What Would I Tell My Younger Self About Life and Regret?

What’s one thing you know now that would have saved your younger self a lot of pain?

Most of us assume that knowing more would have spared us pain. Hindsight suggests otherwise. Much of what hurt us was not what we failed to know, but the certainty we demanded before acting, and the blame we heaped on ourselves afterwards for what we could not have foreseen. Learning to choose with the light we have, and to release what lay beyond our sight, can turn regret into wisdom.

Discover why hindsight is a teacher and not a judge, and how that one lesson can help us live more purposefully today, on Rise & Inspire.

What Would Have Spared My Younger Self So Much Pain?

WordPress Daily Writing Prompt: What’s one thing you know now that would have saved your younger self a lot of pain?

If I could sit beside my younger self today, I would not begin by listing his mistakes. I would first listen to him: the hopes he carried, the fears he concealed, and the future he imagined so confidently.

Then I would tell him one thing. It is not the thing he would expect.

1. The Wish Behind the Question

Today’s prompt rests on a familiar wish: if only I had known then what I know now. It assumes that my younger self suffered because he did not know enough. For a long time I believed that too. So my first instinct would be to advise him to read more, ask more, and wait for one more sign before he moved.

2. The One Thing

What I know now is the opposite. Knowing more would not have saved him. Much of what he needed to know could only be learned by choosing, and then living with the choice. The pain he could have been spared was not the pain of not knowing. It was the pain of demanding certainty before acting, and then condemning himself afterwards for what he could not have known.

Hindsight is not a verdict. It is a view from a hill he had not yet climbed.

3. Understood Backwards, Lived Forwards

The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard wrote in his journal that life must be understood backwards but lived forwards.1 Every real decision is made facing forward, in fog. To judge yesterday’s choice by today’s clarity is like blaming a traveller for ignoring a map that was drawn only after his journey ended. My younger self did not need more information. He needed permission to choose without it.

4. Who Knows What a Loss Means?

An old Chinese tale in the Huainanzi tells of a farmer on the frontier whose horse runs away.2 His neighbours console him; he asks how they know it is bad luck. The horse returns with a fine stallion from beyond the border; they congratulate him; he asks how they know it is good luck. His son falls from the new horse and breaks his leg. Then war comes, and the lame son is spared. The story does not claim that every loss is a hidden gain. It says something humbler: in the moment of loss, we are rarely able to read what it means. I would tell him that some doors will close on him that are not the tragedies he takes them to be.

5. The Second Arrow

An early Buddhist discourse, the Sallatha Sutta, describes a person struck by an arrow who is then struck by a second.3 The first arrow is the pain itself. The second is the grief, resentment and self-blame we add to it. Life fires the first arrow; we usually fire the second ourselves. This is exactly where my younger self could be spared. The people who will disappoint him and the opportunities that will vanish are first arrows. The nights spent replaying them, asking why he did not see it coming, are second arrows, and he will be the archer.

6. Fear Must Not Sign the Decision

The demand for certainty is often fear dressed as prudence. The Tamil poet Subramania Bharathi, writing under colonial rule, built one of his best-known songs on a single refrain: Achamillai, achamillai, achamenbathillaiye (there is no fear, no fear, no such thing as fear).4 Even if the whole world stood against him, he sang, fear would find no place. He was not denying danger. He was refusing to let fear make his choices. I would tell my younger self the same: fear may sit in the room, but it must never sign the decision.

7. A Necessary Concession

This is not a licence for carelessness. Some pain is earned. Some choices go wrong not because the future was hidden but because we ignored what was plainly in front of us: a warning we did not want to hear, a duty we kept postponing. Hindsight is not a verdict, but it is a teacher, and refusing its lessons would be another kind of foolishness. Wisdom lies in telling the two apart: learning from what we could have known, and releasing what we could not.

So this is what I would tell him. You cannot control everything that happens to you, but you must never surrender responsibility for the choices that remain yours. Make them with the light you have. Then forgive yourself for the light you did not have.

Perhaps growing older is not about learning how to avoid all pain. It is about learning which pain teaches us, which suffering we can prevent, and which burdens we no longer need to carry.

Notes

1 Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) was a Danish philosopher and theologian. The remark comes from his journals for 1843, where he grants the philosophers that life is understood backwards, but adds that they forget it must be lived forwards.

2 The Huainanzi is a Chinese compendium of philosophy compiled at the court of Liu An, King of Huainan, in the second century BCE. The story of the old man at the frontier (Sai Weng) appears in its eighteenth chapter and lives on as a Chinese proverb: when the old man lost his horse, who could tell it was not a blessing?

3 The Sallatha Sutta (“The Arrow”) is found in the Samyutta Nikaya (36.6) of the Pali Canon, among the earliest collections of the Buddha’s teachings. It contrasts the untrained person, who meets bodily pain with mental anguish and so feels two arrows, with the trained disciple, who feels only one.

4 Subramania Bharathi (1882–1921), honoured as Mahakavi (“great poet”) Bharathiyar, was a poet, journalist and freedom fighter from Ettayapuram in present-day Tamil Nadu, and a pioneer of modern Tamil verse. The refrain அச்சமில்லை அச்சமில்லை அச்சமென்பதில்லையே opens a song he wrote during the independence struggle; its later lines insist there is no fear even if all the people of the world stand opposed. The scholar R. P. Sethu Pillai, in Tamil Inbam, observed that the song echoes the seventh-century Saiva saint Thirunavukkarasar (Appar), who sang that there is nothing to fear and nothing coming that need be feared.

John Britto KurusumuthuRise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 11 October 2026

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home  |  Blog  |  About Us  |  Contact  |  Resources

Is the Weirdest Movie Really on the Screen?

What’s the weirdest movie you’ve ever watched?

Have you ever finished a film and wondered what on earth you had just watched?

Most films keep a quiet agreement with us. We meet the characters, follow the plot, sense the ending approaching, and leave satisfied. A few films break that agreement. Time runs backwards, ordinary objects behave in extraordinary ways, a character wakes to find the world has changed around them, and the credits roll without a word of explanation. These are the films we call weird.

But here is the question I keep returning to. When we call a film weird, are we describing the film, or describing ourselves?

Weird Is a Verdict, Not a Genre

No film is weird in itself. It becomes weird only when it collides with what we expected. A story that baffles one viewer may feel perfectly natural to another who grew up with different myths, a different visual language, or simply more patience.

So “weird” is less a report on the screen than a report on the seat. It tells us where our expectations end. That makes the weirdest film we have ever watched surprisingly useful: it marks the edge of our own imagination.

The Confusion Is the Point

Strangeness can be deliberate, and it can teach. The Zen tradition has long used the koan, a riddle designed to defeat ordinary reasoning. The eighteenth-century Japanese master Hakuin asked his students to listen for the sound of one hand clapping. The question has no logical answer, and that is precisely its purpose. The student’s frustration is not the failure of the lesson; it is the lesson beginning.

A strange film can work the same way. It withholds the explanation we crave, and in that gap we notice how much of our thinking runs on habit. We discover that we expected the hero to be good, the ending to be fair, and time to move forward, without ever having asked why.

Not Every Strange Film Is Meaningful

Here I must be fair to the sceptic. Some films are not mysterious; they are simply muddled. Strangeness can be a costume worn by emptiness, and it would be foolish to call a film a masterpiece merely because we failed to understand it.

Yet the opposite mistake is just as easy to make. In the Vetrivetkai, the sixteenth-century Tamil poet-king Athiveerarama Pandiyan observes that the seed of a banyan fruit is smaller than the egg of a tiny fish in a clear pond, yet it grows into a tree that can shade a king with all his elephants, chariots, horses and soldiers.[1] Some films are like that seed: slight or baffling at first sight, they take years to show what they hold. So the cinema asks for two disciplines. Do not worship a film because it baffles you. Do not dismiss it because it is unfamiliar. Give it a fair hearing first; judge it afterwards.

The Discipline of Not Knowing

In a letter written in 1817, the poet John Keats admired a quality he called “negative capability”: the ability to remain in uncertainties, mysteries and doubts “without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”

Most of us are not good at this. We want every story explained and every experience to deliver its lesson on time. Yet life, after all, rarely follows a perfectly written script. People surprise us, plans change, and some questions stay open for years. A strange film is a safe place to practise sitting with that discomfort. Reason is not abandoned; it simply learns to wait while imagination does its work.

So, What Is the Weirdest Movie I Have Watched?

You may have noticed that I have not named mine. That is deliberate. The moment I name a title, the conversation turns into a debate about that one film: whether it deserves the label, whether you found it strange at all. And that would only prove the point. My weirdest film might be your ordinary Tuesday evening.

What I can tell you is what such films leave behind. They make the familiar look a little unfamiliar. They remind us that “normal” is a habit, not a law of nature. And they show that a question which stays with us can be worth more than an answer we quickly forget.

Your turn: What is the weirdest movie you have ever watched? Was it bizarre, baffling, hilarious, or quietly meaningful? Share the title and tell us what made it unforgettable. Your strange film might become another reader’s discovery.

Keep an open mind, stay curious, and continue to rise and inspire.

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 10 October 2026

[1] The Vetrivetkai, also known as the Naruntokai, is a collection of short moral verses composed in the sixteenth century by Athiveerarama Pandiyan, a Pandya king who ruled from Tenkasi in southern Tamil Nadu and was himself an accomplished poet. Its verse on the banyan seed, which opens “Thelliya aalin siru pazhaththu oru vithai,” is among the best-known lines of Tamil moral poetry and is often quoted as a lesson against judging anything by its size or first appearance.

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

What Does My Morning Routine Teach Me About Living Well?

Tell us about your morning routine.

Some mornings begin with an alarm. Others begin with a thought, a quiet moment of gratitude, or the simple realisation that another day has been given to us.

Most descriptions of a morning routine list what gets done in it: the walk, the workout, the emails cleared before breakfast. By that measure, a good morning is a productive one. Over the years I have come to measure mine differently. The first hour matters not for what I finish in it, but for the attention it leaves me with for the rest of the day.

1. What the first hour holds

My mornings rest on a few simple practices: quiet reflection, gentle movement, plain nourishment and time to think. I first set them out in My Ideal Morning Routine, returned to them in What If Your Morning Ritual Could Set the Tone for an Entire Day?, and described the full sequence in What’s the Power Hidden in the First Hour of Your Morning?: meditation, morning sunlight, freehand exercises, yoga and an open-air bath, after a handful of almonds and walnuts with a glass of warm water.

None of it is elaborate. That is rather the point.

2. Quiet comes before the noise

Before messages, news and other people’s concerns arrive, I give a few minutes to stillness. Meditation lets me look inward before the day pulls me outward, so that I reflect before reacting and think before responding.

This quiet also has a spiritual dimension for me: a moment to acknowledge the gift of another day. It need not be perfectly peaceful. Even a few undisturbed minutes help.

3. The body follows the mind

Gentle exercise and yoga ease me from rest into activity, and morning light and fresh air remind me that the world is larger than four walls. Water, light and movement do more for a waking mind than most of us expect, as I noted in What Happens When You Start Your Day with Water, Light and Movement? Breakfast stays simple, a habit I explained in What Are the Best Eating Habits If “Healthy” Means Something Different to Everyone?

4. Then the ideas arrive

A morning thought, a verse of Scripture, a reader’s question or a WordPress prompt often becomes the day’s post. In The Blogger’s Daily Grind I listed what I wished I had more time for; in How Does a Blogger Spend Their Day From Morning to Night? I imagined a whole day given to writing. The morning is where that wish gets its first hour. A routine that leaves no room for curiosity has missed something.

5. The old traditions never asked dawn to be efficient

Long before morning routines became a self-help genre, many traditions honoured the dawn, and few treated it as a productivity tool.

In the Thiruppavai, the Tamil poet-saint Andal speaks as a young cowherd girl going from door to door before sunrise, waking her friends for the dawn bath and worship [1]. Her morning is shared, and it points beyond itself.

In the call to the dawn prayer, most Muslim communities add a line heard at no other hour: prayer is better than sleep. The day’s first claim on us, it says, is not work.

The Book of Lamentations, written amid the ruins of Jerusalem, still declares that the Lord’s mercies are new every morning (3:22–23). The morning is not a reward for a good yesterday. It is given regardless.

Different faiths, one instinct: the first hour is for orientation, not output.

6. The measure is attention, not completion

So I no longer judge my morning by the items I tick off, but by the attention I bring to it and carry out of it.

That realisation came slowly. In What’s the Simple Pleasure That Took Me Decades to Recognise? I described how the early morning, once mere preparation for work, became cherished in its own right. We spend years seeking happiness in large achievements, only to find some of it waiting in an ordinary hour.

7. A fair objection: not everyone has a quiet hour

A parent getting children ready for school, a commuter, a student before examinations: their mornings are not mine, and a retired person’s flexible hours are a luxury many do not have. I would not ask anyone to copy my routine.

Begin instead with one realistic practice, a cup of tea in silence, a short walk, a prayer, three tasks written down, and let it become a habit before adding another.

8. An opportunity, not an obligation

Some mornings unfold as planned. Others are interrupted by unexpected demands or simply a lack of energy. A useful routine should support us, not make us feel guilty when we cannot follow it. The question is not whether every item was completed, but whether we gave ourselves a fair chance to begin the day with awareness and purpose.

Perhaps that is the quiet wisdom of a morning routine: it gives us a fresh beginning, not because yesterday was perfect, but because today offers another chance to live well.

What does your morning routine look like, and which single habit makes the greatest difference to the rest of your day? Share it in the comments. Your routine might be the idea another reader tries tomorrow.

Note for readers

[1] Andal, usually dated to the eighth or ninth century, is the only woman among the twelve Alvars, the poet-saints of Tamil Vaishnava devotion. Her Thiruppavai, thirty verses set in the month of Margazhi (mid-December to mid-January), forms part of the Nalayira Divya Prabandham and is still sung at dawn in homes and temples across South India during that month. Its opening verse calls the young women of the village out to bathe: “Neeraadap poduveer, podumino” (“You who would bathe, come along”).

Further reading from Rise&Inspire

Embracing the Day with Positivity

What Are Five Simple Exercises to Do at Home That You Will Actually Keep Doing?

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 09 October 2026

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

What If the People You Meet Are the Best Part of Your Journey?

What’s the best way to meet new people while traveling?

When we plan a journey, we think about the places we will see, the food we will taste, and the photographs we will bring home.

But the memory that lasts longest is often not a landmark. It is a person. A fellow traveller who helped us find our way. A local who showed us something no guidebook mentions. A stranger whose conversation we still recall years later.

So how do we meet such people? Most advice is about where to go: hostels, tours, apps. I want to suggest something about how to be. The best way to meet people while travelling is to become a little less self-sufficient.

1. We Have Made Strangers Unnecessary

Modern travel is designed so that we need no one. The phone gives directions. An app translates the menu. We stay with our companions, check our screens, and move from one attraction to the next.

Each convenience is useful. Each also removes one more reason to turn to the person beside us. Meanwhile, interesting people are passing by.

2. Ask, Even When You Could Look It Up

A simple question can open a door:

“Where are you from?”

“Have you been here before?”

“Is there a local place you really enjoy?”

An app can tell you what is popular. Only a person can tell you what they love. You do not need a perfect opening line. Genuine curiosity is usually enough.

3. Let a Shared Experience Do the Introducing

Conversation comes easily when people are doing something together. Join a walking tour, sit at a communal table, take a cooking class.

You may begin as strangers. But after finding your way together, sharing a meal, or laughing over a small travel mishap, you may discover you have more in common than you expected.

4. The Road Has Always Been a Meeting Place

Classical Tamil poetry has an entire genre, the aatruppadai, built around one encounter. A bard returning from a generous patron meets a struggling fellow artist on the road and shows him the way. [1]

In Luke’s Gospel, two disheartened travellers walk to Emmaus beside a stranger and recognise him only when he breaks bread with them. The Qur’an (49:13) says humanity was made into nations and tribes so that we might come to know one another.

Three traditions, one intuition: difference is an invitation to acquaintance, and the road is where that invitation is most often extended.

5. Listen More Than You Speak

Meeting people is not about collecting contacts. Every traveller carries a story, and so does every local. Someone you meet may have grown up in a culture unlike yours, or faced challenges that changed how they see life.

Ask questions. Then listen, without rushing to compare their story with your own. You may come home carrying something more valuable than a souvenir: a new perspective.

6. Not Every Meeting Needs a Future

What if they do not want to talk? That is possible. Some travellers seek solitude, and that deserves respect, including on the days when the one seeking it is you.

Not every conversation becomes a friendship, and it need not. The Japanese tea tradition speaks of ichi-go ichi-e, “one time, one meeting”: treat each encounter as unrepeatable, because it is. One conversation may last two minutes. Another may last two hours. One may stay with you for years.

7. Be Open, But Be Wise

Needing people does not mean trusting everyone. Meet in public places, protect your personal information, and trust your instincts. Openness and good judgment are not opposites. They travel well together.

8. Carry the Habit Home

We do not need to cross a border to meet someone new. There is the neighbour we have never spoken to, the passenger beside us on the bus, the person waiting in the same queue.

Routine makes the world feel smaller than it is. Perhaps travel simply gives us permission to be curious. What if we brought that permission home, looked up from our phones, and asked a genuine question?

The Best Souvenirs Have Faces

Years from now, we may forget the name of the restaurant, the price of the ticket, and the route we took. But we will remember the person who helped us when we were lost, the stranger who made us laugh, the local who showed us a hidden corner of their town.

So perhaps the best way to meet people while travelling is not to search for friendship. It is to travel with an open mind, a curious heart, and the humility to need someone.

The destination gives us a photograph. The people give us a memory.

A Question for You

Have you ever met someone while travelling who left a lasting impression on you? What made that encounter memorable?

Note for readers

[1] Aatruppadai (ஆற்றுப்படை) (roughly, “showing the way”) is a genre of classical Tamil Sangam poetry, among the oldest literature in the language. Its best-known poems, such as Sirupanatruppadai and Perumpanatruppadai, belong to the anthology Pattuppattu (பத்துப்பாட்டு)(the Ten Idylls). In most of them, a poet or performer who has been honoured by a patron meets a fellow artist on the road. He describes the route, the landscapes and the welcome that await the newcomer.

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 08 October 2026

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

Does God Exist, and Can We Actually Know Him?

Oct 7, 2026 · @Johnbritto. K

The question “Does God exist?” is as old as humanity’s first long look at the night sky. But hidden inside it lies a deeper, more personal question: if God exists, can He actually be known? This reflection walks through reason, conscience, longing, suffering, Jesus and faith—and ends with a surprise I did not expect when I began.

“Is there a God?”

It is one of the simplest questions a child can ask, and one of the deepest a thinker can spend a lifetime on. Some answer yes because of faith, some because of experience, some because they see design in creation. Others remain honestly unconvinced.

Over time, I have come to believe that “Does God exist?” is not the most important question. It is the doorway to a more searching one: if God exists, can we know Him—not merely believe that some higher power is out there?

What follows is my attempt to walk through both questions honestly. Faith, I have found, does not ask us to switch off our minds. Faith and honest questioning can walk together.

Part One: Signposts That Point Toward God

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

The universe exists. Stars, oceans and living things exist—and so do you, reading these words.

Science brilliantly describes how the universe behaves and develops. But one question lies beyond its reach: why is there a universe at all?

