u/tanegupta1997

Photo by Quang Nguyen Vinh from Pexels. Used under the Pexels License.

When people think about replacing fossil fuels, the solution seems simple: build more solar panels and wind turbines. But solar and wind output changes with the weather and time of day, while electricity supply must continuously match demand. Otherwise, clean electricity may be wasted during surplus periods, or shortages and outages may occur when generation falls.

Clean flexibility refers to solutions that keep a renewable-powered grid balanced and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Ember groups these solutions into four memorable categories: Store, Shift, Share and Supply. You can read Ember’s overview here: https://ember-energy.org/focus-areas/clean-flexibility/.

Store: Save excess renewable electricity for minutes, hours or even days, so it can be used when there is less sunlight or wind. Batteries can save excess solar and wind power and release it later, such as during the evening when demand is high.

Shift: Encourage consumers to move electricity use to sunny or windy hours, helping lower bills and keep the grid stable. Dynamic tariffs can encourage households to charge electric vehicles or run appliances when renewable electricity is abundant.

Share: Use power cables to send surplus wind and solar electricity to places where it is needed, balancing supply and demand across regions. Power cables move electricity between regions. Europe’s interconnected grid links 39 countries, allowing surplus clean power in one country to support another and reducing price volatility.

Supply: Make existing power plants more flexible so they can reduce generation when renewable electricity is abundant. For example, India is upgrading thermal plants so they can operate safely at 55% of capacity instead of 70%, allowing more wind and solar power onto the grid while reducing system costs.

Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7, Verse 17

Verse:

तेषां ज्ञानी नित्ययुक्त एकभक्तिर्विशिष्यते।

प्रियो हि ज्ञानिनोऽत्यर्थमहं स च मम प्रियः॥ 17 ॥

Transliteration:

तेषाम् = among them; ज्ञानी = the Wise One; नित्ययुक्तः = ever established; एकभक्तिः = whose devotion is directed only to the One; विशिष्यते = is distinguished; हि = for; अहम् = I; ज्ञानिनः = of the Wise One; अत्यर्थम् = exceedingly; प्रियः = dear; च = and; सः = He; मम = to Me; प्रियः = dear

Translation:

Among them, those Wise Ones who are ever established and whose devotion is directed only to the One are indeed distinguished; for I am exceedingly dear to those Wise Ones, and they too are dear to Me.

✦ ───────────────── ✦

Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 7, Verse 18

Verse:

उदाराः सर्व एवैते ज्ञानी त्वात्मैव मे मतम् ।

आस्थितः स हि युक्तात्मा मामेवानुत्तमां गतिम् ||18||

Transliteration:

सर्वे = all; एते = them; एव = indeed; उदाराः = are noble; तु = however; ज्ञानी = the Wise One; आत्मा एव = is the Self (Atma) itself; मे = My; मतम् = teaching; हि = for; युक्तात्मा = being established in the Self; सः = they; आस्थितः = abide; एव = only; माम् = in Me; अनुत्तमाम् = supreme; गतिम् = action

Translation:

All of them are indeed noble; however, the Wise One is the Self (Atma) itself - this is My teaching. For, being established in the Self, they abide only in Me, and that is supreme.

✦ ───────────────── ✦

Learnings from the session:

•Spiritual journey: no final destination

Acharya Ji began by making clear that spirituality does not denote a final state. Yukti is not a final achievement but an ongoing process, just as breath come and go. If one looks for a final destination of breath, one will encounter only death; similarly, the ending of the spiritual journey would be more, the end of the beauty of the journey than an accomplishment. Therefore the goal is not to annihilate the self completely, because that very demand can itself become a subtle desire of the ego, but rather a continuous aspiration to move in Ram’s (truth) direction is sufficient.

True spiritual humility accepts that the journey continues and the ego thins down progressively.

•Definition of the knower: recurring insight into the falsity of the ego

Acharya Ji distinguished the term "knower" from degrees, information, or intellectual achievement. A knower is not one who has completed scriptures; a knower is someone to whom the illusory nature of the ego is repeatedly revealed. The essence of knowledge is that the person sees the futility of their being and, instead of hiding or decorating it, accepts it. This is the natural difference between scholarship and direct realization.

