite choices now (infinite Reels, Shorts, matches on dating apps, etc.).

Because we have infinite options, our expectations are sky-high. If a 15-second video (or a person, or a hobby) doesn't instantly satisfy us, we just swipe to the next one.

This creates a massive gap between what we expect to get from things, and what we actually receive. That gap is the exact definition of the modern "inner void" or loneliness. We keep swiping to fix the emptiness, but the swiping is what's making the gap wider.

Do you think we're just using these endless choices as an escape from dealing with ourselves?

I just saw a media interview by Acharya Prashant addressing the recent NEET exam paper leaks, the resulting tragic student suicides, and the ongoing hunger strike by Sonam Wangchuk.

He didn't just give a generic statement or a fast reaction. His statement can be broke down into three parts—to Wangchuk, to the Government, and to the Indian society.

Here is a summary of what he said:

1. The Appeal to Sonam Wangchuk: "India needs you alive."

Speaking as one teacher watching another teacher put his life on the line, AP urged Sonam Wangchuk to end his 18-day fast. He highlighted Wangchuk's track record as a sincere, trustworthy person who brought education and water to the harsh deserts of Ladakh. AP's message to him was clear: Break your fast. You can serve India, Ladakh, the environment, and education much better by staying alive. Please protect your life.

2. The Challenge to the Government: "Talk to him."

AP called out the government, reminding them that the "dharma" of politics and democracy is restraint, respect, and dialogue. He pointed out the tragic irony of the situation: it does not suit a democracy when a sensible, honorable citizen has to put his life on the line just to get the government to talk to him.

3. The Harsh Mirror for Indian Society (The NEET Tragedy)

While everyone is focused on the paper leaks (the "outer" problem), AP addressed the dark "inner" problem nobody wants to talk about: How did a single piece of paper become more valuable than a student's life?

He called out the entire "market"—coaching centers, corrupt officials, and most importantly, parents.

He asked parents: When did your beautiful child become an "entrance exam project"?

He stated that paper leaks are just a byproduct of a toxic societal demand where millions of kids are forced to chase the exact same "imported dream" out of fear and inferiority.

His concluding thought: We can fight for a fair system on the outside, but until we change our internal greed and dishonesty, no system will ever be truly fair. We are the ones who build the systems, and if we are corrupt inside, we will just build backdoors into new systems.

Link to the full video

What do you think? Are they really just going to let him collapse before they open a dialogue? And are we as a society ever going to stop treating kids like exam projects?

Caring about the environment has become an identity for us instead of actually being something we're concerned with.

When we talk about plastic straws, reusable bags and planting trees, we're not concerned about the earth. We want to feel like the kind of person who cares about the earth and saves it.

There are other things- organic food, carefully curated lifestyle etc. Environmentalism is a new category of objects that the I, the ego, can appropriate for itself. And there's a premium social reward attached called "Moral superiority".

See what happens when you actually point out what they should be doing if they really care about the environment, when you genuinely threaten their lifestyle and interests.

"Give up the jet", "Stop having 3 houses in three different countries", "You don't need that collection of luxury cars", "Have one less child" etc. The reaction will be instant and it'll be disproportionate.

That reaction is very telling. It reveals where the real investment lies. The values claimed were just decoration. How they live reveals their actual self.

A billionaire can plant a million trees and board a private jet in return without contradiction. They just retain the identity of being "someone who cares" to be at peace with themselves. They never cared about the outcome.

The big twist is that the ordinary people talking about this and feeling outraged is doing the exact same thing in smaller scale. They get their identity by the outrage, feel moral and right about themselves and then move on to the next thing in a minute, an hour, a day or atmost a few weeks. They don't actually care as well.

That means we all need to ask this: Where in my own life is performance substituting for the right action?

Seeing Acharya Ji at the Cambridge Union was incredible in itself, but the actual substance of the dialogue is what really shook me. He completely bypassed the usual surface-level debates about policies and economics to expose the root of the whole global crisis.

Here is the link if you haven't watched it yet: https://youtu.be/QoxTWMs4NlA

Right around start, he breaks down this lethal combination we are all living with:

"Inwardly we have remained small, inwardly we are still very primitive, very much the man from that cave... and outwardly we have big power... these two, the dangerous combo."

We keep handing god-like technology and massive economic power to an unexamined, frightened ego. He pointed out how we use advanced tools just to feed an inner hunger that no tech or money can actually touch.

It makes one take a hard look at oneself. One asks how much time I spend trying to optimize my external life - better job, better gadgets, more security, while completely ignoring the "chooser" inside who will never be satisfied anyway. We are trying to solve an upstream psychological problem with downstream physical tools. Even our solutions might be part of the same problem that is ourselves.

How did you guys interpret this segment? Have you caught yourself recently trying to use "outer power" to fix a "small inner" problem?

Science is a brilliant, rigorous method for investigating the natural world. True science is inherently humble. It knows its limits.

​Scientism, on the other hand, loses that humility. It’s the unstated philosophical stance that science is the only valid way to understand reality. It overreaches, assuming that because science is so incredibly good at explaining the physical world, it must be equipped to explain absolutely everything.

​But here is the fatal flaw in scientism. Its core belief boils down to this: "The only valid source of truth is scientific knowledge."

​The irony? That is not a scientific claim!

​You can't run an experiment, observe a petri dish, or look through a telescope to prove that only science yields truth. The core premise of scientism can't even be verified by its own rules.

​To accept it, you have to step completely outside the scientific method and adopt a metaphysical premise. You actually have to take a leap of faith. Even if a proponent of scientism accepts that specific theories will evolve over time, they still hold as an unquestionable truth that the empirical method is the only lens through which to view existence.

​That makes it a philosophical ideology, not a scientific hypothesis. When scientism dismisses fields like philosophy or the arts as irrelevant, it stops being science and becomes dogma. And dogma always closes the door to the very curiosity and open exploration that made science great in the first place.