Everything we observe depends on something else for its existence. Trace that chain back, and either it has no foundation at all, or it rests on a reality that depends on nothing—eternal, necessary and self-existent. For me, that reality is best understood as a Creator. This does not tell us everything about God, but it makes the question of God reasonable rather than fanciful.

2. Why is the universe so finely ordered?

The universe runs on consistent laws, reliable enough for us to land spacecraft on other worlds. More striking still, many physicists have noted that certain fundamental constants of nature fall within a remarkably narrow range that allows stars, chemistry and life to exist at all. This is often called fine-tuning.

Could it all be chance? Some propose natural explanations not yet discovered, or countless universes in which ours happened to be the fortunate one. Those possibilities deserve an honest hearing.

But it is no less reasonable to conclude that the order we see reflects a Mind. In everyday life, when we meet order and purposeful arrangement, we look for an intelligent source. Why should the universe be the one exception?

3. Why are we conscious at all?

There is a mystery even closer to home: you.

Your brain is physical matter. Yet you do not merely process information like a calculator; you experience love, beauty, sorrow, wonder and hope. Science has learned a great deal about the brain, yet how physical processes give rise to inner experience remains so puzzling that the philosopher David Chalmers called it the “hard problem” of consciousness.

If consciousness is more than matter in motion, our inner life may be a quiet pointer to a Mind behind our minds.

4. Why do we feel bound by right and wrong?

Most of us know that cruelty and injustice are wrong. We do not merely mean, “I dislike cruelty,” as we might dislike a certain food. We mean, “Cruelty is wrong”—for everyone, everywhere, whether or not anyone agrees.

If moral truth is more than preference or social habit, where does its authority come from? Christianity answers that goodness is rooted in the very character of God.

Our conscience is not infallible. Yet the experience of moral obligation raises a searching question: why do human beings feel answerable to something greater than themselves?

5. Why does the human heart remain restless?

Almost everyone knows this experience. We reach the goal, gain the possession, win the recognition—and a quiet ache returns. Is this all there is?

Some sixteen centuries ago, Augustine of Hippo opened his Confessions with words that still ring true: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”

Hunger points to food; thirst points to water. It is worth asking whether our deepest longing—for meaning, for permanence, for a love that never fails—points to Someone who can truly satisfy it.

6. What about suffering?

This is the hardest question of all, and it deserves humility rather than a tidy answer. If God is loving and all-powerful, why do innocent people suffer? Why do children fall ill? Why do floods and earthquakes sweep away whole communities?

There is no shallow answer, and anyone who offers one has probably not sat long enough beside someone in pain.

What can be said is this: suffering is a real challenge to faith, but it does not logically disprove God. And our very protest against it tells us something. We experience cruelty and injustice not merely as unpleasant facts, but as things that ought not to be.

Above all, Christianity does not offer a God who explains suffering from a safe distance. It makes a startling claim: God entered our suffering. In Jesus, He knew hunger, grief, betrayal, injustice and death on a cross.

And that brings us to the question on which everything else turns.

Part Two: From Knowing About God to Knowing God

7. If God wanted to be known, where would we look?

Suppose God exists. Would He remain a distant idea, inferred from the stars but never met? Not if He is personal. A God who desires relationship with the people He made would make Himself known.

Christianity claims that He has—through creation, conscience and Scripture, and above all through a person, Jesus Christ. The question then changes from “Does some higher power exist?” to “Who was Jesus?”

Jesus lived, taught, gathered disciples, was crucified under the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, and died. His followers, who had scattered in fear at His arrest, then became convinced that He had risen from the dead—and several of them went on to suffer and die rather than deny it.

Paul was candid that everything rests here: “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14, NIV). But if Jesus truly rose, death does not have the final word, and God has not stayed distant. He has entered our history with a name and a face.

8. Is faith the opposite of reason?

Faith is often mistaken for believing without evidence. Christian faith is better understood as trust: committing ourselves to what we have good reason to believe is true.

We live this way every day. We trust people because of their character and track record. We make life’s biggest decisions—whom to marry, which path to follow—without mathematical certainty. Even a criminal court, deciding questions of life and liberty, asks for proof beyond reasonable doubt, not beyond every conceivable doubt.

So the better question is not, “Can I prove this with absolute certainty?” but, “Is there sufficient reason to trust?” For me, faith lives where evidence, reason, experience and trust meet.

9. Can we know God, not merely know about Him?

Here the question becomes personal. Knowing about someone is not the same as knowing them. I could read a hundred biographies of a person without ever sharing a meal with them.

Christianity insists the same is true of God. He is not merely an idea to be studied but a Person to be known. On the night before He died, Jesus prayed: “Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3, NIV). Eternal life is defined not as information about God, but as knowing Him.

This insight is not Christianity’s alone. The Mundaka Upanishad, a classical text of Indian philosophy, distinguishes a “lower” knowledge—which includes even the study of the sacred Vedas—from a “higher” knowledge by which the Imperishable itself is reached.¹ Jesus told the scripture scholars of His day something strikingly similar: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life” (John 5:39–40, NIV).

It is possible to know a great deal about God and still not know God.

10. What if we are already known?

Here is the surprise I did not expect when I began. I had framed everything as our search: can we find God, can we know Him? The Christian story turns that question upside down.

Writing to the Galatians, Paul begins a sentence and then corrects himself mid-thought: “But now that you know God—or rather are known by God…” (Galatians 4:9, NIV). Our knowing God is not the first move. His knowing us is.

Jesus described His own mission the same way: “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10, NIV). We are not the only seekers. Long before we set out to look for God, God has been looking for us.

Faith, then, is not an anxious climb toward a God who hides. It is a homecoming to a God who already knows our name.

Where This Leaves Me

Having weighed existence, order, consciousness, conscience, longing, suffering and the claims of Jesus, I find God far more than a comforting possibility. I believe that God is real.

Not because every mystery is solved. Not because a laboratory can prove Him. And not because every objection has vanished.

I believe because these signposts, taken together, form a powerful cumulative case. Like the strands of a rope, no single one carries all the weight; woven together, they hold. The world makes far more sense to me with God in it than without Him.

The Next Step

So the deeper question is no longer “Is there a God?” It is this: if God exists—and already knows me—what will I do with that?

We can spend a lifetime debating. Or we can take the next step. We can seek. We can pray. We can read the Gospels for ourselves and meet Jesus in His own words. And we can say, simply and honestly:

“God, if You are real, help me to know You.”

It may be one of the most sincere prayers a human being can pray, and it carries a promise: “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13, NIV).

Faith does not begin with having every answer. It begins with the courage to ask the right question—and the humility to let ourselves be found.

A Thought to Carry With You

The universe may raise the question of God.

Our conscience may point toward His character.

Our restless hearts may reveal how much we need Him.

Jesus reveals His heart.

And faith opens the door—only to discover that God was already knocking.

If God is real, perhaps the greatest discovery of our lives is not merely that He exists, nor even that He can be known, but that we have been known and loved by Him all along.

Over to You

Can a person move from believing in God to actually knowing Him? What has helped you most on that journey? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Notes for Readers

¹ The Upanishads are philosophical texts of the Hindu tradition, composed in Sanskrit over several centuries in the first millennium BCE. The distinction between higher knowledge (para vidya) and lower knowledge (apara vidya) appears in the Mundaka Upanishad, 1.1.4–5.

Scripture quotations are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version (NIV).

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Motivational Blogs

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

If Aliens Arrived Tomorrow, What Would I Ask Them First?

If aliens arrived tomorrow, what’s the first thing you’d ask them?

Most of us would ask about their spacecraft. Some would ask about the meaning of life. I think both miss the point. Our oldest problem is not that we do not know what is good, but that we know and do not do it.

Imagine waking tomorrow to news that a spacecraft has landed, its passengers are not human, and I have been granted one question. Only one.

The obvious questions queue up at once: where they came from, how they crossed the distance, how their ship works.

I would set them all aside. But I have come to think that the next question many thoughtful people would reach for, “What matters most?”, is the wrong one too.

1. The first question is a confession

Whatever we ask first reveals what we believe we lack. Ask about their engines, and we confess that we think our problems are problems of power. Ask about the meaning of life, and we confess that we think our problem is ignorance.

I am not convinced either is true.

2. We already know what matters most

Suppose they answered: kindness, honesty, restraint, care for the weak, gratitude, love beyond self-interest. Would any of us be surprised?

Every human civilisation has arrived at much the same list. We would have crossed the gulf between stars only to hear what our grandparents taught us at the kitchen table.

3. Our real problem is older than our science

The gap that troubles us is not between ignorance and knowledge, but between knowing and doing.

The Roman poet Ovid gives Medea a line that has never gone out of date:

“I see the better way and approve it; I follow the worse.”1

Writing to the Romans, the apostle Paul makes the same admission:

“For the good that I would I do not.”2

In the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna asks Krishna what drives a person to do wrong even against his own will, as if pushed by force.3

Three traditions, far apart in language and belief, make the same confession. Notice, too, that Arjuna puts his question to one his tradition regards as the divine in human form. He had his own encounter with a visitor from beyond, and this is what he chose to ask.

4. So this is my one question

“You must have known what was good long before you lived by it. How did you close the gap?”

I would not want their beliefs but their methods. What habits, customs, upbringing or forms of government turned knowledge into character? How did they keep power from outrunning compassion, and their machines from using them?

5. The objection: is that not a wasted question?

A fair reader will object. A cure for cancer, clean energy, an end to hunger: these would save millions of lives. A hungry child would be right to ask for bread, not philosophy.

I grant this. If they offered such gifts, I would not refuse them.

But consider hunger. The world already grows enough food for everyone, yet people still go to bed hungry. The shortfall is not technical. Every great gift of power, from fire to the printing press to the atom, has been absorbed into our old habits. Hand us their technology, and we would carry it home in the same hands.

6. The answer may not come from the sky

A Tamil poem nearly two thousand years old, from the Purananuru, opens with two lines that suit a first-contact morning:

“Every town is our town; everyone is our kin. Good and evil do not come from others.”4

The first line welcomes the stranger, even one from another world. The second warns us not to expect too much from him: if good and evil do not come from others, they will not come from other planets either.

7. While we wait for the spacecraft

So I can begin now, closer to home. I can ask someone who survived a war, an elderly neighbour, a parent who has raised children, a person who lost almost everything and still found reason to smile.

But I would ask the sharper question. Not “What matters most?”, which would only tell me what I already know, but “How did you manage to live by it?”

And I would ask myself.

If the visitors do land tomorrow, I half hope they hesitate. I half hope they admit that they never fully closed the gap either, and that each generation among them has had to begin again. That answer would disappoint the engineers among us. To me, it would be the most reassuring news from the stars: that becoming good is not something any civilisation finishes, only something it keeps choosing to take up.

If you had only one question for them, what would you ask, and could you ask it of someone you already know?

Notes for readers

1. Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book 7, lines 20–21: video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor. Medea speaks these words as she wrestles with a love that will lead her to betray her own father.

2. Romans 7:19, King James Version.

3. Bhagavad Gita 3.36, paraphrased. In the verse that follows, Krishna names desire and anger as the forces at work.

4. Purananuru 192, by the poet Kaniyan Pungundranar. The Tamil opening reads: யாதும் ஊரே யாவரும் கேளிர்; தீதும் நன்றும் பிறர்தர வாரா (Yaadhum oore, yaavarum kelir; theedhum nandrum pirar thara vaara). The Purananuru is one of the eight anthologies of classical Tamil Sangam poetry, a collection of some four hundred poems on public life, kingship, war and ethics. This poem’s opening line is among the most widely quoted expressions of universal kinship in Indian literature.

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 07 October 2026

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

What Makes a Blog Mascot Memorable for Readers?

A blog can have a logo, a colour palette and a distinctive writing voice. But what if it could also have a face? I’m exploring whether one recurring character could become the familiar visual presence readers associate with Rise & Inspire.

Could a Recurring Character Become the Face of Rise & Inspire?

A blog is built with words. Yet sometimes it is a familiar face that helps those words stay with us.

For some time now, I have been turning over an idea for Rise & Inspire. What if a recurring character appeared across my articles as the site’s visual ambassador?

Not a cartoon dropped beside a paragraph. Not a logo dressed up in human form. Rather, a familiar figure who pauses, thinks, learns, explores, questions, encourages and grows alongside the reader.

That idea soon led to a more interesting question: when does a character become a mascot?

Character or mascot: what is the difference?

A character helps tell a story. A mascot represents an identity.

In one article, a character might stand at a crossroads, weighing whether to react or to step back. A mascot goes further. The same recognisable figure returns again and again, carrying the personality and visual identity of the brand with him.

For Rise & Inspire, I see a gradual journey: from character, to recurring character, to recognisable mascot. That journey cannot be forced. If it happens, it should happen naturally, one article at a time.

Who is he?

The figure should embody the spirit behind the blog. I imagine him as:

  • Thoughtful, because reflection matters.
  • Curious, because learning never ends.
  • Optimistic, without pretending that life has no difficulties.
  • Humble, because wisdom does not require having every answer.
  • Courageous, because sometimes the right response is to speak up.
  • Compassionate, because growth is never only personal.
  • Playfully intelligent, leaving room for gentle humour.
  • Resilient, because setbacks can become lessons.
  • Open-minded, because other perspectives enlarge our own.
  • Encouraging, because Rise & Inspire exists to help people take one more step forward.

If I had to describe him in a single sentence, it would be this: a thoughtful, curious and optimistic lifelong learner who pauses before reacting, looks for meaning, learns from experience and encourages others to grow.

The motto he lives by

I would give him a simple inner compass:

Pause. Learn. Grow. Inspire. Rise.

Those five words hold much of what Rise & Inspire stands for. Notice where they end: not with inspiration alone, but with rising.

He need not smile in every image. When an article deals with loss, he can look thoughtful. When it explores a difficult decision, he can appear uncertain yet reflective. A discovery calls for curiosity; an achievement, quiet satisfaction; a lighter subject, a hint of mischief.

His emotions change. His personality does not. That distinction matters, because consistency is not the same as repetition.

One person, five roles

The same figure can take on different roles, depending on what each article needs.

  1. The Reflective Thinker. He sits with a journal, gazes into the distance or pauses before a decision. He belongs beside articles on reflection, relationships, life lessons, choices and personal growth.
  2. The Active Explorer. He walks, cycles, travels or comes upon something new. He suits articles on wellness, travel, lifestyle and everyday experience.
  3. The Lifelong Learner. He works through an idea with a laptop, a book or a notebook. He fits articles on technology, education, artificial intelligence and personal development.
  4. The Guide and Mentor. He listens, explains, encourages or helps someone else along. He represents articles on leadership, relationships, social responsibility and practical wisdom.
  5. The Joyful Optimist. He explores a new place, enjoys nature or simply looks at life with fresh curiosity. He accompanies articles on positivity, inspiration, gratitude and living meaningfully.

His role changes from one article to the next. He remains unmistakably himself.

Finding his visual style

I explored several styles, and each has its place.

  • 3D isometric. A modern, dimensional look that sits naturally within Rise & Inspire’s article-header illustrations. It adapts easily to crossroads, stairways, landscapes, offices, classrooms and other symbolic settings. This is my strongest overall direction.
  • Friendly 3D cartoon. Warmer and more expressive, this version makes him feel like a companion welcoming readers into the article. It would suit motivational posts and Daily Writing Prompt responses especially well.
  • Editorial illustration. A more refined, literary treatment for deeper writing on law, society, spirituality, philosophy and reflection.
  • Minimal flat graphic. A simplified form for social-media graphics, thumbnails, quote cards and small illustrations. Even at that size, his glasses, moustache, head shape and distinctive colour should make him instantly recognisable.
  • Cinematic storytelling. Here he becomes part of a larger scene: standing at a crossroads, climbing a mountain, sitting beside a window or watching the sun rise. The image tells the article’s story rather than merely decorating it.

What must never change

If he is to become the Rise & Inspire mascot, certain features must stay constant:

  • A bald, purple-blue head
  • Black rectangular glasses
  • A distinctive moustache
  • Expressive eyes
  • Familiar facial proportions
  • A friendly adult appearance
  • A recognisable silhouette
  • An approachable presence

His clothes may change. So may his pose, his surroundings, his mood and his role. But whenever readers see him, they should think at once: “That’s the Rise & Inspire person.”

That moment of recognition is what turns a character into a brand asset.

Why continuity matters

A recurring figure can do something that a collection of unrelated illustrations never can. It creates continuity.

Over time, readers may meet Rise & Inspire through dozens of articles. Some will be about personal development; others about technology, law, spirituality, wellness or the quiet reflections of everyday life. The subjects shift, but the voice holds steady.

A familiar face can become one more thread that ties it all together: a quiet visual signature of Rise & Inspire.

He must take part in the idea

This may be the most important principle of all. He should never simply stand beside an article wearing a generic smile. He should take part in its message.

For my article on knowing when to step back, for instance, he could sit at a crossroads between a chaotic, angry path and a calmer road towards clarity. The message lands at a glance:

Step back. Breathe. Choose.

For an article on lifelong learning, he could be caught in the moment of discovering an idea. For one on resilience, he could be climbing again after a fall. For a technology piece, he could be trying out a new tool. For a reflection on relationships, he could be listening rather than speaking.

In every case, he is not decorating the story. He is helping to tell it.

A familiar face, not a fixed formula

I do not want him to harden into a rigid template. That would make every image predictable.

Instead, I hope he becomes a familiar presence across many situations: a companion we keep meeting in different chapters of life. Sometimes thinking. Sometimes learning. Sometimes questioning, laughing or helping. Sometimes simply taking the next step.

Perhaps that is exactly what Rise & Inspire is about. None of us remains the same person throughout life. We learn, reflect, adapt and grow. Our recurring character can do the same.

More than an illustration

The goal is not merely to create a cartoon. It is to build a visual identity that readers recognise before they even see the words Rise & Inspire.

If that happens, he will have become something more than an illustration. He will be a visual ambassador for the ideas this platform holds dear: reflection, curiosity, growth, resilience, wisdom, encouragement and hope.

Perhaps his role is best described in the simplest terms:

He is not there to tell readers what to think. He is there to help them pause, look again and take their next step.

A thought to carry with you

A strong brand may have a logo people recognise. A memorable brand may have a colour people associate with it. But a truly human brand can have a face that feels familiar.

Perhaps it is time for Rise & Inspire to have one.

What do you think? Could a recurring Rise & Inspire character become a face you would recognise and remember? And if he is to walk alongside us, what name would you give him?

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Founder, Rise & Inspire

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Personal Development

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

Is Knowing When to Step Back Life’s Most Underrated Skill?

What’s the most underrated life skill?

We often admire people who act quickly. We praise those who reply at once, decide fast and speak with confidence when life becomes difficult. Speed is frequently mistaken for strength.

But I would argue that the most underrated life skill points the other way: knowing when to step back. It is underrated not because it lacks value, but because its victories are often invisible.

1. Its victories are invisible

Nobody applauds an argument that never happened. No one sees the angry email you deleted, the sharp remark you swallowed or the hasty decision you slept on. Action leaves evidence; restraint leaves none.

We can only praise what we can see. So the skill whose greatest victories are the things that never happened often goes unnoticed—even by the person who practised it. Its success looks exactly like nothing.

