Weaving magic through words! :)

In 10^1 years your pet probably will be dead. In 10^2 years you will be dead. In 10^3 years your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-kid will be dead. In 10^9 years Earth will be dead. The oceans will boil away, the Earth will lose all water to space, and everything on Earth will be dismantled by then. The Earth will become red-hot, and mountains will begin to melt. In 10^10 years the sun will be dead. Changes in gravity will cause the planets in our solar system to collide with each other and eventually fall into the white-dwarf of the dead sun. In 10^11 years the Milky Way will be dead. It will collide/merge with the neighboring galaxy, forming a single galaxy called Milkdromeda. The neighboring galaxy called Andromeda is approaching our galaxy at a speed of 110km/sec. Milkdromeda will eventually die, forming a unfathomably massive black hole. In 10^15

Thanks, grief. Thanks for making depression look like the buzzing little bully it always was. Depression is the tallest kid in the 4th grade, dinging rubber bands off the back of your head and feeling safe on the playground, knowing that no teacher is coming to help you. But grief?  Grief is Jason Statham holding that 4th-grade bully's head in a toilet and then fucking the teacher you've got a crush on in front of the class . Grief makes depression cower behind you and apologize for being such a dick. If you spend 442 days completely focused on ONE thing you can achieve miracles. Make a film, write a novel, learn a language, travel around the world. Fall in love with someone. Get 'em to love you back. But 442 days at the mercy of grief and loss feels like 442 years and you have shit to show for it. You will not be physically healthier. You will not feel "wiser." You will not have "closure." You will not have "perspective" or "res

In the 15th Chapter of Srimad Bhagavad Gita- Lord Krishna compares the material world with a Banyan tree. Lord Krishna starts the Chapter 15 with this Verse, श्रीभगवानुवाच | ऊर्ध्वमूलमध:शाखमश्वत्थं प्राहुरव्ययम् | छन्दांसि यस्य पर्णानि यस्तं वेद स वेदवित् || “Sri-bhagavnn uvaca Urdhva-mulam adhah-sakham asvattham prahur avyayam chandāmsi yasya parnani yas tam veda sa veda-vit The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: "It is said that there is an imperishable banyan tree that has its roots upward and its branches down and whose leaves are the Vedic hymns. One who knows this tree is the knower of the Vedas.” In this section of Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna is talking about material world, how a living entity gets entangled in the material world, the spiritual world which is the actual source of the material world and the need for developing detachment.  The analogy of a Banyan tree is used to show how the material world is a perverted reflection of the spiritual

I love interesting conversations. Given any day of college, I would gladly skip my meals, sit down with a group of intellectual individuals to have constructive discussions on meaning of life, far away galaxies, purpose of existence, love, poetry, Theory of Relativity and the Higgs-Boson particle rather than attending a bunch of somniferous lectures which add little or no value to my pursuit of true knowledge. A couple of days ago, this beautiful girl walked me through and w e shared this soul-stirring talk: Let's call her A. A : You write amazing poems. I really wonder how you manage to put so many thoughts into words! Me: Thank you very much. But very frankly I have not written any poem so far. A:(shocked) What do you mean? (pointing to the board on the side wall) You didn't write that poem displayed on the board? Me:(being modest) No. Although it has my name and copyright on the bottom right corner but to be very honest, I didn't write it. A:(perplexed

Some people argue, “ Everything is relative; nothing should be generalized. ” But this argument begs the question: “Nothing should be generalized" – should this statement be generalized ? If yes, then the statement is false because there is something, not nothing, that should be generalized. If no, then “nothing should be generalized” doesn’t apply to all statements, implying that some statements may be generalized. Thus, if the statement is generalized, it ends up relativized;  and if it is relativized, it ends up generalized. Either way, we end up with the opposite of the starting assertion. Such logical self-implosion underscores the self-contradictory nature of “nothing should be generalized”. While claiming to provide freedom from absolutist ideologies, it ends up imposing its own version of absolutism: the absolutism of relativism. Pertinently, the absolutism of relativism (“There is no truth”) characterizes the atheistic and that those embracing such notions des