•Devotion and knowledge: not separate paths, the same process

Acharya Ji clarified that devotion is not the name of a specific emotion or religious practice. Devotion means valuing your (ego's) non‑being more than your being, loving your diminution. Knowledge and devotion complement each other: knowledge reduces the ego and devotion esteems its reduction. When a person comes to love their gradual disappearance, the confluence of both becomes established. Hence treating devotion and knowledge as separate paths leaves both incomplete.

•For single‑pointed devotion or Eknishtha, the ego’s fading is necessary

The ego is a continuous aggregate of changing states; morning’s ego is different, afternoon’s different, evening’s different. So as long as some "something" remains inside, it will be attracted to many objects and call them love. Single‑pointed love or eknishtha is possible only when the lover diminishes; that is, the ego’s fading is necessary so that love can settle on one center. This fading is accelerated by knowledge, when a person honestly sees their inner disorder, the ego weakens and the focus of love turns toward its own diminution.

•Which comes first, love or knowledge: context decides

Acharya Ji said that whether love comes first or knowledge comes first is contextual. Sometimes a right intention, a form of love, is necessary for the birth of knowledge; at other times knowledge is necessary to purify love. Without knowledge, love becomes mere attraction or sentiment that scatters over many objects; without love, knowledge becomes arid self‑examination. Therefore both proceed together: right intention (love) gives rise to knowledge, and knowledge purifies love.

•Meaning of prayer: "save me from myself"

Acharya Ji drew attention to the significance of the word "You" (tu) in devotional language. As long as the hold of "I" is firm, "You" remains a reflection of the "I"'s preferences and benefits. Therefore, the true meaning of prayer should be: "save me from myself", a plea for liberation from the ego. Ram, Krishna, Truth, liberation, moksha, all are merely names for the absence of ego; prayer means leaning toward the reduction of one’s personal claims, desires, and self‑importance.

•Knowledge, truth and right intention

Knowledge is not merely assessing facts; it is an intention in which one is ready to turn away from falsehood as soon as clarity arises. Just as when a dream collapses one does not try to make it real again, similarly when the illusory nature of a life‑view is revealed to the knower, he does not attempt to save it. In this state he does not use argument, memory, tradition, or spiritual language to revive the falsehood. Without right intention, knowledge often becomes an instrument of self‑protection, whereas the knower is one who sacrifices convenience in the face of truth.

•Grace and gratitude

Acharya Ji said that if a person sees inner rubbish and develops the desire for purification, that impulse cannot be their own achievement; the rubbish cannot inspire its own cleansing. Therefore, claiming credit for the desire to disappear is another form of ego. When the ego humbly accepts that the impulse to dissolve did not arise from its own power, only then do grace and gratitude make sense. That is spiritual humility.

•Devotion is not an action; it is a fruit

Acharya Ji warned against converting devotion into a fixed ritual, routine, or "to‑do" list. Saying "do devotion" creates a problem because the doer then becomes the ego itself. True devotion is the spontaneous fruit of knowledge; when the ego honestly sees itself and diminishes, devotion reveals itself. If one begins to practice devotion without first diminishing, the person will choose temples, songs, attire, and procedures to their taste, and the ego may only strengthen under a new spiritual guise.

•Making and unmaking: the two movements of life

Acharya Ji explained that a person both constructs and deconstructs themselves; this "person" is essentially the ego. Life continuously involves creation and destruction, and the question is not whether construction should happen, but whether the ego is claiming to be life’s creator and thus intervening. When the ego claims and interferes in life’s creative process, it often spoils it. A healthy direction is: life should continue to unfold while the ego decreases; the person’s main task is to watch the ego, not to build everything in life personally.

•Fear, getting lost, and traveling without a map

Acharya Ji said that fear is often more habit and confusion than real danger. Long‑standing habit makes one believe that fear is necessary. A little getting lost, going to a new city, or stepping out without full information teaches inner trust. If one always tries to remain safe, one never discovers one’s actual state. Therefore, sometimes purposeless travel or experimentation is useful, provided there is right intention and readiness to bear the consequences.

•HIDP and the purpose of role‑play

Acharya Ji described HIDP not as a primary method for imparting knowledge but as an environment where a person can see their life‑truths through role‑play, confession, and speaking before a group. Playing roles helps a person temporarily step out of everyday identity‑armor and observe themselves. Confessions spoken aloud carry a special power; this practices honesty and shows that no personality is permanent. HIDP’s aim is not to adopt a new identity but to demonstrate that the old personality is not the ultimate truth.