2. Stepping back is not walking away

Walking away abandons a responsibility. Stepping back creates enough distance to understand what is really happening.

Imagine receiving a message that upsets you. Your first instinct is to reply at once: to defend yourself, correct the other person, make your anger known. Wait an hour, and something changes. The emotion settles. You read the words again and realise they were not meant the way you first heard them. That small distance has prevented a large conflict.

Distance can reveal what closeness hides.

3. Even an emperor was told to wait

Plutarch records that when the philosopher Athenodorus took leave of the Roman emperor Augustus, he left him one piece of advice: whenever you are angry, say and do nothing until you have silently recited the twenty-four letters of the alphabet.1 Augustus took him by the hand, said he still needed him, and kept him at court another year. The most powerful man in Rome valued the friend who taught him to wait. The familiar advice to “count to ten” has an unexpectedly ancient—and imperial—ancestor.

The Jewish sages prized the same pause. In Pirkei Avot, the Ethics of the Fathers, Shimon son of Rabban Gamliel says he grew up among the wise and found nothing better than silence.2

An old Tamil proverb turns it into a prophecy: Poruththaar boomi aalvaar, ponginaar kaadu aalvaar.3 Those who bear patiently will rule the land; those who boil over will rule only the wilderness.

And Japan has a word for the space itself: ma, the deliberate pause in music, speech and design.4 It is not treated as emptiness. It is the space that gives everything around it shape.

4. The hardest step back is from ourselves

Often, what we need distance from is not the other person but our own habits. Why does this particular criticism hurt so much? Am I defending what is right, or only my pride? Is this truly worth my energy?

These questions require honesty. But they lead to self-awareness, and self-awareness is where growth begins.

5. When stepping back is the wrong choice

This skill has a shadow, and it would be dishonest to ignore it. When someone is in danger, when injustice is happening in front of us, when a person we love needs an answer now, delay is not wisdom. It can become abandonment. Silence in the face of wrong can quietly become consent.

Even Confucius, who prized reflection, saw the danger. When he heard that a respected minister of his state always thought three times before acting, he remarked that twice would be enough.5 A person who always steps back has not mastered restraint; they have only found a more respectable name for avoidance.

That is why the skill is not stepping back. It is knowing when.

6. A simple practice: step back, breathe, choose

The next time you feel provoked, try three steps.

Step back. Do not rush to react.

Breathe. Give your mind a moment to settle.

Choose. Ask yourself: “What response will I respect tomorrow?”

That question cuts both ways. Sometimes the answer is silence. Sometimes it is speaking up at once. Either way, the response comes from judgement rather than impulse.

A thought to carry with you

Life does not always reward the fastest reaction. Stepping back does not always take us away from the path. Sometimes, it helps us see it more clearly.

So the next time life provokes you, take a breath. Look again. Then choose.

You may discover that the space you created was not empty at all.

It was filled with clarity.

What is one reply you are glad you never sent, or one you wish you had sent sooner?

Notes

1. Plutarch (c. 46 to after 119 CE) was a Greek biographer and essayist. The story appears in his Sayings of Kings and Commanders, part of the Moralia, among the sayings of Caesar Augustus. Athenodorus of Tarsus was a Stoic philosopher and one of Augustus’s teachers. The alphabet in question is the Greek one, which has twenty-four letters.

2. Pirkei Avot (the Ethics of the Fathers) is a tractate of the Mishnah, the early compilation of Jewish oral teaching completed around 200 CE. It gathers the ethical sayings of the early rabbinic sages. This saying appears in its first chapter.

3. A Tamil pazhamozhi, or folk proverb, still common in everyday speech. Literally: “Those who endure will rule the earth; those who boil over will rule the forest.” The forest here is the opposite of a kingdom: a place of exile rather than rule.

4. Ma is a Japanese idea of interval or meaningful pause, found in music, theatre, architecture and conversation, where the gap is valued as part of the whole rather than as something missing.

5. Confucius (551 to 479 BCE), Analects, Book 5. The minister was Ji Wenzi of the state of Lu. Chapter numbering differs between translations (5.19 or 5.20).

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 06 October 2026

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

What Personal Philosophy Keeps You Moving Forward in Life?

What’s a personal mantra or philosophy you live by?

View all responses

Everyone has a life philosophy, even if they have never written it down. Mine has three simple instructions: keep moving, keep learning, keep making a difference. What would yours be?

We usually describe a personal philosophy as something we live by, as if it were a rule we keep every day without fail.

I have come to believe the opposite. A good philosophy is not the rule we never break. It is the place we return to after we have broken it.

Mine is simple: keep moving forward, keep learning, and keep making a difference.

I did not adopt it overnight. Life taught it to me slowly, through responsibilities and disappointments, relationships and successes, and the many unexpected turns that come with growing older. And I return to it most on the days I have failed to live it.

1. Keep Moving Forward

Moving forward does not always mean achieving something spectacular. Sometimes it simply means getting up and facing another day with hope.

We cannot control everything that happens to us, but we can usually choose how we respond. Progress may be very small: finishing a task I had postponed, writing a few lines, taking a walk, reaching out to someone, or simply refusing to surrender to discouragement.

Aesop’s tortoise did not win because it was fast. It won because it did not stop.

Someone may object that “keep moving” sounds exhausting, as if rest were a failure. I don’t think so. Rest is part of the journey; giving up is not. Forward is forward, even when the steps are small and the pauses are long.

2. Keep Learning

I don’t believe learning has an expiry date. Age may change our pace, but it need not end our curiosity.

Technology keeps changing, and new tools, ideas and ways of communicating appear almost daily. Rather than resisting everything unfamiliar, I try to stay curious.

An old Tamil work, the Naladiyar, puts it with striking honesty: learning has no shore, and the learner’s days are few. So, it advises, choose wisely what to learn, like the swan of Indian legend that is said to drink the milk and leave the water behind.1 That verse comforts me at this stage of life. I cannot learn everything, but I can still learn what matters.

Writing has become part of that learning. Through Rise & Inspire, every article teaches me something, not only about the subject but sometimes about myself. As long as we remain curious, we remain capable of growth.

3. Keep Making a Difference

The older I become, the more I realise that a meaningful life is measured not only by what we accumulate, but also by what we contribute.

A kind word, a piece of knowledge shared, a little encouragement for someone who is struggling, an hour given to a worthwhile cause: each of these can make a difference. Islamic tradition teaches that even a smile offered to another person is a form of charity.2 We rarely know how far a small kindness travels.

So I try to ask not only, “What can I achieve today?” but also, “What good can I do today?”

4. Trust What You Cannot Control

For me, this philosophy is held together by faith.

Faith does not mean that every question will have an immediate answer or that every difficulty will disappear. It gives me the confidence to continue when I cannot see the whole road ahead. I do my part faithfully and responsibly, and I accept that I cannot control everything. There is a certain freedom in that.

Other traditions arrive at the same freedom. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that we have a claim on our work, but not on its fruits.3 We do what we can, learn from what happens, and continue the journey.

5. Let “Forward” Grow With You

When we are young, moving forward may mean building a career, earning money or reaching a particular position. Later in life, the meaning changes. Peace becomes more valuable. Relationships become more precious. Health and time are appreciated differently. Leaving something worthwhile behind matters more than getting ahead.

A life does not have to become smaller with age. It can become deeper.

Returning, Not Perfecting

I don’t claim to follow this philosophy perfectly. There are days when I feel tired, when progress seems slow, and when I wonder whether what I am doing really matters.

That is exactly why I need it. A personal philosophy does not promise that life will be easy. It reminds us, even when life is hard, that we still have a choice about how we live it.

If I had to put it in one sentence, it would be this: keep moving forward, keep learning, and keep making a difference, one day, one step and one person at a time.

So, what about you? What mantra or philosophy do you return to when life becomes challenging?

Notes

1. The Naladiyar is a collection of four hundred Tamil quatrains composed by Jain monks. It is one of the Eighteen Minor Classics (Pathinenkilkanakku) of Tamil literature. The lines come from its chapter on learning (verse 135), which begins “Kalvi karaiyila, karpavar naal sila,” meaning “Learning has no shore; the learner’s days are few.” The swan that separates milk from water is a long-standing Indian image for discernment.

2. Recorded in Jami’ at-Tirmidhi, one of the major collections of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad.

3. Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 2, Verse 47.

John Britto Kurusumuthu
Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 05 October 2026

© 2026 Rise & Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

What’s the Best Way to Explore a New City?

What’s the best way to explore a new city?

When we arrive in a city we have never visited before, what should we do first?

Look for its famous landmarks? Follow a carefully prepared itinerary? Take photographs of everything?

Or should we simply walk, observe and allow the city to reveal itself to us?

I believe the best way to explore a new city is to slow down enough to experience it.

A city is much more than its monuments, museums and tourist attractions. Behind every famous landmark are ordinary streets, small shops, local markets, cafés, places of worship, parks and homes where everyday life unfolds. These ordinary places often tell us more about a city than its most photographed attractions.

 Walk Beyond the Planned Route

Walking is one of the simplest ways to discover a new city.

When we walk, we notice things that we might miss from a car or tour bus—a colourful doorway, an old building, a street musician, a neighbourhood bakery or children playing in a park.

We begin to understand the rhythm of the city.

Sometimes, taking a slightly unfamiliar street can lead to an unexpected discovery. That is part of the joy of travelling.

Talk to People

Buildings tell us about a city’s history.

People tell us about its soul.

A brief conversation with a shopkeeper, taxi driver, waiter or local resident can reveal something no travel brochure can provide. Their stories, expressions and recommendations can introduce us to places we might never have found on our own.

We don’t need to have long conversations. Sometimes even a simple exchange can make a place feel more familiar.

Taste the Local Life

Food is another doorway into a city’s culture.

Instead of looking only for familiar restaurants, why not try something local?

A traditional dish, a neighbourhood café or a busy market can offer more than a meal. It can introduce us to traditions, ingredients, customs and memories that have been passed from one generation to another.

Sometimes, we understand a place through its food before we understand it through its history.

Don’t Let the Itinerary Control Everything

Planning is useful. It helps us make good use of limited time.

But an itinerary that is too rigid can turn exploration into a race.

We move from one attraction to another, take a photograph, check it off the list and hurry to the next destination.

Where is the space for surprise?

Leaving a little room in the day allows us to discover something that wasn’t on the plan. Perhaps it is a quiet garden, an interesting bookshop, a beautiful street or simply a place where we feel like sitting for a while.

Some of our best travel memories may come from moments we never planned.

Put the Camera Down Occasionally

Photographs help us remember places.

But not every beautiful moment needs to be photographed.

Sometimes we should simply stand still and look.

Listen to the sounds around us. Watch people going about their daily lives. Notice the architecture, the light, the smell of food and the changing atmosphere of the street.

There is a difference between recording a moment and living it.

Explore With Curiosity

Perhaps curiosity is the most important companion we can carry into a new city.

Instead of asking only, “What should I see?”, we can ask:

“What can this place teach me?”

That small change in perspective transforms travel.

A city becomes more than a destination. It becomes a story.

And every street, person and unexpected encounter becomes part of that story.

What Can a New City Teach Us About Life?

Exploring a new city can teach us something about exploring life itself.

We may begin with a plan, but we cannot control everything that happens along the way. We encounter unfamiliar places, unexpected turns and people whose paths cross ours briefly.

The lesson is simple:

We don’t have to rush through life checking destinations off a list.

Sometimes, we need to slow down, look around and remain open to what we discover.

The best way to explore a new city may therefore be the same way we can approach life—with curiosity, openness, patience and a willingness to take an unexpected turn.

Because in the end, the greatest travel memories may not come from the places we intended to visit.

They may come from the moments we never planned.

When you visit a new city, do you prefer to follow a carefully planned itinerary or leave room for unexpected discoveries?

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 04 October 2026

© 2026 Rise&Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

If No Enemy Can Separate Us from God, What Can?

Most of us spend a great deal of energy watching the walls. We know who is against us: the colleague angling for our position, the relative who has never forgiven us, the neighbour in the boundary dispute. We rehearse what they said. Some of us pray about them every night.

This week’s seven Scriptures begin exactly there, with Psalm 59: deliver me from my enemies, O my God. But they do not stay there. Day by day they move from the enemies outside the walls to something already inside them, and today’s verse names it plainly: perverse thoughts separate people from God (Wisdom 1:3).

Paul once listed everything that might separate us from the love of Christ, hardship, persecution, famine, sword, and concluded that none of it can. Every item on his list is something that happens to us. Wisdom uses the very same Greek verb and names the one thing that happens in us.

Along the way we meet a persecuted prophet whom God tells to turn back, a word in Romans 13:14 that really means forethought, and a God who spares his enemies because he is strong, not because he is weak.

One line has stayed with me all week: the enemy can surround the house, but only a thought you agree with can open the door.

It is longer than a daily devotional, and that is deliberate. Depth over speed. Take your time with it, and tell us in the comments what you found.

RISE & INSPIRE | SUNDAY BIBLE SERIES Category: Wake-up Calls Sunday Series No. 8 — 4 October 2026 Scriptures of the week: 28 September – 4 October 2026

If No Enemy Can Separate Us from God, What Can?

Opening — Enter the Passage

For ten years, according to the old story, the city of Troy held out.

Its walls were high, its gates were strong, and the army camped on the plain outside could not get in. Then one morning the army was gone, and on the shore stood an enormous wooden horse. The Trojans argued about it. One priest, in Virgil’s telling, warned that he feared the Greeks even when they came bearing gifts. Others said it was an offering to the gods, a trophy, a sign that the war was over. The argument went the comfortable way. They broke open a section of their own wall to bring the horse inside.

Troy did not fall to the army that besieged it. It fell to a decision made within it.

The story has lasted nearly three thousand years because we keep recognising ourselves in it. We have even named a kind of computer attack after it: a harmful program that does not batter its way in, but is welcomed in, because it looks like something we wanted.

Most of us spend a great deal of our energy watching the walls. We know who is against us — the colleague angling for our position, the relative who has never forgiven us, the neighbour in the boundary dispute, the critic, the rival, the person whose name still tightens something in the chest years later. We rehearse what they said. We plan what we will say. Some of us pray about them every night.

Scripture does not tell us this is foolish. The first of this week’s seven verses is exactly such a prayer, prayed — if its ancient heading is right — by a man whose house was surrounded in the dark by soldiers waiting to kill him at dawn:

Deliver me from my enemies, O my God; protect me from those who rise up against me.

But the week does not end there. It moves, verse by verse and day by day, from the enemies outside the walls to something already inside them. And the verse given for this Sunday names it with startling precision:

For perverse thoughts separate people from God…

Not persecution. Not enemies. Not hardship. Thoughts.

Paul once asked the most confident question in the New Testament: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?”(Romans 8:35). He answered his own list with a resounding no: nothing “in all creation” can do it (8:39). It is worth noticing that every item on Paul’s list is something that happens to us. The Wisdom of Solomon, written in Greek a generation or two before Paul, uses the very same verb — chōrizō, to separate — and names the one thing that happens in us.

This week’s Wake-up Call comes from Paul himself, in a verse that sits right beside one of ours: “You know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep… the night is far gone, the day is near” (Romans 13:11–12). The danger is not only the people prowling outside the house at night. It is what we have been quietly agreeing with, inside, while we watched the gate.

Some questions are better asked in daylight. This is one of them:

If no enemy can separate us from God — what can?

The Passage

Wisdom 1:3 (our anchor text this week)

For perverse thoughts separate people from God, and when his power is tested, it exposes the foolish.

Scripture is quoted throughout from the New Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition), the translation in which this week’s verses were given, unless another version is named.

Six further verses accompany it, one for each day of the week. Usually in this series we rearrange them to follow the argument they make together. This week, unusually, the order of the calendar is the order of the argument.

The week begins outside the walls, with a besieged man praying against his enemies (Psalm 59:1). It turns to the God from whom no one — enemy or friend — can hide (Jeremiah 23:23). It names the test that comes to all of us, and the crown that waits beyond it (James 1:12). It tells us what to wear for the night and what not to plan for (Romans 13:14). It overhears God telling his own faithful prophet that hemust turn back (Jeremiah 15:19). It explains why God’s power, though complete, so often holds back (Wisdom 12:17). And it ends, today, inside the human mind, where the most decisive battle has been taking place all along (Wisdom 1:3).

From the enemy at the gate to the thought within. That is the road this Sunday walks.

Biblical Context

A book written for believers under pressure

The Wisdom of Solomon — in Catholic Bibles simply Wisdom — was written in Greek by a Jewish teacher whose name we do not know. There is broad agreement among scholars that it was composed in Alexandria, in Egypt, around the turn of the era: somewhere between the late first century BC and the early first century AD. Some, noting what looks like an allusion to the cult of the Roman emperor (14:16–20), argue for a date after Rome’s conquest of Egypt in 30 BC. The book is Scripture for Catholic and Orthodox Christians; most Protestant Bibles place it among the Apocrypha.

The book speaks in the voice of King Solomon, most clearly in chapters 7–9, though it never actually names him. Almost all scholars, conservative as well as critical, regard this as a recognised literary convention of the period: the author writes as Solomon in order to write in the tradition of Israel’s patron of wisdom.

Alexandria matters for understanding the book. It was one of the great cities of the ancient world, home to its most famous library and to one of the largest Jewish communities anywhere outside the land of Israel. It was there, according to Jewish tradition, that the Scriptures had been translated into Greek — the Septuagint, the Bible most New Testament writers would later quote. And it was a city of enormous intellectual glamour: philosophy, science, rhetoric, cults old and new. For a young Jewish man or woman there was every reason to drift — to find the faith of one’s grandparents provincial, to make one’s peace with the gods of the city, or simply to adopt the cheerful materialism of people who believed that this life is all there is.

The book is written into that pressure. Its first great section (roughly 1:1–6:21) sets the righteous person beside the ungodly and asks what becomes of each. It is here that the book makes its daring claims that “the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God” (3:1) and that God “created us for incorruption” (2:23). The second section (roughly 6:22–9:18) is Solomon’s praise of Wisdom and his prayer for her. The third (chapters 10–19) retells the Exodus as the story of God’s wisdom at work in history, with two long reflections woven into it — one on God’s mercy (11:15–12:27) and one on the folly of idolatry (chapters 13–15). Scholars draw the boundaries in slightly different places, but this three-part shape is widely recognised.

The opening sentences of the book

Our anchor verse is the third verse of the book. It belongs to the book’s opening appeal (1:1–15), which begins by addressing kings:

“Love righteousness, you rulers of the earth, think of the Lord in goodness and seek him with sincerity of heart; because he is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him.” (1:1–2)

The royal address belongs to the Solomonic voice — a king speaking to kings — but the book plainly means it for every reader who rules anything at all: a household, an office, a classroom, a parish, a single human heart. Then comes our verse, joined to what precedes it by the small word for. Verse 3 explains verse 2. Why is God found by those who do not test him, and hidden from those who do? Because crooked reasoning separates; and because God’s power, when it is put to the test, does not perform on demand. It exposes.

The verses that follow fill out the picture. Wisdom “will not enter a deceitful soul” (1:4); a holy spirit “will flee from deceit” (1:5). God is “witness of their inmost feelings, and a true observer of their hearts, and a hearer of their tongues” (1:6), because “the spirit of the Lord has filled the world” (1:7) — a line the Roman liturgy has long sung at the beginning of the Mass of Pentecost. “A jealous ear hears all things”(1:10). And then the book’s first great warning: “Do not invite death by the error of your life… because God did not make death” (1:12–13).

What a “perverse thought” looks like when it grows up

Chapter 2 does something remarkable. Having warned against crooked reasoning, the book lets us listen to it. “For they reasoned unsoundly, saying to themselves…” (2:1) — and what follows is the inner monologue of the ungodly, set out at length in their own words.

It is not stupid. It is articulate, and in places almost lovely. Life is short and sorrowful (2:1). We were born by mere chance (2:2). Our name will be forgotten (2:4). So “let us enjoy the good things that exist” (2:6); “let us crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither” (2:8). Then, without a pause, the philosophy becomes a policy. If might is to be our law of right (2:11), the weak are fair game (2:10). And one person in particular has become intolerable:

“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions…”(2:12)

He calls himself a child of God (2:13, 16). Very well: “let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries” (2:17–18). “Let us condemn him to a shameful death” (2:20).

Christians have never been able to read those lines without thinking of Calvary, where the bystanders said of Jesus, “He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to” (Matthew 27:43). But notice how the book arrives there. It begins with a reasoning and ends with a plot to kill. “Thus they reasoned,”the author concludes, “but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them” (2:21).

That is the key to the whole week. The enemies of Psalm 59 are not a different species from the rest of us. They are what crooked reasoning becomes when it is acted upon.

Where the other six verses come from

Psalm 59:1. The psalm’s heading sets it on one particular night in David’s life: “when Saul ordered his house to be watched in order to kill him.” The story is told in 1 Samuel 19:11–17. Saul’s messengers surround David’s house with orders to kill him in the morning. His wife Michal — Saul’s own daughter — warns him: “If you do not save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed” (19:11). She lets him down through a window, and he escapes into the dark.

Two cautions are needed. Many scholars regard the psalm headings as early editorial additions rather than original parts of the poems, so the link with that night is ancient tradition rather than certain history. And the psalm itself contains features that sit awkwardly with a purely private setting: it calls on God to “punish all the nations” (59:5) and speaks of “my people” (59:11). Some interpreters therefore think it was written for, or later adapted to, a king or a community under attack from foreign enemies. The two readings need not compete. A prayer first prayed by one hunted man could easily become the prayer of a whole hunted people — which is precisely what the Psalter is. The heading also names a tune, “Do Not Destroy,” and calls the psalm a miktam, a term whose meaning is no longer known.

The psalm is built with unusual care. Twice the enemies return at evening, “howling like dogs and prowling about the city” (59:6, 14). Twice the psalmist answers with a refrain that addresses God as “my strength” and “my fortress” (59:9, 17). The repetition is the point. The night does not end after one prayer. The dogs come back. So does the refrain.

Jeremiah 23:23 belongs to a collection of oracles headed simply “Concerning the prophets” (23:9–40), gathered from Jeremiah’s preaching in the turbulent decades before Jerusalem fell to Babylon in 587/586 BC. Readers who were with us last Sunday will remember the atmosphere: a city convinced it was safe, a Temple treated as a charm. The prophets who flourished in that city told people what they wanted to hear. “They keep saying to those who despise the word of the LORD, ‘It shall be well with you'” (23:17). Jeremiah’s verdict is that they have never “stood in the council of the LORD” (23:18, 22). Our verse is God’s own question to them.

Jeremiah 15:19 comes from one of the most intimate passages in all the prophets. Scattered through Jeremiah 11–20 are a handful of raw, personal prayers that scholars call Jeremiah’s “confessions”(usually identified as 11:18–12:6; 15:10–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; and 20:7–18). In them the prophet argues with God, curses the day he was born, and pleads for vengeance on his persecutors. The second of them begins: “Woe is me, my mother, that you ever bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land!” (15:10). It reaches its lowest point in an accusation almost unthinkable on a prophet’s lips: “Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail” (15:18). Our verse is God’s reply.

James 1:12. The Letter of James is addressed “to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” (1:1) — Jewish believers in Jesus scattered beyond the land of Israel. Ancient tradition identifies its author as James, the brother of the Lord, leader of the Jerusalem church, who was put to death in about AD 62. Many scholars accept that attribution; others think the letter was written later in his name. It reads less like a letter than a collection of wisdom teaching for communities under strain — poor believers pressed by the rich (2:6–7; 5:1–6) and, it seems, by their own quarrels (4:1–2). Commentators often describe our verse as a hinge: it gathers up the teaching on trials in 1:2–11 and opens the warning about temptation in 1:13–18.

Romans 13:14. Paul wrote Romans, probably from Corinth around AD 57, to a church he had not yet visited. Chapters 12–15 turn from the great argument of the letter to its practical consequences. Immediately before our passage Paul has told the Romans how to treat their enemies — “Bless those who persecute you” (12:14); “if your enemies are hungry, feed them” (12:20); “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (12:21) — and has summed up the whole law in a single command: love your neighbour (13:8–10). Then, in 13:11–14, the tone changes. It is late. The night is nearly over. Wake up.

Wisdom 12:17 belongs to the book’s long reflection on God’s mercy (11:15–12:27). Looking back over Israel’s history, the author asks a hard question: if God is all-powerful, why did he deal so slowly with Israel’s enemies — the Egyptians at the Exodus, the Canaanites in the land? His answer is that God’s slowness was not weakness but mercy: “judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent” (12:10). Our verse stands near the climax of that argument.

Honesty requires saying that many modern readers find these chapters difficult, especially their portrait of the Canaanites (12:3–7). What is striking is the direction in which the author reads his own tradition. Faced with stories of conquest, he lingers not on the victory but on the delay — on the God who “spares all things, for they are yours, O Lord, you who love the living” (11:26).

Three things ancient readers knew without being told

The night belonged to the scavengers. Dogs in the towns of the ancient Near East were not household pets. Most roamed in half-wild packs, feeding on refuse and, in the worst times, on the unburied dead (1 Kings 14:11; 21:23–24). To be surrounded by dogs was a picture of exposure and contempt (Psalm 22:16). The night itself was something to be kept, in shifts: Israel divided it into watches (Judges 7:19; Lamentations 2:19), and a city’s safety depended on the people who stayed awake on its walls (Isaiah 62:6). Psalm 59 is a night psalm, and its first readers would have heard the howling.

Testing was a trade. In the Greek world the verb dokimazō belonged to the assayer and the money-changer. Metals were tested in the fire; coins were tested for weight and purity; whatever passed was dokimos — approved, genuine, good currency. In Athens the same word family named the formal scrutiny, the dokimasia, that a citizen had to pass before taking up public office. When James and Wisdom speak of testing, their first readers heard the furnace, the counting-table and the examination of fitness. A test was not designed to destroy. It was designed to find out what was really there.

Clothing and standing were a language of status. To “put on” a garment in the Bible often means to take on an identity or an office. Priests are clothed for their service (Exodus 28). Joseph is dressed in fine linen when Pharaoh raises him to power (Genesis 41:42). Job says, “I put on righteousness, and it clothed me” (Job 29:14). And to “stand before” a king meant to serve in his presence, admitted to his counsel and ready to carry his word. Both images matter this week.

The theological context: three kinds of testing

Beneath the week runs a theme that threads through the whole Bible, and it helps to separate its strands.

God tests his people — to prove and strengthen them, never to destroy them. “God tested Abraham”(Genesis 22:1). Israel was led forty years in the wilderness “to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart” (Deuteronomy 8:2). “The crucible is for silver, and the furnace is for gold, but the LORD tests the heart” (Proverbs 17:3).

People test God — demanding that he prove himself on their terms while refusing to trust him until he does. At Massah, with the plagues of Egypt and the parted sea already behind them, the Israelites asked, “Is the LORD among us or not?” (Exodus 17:7). Deuteronomy forbids it: “Do not put the LORD your God to the test, as you tested him at Massah” (Deuteronomy 6:16) — the verse Jesus quotes to the devil in the wilderness (Matthew 4:7).

The tempter tempts — not to prove, but to ruin. The same Greek verb, peirazō, can describe all three, which is why James has to stop and insist: “No one, when tempted, should say, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil and he himself tempts no one” (James 1:13). The Catechism of the Catholic Church draws the same line, speaking of the Spirit’s help to distinguish “trials, which are necessary for the growth of the inner man,” from temptation, “which leads to sin and death” (CCC 2847).

This week’s verses touch all three. James speaks of the test that proves the believer. Wisdom 1:3 speaks of people who test God — and find themselves exposed. And Romans 13:14 tells us how to deny the tempter his supply lines.

Lexical Notes

1. skolioi logismoi — “perverse thoughts” (Wisdom 1:3)

σκολιοὶ λογισμοί

The adjective σκολιός (skolios) is a picture word. Its basic meaning is bent, curved, crooked — a winding road, a twisted stick. From there it moves into character: devious, dishonest, perverse. The Greek Old Testament uses it in Moses’ lament over “a perverse and crooked generation” (Deuteronomy 32:5), a phrase picked up by Peter at Pentecost (Acts 2:40) and by Paul (Philippians 2:15). It is also the word in Isaiah’s great promise that “the crooked shall be made straight” (Isaiah 40:4, in the Greek), which Luke places in the mouth of John the Baptist (Luke 3:5). In Scripture, crookedness is what must be straightened before the Lord can arrive.

The book has set up a deliberate contrast. Two verses earlier it told its readers to seek God “with sincerity of heart” — in Greek, en haplotēti kardias (1:1). ἁπλότης (haplotēs) means singleness, simplicity, straightforwardness: the quality of something that is exactly what it appears to be, folded once and not twice. The opposite of a crooked thought, in other words, is not a clever thought. It is a single-hearted one. James uses the related adverb when he says that God gives to all “generously” — haplōs, simply, without a hidden agenda — and sets it against the dipsychos, the double-souled person who receives nothing (James 1:5–8). Readers of this series met that word two Sundays ago.

The noun λογισμός (logismos) comes from logizomai — to reckon, count, calculate — a book-keeper’s verb before it is a philosopher’s. A logismos is not a passing impression. It is a reasoning, a calculation, a deliberation: the case we argue to ourselves. Paul uses it of the inner courtroom in which people’s “conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them” (Romans 2:15), and of the fortified “arguments”that set themselves up “against the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).

That distinction matters, and English can blur it. “Thoughts” covers everything from a flicker to a philosophy. Wisdom’s word points to the second end of the range. Some versions render the phrase “twisted thoughts” or “crooked counsels,” which keeps the sense of something constructed.

The early Christian monks of the Egyptian desert — not far, as it happens, from where Wisdom was written — turned logismoi into a technical term. Evagrius of Pontus, in the fourth century, described eight such “thoughts,” from gluttony and anger to vainglory and pride — a list that later became the seven deadly sins. Later teachers, among them St John Climacus in the seventh century, traced the stages by which a thought takes hold: it first arrives, uninvited and not yet sinful; then we begin to converse with it; then we consent; and finally it holds us captive. The desert had no illusion that we can stop thoughts from knocking. Its whole wisdom lay in what we do after they knock.

Finally, the verb: χωρίζουσιν (chōrizousin), they separate. It is the word Jesus uses of marriage — “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matthew 19:6) — and the word Paul uses twice in his triumphant conclusion to Romans 8: who will separate us, and nothing will be able to separate us (8:35, 39). Wisdom and Paul meet on this one verb. We will come back to it.

2. dokimazō and dokimos — “tested” and “stood the test” (Wisdom 1:3; James 1:12)

δοκιμαζομένη (Wisdom 1:3) · δόκιμος γενόμενος (James 1:12)

This word family, as we saw, comes from the furnace and the counting-table. δοκιμάζω (dokimazō) means to test, assay, examine — and so to approve after testing. δόκιμος (dokimos) describes what has passed: genuine, approved, proven. Its opposite, ἀδόκιμος (adokimos), is the counterfeit coin, the rejected metal, the candidate who fails the scrutiny. Paul uses the negative in a single breath with an athlete’s prize: he disciplines himself “so that after proclaiming to others I myself should not be disqualified” — adokimos (1 Corinthians 9:27).

Wisdom uses the word of the righteous in one of its most moving passages: God “tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them” (3:5–6). Peter speaks of “the genuineness of your faith — being more precious than gold that, though perishable, is tested by fire” (1 Peter 1:7). And James opens his letter with it: “the testing of your faith produces endurance” (1:3).

Here is what makes this week’s pairing so striking. James and Wisdom use the same word in opposite directions. In James 1:12 the believer is tested, and comes through dokimos — proven genuine. In Wisdom 1:3 God’s power is tested — put to the proof by people who demand that he show himself — and it is not God but the tester who is shown up.

A test, in other words, is a revealer. It does not put into us what was not there. It shows what was.

3. peirasmos, hypomenō and stephanos — “temptation,” “endures,” “crown” (James 1:12)

Μακάριος ἀνὴρ ὃς ὑπομένει πειρασμόν

πειρασμός (peirasmos) covers the whole range of test, trial and temptation. Context decides — and in James 1 the context deliberately shifts. In 1:2 the peirasmoi are plainly outward trials “of any kind”: poverty, pressure, persecution. By 1:13–14 the same word describes the inward pull of “one’s own desire.” Verse 12 stands exactly on the turn, and translators must choose. The NRSV, quoted here, says “endures temptation”; the RSV and the ESV say “trial.” Both are right, and neither is complete. James seems to want us to see that every outward trial carries an inward temptation folded inside it — to bitterness, to despair, to the shortcut — and that the two are endured together.

ὑπομένω (hypomenō) is built from hypo, “under,” and menō, “remain.” It means to stay under a weight: neither escaping it nor collapsing beneath it. It is not passive resignation. Its noun, hypomonē, is the steadfastness James says the testing of faith produces (1:3) and the “patient endurance” with which, Jesus says, good soil bears fruit (Luke 8:15).

The verse opens with a phrase every Jewish reader would recognise: makarios anēr, “blessed is the man,” the first words of the whole Psalter in its Greek form (Psalm 1:1). James places the one who endures in the line of the righteous person of Psalm 1, the tree planted by streams of water.

Then the prize: τὸν στέφανον τῆς ζωῆς (ton stephanon tēs zōēs), the crown of life. Greek had two words for “crown.” The diadēma was a royal band, the sign of a ruler. The στέφανος (stephanos) was a wreath — of olive, laurel, pine or wild celery, depending on the games — given to victorious athletes, worn at festivals, and conferred as a civic honour. Paul contrasts the “perishable wreath” of the games with the imperishable one (1 Corinthians 9:25); Peter promises “the crown of glory that never fades away” (1 Peter 5:4). “The crown of life” is most naturally read as the crown that consists of life: the prize is life itself, the life of the age to come. The risen Christ promises the same crown, in the same Greek words, to the suffering church at Smyrna: “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life” (Revelation 2:10).

Remember the ungodly of Wisdom 2, who wanted to “crown ourselves with rosebuds before they wither” (2:8)? Their verb comes from the same root as stephanos. Two crowns are on offer in this week’s readings: one you weave for yourself and watch wither, and one you receive at the end of the test — and it is life.

Two small textual notes. First, the NRSV reads “the crown of life that the Lord has promised.” The earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts do not name the giver at all; they say simply “which he promised.” Later copyists supplied “the Lord” or “God.” St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate supplies Deus, “God” — and fittingly, this verse fell on 30 September, his feast day. A parallel later in the letter, “the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him” (2:5), suggests that God is meant. Nothing in the meaning changes.

Second, notice a quiet echo. James had warned that the double-minded person “must not expect to receive anything from the Lord” (1:7–8). Now he says the one who endures “will receive” the crown. In Greek it is the same verb, lēmpsetai. The divided heart receives nothing. The steadfast heart receives life.

And one theological detail that is easy to miss. The crown is promised not to “those who are strong,”nor to “those who never fall,” but “to those who love him.” In James, endurance is not grit. It is love that refuses to let go.

4. hatsileni and tesaggeveni — “deliver me” and “protect me” (Psalm 59:1)

הַצִּילֵנִי מֵאֹיְבַי אֱלֹהָי מִמִּתְקוֹמְמַי תְּשַׂגְּבֵנִי

(In Hebrew Bibles, where the heading counts as verse 1, this line is numbered 59:2, and the verse numbers that follow run one ahead of the English.)

The two verbs of the opening line are more vivid than their English equivalents.

נָצַל (natsal), in the form used here, means to snatch away, to pull someone out of danger. David uses it of the shepherd who rescues a lamb from the mouth of a lion or a bear (1 Samuel 17:35); Amos uses it of the shepherd who rescues from the lion’s mouth “two legs, or a piece of an ear” (Amos 3:12). It is an urgent, physical rescue word. Keep it in mind; it returns on Friday.

שָׂגַב (sagav) means to be high, and in this form to set on high — to place someone beyond reach. “Protect me” is a fair translation of the result, but the picture is of being lifted to a height the enemy cannot climb. The noun from the same root, מִשְׂגָּב (misgav), is the word the psalm keeps using for God: “for you, O God, are my fortress” (59:9, 17; compare 59:16). A misgav is a high refuge — a crag or tower too steep to storm.

Readers of this series will hear an echo of Psalm 61, which we studied four weeks ago: “Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.” The psalmists keep asking for the same thing: not a stronger wall at their own height, but a height that is beyond them.

Proverbs sets the true misgav beside a counterfeit in two neighbouring verses that could stand over this whole week. “The name of the LORD is a strong tower; the righteous run into it and are safe” — literally, are set on high (18:10). And then: “The wealth of the rich is their strong city; in their imagination it is like a high wall” (18:11). Same root, same image — but the second fortress exists only in the mind. Some fortresses are built by God. Some are built out of our own reasoning. From the inside they can look exactly alike.

One more word. The heading says that Saul’s men watched David’s house — vayyishmeru, from שָׁמַר(shamar), to watch, guard, keep. In the first refrain the psalmist answers with the same verb: “O my strength, I will watch for you” (59:9). Two watches are kept that night. Saul’s men watch the house; David watches for God. (The Hebrew of verse 9 actually reads “his strength,” as the King James Version preserves; most modern translations follow the matching refrain in verse 17 and read “my strength.”) And when the refrain returns at the end of the psalm, one verb has changed: “O my strength, I will sing praises to you” (59:17). The night has passed. The watcher has become a singer.

5. miqqarov and merachoq — “near by” and “far off” (Jeremiah 23:23)

הַאֱלֹהֵי מִקָּרֹב אָנִי … וְלֹא אֱלֹהֵי מֵרָחֹק

The Hebrew opens with the question particle ha-: literally, “Am I a God from near… and not a God from far?” It is a rhetorical question — and an ambiguous one. Which half is God denying?

Most translations and commentators take the question to expect the answer: No — I am not only a God close at hand; I am also a God far off. The New American Bible makes this explicit by adding a single word: “Am I a God near at hand only…?” On this reading the emphasis falls on God’s transcendence. The false prophets had shrunk God into a local deity, a God of the neighbourhood whose words they could manufacture and whose attention they could manage. God refuses to be that small. He is far above them — and therefore sees everything they do.

The ancient Greek translation, the Septuagint — along with Theodotion’s Greek version and the Syriac — has no question particle and reads the line as a statement: “I am a God who is near, says the Lord, and not a God far off.” On this reading the emphasis falls on God’s nearness. The false prophets imagined a distant God who would not notice; God replies that he is close enough to hear every word.