•Education, unemployment, and the job mindset

Acharya Ji discussed India’s education system and unemployment practically. He said facts must be verified, yet the crisis between education and employment is real. The problem is not only structural but also mental: many young people want jobs but are unwilling to create employment, take risks, or start something new. The aim of education should not be merely to obtain a job; it should form a mind that can create work and be self‑reliant. Seeing government employment as safety, Acharya Ji observed that when education does not teach one to seek inner security, one turns to external institutions for protection.

•Women’s freedom, marriage and inner empowerment

Acharya Ji asked why women remain inwardly dependent despite greater external rights. He reframed feminism not as mere female identity but as a movement toward being a whole human. Socially produced pressures, the image of the "perfect mother", often affect a woman’s inner freedom. If the choice to leave a job is driven solely by social guilt, it is not truly autonomous. In Acharya Ji’s view, real empowerment is when a woman recognizes and preserves her inner freedom and decision‑making capacity.

•Difference between self‑reliance and dependence

Acharya Ji made clear that a woman’s professional or financial success does not by itself prove inner freedom if she remains dependent on male family members for decisions or expenses. Remaining safely dependent on others deprives a person of learning and self‑reliance. Enduring some economic loss for the sake of learning is often preferable because it teaches a person to stand on their own.

•Goals, practice and time constraints

Acharya Ji said that goals give the mind direction and make time‑bound use of energy possible. Without goals, the mind sustains the illusion of endless time, and work gets postponed. Goals for writing a book, training, or learning a skill are necessary; they are not external pressure but means to orient energy. Mental senility is habitual, not inevitable; it can be challenged. Reflecting after listening deepens understanding; listening alone does not bring change.

•Consumption, food and hidden violence

Acharya Ji spoke about moral and ecological aspects of consumption: attractive packaging does not make a product harmless. Behind packaged milk or other products there may be hidden violence inflicted on animals, nature, and labor. Consumers must question a product’s source and process rather than buy merely by seeing the final form. Such questioning is the first step of resistance against a system that prefers consumers to see, buy, and eat without asking how the product arrived.

•Body, health, and the distinction from spirituality

Acharya Ji advised caution in immediately labeling every physical problem as a spiritual issue. He warned us in the session that sometimes it's actually just a physical problem rather than the ego trying to preserve itself through the body's ailment. For example, if a person is actually sleepy because they are genuinely tired, it is a physical issue rather than the ego trying to trick us; so he warned us to see clearly. Sleep, nutrition, and bodily complaints should first be examined for physical causes. It is necessary to distinguish physical and mental reasons. Preparation does not mean the problem is gone but that its effects are handled intelligently. One must be cautious about attributing all problems to a single cause; medical and emotional factors require careful, distinct assessment.

•Sangati (companionship) and the need to stay awake

Acharya Ji said that if someone knows they fall asleep (metaphorically), get stuck in habits, or make unconscious decisions, they need company that wakes them up, company that does not tuck them into comfort but pours water on them when needed. Also, do not label every instance of sleep as a spiritual weakness; check whether sleep is being used to avoid awareness. Treat bodily problems at the bodily level and mental issues at the mental level.

•Qualities of the learning sessions and honest confession

In the follow‑up learning sessions, participants honestly shared their experiences. Some said that knowledge means seeing inner rubbish and accepting one’s incapacity; others described HIDP as a practice ground for confession. Several recounted overcoming personal hardships, returning to creative work, or restarting their professional credentials. These reports showed that with right intention and vigilant practicality, change is possible.

•Truth, argument and humility

Acharya Ji emphasized humility and commitment to truth. Humility does not arise from artificial debate tricks; if you value argument, you must sincerely try to find the best argument, even if it belongs to someone else. The aim of argument is not victory but approaching truth. When a better argument appears, one should have the capacity to acknowledge it. If you repeatedly encounter falsehood on the path, treat it as an opportunity to inspect whether you yourself are also following a similar falsehood.

The session’s central question remained: is the ego honestly seeing its present condition, and is it willing to diminish? Knowledge reveals the ego; love motivates its diminution; and grace appears when the ego accepts that the impulse to dissolve was not its personal achievement. This combination- knowledge, love, grace, right intention, and honesty- becomes an ongoing process that guides a person toward truth.

Share your insights as well!

Left image: Photo by Yan Krukau from Pexels. Used under the Pexels License. Cropped and combined for this graphic.