Both readings arrive at the same place, because the next verse settles the matter: “Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them? says the LORD. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the LORD”(23:24). Whether we stress the nearness or the distance, the point is that there is no place — no dark corner, no private chamber of the mind — beyond his sight.

“Near” and “far” are covenant words in Scripture. Moses marvelled that no other nation had “a god so near to it as the LORD our God is whenever we call to him” (Deuteronomy 4:7). The psalmist sings that “the LORD is near to all who call on him” (Psalm 145:18). Paul tells Gentile believers, “you who once were far off have been brought near” (Ephesians 2:13). Jeremiah 23:23 is the warning folded inside that comfort. The God who is near is not a God we can manage. The God who is far is not a God who has stopped looking.

6. endysasthe and pronoia — “put on” and “provision” (Romans 13:14)

ἐνδύσασθε τὸν κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, καὶ τῆς σαρκὸς πρόνοιαν μὴ ποιεῖσθε εἰς ἐπιθυμίας

ἐνδύω (endyō) is the ordinary verb for getting dressed. Paul uses it here as a command to the reader’s own action: clothe yourselves. Two verses earlier he has said, “put on the armor of light” (13:12). Now the armour turns out to be a Person.

What makes the verse remarkable is that Paul has already used the same verb, in Galatians, for something that has already happened: “As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Galatians 3:27). In Galatians it is a fact; in Romans it is a command. The Christian is told, in effect, become what you already are — put on, day after day, the garment you were given once. The Church keeps the image alive at every baptism, when the newly baptised are dressed in white and told that they have “clothed yourself in Christ.”

The second half of the verse turns on a word that is easy to read past. πρόνοια (pronoia) means forethought — planning ahead, making arrangements in advance. In Acts, a lawyer flatters the Roman governor Felix by crediting his pronoia, his “foresight,” with reforms for the nation (Acts 24:2). In Greek philosophy, and in the Wisdom of Solomon itself, pronoia is the word for providence: “it is your providence, O Father, that steers its course” (Wisdom 14:3).

So Paul’s command has an edge that English softens. Do not act as the flesh’s providence. Do not be the one who plans ahead for it, provides for it, keeps a supply laid by. Temptation rarely wins by ambush. It usually wins because someone, earlier, quietly made arrangements.

σάρξ (sarx), “flesh,” is not, in Paul, simply the body, and not simply sexuality. It is human life turned in on itself — organised around its own cravings and grievances, apart from the Spirit of God. That is why Paul’s list in the verse before ours includes not only “reveling and drunkenness” and “debauchery and licentiousness” but also “quarreling and jealousy” (13:13). The flesh is as much at home in a grudge as in a tavern. And the ἐπιθυμίαι (epithymiai), the desires the flesh wants gratified, are the same epithymia that James says lures and entices a person into sin (James 1:14).

7. shuv — “turn back” (Jeremiah 15:19)

אִם־תָּשׁוּב וַאֲשִׁיבְךָ לְפָנַי תַּעֲמֹד … יָשֻׁבוּ הֵמָּה אֵלֶיךָ וְאַתָּה לֹא־תָשׁוּב אֲלֵיהֶם

The verb שׁוּב (shuv) — to turn, return, turn back, and so to repent — appears four times in this single verse. Its first two occurrences form a play on words that English cannot quite reproduce: im-tashuv va’ashivekha — “If you turn, I will turn you,” that is, “if you come back, I will bring you back” or restore you. The last two close the verse: “It is they who will turn to you, not you who will turn to them.”

Repentance in the Bible is not first a feeling of remorse. It is a change of direction. And this verse shows it as a movement in which two parties act. Jeremiah must turn; God will turn him. Elsewhere the order is reversed: “bring me back, let me come back, for you are the LORD my God” (Jeremiah 31:18); “Restore us to yourself, O LORD, that we may be restored” (Lamentations 5:21). Scripture keeps both orders, and both are true. We cannot turn without grace; and grace does not turn us without our turning.

Then: “If you utter what is precious and not what is worthless…” The Hebrew is more physical: ve’im-totsi yaqar mizzolel — literally, “if you bring out the precious from the worthless.” The verb means to bring out or bring forth. The NRSV’s “utter” reads it of speech, which suits the promise that follows. But many interpreters also hear the language of the refiner, separating precious metal from dross — an image Jeremiah knew from the inside, since God had once appointed him “a tester and a refiner among my people” (6:27). On that reading, God is asking the prophet to sift his own speech: to separate what was precious in his outburst (his honesty, his hunger for God’s word) from what was worthless (the bitterness that called God a deceitful brook).

יָקָר (yaqar) means precious, costly, weighty — and also rare. It is the word in the line “The word of the LORD was rare in those days” (1 Samuel 3:1), from the chapter in which the boy Samuel says, “Speak, for your servant is listening” (3:10), a line we met last week. Precious words are rare words, because they cost something. זוֹלֵל (zolel) is its opposite: cheap, worthless, without weight — elsewhere the word for a glutton (Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:21), one who consumes without restraint. Cheap words are the easy, greedy ones.

Then the promise: כְּפִי תִהְיֶה (kefi tihyeh), “you shall be as my mouth.” It recalls Jeremiah’s call — “Now I have put my words in your mouth” (1:9) — and, further back, God’s words to Moses about Aaron: “he shall serve as a mouth for you” (Exodus 4:16). Last Sunday, with Ben Sira, we prayed for a guard over our mouths. This week God offers something more: not only a guarded mouth, but his own words to speak through it.

And one more phrase: “you shall stand before me.” To stand before a king was to serve in his presence. The phrase is used of priests and Levites (Deuteronomy 10:8) and of Elijah, who introduces himself as one who stands before the LORD (1 Kings 17:1). At the very beginning of this chapter God had said, “Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people” (Jeremiah 15:1). By its end he is offering the complaining prophet the place of Moses and Samuel. It is precisely the place the false prophets of Jeremiah 23 had never taken: “if they had stood in my council…” (23:22).

8. apistoumenos and elenchō — “doubted” and “exposes” (Wisdom 12:17; 1:3)

ἰσχὺν γὰρ ἐνδείκνυσαι ἀπιστούμενος ἐπὶ δυνάμεως τελειότητι, καὶ ἐν τοῖς εἰδόσι τὸ θράσος ἐξελέγχεις

Wisdom 12:17 is compressed even in Greek. Rendered very literally: “For you show strength when you are disbelieved as to the completeness of your power, and among those who know, you expose their boldness.”

ἀπιστέω (apisteō) means to disbelieve or distrust. It ties this verse to the opening of the book, where God “manifests himself to those who do not distrust him” (1:2). θράσος (thrasos) is rashness, audacity, insolence — not the holy confidence the New Testament praises, but the brazenness of someone who knows better and acts anyway.

The two halves of the verse describe two different groups. Some doubt that God’s power is real or complete; to them God shows his strength. Others know perfectly well, and are insolent anyway; them God rebukes. The book names no examples, but the Exodus story it is retelling supplies one of each. Pharaoh doubted: “Who is the LORD, that I should heed him?” (Exodus 5:2). Israel knew, and tested God regardless: “your ancestors tested me, and put me to the proof, though they had seen my work”(Psalm 95:9).

Both of this week’s Wisdom verses end with the same verb — ἐλέγχω (elenchō), which in 12:17 carries an intensifying prefix (exelenchō). It means to expose, bring to light, refute, convict. It is the verb in Jesus’ saying that those who do evil avoid the light “so that their deeds may not be exposed” (John 3:20), and in his promise that the Spirit will “prove the world wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8). Paul uses it of the light itself: “everything exposed by the light becomes visible”(Ephesians 5:13).

That matters for the whole week. God’s first answer to the crooked thought is not to crush it. It is to bring it into the light. Exposure is painful. It is also the first stage of healing — for, as John goes on to say, “those who do what is true come to the light” (John 3:21).

Reading the Passage Closely

Read Wisdom 1:3 slowly, in its setting, and six things come into view.

First, the verse is an explanation. It begins with “for.” Verse 2 has made a claim: God “is found by those who do not put him to the test, and manifests himself to those who do not distrust him.” Verse 3 gives the reason. God is not hiding from anyone. A few chapters later the book says that Wisdom “is easily discerned by those who love her, and is found by those who seek her” (6:12). What prevents the finding lies on the human side.

Second, notice who does the separating. The subject of the verb is not God. It is the thoughts. The verse does not say that God withdraws from people who reason crookedly; it says that crooked reasonings put distance between people and God. Isaiah had said the same thing, in almost the same shape: “See, the LORD’s hand is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Rather, your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God” (Isaiah 59:1–2). The distance is real. But it was not God who moved away.

Third, notice the two movements of the verse. The first half is hidden and inward: reasonings that bend, slowly, until a person finds themselves at a distance from God. The second half is public and outward: a moment when God’s power is put to the test and the fool stands exposed. The book’s whole first section dramatises this sequence. In chapter 2 the ungodly reason among themselves and decide to test the righteous man, to see whether God will rescue him (2:17–20). In chapter 5 the tables turn. The righteous man stands “with great confidence” (5:1), and his persecutors, seeing him, say: “This is the man whom we once held in derision… fools that we were! We thought that his life was madness”(5:3–4). In Greek, “fools” there is aphrones — the very word of 1:3 — and “we thought” is elogisametha, from the same root as logismoi. The reasoning that begins in chapter 2 is exposed in chapter 5. The verse at the head of the book is the plot of its first five chapters in miniature.

Fourth, notice who is doing the testing. In 1:2–3 it is not God who tests human beings. It is human beings who test God. Do not put him to the test, says verse 2. In Scripture, testing God in this sense is not asking an honest question. Job asked questions; the Psalms are full of them; Jeremiah, as we shall see on Friday, asked some of the harshest questions ever put to God, and none of them was rejected for being asked. To test God is something else: to set conditions — if you are real, then do this — having already decided not to trust him either way. It is the demand of Massah, “Is the LORD among us or not?”, and the dare of the mockers at the cross. Wisdom’s warning is that this kind of testing always rebounds. Whoever puts God in the dock ends up in it.

Fifth, notice the word “foolish.” The aphrōn is not an unintelligent person. The ungodly of chapter 2 are articulate, philosophical and organised. Aphrōn means senseless in the moral sense, lacking the deepest kind of understanding, and it is the word the Greek Psalter uses in the line “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God'” (Psalm 14:1). That fool is not a philosopher of atheism. He is a practical atheist: someone who lives as though no one is watching. It is exactly the assumption the enemies of Psalm 59 make when they say, “Who will hear us?” (59:7), and exactly the assumption Jeremiah 23:24 demolishes.

Sixth — and this is important — notice what the verse does not say.

It does not say that every thought that crosses our mind separates us from God. Its word is logismoi — reasonings we build and keep — not impressions that arrive uninvited. A person troubled by unwanted thoughts that they hate and resist is not the “fool” of this verse; the desert teachers would say that such a person is fighting, not consenting.

It does not say that doubt or protest separates us from God. The whole of Scripture refutes that idea. The crooked thought is not the honest question; it is the dishonest answer — the reasoning we construct precisely so that we will not have to face God.

And it does not say that the separation is final. The same book goes on to describe a God who corrects “little by little… so that they may be freed from wickedness and put their trust in you” (12:2) and who “give[s] repentance for sins” (12:19). The verse is a warning, not a sentence.

Finally, here is an inference — and it is ours, not the verse’s. If crooked reasoning is what separates people from God, then the most important ground in the spiritual life lies not in the street outside but in the mind. The enemies outside can surround us. Only an argument we agree with can lead us away.

Scriptural Connections

Now walk with the week’s other six verses, in the order in which they were given. Each one brings us a step closer to the anchor.

Monday — Who is outside the walls?

Psalm 59:1 — “Deliver me from my enemies, O my God; protect me from those who rise up against me.”

Begin where the week begins: with someone who genuinely has enemies.

Psalm 59 does not spiritualise them. They “lie in wait” for his life (59:3); they “run and make ready”(59:4); their weapons include their mouths — “bellowing with their mouths, with sharp words on their lips” (59:7). And the psalmist insists that he has not provoked them: “For no transgression or sin of mine, O LORD, for no fault of mine” (59:3–4). That is not a claim to be sinless. It is a statement about this particular attack. Some people really are attacked for no fault of their own, and Scripture gives them words to pray.

This needs saying clearly at the start of a week that will turn inward. Nothing in these readings tells the victim of injustice that it was their fault. The inward turn of Wisdom 1:3 does not mean “you must have deserved this.” It means “do not let them take your soul as well.”

Notice next what the psalmist asks God to do. He asks him to wake up. “Rouse yourself, come to my help and see!… Awake to punish all the nations” (59:4–5). In the middle of the night, with the dogs howling, he calls on God the way a frightened household calls on a watchman who has dozed off. It is one of the oldest wake-up calls in the Bible — and it is addressed to God. Another psalm answers it: “He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (Psalm 121:4). God was never the one asleep. As the week goes on, we will discover who was.

Notice, too, the enemies’ theology: “‘Who,’ they think, ‘will hear us?'” (59:7). Their violence rests on a crooked thought — that no one is listening. They are practical atheists in the fullest sense, and that is exactly where Wisdom 1:3 says enmity with God begins.

Then comes the most surprising line in the psalm:

“Do not kill them, or my people may forget; make them totter by your power, and bring them down, O Lord, our shield.” (59:11)

A hunted man asks God not to destroy his enemies at once. His reason is not sentimental. He wants God’s justice to be slow and visible enough that his people will remember it. Two verses later the psalm swings the other way — “consume them in wrath” (59:13) — and we should not pretend it does not. The Psalms are honest about the whole tangle of what a persecuted person feels. But the strange plea for restraint in verse 11 will meet us again on Saturday, in Wisdom 12, where it turns out to describe how God himself prefers to act. Whatever tune the heading’s “Do Not Destroy” once named, the title sits remarkably well with this line.

The psalm ends in the morning: “But I will sing of your might; I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning” (59:16). If the heading’s story is in view, there is a quiet irony here. Saul had ordered David killed “in the morning” (1 Samuel 19:11). The morning appointed for his death became the hour of his song.

And remember how he lived to see it. David prayed — and he also climbed out through the window that Michal opened for him. The Bible never sets prayer against prudence.

A word for anyone whose “enemies” are not a figure of speech. If someone is threatening, stalking or harming you, Psalm 59 does not ask you to stay in the house and pray. David prayed, and then he went out through the window. Seek safety and help today: in India, call 112 in an emergency, or the Women Helpline on 181; wherever you are, your local emergency services exist for exactly this. Prayer and protection were never rivals.

Tuesday — Can anyone hide in the dark?

Jeremiah 23:23 — “Am I a God near by, says the LORD, and not a God far off?”

This verse was given on 29 September, the feast of the Archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael. Michael’s name is itself a question: in Hebrew, Mi-kha-El, “Who is like God?” Jeremiah 23:23–24 is one of Scripture’s most searching answers.

The false prophets of Jeremiah’s day had made God manageable. They spoke “visions of their own minds” (23:16) and called them his word. They told people who despised God, “It shall be well with you” (23:17). They strengthened the hands of evildoers, “so that no one turns from wickedness”(23:14). Their God was near enough to be useful and far enough not to interfere.

God’s reply refuses both halves of that arrangement. He is not a pocket God, close enough to be managed. Nor is he an absentee God, too far away to notice. “Who can hide in secret places so that I cannot see them?… Do I not fill heaven and earth?” (23:24).

Set that beside Monday’s psalm. The enemies said, “Who will hear us?” Jeremiah’s God answers: everyone is heard; no one is hidden. For the persecuted, that is one of the deepest comforts in the Bible — the plotting in the dark is seen. But Jeremiah aims the verse at prophets — at religious professionals, at people who spoke in God’s name. The God who sees the enemy’s ambush also sees the believer’s private reasoning. Monday was about the enemies outside the house. Tuesday turns the lamp around.

Psalm 139 says it most beautifully and most uncomfortably: “If I say, ‘Surely the darkness shall cover me, and the light around me become night,’ even the darkness is not dark to you; the night is as bright as the day” (139:11–12). Every night scene this week — the house watched in the dark, the prophet’s private bitterness, the reasoning no one else can hear — is lit from God’s side.

Then Jeremiah draws a distinction that will matter on Friday: “Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let the one who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat?” (23:28). Straw and wheat — the worthless and the precious. Hold that pair in mind.

Wednesday — What will the test reveal?

James 1:12 — “Blessed is anyone who endures temptation. Such a one has stood the test and will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.”

If no one can hide from God, the next question follows at once: what will he find? James answers that every believer will be tested, and that the test will tell the truth.

Read the verse together with the three that follow, because James deliberately sets two outcomes side by side. On one side a person endures — stays under the weight — is found dokimos, genuine, and receives the crown of life. On the other:

“But one is tempted by one’s own desire, being lured and enticed by it; then, when that desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and that sin, when it is fully grown, gives birth to death.” (1:14–15)

The images of being “lured” and “enticed” come from hunting and fishing: the bait on the hook, the creature drawn out of its hiding place. And the sequence that follows is a life story told in fast motion. Desire conceives; sin is born; sin grows up; and its child is death. The test is the same for everyone. The endings could hardly be further apart: a crown of life, or a death that grew up quietly from one unresisted desire.

Notice, too, what James refuses to say. He will not let anyone blame God for the pull towards evil (1:13). God permits trials; he does not plant temptations. “Every generous act of giving, with every perfect gift, is from above” (1:17). The bait, James insists, is always our own epithymia — the very word Paul will use tomorrow.

And here James and Wisdom touch. Wisdom 1:3 says that when God’s power is tested, it exposes the foolish. James says that when the believer is tested, the trial proves the faithful. The furnace is the same furnace. What comes out depends on what went in. Gold comes out as gold. Straw does not come out at all.

The crown, James says, is promised “to those who love him.” That phrase is the secret of endurance. People who simply grit their teeth tend to give way when the pressure lasts longer than their determination. People who love tend to hold on — not because they are strong, but because they will not let go of the One they love.

Thursday — What are you wearing, and what have you planned?

Romans 13:14 — “Put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.”

In the summer of AD 386, in a garden in Milan, a brilliant professor of rhetoric lay weeping under a fig tree. For years he had argued with himself. He knew what he believed; what he could not do was live it. His prayer, he later confessed, had long been: “Give me chastity and continency, only not yet.” Then he heard a child’s voice from a neighbouring house, chanting over and over, “Take up and read; take up and read.” He picked up the letters of Paul lying nearby, opened them, and his eyes fell on this week’s verse and the one before it. “No further would I read,” he wrote, “nor needed I.” The man was Augustine, and the scene is in the eighth book of his Confessions.

Notice what Augustine’s struggle actually was. He was not short of arguments. He was over-supplied with them. Every time he moved towards God, a fresh logismos appeared: not yet; not this way; not until I am ready. And every not yet was, in Paul’s terms, a provision for the flesh — an arrangement made in advance to keep a door open.

That is why the word pronoia matters so much. It means forethought — even providence. Paul is not mainly talking about the moment of temptation. He is talking about what we arrange beforehand. The bottle kept “for guests.” The number saved “just in case.” The app left installed “for emergencies.” The grievance file kept up to date “for the record.” The private plan held in reserve in case God’s plan disappoints. None of these is yet a sin. Each one is a provision.