Right image: Photo by Casa Rio Beauty Salon on Pexels. Used under the Pexels License. Cropped and combined with another image for this graphic.

An Indian scientist received a $3 million prize for helping transform our understanding of string theory. Most Indians have probably never heard of him. His name is Ashoke Sen, and that raises an uncomfortable question: What kind of people do we actually respect?

We often say society respects money. But I do not think that is entirely true. Society seems to respect money mainly when it is converted into visible consumption.

Most people understand that tackling climate change requires reducing our collective carbon footprint. We talk about net zero, renewable energy, corporations, and government policy. Many people have strong opinions about what others should do.

But then look at the people we admire. Someone who flies irresponsibly in a private jet should, from an environmental perspective, be among the least respected people in society. Instead, that lifestyle often earns admiration, followers and millions of likes.

We condemn excessive emissions in theory while worshipping excessive consumption in practice.

Now consider Ashoke Sen.

Sen is one of India’s most accomplished theoretical physicists. During the 1990s, he made major contributions to the developments known as the second superstring revolution. His work provided important evidence that different versions of string theory were not necessarily competing theories, but could be connected as different descriptions of deeper underlying physics. He has also contributed to tachyon condensation, string field theory, and black-hole entropy.

In 2012, Sen became one of the nine inaugural recipients of the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics, receiving $3 million. He has also received the Padma Shri, the Padma Bhushan, the Dirac Medal, and Fellowship of the Royal Society.

Yet how many people know his name?

Compare his recognition with that of an average celebrity, influencer, or billionaire whose wealth is constantly displayed. Sen earned millions through one of the hardest possible routes: producing original scientific work at the highest level. But because his wealth was not turned into a spectacle of consumption, society barely noticed.

This suggests that we do not simply respect wealth. We respect the display of wealth.

Ashoke Sen represents a different model of success. His importance comes not from what he purchased, but from what he discovered.

So the next time you admire someone, ask yourself:

Do I respect what this person contributed to the world, or am I merely impressed by what they can afford to consume?

Photo by Giant Asparagus from Pexels. Used under the Pexels License.

I recently read this analysis by Ember:

https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/bottleneck-to-the-next-phase-of-renewable-energy-growth-in-india/

This post summarizes my understanding of it.

Are you concerned about climate change and how it will affect India? Do you believe India simply needs to generate more solar electricity? If yes, you must read this post and the above analysis.

Over the past year, a new obstacle has emerged in India’s renewable-energy transition. India curtailed around 2.1 TWh of renewable electricity in FY 2025–26, worth approximately ₹629 crore.

Why would a country waste clean electricity?

The electricity grid is the network that carries power from generators to consumers. The electricity entering the grid must roughly equal the electricity being used. In simple terms, supply must match demand.

Solar complicates this balance because its generation is volatile. It produces heavily during daylight hours and nothing at night. Coal plants, meanwhile, cannot instantly switch off when solar generation rises. They have a minimum technical load ( MTL), below which they cannot safely reduce output. Restarting a coal plant can take hours or even days and is more polluting. India’s current MTL for coal plants is 55%. So, if a coal plant can produce a maximum of 1,000 units, it may not be able to reduce its generation below 550 units. 

Suppose the grid needs 100 units of electricity. Solar is producing 60 units, while coal plants are already operating at their minimum output of 55 units. Total generation is now 115 units. Since coal cannot be reduced further, in this case, at least 15 units of solar power must be switched off. When we curtail renewable electricity, we are wasting clean electricity that is available, not because there is no demand, but because the coal plants have a technical limit.

This is why simply installing more solar is not enough. If new solar panels generate electricity when existing solar power is already being discarded, we have not solved the immediate problem. Reducing curtailment and improving grid flexibility should come before blindly adding more solar capacity.

Battery storage offers a solution. Batteries can charge when excess solar power is available and discharge after sunset, when electricity is needed more urgently. However, Ember’s analysis argues that India’s regulations prevent batteries from operating efficiently. Under the General Network Access (framework governing transmission access), BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) projects seeking access during non-solar hours must provide at least 2 hours of storage and build a “commensurate” renewable plant from which to charge. The 2-hour requirement is not the problem. The second condition is.

Imagine a battery tied to one solar farm. That farm may have no surplus electricity, while another solar plant elsewhere is being ordered to shut down. The battery remains empty even though clean electricity is being wasted on the wider grid. The author’s proposal is simple: allow batteries to charge from the grid whenever transmission lines have spare capacity, and restrict them only where charging would genuinely overload the network.

Adding solar panels without building the storage, grid flexibility, and regulations needed to use that electricity is not serious climate policy. People who genuinely care about climate change must educate themselves about these challenges. Slogans are easy. Understanding the roadblocks and nuances will help us make better demands! We must make more educated demands!

Image Caption: Nikolai Vavilov, 1933. Library of Congress, New York World-Telegram & Sun Collection. No known copyright restrictions.

Nikolai Vavilov was one of the most important plant scientists of the 20th century, a botanist and geneticist who devoted his life to preventing famine.

Vavilov built one of the world’s first major seed banks in Leningrad and became the Soviet Union’s leading agricultural scientist.

He believed in genetics. This meant that improving crops required careful breeding over many generations. Plants could be changed, but not instantly.

That became politically dangerous. Under Joseph Stalin, the Soviet government forced peasants onto state-controlled collective farms. The policy contributed to catastrophic famines that killed millions. The regime needed quick agricultural success and someone who could promise it.

Trofim Lysenko did. Lysenko claimed crops could be rapidly transformed by changing their environment. The claim lacked solid evidence, but it fit Soviet ideology. It suggested that nature, like society, could be remade through willpower and the right conditions.

With Stalin’s support, Lysenko gained control over Soviet biology. He denounced geneticists as enemies, and scientists who opposed him were fired, imprisoned, or killed.

Vavilov refused to endorse ideas he believed were false. In 1940, the secret police arrested him on fabricated charges of espionage and sabotage. He died of starvation in 1943.

Meanwhile, during the Nazi siege of Leningrad, scientists guarded Vavilov’s seed bank while the city starved. Surrounded by edible grain, several reportedly died rather than consume the collection they believed could save future generations.

The seed bank survived. Vavilov did not.

His story shows what happens when political loyalty becomes more important than evidence, and when leaders reward comforting promises over uncomfortable truths.

Science is full of people who loved truth more than comfort. Vavilov’s love was expressed through seeds, through the possibility that they could protect future generations from hunger. He could have saved himself by accepting a profitable lie, but he chose truth instead. He was not loveless. His life was shaped by a love strong enough to cost him everything.

AP says, “Can there be something so lovable that you can choose to drop even your body for that? No need to come to quick conclusions. Just try to probe deeper into Love, what is the most appealing most beautiful thing that I can find to love? And you don't need to ask, "Can I die for it?" That will happen on its own. Just keep augmenting the quality of your love. Don't settle for something ordinary, mediocre, commonplace, traditional, or petty. So figure out the highest and fall in love with it. It's just that to love, you must have some sense of who you are. Otherwise, you will have attractions and compulsions, but not love.”

Do you confuse compulsions and attractions for love? Do you think you know love? What is it in your life that is worthy of love?

Have you ever used a statistic to form an opinion or win an argument? If so, are you aware of how easy it is to misinterpret one? Some of you may have heard of the Prosecutor's Fallacy; other readers, fasten your seatbelts, because you are in for a shock.

The fallacy is confusing the probability of A given B with the probability of B given A (A and B are events). P(A | B) denotes the probability of A given that B has already occurred.

Suppose a disease affects 1% of the population, and the doctor uses a test that is advertised as 95% accurate. You test positive. What's the chance you actually have the disease? Most people say 95%. The real answer is about 16%. Out of 10,000 people, about 100 are sick and 95 test positive; of the 9,900 healthy people, about 495 also test positive, so only 95 of the 590 total positives are real. You've confused P(positive | disease) with P(disease | positive).

Okay big deal! This looks like another useless mathematical concept I'm not gonna use in my life. How does knowing about the prosecutor's fallacy affect my life? Because it is so, so easy to commit the prosecutor's fallacy.

Here's an example with real-life consequences. Per the U.S. Sentencing Commission, about two out of three people sentenced for robbery between 2021 and 2025 were Black. Some people let that color how they see every Black man they pass on the street. Same fallacy: confusing P(Black | sentenced for robbery) with P(sentenced for robbery | Black). The stat says nothing about what fraction of Black people commit robbery, which is tiny; almost none do. The statistic can be correct and the conclusion completely wrong.

This is just one of many statistical traps, alongside selection bias, Simpson's paradox, and mistaking correlation for causation. So how sure are you that every statistic you've used to form an opinion was interpreted correctly?