Paul’s answer is not merely negative. Before he says make no provision, he says put on. The Christian life does not begin with resisting; it begins with being clothed. You cannot defeat the flesh by standing before it unclothed and simply trying harder. You put on Christ — his mind, his habits, his way of speaking, his way of treating enemies — and there is steadily less room left for the old garments.

Remember, too, where this verse stands. Just before it, Paul has told the Romans how to treat their enemies: bless them, feed them, overcome evil with good (12:14–21). In the list of night-time sins just before our verse he includes “quarreling and jealousy” (13:13). The flesh Paul warns against is not only appetite. It is also the grudge. One of the most common provisions we make for the flesh is the rehearsed resentment — the speech to an enemy, polished at two in the morning, that will never be delivered and never be dropped.

And notice the clock. “You know what time it is… the night is far gone, the day is near” (13:11–12). This is the Wake-up Call at the centre of the week. On Monday the psalmist, in the dark, asked God to wake up. On Thursday Paul turns to us and says: it is you who have been asleep.

Friday — What if the one who needs to turn back is me?

Jeremiah 15:19 — “Therefore thus says the LORD: If you turn back, I will take you back, and you shall stand before me. If you utter what is precious and not what is worthless, you shall serve as my mouth.”

This is the turning point of the week, and one of the most surprising verses in the prophets.

Look first at what Jeremiah has just said to God. He has been faithful, at real cost. He tells God that when his words were found, he ate them, and they became his joy (15:16). He has refused the company of merrymakers and sat alone under the weight of God’s hand (15:17). Everyone curses him (15:10). He has prayed, like Monday’s psalmist, for God to “bring down retribution for me on my persecutors”(15:15). And then, in his pain, he says the unthinkable: “Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail” (15:18).

To feel the force of that, remember how Jeremiah’s book began. God had called himself “the fountain of living water” (2:13). Now his own prophet compares him to a wadi — one of those stream-beds that rush with water in the rainy season and lie bone-dry in summer, betraying the traveller who comes to them thirsty (compare Job 6:15–20). The man who once proclaimed the fountain now says it has run dry.

And God’s answer is: Turn back.

Not to the enemies. To Jeremiah.

The persecuted, faithful prophet — the most innocent man in the city — is the one told to repent. Not because his persecutors were right; they were not. Not because his suffering was deserved; it was not. But because somewhere in the long night of being attacked, bitterness had crept into his speech and his picture of God had begun to bend. His enemies could not separate him from God. His own conclusions about God were beginning to.

This is Wisdom 1:3 happening to a saint.

And look at the grace in the reply. God does not dismiss Jeremiah; he invites him. If you turn, I will turn you. He does not tell him to stop speaking; he tells him to sift his speech — to bring the precious out of the worthless, the wheat out of the straw. Jeremiah’s complaint contained both. There was something precious in it: honesty, a refusal to pretend, a hunger for God’s word that was entirely real. And there was something worthless: the verdict that God had failed. God wants the first and asks him to release the second.

Then the promises gather. You shall stand before me — the place of Moses and Samuel. You shall be as my mouth — his prophetic calling, renewed. It is they who will turn to you, not you who will turn to them— he will not need to become like his enemies in order to survive them. And in the verses that immediately follow, Monday’s prayer is answered almost word for word: “I will make you to this people a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you, but they shall not prevail over you, for I am with you to save you and deliver you, says the LORD. I will deliver you out of the hand of the wicked” (15:20–21). Both times the Hebrew verb is natsal — the very word of Psalm 59:1. Deliverance from enemies is promised. But it is promised to a man who has first been turned back.

That is the order this week keeps insisting on. God does deal with the enemy outside. He begins with the one inside.

Saturday — Why does God not crush his enemies at once?

Wisdom 12:17 — “For you show your strength when people doubt the completeness of your power, and you rebuke any insolence among those who know it.”

By Saturday a question has been building all week. If God sees everything (Tuesday), tests everyone (Wednesday) and promises to deliver his servants (Friday), why does he so often seem slow? Why do the dogs come back every evening?

Wisdom 12 asks the same question of Israel’s history and answers it in one of the most beautiful passages in the Old Testament. Read the verses on either side of ours:

“For your strength is the source of righteousness, and your sovereignty over all causes you to spare all.” (12:16)

“Although you are sovereign in strength, you judge with mildness, and with great forbearance you govern us; for you have power to act whenever you choose.” (12:18)

The logic is breathtaking. God does not spare in spite of his power; he spares because of it. Weak rulers strike quickly because they are afraid. Only someone whose power is complete can afford to wait. Earlier the book had said so outright: “you are merciful to all, for you can do all things, and you overlook people’s sins, so that they may repent” (11:23). In the Roman Rite, the opening prayer of the Mass last Sunday said the same in a single line, addressing God “who manifest your almighty power above all by pardoning and showing mercy.” St Thomas Aquinas drew on that ancient prayer when he wrote about the omnipotence of God.

Verse 17 supplies the necessary edge. God’s patience is not indifference. When people doubt that his power is real, he shows it. When people know it is real and presume on it anyway, he rebukes them. Mercy is not the same thing as permission.

Four weeks ago, in Sunday Series No. 4, we studied Wisdom 15:1: “But you, our God, are kind and true, patient, and ruling all things in mercy.” The very next verse shows exactly the kind of knowing that 12:17 warns about: “For even if we sin we are yours, knowing your power” (15:2). It is among the most comforting sentences a believer can say — and, said carelessly, among the most dangerous. I know God is merciful; therefore I can wait. That is the insolence of those who know. Many scholars have noticed echoes of these chapters of Wisdom in Paul’s letter to the Romans, and none is clearer than this question: “Do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?” (Romans 2:4).

Then comes the sentence that turns the whole passage into a lesson for us:

“Through such works you have taught your people that the righteous must be kind.” (12:19)

The Greek word for “kind” is philanthrōpos — literally, a lover of human beings. How God treats his enemies is how he is teaching us to treat ours. Monday’s psalmist, in his best moment, prayed “Do not kill them” (59:11). Wisdom tells us this is what God had been doing all along — and that he means us to learn it. Jesus will say it without any softening: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:44–45).

The larger conversation: a night in a garden

One scene in the Gospels gathers up almost everything this week has said.

It is night. Armed men are on their way with swords and clubs, guided by a friend. In a garden across the Kidron valley, Jesus says to his disciples: “Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matthew 26:41).

Every thread is there. The night of Psalm 59, with armed men coming. The command to wake of Romans 13. The trial — peirasmos — of James 1:12. The flesh — sarx — of Romans 13:14. And at the centre, the One who endures the test to the end; who does not call down destruction on those who come for him, but heals the ear of the high priest’s servant (Luke 22:50–51) and hands himself over.

Two Sundays ago we reflected on David’s refusal to fall into human hands and Christ’s choice to be handed over into them. Here is the night on which that choice was sealed. It was made in prayer, in the dark, while his friends slept.

Notice what Jesus asks of them. Not that they fight the soldiers — Peter tries that and is told to put away his sword (26:52). He asks them to stay awake and pray, because the real danger that night is not the soldiers. It is the trial that will come to their own hearts when the soldiers arrive: the fear, the self-protective reasoning, the sentence “I do not know the man” (26:72). No enemy laid a hand on Peter that night. What separated him from his Lord, for a few terrible hours, was a crooked thought by a fire in a courtyard. And what brought him back was a look from Jesus (Luke 22:61) and, later, a question asked three times by a lakeside (John 21:15–17). If you turn, I will turn you.

Jesus had already given his disciples words for that night. The prayer he taught them ends with this week’s two concerns side by side: “And do not bring us to the time of trial, but rescue us from the evil one” (Matthew 6:13). Trial and deliverance — James 1:12 and Psalm 59:1 — prayed every day by Christians all over the world.

Paul, who faced more enemies than most, makes the argument of the week explicit in two places. In Romans 8 he lists everything outside us that might separate us from Christ — hardship, persecution, famine, sword, death, life, angels, rulers, powers — and concludes that none of it can (8:35–39). In 2 Corinthians 10 he names where the real fortifications stand: “We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle raised up against the knowledge of God, and we take every thought captive to obey Christ”(10:4–5). The word for “arguments” is logismoi. Paul’s war is not against the people at the gate. It is against the reasonings that build strongholds in the mind.

And Jesus himself had named the source: “For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come” (Mark 7:21). The Greek word for those intentions, dialogismoi, means inner debates — reasonings conducted with oneself.

The whole Bible, it turns out, agrees with this Sunday’s verse. The enemies at the gate are real. But the decisive door is on the inside.

Interpretive Insights

1. Scripture takes our enemies seriously — but never lets them have the last word about who we are.

Psalm 59 gives the persecuted full permission to name their enemies, to protest their innocence and to cry for help in the night. Nothing this week tells the victim of injustice that it was their fault. But the week also refuses to let the enemy define the story. The enemy can surround the house. Who we become inside it remains a question between us and God.

2. Separation from God rarely begins with an act. It begins with an argument.

Wisdom’s word is logismoi — reasonings, calculations, the case we build. Long before the ungodly of Wisdom 2 lay in wait for the righteous man, they “reasoned unsoundly.” Long before Augustine was set free, he was held for years by “not yet.” Long before Peter denied his Lord, he had reasoned his way to a fire in a courtyard. The decisive ground is the mind’s private courtroom, where we decide what will count as reasonable.

3. A test does not create what it finds. It reveals it.

The same word, dokimazō, runs through James and Wisdom in opposite directions. The believer who is tested is proven; the fool who tests God is exposed. Trials will come to everyone — Scripture never promises otherwise. The real question is what they will find when they arrive, and that is being settled now, in ordinary days, long before the crisis.

4. God is too near to hide from and too far to manage.

Jeremiah 23:23 is both comfort and warning, and we need both. To the person plotted against in the dark, it says that nothing is hidden. To the person quietly arranging a private religion around their own preferences, it says exactly the same thing. The God of the Bible is never a pocket God and never an absent landlord.

5. Even the faithful need to turn back.

This is the insight easiest to miss. The person told to repent in this week’s readings is not the persecutor but the persecuted prophet. Suffering for the right reasons does not protect us from drawing the wrong conclusions. A long season of being wronged can bend a good person’s picture of God until it is unrecognisable — you are to me like a deceitful brook. God’s response is neither condemnation nor indulgence. It is an invitation: turn, and I will turn you.

6. God’s power is most itself when it waits.

Wisdom 12 teaches that God spares because he is strong, not because he is weak, and that his patience is a door held open for repentance. That changes how we read the delays in our own lives. It also changes how we are meant to use whatever power we hold over others. “The righteous must be kind” is not a soft sentiment. It is what resembling an all-powerful God looks like in a human being.

7. Holiness is first a garment, and only then a guard.

Romans 13:14 does not begin with resist. It begins with put on. The Christian answer to the flesh is not white-knuckled vigilance alone, but being so clothed in Christ that the old provisions have nowhere left to hang. The watchman at the door matters. The One we wear matters more.

The Central Tension

Here is what this week’s Scriptures ask us to confront.

We would much rather guard the gate than guard the mind.

Guarding the gate has great advantages. It keeps the danger outside us. It makes us, by definition, the innocent party. It gives us someone to watch, someone to pray against, someone to explain our unhappiness. And sometimes — often — the danger outside is real. The psalmist was not imagining the dogs.

Guarding the mind is harder, because the enemy there speaks in our own voice. It does not howl. It reasons. It says not yet. It says after what they did, you are entitled. It says no one will know. It says God will understand. Sometimes it says God has failed you. Its arguments are often clever, sometimes partly true, and nearly always flattering. And unlike the enemies outside, it does not need to break in. We let it in. We feed it. We make provision for it.

So the week sets two watchmen before us. One stands on the wall, scanning the dark for enemies. The other stands at the door of the heart, deciding what may come in and stay. Most of us have posted a strong guard on the wall and left the door of the heart unattended.

And the uncomfortable truth of Wisdom 1:3 is that the second door is the only one through which anything has ever separated a human being from God.

So the question this week is not Who is against me? Most of us could answer that in seconds.

It is far more searching:

Which am I watching more closely tonight — the people who might harm me, or the thoughts that are quietly leading me away from God?

What This Means for Us Today

When you really do have enemies. Many readers of this series know what it is to be opposed — in a workplace, in a family property dispute, in a case that has dragged through the courts for years, in an institution where someone has decided you are in the way. Psalm 59 is your prayer; pray it without embarrassment. But watch what the conflict is doing inside you. An enemy who takes your position, your reputation or your peace has taken a great deal. Do not let them take your picture of God as well. That is the one thing Jeremiah nearly surrendered, and the one thing God asked him to take back.

In the grievance file. Anyone trained in law or administration knows how to build a file: dates, documents, statements, precedents, the patient assembly of a case. It is a valuable skill. It is also a perfect description of how a grudge is kept alive. The inner file on a sibling, a former colleague, a fellow parishioner, a former spouse — reviewed at night, updated with each new slight, kept ready for a hearing that never comes. Paul’s name for that file is provision for the flesh. You may need to keep records for a court. You do not need to keep them for your soul.

In leadership and authority. Wisdom 12:18 is addressed to God, but it describes something every person with power over others must learn: “you have power to act whenever you choose” — and therefore you can afford to be patient. The official who could end a subordinate’s career with a single note, the senior colleague who could humiliate a junior, the parent who could win every argument by force: the strength of authority shows most clearly in its restraint. Insecure authority strikes fast. Secure authority can wait for a person to change.

Online. Our phones have made it possible to have enemies we have never met, and to be supplied, hour by hour, with reasons to despise them. Much of what crosses our screens has been carefully designed by people who planned ahead to provoke the very epithymiai Paul warns about: outrage, envy, appetite, the itch to win. In a quite precise sense, someone else is exercising pronoia on behalf of our flesh. Romans 13:14 asks us to plan back — to decide in advance which apps, which feeds, which late-night habits we will simply not provide for.

In our speech. Jeremiah 15:19 offers a test every Christian can apply before pressing send: precious, or worthless? The forward that spreads a rumour, the complaint in the family group, the clever remark at someone’s expense — these are zolel, cheap words, easily consumed and long regretted. Precious words are rare because they cost something: the sincere compliment, the honest correction given privately, a word of blessing about someone who has hurt us. God’s promise to people who speak this way is extraordinary: you shall be as my mouth.

At night. Many crooked thoughts do their best work after dark. The three o’clock replay of an insult, the imagined confrontation, the slow slide from I was wronged to God has abandoned me — these are the howling dogs of Psalm 59, but they are inside the house. The psalm’s practice is simple: name the danger to God, keep watch for him rather than for the enemy, and wait for the morning. The Church’s Night Prayer has long asked God to “protect us… as we stay awake; watch over us as we sleep.” Some nights the most faithful thing you can do is decline to argue with your own mind, and hand the case to God until daylight.

In seasons of doubt. There is a difference between asking God a hard question and putting him on trial. Job, the psalmists and Jeremiah asked questions as sharp as any modern sceptic’s, and God did not reject them for asking. What Wisdom warns against is the conditional faith that says I will trust you if — if you heal this, if you fix that, if you prove it now. Honest questions keep us talking to God. Tests keep us talking about him from a safe distance.

In ageing and in grief. Long sorrow, like long persecution, can bend a person’s picture of God. You are to me like a deceitful brook has been the private prayer of many widows, many parents who have buried a child, many people whose prayers were not answered as they hoped. Jeremiah’s story is a mercy to them. God did not reject the man who said it. He asked him to keep the honesty, let go of the verdict — and take back his place in God’s presence.

A word for anxious and scrupulous consciences. Wisdom 1:3 is about reasonings we build and keep, not about unwanted thoughts that arrive uninvited and distress us. If you are troubled by intrusive thoughts that you hate and cannot stop, you are not the “fool” of this verse; you are fighting, not consenting. Speak with a confessor, and if the thoughts persist or overwhelm you, with a doctor or counsellor. In India, Tele-MANAS (14416) is free and available at any hour.

A Rise & Inspire Moment

Troy was never taken by the army outside its walls. It was taken by an argument inside them.

Ten years of siege could not break that city. One persuasive conversation did: it’s a gift; it’s harmless; the war is over; let’s bring it in. The Trojans opened their own wall to make room.

That is how separation from God almost always happens. Not by force. By invitation. No enemy has ever dragged a human soul away from God; Paul searched the whole of creation and could not find one able to do it. But a crooked thought, reasoned through and welcomed in — not yet, no one will see, after what they did, God has failed me — can walk a person out of God’s presence without a single blow being struck.

So keep your guard on the walls if you must. But post your best watchman at the door of your mind.

The enemy can surround the house. Only a thought you agree with can open the door.

Living the Passage This Week

1. Pray Psalm 59 honestly — and then pray verse 11. Write down the name of the person you would most like God to deal with. Pray Psalm 59:1 for yourself, aloud, without pretending you are not hurt. Then pray one sentence of blessing for that person in Paul’s words: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them” (Romans 12:14). Do this on three separate days this week. You are not pretending they are innocent. You are refusing to let them make you like them.

2. Remove one provision — and put on one garment. Name one “not yet” in your life: something you have arranged in advance to keep a door open — an app, a contact, a hidden supply, a browsing habit, a speech to an enemy that you rehearse at night. Remove it this week, physically and specifically, before Friday. Then, each morning as you dress, say Romans 13:14 under your breath as you put on your first garment: “I put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Let the most ordinary act of the day become a daily renewal of your baptism.

3. Sift one complaint before you speak it. Jeremiah’s lament held something precious and something worthless. The next time you are about to complain — at home, at work, in a group chat — take the complaint to God first, as Jeremiah did. Then ask: what in this is precious — the truth, the real need, the honest grief? What is worthless — the contempt, the verdict, the exaggeration? Speak only the precious part, and only to someone who can do something about it.

4. Bring one crooked thought into the light. When you catch yourself building a case — I deserve this, no one will know, God doesn’t care — write the sentence down exactly as your mind said it. Read it again the next morning, in daylight. Ask Jeremiah’s question: can I hide this from God? Then do what Wisdom says God does with crooked thoughts: expose it — in confession, or to one trusted friend. Thoughts that cannot survive daylight rarely survive being spoken aloud.

5. End each night with a handover, and begin each day with a song. For seven nights, before you sleep, hand over by name the person or problem that keeps you awake, and do not reopen the case until morning. On waking, before you check your messages, say the closing words of Psalm 59: “I will sing aloud of your steadfast love in the morning” (59:16). Then do what today’s second reading at Mass invites: name one thing that is true, one that is just and one that is lovely — and “think about these things” (Philippians 4:8).

Questions for Personal Reflection

  1. According to Wisdom 1:3, what actually separates people from God — and what does the verse not say separates them? Read it again beside Romans 8:35–39 before answering.
  2. Who are the “enemies” I most often bring to God in prayer, and what do I usually ask him to do with them? Is my prayer closer to Psalm 59:11, or to 59:13?
  3. What argument have I been rehearsing in my own mind — about someone else, about myself or about God — that has been slowly putting distance between me and him?
  4. What provision have I made for the flesh? What “not yet” am I keeping in reserve, and what would it cost me to remove it?
  5. Where is God saying to me, as he said to Jeremiah, “Turn back”? What precious word will I speak this week — to whom, and on what day?