This connects to Vedantic philosophy, which warns against trusting our senses and experiences. Its classic example is mistaking a rope for a snake: the fear is real, but the mind's interpretation is false. In one of AP's sessions, he asks: if you see smoke, you assume fire, but how can you be sure? Why can't it just be a burst smoke-filled balloon? Same thing with statistics. We see a number, assume we understand it, and turn it into a belief. The number may be objective; our interpretation is not.

"I understand this," "my opinion is rational," "my worldview is supported by evidence." Once an opinion becomes part of our identity, we stop questioning how it formed. We accept statistics that support us and attack those that challenge us. A misunderstood statistic becomes a belief, and the belief becomes ego. AP calls this psychological ego. The AP Framework says "Objects do not come preloaded with significance, the significance is psychological ego's contribution, remove it, and the world's differently organized." The lesson isn't that statistics are useless; it's that confidence doesn't guarantee correctness. Don't just question the information in front of you. Question the mind interpreting it.

Which is scarier to you: a stranger who might be guilty, or a mind that's sure it's right? Where else might you be quietly swapping P(A|B) for P(B|A) in your own beliefs?

I have been vegan for four years now. I am 100% sure I will never go back to meat again. And I am also sure that going vegan was the right action. But what next? What's the next right action? My answer is taste!! Craving tasty food is a big bondage in my life. When I was a non-vegetarian, one of my arguments against going vegan was: “I am a foodie; I only care about taste. Why would I intentionally give up half of the menu?” Acharya Prashant, who is the winner of the “India’s most influential vegan” award 2022, awarded by PETA, is also the one who said the above quote and made me vegan. After becoming vegan, I started my search for tasty vegan food. I found many options, and now I only eat tasty vegan food. As a result, I am not meeting my nutritional goals. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is not possible to meet your nutritional goals with a vegan diet. I am saying that I choose not to research how to eat healthy because I know that to eat healthy I would have to give up taste. Now a lot of the readers might be thinking, "What's wrong with eating only tasty vegan food?" Well, first, if cruelty and violence of the meat industry is what made you vegan, the next step is to stop being violent to yourself; plan your vegan diet in a way that you meet your nutritional needs. Second, being unhealthy also holds back the vegan movement, because non-vegans do not think we are unhealthy because we choose not to meet our nutritional needs; they think we are unhealthy because it is not possible to meet nutritional needs on a vegan diet. That is why I believe the next right action is to give up taste and start eating healthy vegan food.

This book by Acharya Prashant is a compilation of his honest insights on meat-consumption, its impacts, and critique of the human tendency to recklessly consume, dominate, proliferate; leading to the destruction of mankind. Acharya Prashant justly highlights and reinforces spirituality as the real solution to the global crisis in the light of ancient wisdom. The fundamental problem is the darkness of human mind. And only spiritual wisdom can heal it.

Acharya Prashant explicitly rejects the idea that eating animals is the same as eating plants. He argues that we must consume that which causes the minimum damage to consciousness.He says that this argument is often just an excuse used by meat-eaters. From an ecological standpoint, raising animals for meat requires far more plant-based agriculture (to feed the livestock) than a purely plant-based diet, making a meat-eater responsible for exponentially more plant and animal deaths.

Treating the consumption of fruits and vegetables and animals as equivalent ignores the pain and longing for freedom that animals experience.He concludes that while some may seek loopholes or excuses to continue eating meat, those who are honestly seeking truth will recognize the necessity of empathy and non-violence.

AP rightly says that “Astrology = Astronomy + Superstition". Astronomy is the scientific study of the trajectories of celestial objects based on observations. Astrology is superstition added on top of astronomy, where a person is shifting responsibility outside. In astrology, a person is no longer responsible for his suffering, and the blame is shifted towards planetary movements. The same old classical trick. 

Talking specifically about India, astrology is unfortunately growing: YouTube channels collect millions of views, and astrology apps are growing rapidly. Some Astrology apps generate revenue of over 1,000 crores, and the whole industry is worth at least several hundred million dollars. The trend is no longer confined to older generations. Market research and recent reporting suggest that millennials and Gen Z are increasingly engaging with astrology through social media and digital platforms.

At a time when people should be focusing on more pressing issues like climate change and investing their money in saving themselves, they are still running behind superstition. This is genuinely concerning.  

Why do you think astrology continues to grow despite greater access to science and education?