Prayerful Response

God my fortress, who neither slumbers nor sleeps,

You know who is against me. You have heard every word spoken against me in the dark, and you have seen every plan. Deliver me. Set me on a height they cannot climb.

But you have also heard the words I speak in the dark — in the courtroom of my own mind, where I keep the files and rehearse the speeches, and where, on some nights, I have called you a dry stream.

You are nearer than my thoughts and greater than my reasons. Nothing I think is hidden from you. I am glad of that, and I am afraid of it.

Straighten what is crooked in me. Where I have made provision for the flesh, take the provisions away. Clothe me again in your Son, as you did at the font, so that there is less of my old self left to tempt.

When the test comes, let it find gold, not straw; and where it finds straw, burn it gently and keep me.

Teach me the mercy of your power. You could crush your enemies in a moment, and you wait. Do not let me be quicker with mine than you are with yours.

Turn me, and I shall be turned. Sift my words, and let the precious ones be yours.

And when this night is over, I will sing of your steadfast love in the morning.

Through Christ our Lord, who kept watch in the garden while we slept. Amen.

Key Takeaway

The enemy can surround your house, but only a thought you agree with can lead you away from God — so ask him to keep the door of your mind as faithfully as you ask him to guard your gate.

Closing

This week began with a house surrounded in the night. It ends this morning in a vineyard.

In parishes of the Roman Rite around the world today, the Gospel is the parable of the tenants (Matthew 21:33–43). A landowner plants a vineyard, builds a watchtower, leases it to tenants — and goes away “to another country.” The owner is far off. Left alone with their reasoning, the tenants decide what people so often decide about an absent owner. When his son arrives, “they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him and get his inheritance'” (21:38). In Matthew’s Greek, “they said to themselves” is exactly the phrase with which the Wisdom of Solomon introduces the crooked reasoning of the ungodly who lie in wait for the righteous one (Wisdom 2:1). The tenants thought distance meant impunity. They mistook the owner’s patience for absence. Jeremiah could have warned them: Am I a God near by, and not a God far off?

And today’s second reading answers them both. “The peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 4:7). Paul’s verb for guard is a military one — the word for a garrison keeping watch over a city. The fortress Psalm 59 asked for is offered not only around our houses but around our minds. Then Paul adds: “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just… think about these things” (4:8). His verb for think is logizesthe— from the same root as Wisdom’s logismoi. The cure for crooked reasoning is not to stop thinking. It is to think straight, about what is true, in the presence of the One who sees.

So this week, by all means, ask God to deliver you from your enemies. He has promised to. But ask him first to keep the door you cannot see — the one inside. Then do your part: notice what you let in, stop providing for what you have been feeding, and turn back wherever you have begun to bend.

The dogs, the psalm says, come back every evening.

But the psalm does not end in the evening.

It ends in the morning, with a song.

Which passage of Scripture would you like us to study together in a future Sunday Series? Tell us — the passages our readers are wrestling with are usually the ones worth a whole Sunday.

Rise & Inspire — Sunday Bible Series Depth over speed. Understanding over volume. Formation over information.

Written by John Britto Kurusumuthu.

The verses shared each morning by His Excellency, Rt. Rev. Dr. Selvister Ponnumuthan, Bishop of the Diocese of Punalur, are collected over seven days. These seven verses together form the basis for the weekly Sunday Bible Series.

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

What Moment in Your Life Made You Feel Truly Alive?

What’s a moment in your life that made you feel truly alive?

I will not tell you where it happened, or when. The details do not matter. What matters is what I finally saw that day.

The Ordinary Hour That Woke Me Up

A lifetime may contain thousands of days, but only a handful of moments make us profoundly aware of living. Today’s prompt asks for one of them. I suspect it expects a summit: a wedding, a first salary, a mountain top, a cheering crowd. My answer is plainer, and it arrived late.

The real question behind the prompt is not “When were you most excited?” It is “When did you stop merely going through life and become fully present in it?” Those are different questions, and they rarely share the same answer.

  1. We look for aliveness in the wrong places.
    We are taught to measure life by its peaks. Milestones are photographed, celebrated and remembered. But peaks are noisy. Excitement fills the moment so completely that little room is left to notice it. I have stood at a few summits in my life, and looking back, I was busier than I was present at most of them.
  2. Mine came on an unremarkable day.
    I will not tell you where it was, or when, or what I was doing, except that I had done it a thousand times before. Nothing happened. No news arrived. No one spoke. And yet, for a few minutes, everything became vivid: the light, the air, my own breathing, the plain fact that I was here. I am leaving out the details on purpose. They would make the moment only mine. Without them, you can put your own ordinary hour in that space.
  3. What changed was not the circumstance, but the seeing.
    The day itself was ordinary. What had changed was the eye looking at it. For years I had treated life as something owed to me, a background against which the important things happened. In that hour I understood that life was not the background. It was the gift. Everything else was wrapping.
  4. Why the realisation came so late.
    Adam Smith once asked why water, without which we cannot live, costs almost nothing, while diamonds, which we can do without, cost a fortune. The answer is abundance. Our days are like water. While they seem endless, we spend them without counting. Only when age, illness or loss makes them scarce do we begin to see their worth.
  5. Many traditions arrived here before me.
    In Homer’s Odyssey, Achilles, the greatest of heroes, tells Odysseus in the underworld that he would rather be a hired labourer on earth than king of all the dead. Glory, it turns out, is a poor exchange for simply being alive.
    The Buddha compared the rarity of human birth to a blind turtle that surfaces once in a hundred years and, by chance, puts its head through a single yoke floating on the ocean.
    A saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad urges us to value five things before five: youth before old age, health before sickness, wealth before poverty, free time before busyness, and life before death.
    The Tamil mystic Tirumular confesses that he once thought the body a thing of shame, until he found the treasure dwelling within it, and from then on cared for it as a temple [1]. That is the late realisation I mean: not a new possession, but a new way of seeing an old one.
  6. A fair objection.
    An older Tamil voice counsels caution. The poet Kaniyan Pungundranar wrote that death is nothing new, and so he neither rejoices that life is sweet nor curses it as bitter [2]. His point deserves respect. No one can live at the pitch of that moment every day, and trying to would be exhausting, even false. Perhaps the aim is not permanent wonder, but a steady gratitude that does not depend on wonder.
  7. What remains.
    I cannot return to that hour. I have tried, and it does not come when called. But something from it stayed. I notice more. I complain a little less. I handle my ordinary days with more care, the way one handles something borrowed.

We cannot hold on to a moment forever. But we can carry its awareness into the days that follow.

Notes for readers

[1] Tirumular was an early Tamil Shaiva mystic and poet. His Tirumantiram is a foundational work of Tamil devotional and yogic thought. The reference is to verse 725.

[2] Kaniyan Pungundranar was a poet of the Sangam period, the classical age of Tamil literature. The lines come from poem 192 of the Purananuru, an ancient anthology of four hundred poems. The same poem opens with the well-known line “Every town is my town, every person my kin.”

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 03 October 2026

© 2026 Rise&Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| 

What Would You Wish For If the Genie Read You the Fine Print?

The genie grants you a wish. What is it?

View all responses

Everyone has a wish ready for the genie. We have been rehearsing it since childhood. But what happens when the genie warns that you will get exactly what you ask for, and not what you need?

The Genie’s Fine Print

A genie appears and says, “You have one wish. Ask for anything.”

Most of us could answer before the genie finished speaking.

Then the genie adds one warning: “You will receive exactly what you ask for, not what you really need.”

Suddenly the question is no longer a daydream. Every wish has fine print, and I am the one who will have to live inside it. So before I speak, let me read the fine print on each wish.

  1. Wealth answers the wrong question. Midas asked that everything he touched would turn to gold, and he got exactly that. Then his bread turned to gold in his hand and his wine turned to gold in his mouth. Wealth tells you how much. It never tells you what for. A wish for money is a wish for a tool, made by someone who has not yet decided what to build.
  2. A long life is a quantity, not a quality. In Greek myth, the goddess of the dawn asked Zeus to make her mortal lover, Tithonus, live forever. She forgot to ask that he stay young. He kept ageing, without end, until little was left of him but a voice. One sentence can ask for more years. No sentence can promise what those years will hold.
  3. Success often means more arms for the same loom. The Panchatantra, the old Indian book of fables, tells of a weaver whose loom broke. When he went to cut wood for a new one, a spirit offered him a wish. He asked for a second head and two more arms so he could weave twice as fast. When he walked back into his village, people took him for a demon and killed him. He did not wish for a better life, only for more capacity to live the same narrow one. Many of our wishes for success are like his.
  4. The generous wishes are the hardest to word. Peace, perfect health, the happiness of my family: these sound unselfish. But read them literally. If I wish for peace, whose terms of peace are imposed? If I wish for my family’s happiness, whose idea of happiness gets delivered? Mine, in both cases. I would be writing the script of other people’s lives without asking them. And even perfect health would bring me back, sooner or later, to the same question: healthy for what?
  5. Wisdom looks like the winning answer. In the Hebrew Bible, God appears to the young King Solomon in a dream with the same open offer. Solomon asks for neither riches nor a long life, only for an understanding heart to rule his people well. He is given wisdom, and the riches he did not ask for besides. Here, it seems, is the perfect wish: ask for the capacity, not the outcome.
  6. Yet I have to admit how that story ends. The same book records that in old age Solomon’s heart was turned away, and the wisest of kings made foolish choices. Wisdom given in a single night did not last a lifetime. This is the crack in my neat answer. Even the best gift fades when it is received once and never chosen again.
  7. So one wish is the wrong unit. What I most need cannot be delivered in a single moment. Patience, gratitude, courage and kindness are not possessions. They are decisions, and they have to be made again every morning. The genie offers a one-time grant. Life asks me to renew it every day.
  8. Here, then, is my wish. In Manimekalai [1], one of the great epics of Tamil literature, a young woman who has chosen the Buddhist path receives the Amudha Surabhi, a begging bowl that never runs empty. She does not use it to feed herself. She carries it through the city and feeds the hungry, and the bowl never fails. The bowl itself began with a gift: before she fed anyone, Manimekalai went to Aathirai, a woman known for her virtue, to receive the first alms into it. I would ask the genie for that bowl. Not a fortune to fill my house, but something that is useful only when I hold it out to someone else.

Even then, the genie could give me only the bowl. Picking it up tomorrow, and the day after, would still be my work.

Perhaps that is the real answer to the genie. The greatest wish is not to receive everything I want. It is to become the kind of person who keeps carrying the bowl, whatever life puts in my hands.

What is the bowl you would ask for, and whom would you hold it out to first?

[1] Manimekalai is a classical Tamil epic of Buddhist inspiration, attributed to the poet Seethalai Saathanar and composed well over a thousand years ago. It is counted among the five great epics of Tamil literature and continues the story of an earlier epic, Silappathikaram.

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 02 October 2026

© 2026 Rise&Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact| Resources

Is AI Quietly Becoming the Real Power Behind iOS and Android?

Every day, billions of people unlock a phone governed by rules written by just two companies. The question is no longer which one is better, but whether the world will one day be left with only one, and whether that would be a blessing or a danger.

RESEARCH ARTICLE

One Platform or Many?

The Convergence Paradox and the Future of the iOS–Android Duopoly

Control, competition, law, sovereignty and the coming intelligence layer

Abstract

Two operating systems, Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android, run almost every smartphone outside China, and a third, Huawei’s HarmonyOS, has become a serious force within it. This article asks whether the world is better served by continuing with several mobile systems, and whether the market will in time be confined to one. It brings together the history, ownership and market position of the two platforms with evidence on litigation and regulation in the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan and India, and with developments in artificial intelligence, national technology policy and sustainability law, current to September 2026.

The article advances two original propositions. The first, the Convergence Paradox, holds that the two rivals are becoming structurally alike from opposite directions: law is forcing the closed system (iOS) to open, while security policy is leading the open system (Android) to tighten. The second, the Layered Plurality Thesis, holds that the decisive question is no longer how many operating systems exist, but at which layer of the technology stack power is concentrated. The evidence suggests that a single global operating system is the least likely outcome and also the least desirable one; that the operating-system layer will remain plural and increasingly regional; and that the real risk of convergence lies above the operating system, in the artificial-intelligence and services layer, where one supplier can already power both rival platforms.

Keywords: iOS; Android; HarmonyOS; platform competition; network effects; Digital Markets Act; Mobile Software Competition Act; (MSCA) antitrust; digital sovereignty; artificial intelligence; interoperability; India.

1. Introduction and Research Question

Few technologies have reshaped daily life as quickly as the smartphone. Through it, billions of people communicate, work, learn, bank, pay and reach public services. Yet the software that governs these devices is controlled by very few firms, and the rules they set operate, in practice, as private regulation of a large part of the digital economy.

Most writing on this subject asks which platform is better, or whether regulators should break the duopoly. This article asks a different and more structural question in two parts. First, the normative question: is it better for society to continue with more than one mobile operating system? Second, the predictive question: will the market, in the foreseeable future, be confined to a single system? The two are connected, because the forces that might produce one system are the same forces that make one system dangerous.

The article proceeds as follows. Sections 2 to 5 set out the foundations: origins, control, lesser-known facts and current market position. Section 6 examines demand. Section 7 analyses the forces pulling toward consolidation and those sustaining plurality. Sections 8 and 9 develop the article’s two original propositions. Section 10 sets out four scenarios. Section 11 answers the normative question, Section 12 applies the analysis to India, and Section 13 concludes with recommendations.

2. Origins: Why the Two Systems Were Created

Commercial release. Apple announced the iPhone in January 2007 and released it on June 29, 2007. Android Inc. began work on its operating system in 2003 and was acquired by Google in 2005. The first Android phone, the HTC Dream (T-Mobile G1), was announced on September 23, 2008, and went on sale in the United States on October 22, 2008.

Before 2007 the smartphone market was fragmented. Symbian, BlackBerry, Windows Mobile and Palm each had interfaces built around styluses or small keyboards, browsing the web was a poor experience, and carriers rather than users largely determined what software a phone could run.

Each company also faced a strategic risk. Apple recognised that phones with built-in music players could erode the iPod, then one of its most important products, and chose to build the device that would replace it. Google saw that if Microsoft or the carriers came to control mobile software, its search and advertising business could be marginalised on the devices through which the next generation of users would reach the internet. A freely available operating system offered a way to keep Google’s services present wherever phones were sold.

These founding motives matter for the research question. Apple built iOS around tight control of hardware, software and services; Google built Android as an open platform that could spread across manufacturers and keep its services at the centre of mobile life. Two different business logics produced two different systems, and each logic still requires the other system to exist: Apple’s premium model depends on a mass market it does not serve, and Google’s services model depends on reaching Apple’s users as well as its own.

3. Who Controls the Systems

iOS is controlled entirely by Apple. It is closed-source, runs only on Apple hardware, and Apple decides which apps are permitted through its App Store review process.

Android is formally open, but Google exercises substantial control over the proprietary services and ecosystem that accompany it on many devices. Any manufacturer may use the Android Open Source Project (AOSP) without Google’s involvement, and forks exist. However, the services most users expect, Google Mobile Services (Play Store, Gmail, Maps, YouTube), are licensed separately, and a manufacturer must meet Google’s compatibility requirements to obtain that licence. This control is a matter of regulatory record: in 2018 the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion over its Android licensing conditions, a decision the EU General Court largely upheld in 2022, reducing the fine to €4.125 billion [7]. The consequences became visible when US sanctions cut Huawei off from Google’s services in 2019, which sharply reduced the appeal of its phones outside China, and, as Section 7 shows, set in motion the creation of a third system.

4. Lesser-Known Facts

•   Android was first conceived for digital cameras. Andy Rubin’s team pitched it in that form around 2004 before pivoting to phones.

•   The iPhone prompted Android to rethink its early design. Early Android prototypes resembled BlackBerry devices with physical keyboards; after the iPhone’s unveiling, development moved toward touchscreen designs.

•   The first iPhone had no App Store. Steve Jobs initially encouraged developers to build web apps. The App Store opened in July 2008.

•   Google pays Apple billions for default search placement on Apple devices. Evidence in the US antitrust trial put the payment at about $20 billion for 2022. In August 2024 a federal court held that Google had unlawfully maintained a monopoly in general search [8].

•   Android produced a landmark copyright ruling. In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.(2021), the US Supreme Court held that Google’s copying of Java API declarations was fair use, a significant decision on software interfaces [6].

•   Both systems have older foundations. iOS descends from macOS, whose lineage traces to NeXTSTEP and BSD Unix. Android runs on the Linux kernel.

•   Courts and regulators are opening both platforms. The EU’s Digital Markets Act required Apple to permit alternative app distribution in Europe from 2024. In the United States, Epic v. Google produced an October 2024 injunction requiring significant changes to Google Play for three years, including allowing rival app stores to access the Play catalogue and be distributed through Google Play, while restricting certain exclusivity practices. The Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction in July 2025. Google and Epic reached a settlement in November 2025 and jointly sought to modify the remedies, filing a revised proposal in March 2026, but withdrew that request in July 2026. Google continues to comply with the October 2024 injunction and began carrying rival app stores within Google Play in the United States from July 22, 2026 [11].

5. The Present Market: A Duopoly That Is Becoming Tripolar

Two kinds of measurement must be distinguished. Usage data, such as StatCounter’s, is derived from web traffic and describes devices in use. Sales data, such as Counterpoint Research’s, describes new phones sold in a given quarter. Neither is an installed-base count, and the two can legitimately differ.

On usage, in August 2026 Android accounted for about 68% of worldwide mobile operating-system usage and about 93% in India, according to StatCounter [2][3]. On sales, Counterpoint’s quarterly series shows the following [1]:

Global smartphone sales shareQ2 2025Q4 2025Q1 2026Q2 2026
Android79%72%73%75%
iOS17%24%22%20%
HarmonyOS4%3%5%5%

Table 1. Global smartphone sales share by operating system. Source: Counterpoint Research [1]. Figures are for units sold in each quarter, not devices in use.

Three features of this data are significant for the research question. First, iOS recorded its highest-ever June-quarter share in Q2 2026, at 20%, while Android’s share fell four points year on year, largely because rising component costs hit the entry-level segment where Android dominates [1]. Second, in the United States the two systems are close to parity in some quarters and iOS leads in others: Counterpoint puts iOS at 69% of US sales in Q4 2025 [1]. Third, and most important, the market is no longer purely a duopoly. HarmonyOS accounted for 24% of China’s smartphone sales in Q2 2026 and 5% globally [1], and has overtaken iOS in China in several quarters since early 2024 [5]. Huawei stated at its 2026 developer conference that HarmonyOS had become China’s second-largest smartphone operating system [4].

The empirical trend, in short, runs away from a single system, not toward it.

6. Which System Is More Sought After?

The answer depends on what “sought after” means, because the two platforms win on different measures. By sheer numbers, Android: it runs on most of the world’s mobile devices and on the overwhelming majority in India, largely because it is available at every price point across dozens of manufacturers. By desirability and value, the iPhone: it dominates the premium segment, leads in several recent quarters in the United States [1], retains resale value better, commands unusually high brand loyalty, and has historically generated a disproportionate share of smartphone industry profits and app-store revenue.

Put simply, Android is the most used, and the iPhone is the most coveted. This segmentation is itself a structural barrier to a single system: the two platforms are not fighting for identical customers, so neither can easily absorb the other’s market.

7. Forces Toward One System and Forces Sustaining Plurality

7.1 Forces pulling toward consolidation

•   Network effects. An operating system is a two-sided platform. More users attract more developers, and more apps attract more users. Such markets tend to “tip”, and mobile history confirms it: Symbian, BlackBerry OS, Windows Phone and others disappeared not because they were technically worthless but because developers left and users followed.

•   Developer economics. Building and maintaining an app for each platform doubles cost. Every additional platform is a tax on developers, which creates constant pressure toward fewer systems.

•   Services integration. Google’s own platform strategy points toward unification within its ecosystem. It has confirmed that ChromeOS and Android are being combined into a single Android-based platform for laptops and tablets, reported under the codename Aluminium OS [21]. Consolidation is therefore already occurring, but within firms rather than across them.

•   The intelligence layer. As Section 9 explains, the cost of training frontier AI models favours very few suppliers, and those suppliers can serve every operating system at once.

7.2 Forces sustaining plurality

•   Law in every major jurisdiction now treats the duopoly as a matter for regulation, not elimination. The European Commission fined Apple €500 million in April 2025 for breaching the DMA’s anti-steering obligation [13], and opened proceedings to specify how Apple must make iOS interoperable with third-party connected devices [14]. The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority designated both Apple and Google with strategic market status in their mobile platforms on 22 October 2025, for five years [15]. Japan’s Mobile Software Competition Act took full effect in December 2025, requiring designated providers to allow third-party app stores and alternative payments [16]. In the United States, a federal judge refused to dismiss the Justice Department’s monopolisation suit against Apple [12], and the search case produced remedies barring exclusive default contracts, now under appeal [8][9][10]. India’s Competition Commission penalised Google ₹1,337.76 crore in October 2022 over its Android practices, and the dispute has moved to the Supreme Court [17]. Every one of these regimes presupposes at least two platforms. None contemplates a single one; a single system would itself trigger intervention.

•   Geopolitics and digital sovereignty. HarmonyOS exists because US sanctions cut Huawei off from Google’s services. The lesson that a nation’s phones can be switched off by a foreign government has been learned widely. India’s BharOS, an AOSP-based system incubated at IIT Madras and launched in January 2023, was presented explicitly as a contribution to Atmanirbhar Bharat and aimed first at organisations with stringent security needs [18]. The regulatory friction is also transatlantic: the White House described the EU’s 2025 Apple fine as “economic extortion” [13]. A fragmented world does not converge on one operating system.

•   Market segmentation. As Section 6 showed, the two platforms serve largely different customers, one by price reach and one by premium desirability.

•   Switching costs on both sides. Users are held by photos, messages, purchased apps and accessories; developers are held by tools and revenue. These costs protect each incumbent from the other as much as from newcomers.

•   Security and resilience. A single operating system on almost every phone would be a monoculture: one vulnerability, one faulty update or one policy decision could affect nearly every user at once. Diversity is a form of systemic insurance.

•   Sustainability law. Since 20 June 2025, EU ecodesign rules require manufacturers to provide operating-system updates for at least five years after a phone model stops being sold [23]. Longer-lived devices mean slower turnover of the installed base, which slows any tipping process.

8. The Convergence Paradox

The first original proposition of this article is that the two rivals are converging, but from opposite directions.

iOS is being opened by law. Under the DMA, Apple has had to allow alternative app distribution in the EU, remove steering restrictions and prepare interoperability measures for third-party devices [13][14]. Under Japan’s MSCA it must permit third-party stores and payments [16], and the UK CMA has secured commitments on app review and iOS interoperability [15].

Android is being tightened by security policy. Google announced that apps installed on certified Android devices, including those sideloaded from outside the Play Store, must come from developers who have verified their identity. The requirement opened to all developers in March 2026 and takes effect in Brazil, Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand in September 2026, with a wider rollout from 2027 [19]. Google presents this as an anti-malware measure; critics see it as a narrowing of Android’s historic openness.

The result is a movement toward a common middle: a governed, semi-open platform in which alternative distribution is permitted but identity, review and security controls remain with the platform owner. This convergence has a counter-intuitive consequence. As the two systems grow alike, the choice between them turns less on philosophy and more on price, brand and the services layered on top. Paradoxically, convergence of design reduces the pressure to converge on a single system, because users can move between two similar platforms more easily than between two radically different ones. Regulators, by demanding interoperability and portability, are deliberately reinforcing this effect.

9. The Intelligence Layer and the Layered Plurality Thesis

The second original proposition is that the count of operating systems is becoming the wrong measure of concentration. The smartphone stack has distinct layers: hardware, operating system, app distribution, services and, increasingly, artificial intelligence. Power can be plural at one layer and concentrated at another.

The evidence of 2025–2026 is striking. In January 2026 Apple and Google announced a multi-year agreement under which Google’s Gemini models will serve as the foundation for Apple’s next-generation Siri and other Apple Intelligence features; Google’s technology already drives much of Samsung’s Galaxy AI [20]. At the same time, the US search remedies expressly allow Google to keep paying distribution partners, including Apple, for default placement of Search, Chrome and its generative-AI products, while barring exclusive contracts [9]. In other words, the two “rival” operating systems may increasingly share a single intelligence supplier.

If AI assistants become the main way people use phones, asking an agent to book, pay or write rather than opening separate apps, the operating system recedes into infrastructure, much as the electrical wiring behind a wall matters less to a household than the appliances plugged into it. Companies are already preparing for that shift: OpenAI acquired the hardware start-up io in 2025 and has signalled new consumer devices, with launch expectations reported for the latter part of 2026 [22]. Whether such devices succeed is uncertain, but they show that the contest is moving to a layer above the operating system.

This produces the Layered Plurality Thesis: the likely future is several operating systems, regionally distributed, running on top of a highly concentrated intelligence and services layer. The public debate asks whether there will be one operating system; the more important question is whether there will be one intelligence.

10. Four Scenarios to 2035

ScenarioDescriptionMain driversAssessed likelihood
A. Single global systemOne operating system displaces the others worldwide.Network effects; developer costsVery low
B. Stable duopolyiOS and Android continue much as today, under regulation.Segmentation; switching costs; regulationModerate
C. Regional tripolarityiOS and Android globally, HarmonyOS dominant in China, national systems in niches.Geopolitics; sanctions; sovereignty policyHigh in China; partial elsewhere
D. Layered pluralitySeveral operating systems beneath a concentrated AI and services layer.AI economics; cross-platform licensingHighest overall

Table 2. Scenarios for the mobile platform market. Likelihood assessments are the author’s qualitative judgements based on the evidence in Sections 5 to 9, not statistical forecasts.

Scenario A is the least likely because every force in Section 7.2 works against it: it would be blocked by competition law in every major jurisdiction, resisted by governments on sovereignty grounds, and undermined by the segmentation of demand. The realistic future combines elements of B, C and D, with D the dominant pattern.

11. The Normative Question: Would One System Be Better?

A single system would bring real benefits. Developers would build once, users would never face compatibility problems, and security standards could be uniform. For education and public services in particular, one platform would simplify delivery.

The costs, however, are greater. A single system would remove the competitive discipline that drives innovation; the duopoly’s own history shows that the iPhone forced Android to rethink its design, and Android’s price reach forced Apple to widen its range. It would concentrate private rule-making over a large part of the economy in one firm, beyond the reach of any single government. It would create a security monoculture. And it would hand one company, and effectively one jurisdiction, a switch over the world’s communications, a risk the Huawei episode has already made concrete.

The better course is therefore to continue with several systems, but to make them interoperable. The policy goal should be plurality with portability: users able to move their data, apps and purchases between platforms, and developers able to reach all platforms on fair terms. Most of the regulation reviewed above is, in substance, an attempt to secure exactly this.

12. The Indian Perspective

India offers the clearest test of the analysis. Android’s usage share of about 93% [3] makes India one of the most concentrated large markets in the world, yet Indian policy has pursued plurality through three channels: competition enforcement, through the CCI’s Android case [17]; sovereignty, through BharOS for sensitive users [18]; and, most distinctively, public digital infrastructure.

The last point deserves emphasis. India’s Unified Payments Interface works identically on every phone and every operating system, because it is an open, publicly governed rail rather than a feature owned by a platform. It demonstrates in practice the principle of Section 11: where a function of national importance is built as interoperable public infrastructure, the identity of the underlying operating system matters far less. For India, the more productive question may not be whether to build an indigenous operating system, but which critical functions, such as identity, payments, health records and education, should sit on open, platform-neutral layers that no operating-system owner can control.

13. Conclusion and Recommendations

The answer to the research question is twofold. On the normative question, it is better to continue with several operating systems, provided they are made interoperable; a single system would trade short-term convenience for long-term fragility, concentration and loss of sovereignty. On the predictive question, the market is unlikely to be confined to one operating system. The evidence points the other way: toward a regulated duopoly, a growing third system in China, and a Convergence Paradox in which the rivals grow alike without merging.

The real risk of convergence lies one layer higher. As AI assistants become the principal interface and a small number of model providers supply both rival platforms, the world could end up with many operating systems and one intelligence. That is where the attention of lawmakers, educators and citizens should now turn.

For users: prefer services that export data in open formats and work on more than one platform, and treat long-term software support as a purchase criterion.

For developers and institutions: build cross-platform and web-first where practical, and avoid dependence on any single store or assistant for critical services.

For policymakers: extend interoperability and portability duties from the operating-system layer to the AI-assistant layer, and build nationally critical functions as open, platform-neutral public infrastructure.

Note on Method and Limitations

This article is a qualitative synthesis of publicly available sources current to 21 September 2026. Market figures come from two providers using different methods, described in Section 5, and should not be combined. Several matters remain in litigation, including the US cases against Apple and Google and India’s Android appeal, and their outcomes may alter the analysis. Reports on unreleased products, such as new AI devices, are forward-looking and uncertain. The scenario assessments in Table 2 are reasoned judgements, not forecasts. Foundational historical facts in Sections 2 to 4 reflect the established public record and were checked in earlier drafts of this work.

Digital Resources Consulted

All online resources were accessed on or before 21 September 2026. Numbers correspond to the bracketed references in the text.

Market data

[1] Counterpoint Research, “Global Smartphone Sales Share by Operating System” (quarterly series to Q2 2026). https://www.counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/global-smartphone-os-market-share

[2] StatCounter Global Stats, “Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide,” August 2026 (verified by the author). https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide

[3] StatCounter Global Stats, “Mobile Operating System Market Share India,” August 2026 (verified by the author). https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/india

[4] Huawei Central, “HarmonyOS has become 2nd largest smartphone OS in China: Huawei” (HDC 2026). https://www.huaweicentral.com/harmonyos-has-become-2nd-largest-smartphone-os/amp/

[5] Eye Shenzhen, “HarmonyOS 2nd most used phone operating system in China,” 20 June 2024. https://www.eyeshenzhen.com/content/2024-06/20/content_31029320.htm

Judgments and litigation

[6] Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021), Supreme Court of the United States.

[7] Case T-604/18, Google and Alphabet v. Commission (Google Android), General Court of the European Union, judgment of 14 September 2022.

[8] Hughes Hubbard & Reed, “Court Issues Remedies Ruling in United States v. Google Search Case,” 3 September 2025. https://www.hugheshubbard.com/news/court-issues-remedies-ruling-in-united-states-v-google-search-case

[9] The Jakarta Post (AFP), “Google not required to sell Chrome in antitrust victory,” 3 September 2025. https://www.thejakartapost.com/business/2025/09/03/google-not-required-to-sell-chrome-in-antitrust-victory.html

[10] MediaPost, “Google Should Be Forced To Shed Chrome, Advocacy Group Argues” (on the pending D.C. Circuit appeal). https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/417015/google-should-be-forced-to-shed-chrome-advocacy-g.html

[11] In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation (Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC), No. 3:21-md-02981-JD (N.D. Cal.); Ninth Circuit affirmance, 31 July 2025. Supreme Court of the United States, Docket No. 25-521, Google’s abeyance motion describing the November 2025 settlement and joint motion to modify. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-521/386197/20251202171155690_SCOTUS%20Abeyance%20Motion%20-%20Final.pdf; MLex, “Epic Games, Google propose revised modified injunction,” 4 March 2026. https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2448944/epic-games-google-propose-revised-modified-injunction-in-us-antitrust-litigation; MLex, “Google, Epic withdraw bid to modify US Play Store injunction,” 15 July 2026. https://www.mlex.com/mlex/articles/2501221/google-epic-withdraw-bid-to-modify-us-play-store-injunction; MacRumors, 15 July 2026. https://www.macrumors.com/2026/07/15/google-third-party-app-stores/

[12] Benton Institute, “Justice Department Sues Apple for Monopolizing Smartphone Markets.” https://benton.org/node/345211; The Sun (Malaysia), “Apple antitrust case proceeds as judge rejects dismissal bid.” https://thesun.my/news/world-news/apple-antitrust-case-proceeds-as-judge-rejects-dismissal-bid-mo14382068/

Regulation

[13] Society for Computers and Law, “European Commission issues Apple with fine under Digital Markets Act,” 24 April 2025. https://www.scl.org/european-commission-issues-apple-with-fine-under-digital-markets-act/; Retail Insight Network, “EU hits Apple with €500m fine over app store restrictions.” https://www.retail-insight-network.com/news/eu-apple-fine-app/

[14] OSNews, “European Commission to order Apple to take interoperability measures.” https://www.osnews.com/story/140771/european-commission-to-order-apple-to-take-interoperability-measures-after-company-refuses-to-comply-with-dma/

[15] UK Competition and Markets Authority, “Apple’s mobile platform” case page. https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/apples-mobile-platform; “Google’s mobile platform.” https://gov.uk/cma-cases/googles-mobile-platform; “The CMA’s programme of work across mobile platforms.” https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-cmas-programme-of-work-across-mobile-platforms

[16] Clifford Chance, “Japan to Implement New Ex-Ante Regulations on Mobile OS, App Stores, Browsers and Search Engines,” July 2024. https://www.cliffordchance.com/content/dam/cliffordchance/briefings/2024/07/new-Japanese-ex-ante-regulations-on-mobile-software.pdf; Wolters Kluwer Competition Blog, “Japan’s Mobile Software Competition Act Grows its Guidelines.” https://legalblogs.wolterskluwer.com/competition-blog/japans-mobile-software-competition-act-grows-its-guidelines/; PPC Land, “Google and Apple face Japan’s toughest mobile platform rules yet.” https://ppc.land/google-and-apple-face-japans-toughest-mobile-platform-rules-yet/

[17] Business Standard (PTI), “Google’s plea against CCI order in Android mobile case mentioned in SC.” https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-news/google-s-plea-against-cci-order-in-android-mobile-case-mentioned-in-sc-124091900733_1.html; Competition Commission of India, order of 20 October 2022 (Android mobile devices).

[18] IIT Madras, “IIT Madras-incubated Firm develops Indigenous Atmanirbhar Mobile Operating System,” press release, 19 January 2023. https://www.iitm.ac.in/happenings/press-releases-and-coverages/iit-madras-incubated-firm-develops-indigenous-atmanirbhar; Computing (UK), “India launches indigenous BharOS mobile operating system.” https://www.computing.co.uk/news/4066129/india-launches-indigenous-bharos-mobile-operating

Technology, AI and sustainability

[19] Bitdefender, “Google to Require Developer Verification Even for Sideloaded Apps,” 28 August 2025. https://www.bitdefender.com/en-au/blog/hotforsecurity/google-developer-verification-sideloaded-apps; Thurrott, report on the verification process. https://www.thurrott.com/?p=329549

[20] The Canberra Times (Reuters/AAP), “Apple, Google strike Gemini deal for revamped Siri,” January 2026. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/9150613/apple-google-strike-gemini-deal-for-revamped-siri/

[21] Nasdaq (RTTNews), “Google Advances Aluminium OS, Its New Android-Based Desktop Platform.” https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/google-advances-aluminium-os-its-new-android-based-desktop-platform; AlCircle, “Google’s big merger plan with Aluminium OS at the forefront.” https://www.alcircle.com/news/googles-big-merger-plan-with-aluminium-os-at-the-forefront-116663

[22] Introl, “OpenAI Consumer Device: Jony Ive’s Screenless AI Hardware Arrives H2 2026” (secondary report; forward-looking). https://introl.com/blog/openai-consumer-device-jony-ive-hardware-2026

[23] heise online, “Guaranteed updates and repairability for smartphones in the EU from June 20.” https://heise.de/-10447853; Omdia, “EU smartphone eco-design regulation is a big challenge to vendors but also necessary change.” https://omdia.tech.informa.com/om137869/eu-smartphone-eco-design-regulation-is-a-big-challenge-to-vendors-but-also-necessary-change

John Britto Kurusumuthu
Founder, Rise & Inspire

A long-form analytical Rise & Inspire article

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive | Personal Development

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact | Resources

What If Your Best Side Hustle Is Already Within You?

What are your favorite side-hustle ideas?

What are your favourite side-hustle ideas?

When I hear the phrase side hustle, I usually think of someone looking for a way to earn additional income without giving up their main work. But the more I think about it, the more I feel that a side hustle can mean something broader.

It can be a way of turning experience into value, knowledge into service, or passion into something useful for others.

For me, writing would be high on the list.

I have always enjoyed writing, thinking, learning and sharing ideas. That is one reason I started Rise&Inspire. What began as a blog has become much more than a place to publish articles. It has given me a space to reflect, explore ideas, connect with readers and keep learning.

Could blogging itself become a side hustle?

Certainly. A blog can eventually generate income through advertising, affiliate marketing, digital products, courses, memberships, consulting or other services. But income is only one measure of its value. A blog can also build credibility, relationships and opportunities.

What else could make a good side hustle?

Teaching and mentoring would be another choice.

Years of professional and personal experience can become valuable when shared with someone who is still learning. A person doesn’t always need another qualification. Sometimes, they need someone who has already travelled a similar road and can help them avoid unnecessary mistakes.

Consulting is another possibility.

Experience that once seemed ordinary can become valuable when someone else needs it. Administrative knowledge, professional experience, problem-solving ability and specialised knowledge can all become services when they solve a real problem.

Then there is digital content.

Writing articles, producing educational material, creating ebooks, developing online courses or sharing practical knowledge through digital platforms can turn expertise into something that reaches people far beyond our immediate circle.

But before choosing any side hustle, I would ask one question:

Would I still enjoy doing this if the money took time to arrive?

That question matters.

A side hustle that demands constant attention, creates stress and leaves no time for life may defeat its purpose. The right one should fit naturally into your life rather than take it over.

Perhaps that is why I am drawn to writing, teaching, mentoring and sharing knowledge. These activities don’t feel like entirely new occupations. They are extensions of things I already value.

And perhaps that is one of the secrets to finding a good side hustle.

You don’t always have to start by asking:

“What can make me money?”

You can start with:

What do I know?

What do I enjoy?

What can I do well?

Whom can I help?

And finally:

Can I turn those answers into something people find valuable?

Your next source of income may not be hiding in a completely new idea.

It may already be hiding in something you know, something you love, or something you have spent years learning to do well.

What about you?

If you could turn one skill, hobby or passion into a side hustle, what would you choose—and why?

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Rise & Inspire · riseandinspire.co.in

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt — 01 October 2026

© 2026 Rise&Inspire. All Rights Reserved.

Website: Home | Blog | About Us | Contact|Resources