Author Archives: Johnbritto Kurusumuthu

RISE & INSPIRE  |  DAILY WRITING PROMPT

A Catalogue of Omissions

What is the kindest thing someone has ever done for you?

31 August 2026  |  John Britto Kurusumuthu

The prompt expects a story with a verb in it. But the kindest thing anyone ever did for me is not well described by what was done. It is described by what was left out. So let me record it the only way it can honestly be recorded — as a list of absences.

We are trained to describe kindness additively. Someone gave. Someone stayed. Someone paid. The grammar of gratitude runs on transitive verbs, and the accounting is simple: the more that was added, the greater the kindness.

That accounting fails on the act I have in mind. Measured by what it contained, it was modest — a difficulty removed at a moment when I could not have removed it myself. Measured by what it deliberately excluded, it was the most carefully constructed thing anyone has ever done on my behalf. Every element that would ordinarily attend such an act had been identified in advance and taken out.

Six omissions, in the order I noticed them — which was not the order in which they were made.

I. There was no asking

The need was met before I had to name it. Anyone who has ever had to ask knows the quiet levy that asking imposes: you must first construct an account of your own insufficiency, then present it to someone who is at liberty to decline it. The help, when it comes, arrives already tinged with that transaction.

Maimonides ranked the degrees of charitable giving into eight ascending grades, and he placed giving before one is asked above giving after. He was not making a sentimental point. He was making an administrative one: the asking is itself an injury, and a well-designed act of giving eliminates it at source.

II. There was no audience

No one saw it. There was no room in which it was announced, no gathering at which it was acknowledged, no third party who could later refer to it in my presence.

Islamic tradition names this precisely — sadaqa al-sirr, the charity of secrecy — and a well-known hadith numbers among those granted shade on the Day of Judgment the one who gives so privately that his own left hand does not know what his right hand has done. The Gospel of Matthew reaches for the identical image of the two hands. Two traditions, working independently, arriving at the same anatomical metaphor for the same insight: a witness converts a gift into a performance, and the receiver becomes the audience’s object rather than the giver’s equal.

III. There was no receipt

Nothing was recorded. No note, no message, no entry in any ledger I have ever been shown.

Seneca devoted an entire treatise to the subject and reached a conclusion that reads almost as a rule of drafting: the one who receives should never forget; the one who gives should never remember. A remembered gift is a live instrument. It can be produced later, and the mere possibility that it might be produced is enough to alter the standing between two people. To give without record is to destroy the instrument at the moment of execution.

A witness converts a gift into a performance. A record converts it into an instrument. Both leave the receiver smaller than they found him.

IV. There was no mention afterwards

In the years since, it has never been raised. Not in anger, not in affection, not in the oblique way people have of reminding you of a thing by conspicuously declining to remind you of it.

The Bhagavad Gita sorts giving into three kinds, and reserves its highest classification for the gift offered to a fitting person, at a fitting moment, with no expectation of anything returning. The gift given with an eye on the return is placed lower — not because the recipient is worse off, but because the act has been quietly converted into an investment. What distinguishes the two is almost entirely a matter of what happens afterwards.

V. There was no debt created

This is the omission I understood last and admire most. The thing was arranged in such a way that accepting it required nothing of me — no gratitude I would have to keep paying, no obligation held open. It was framed, with some care, as a convenience to the giver.

Confucian ethics has a vocabulary for this. Propriety — li — is not decorum for its own sake; it is the set of forms by which one person protects another’s standing in an exchange. The Analects records the principle plainly: help the one in need, do not add to the one who already has. The instruction is about direction, but the surrounding practice is about manner — how to give in a way that does not make the receiving conspicuous.

Valluvar puts the same duty on the giver with characteristic bluntness. In the Tirukkural’s chapter on giving, the discomfort of the encounter belongs squarely to the one with something to give; it is his business to feel it, and not to let the other person carry it. That is an unusual allocation of burden, and a precise one.

VI. There was no name attached

I learned who it was long afterwards, and by accident — from someone who assumed I already knew and mentioned it in passing. The person who did it had not intended me to find out, and has never been told that I did.

Buddhist teaching treats generosity as the first of the perfections and holds that the purest form is emptied of the giver — no donor standing behind the gift expecting to be seen there. That is easy to state and nearly impossible to execute, because the desire to be known as the source of a good thing is not a vice one grows out of. It is a permanent condition, managed at best.

And one omission of my own

This post does not name the person either. That was the last thing I had to work out about it: what the correct response is to a kindness engineered so thoroughly to leave no trace.

Gratitude wants to publish. It wants to say the name, list the particulars, and settle the account in public. But every one of those instincts would undo the specific thing that was done for me. The act was designed to leave me standing at full height, unindebted and unobserved. To narrate it properly would be to reverse the design.

So the sixth omission is theirs and the seventh is mine. The only faithful way to record an act of concealment is to continue it.

What the omissions leave

We tend to think of generosity as an additive art — more given, more good. But the highest kindness I have received was subtractive, and its whole difficulty lay in the removals. Anyone with means can add. What is rare is the discipline to identify, in advance, every element that would have diminished the other person, and to take each one out: the asking, the audience, the record, the reminder, the debt, the name.

Six traditions, none of them talking to the others, all arrived at some version of this. Maimonides ranked it. The hadith shaded it. Seneca legislated it. The Gita classified it. Confucius formalised it. Valluvar assigned its burden. That degree of convergence across languages and centuries suggests we are not dealing with a cultural preference but with something closer to a structural truth about what people are: that a person can be helped and lowered in the same motion, and that the whole art lies in preventing the second thing while accomplishing the first.

What is left, when the removals are done, is not a story with a hero in it. It is just a person still standing where they were, no shorter than before, unaware for years that anything had happened at all.

That is the kindest thing anyone has ever done for me. I am not able to tell you what it was.

Rise & Inspire  —  riseandinspire.co.in

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 31 August 2026.

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:1388

Today’s writing prompt asked a simple question: if the salary were the same, what job would you be doing right now?

I answered it as a vacancy notice — post, scale of pay, essential qualifications, hours of work, leave, probation. Then I withdrew the notice, because the post is not vacant.

The interesting version of this question is not additive but subtractive. Not what you would take up if you were free, but what would still be standing if the money were removed from the description. Some of what we do will not survive that removal, and there is no shame in it. But something usually does. It is generally smaller than we expected and older than we remembered.

Notification of Vacancy

John Britto Kurusumuthu

WordPress Daily Prompt  ·  30 August 2026

Prompt: If the salary was the same, what job would you be doing right now and why?

GOVERNMENT OF ONE’S OWN LIFE

DEPARTMENT OF UNFINISHED INTENTIONS

No. DUI/Vac/2026/01 Dated, the 30th August, 2026.

NOTIFICATION

Applications are invited from eligible candidates for appointment to the post specified below, on the terms and conditions hereinafter set out.

1. Name of post. — Writer.

2. Number of vacancies. — One. The post is not transferable, cannot be filled by deputation, and no waiting list shall be maintained.

3. Scale of pay. — Identical to that presently drawn by the candidate, whatever it may be. It is clarified that the parity of pay is a condition of this advertisement and not an inducement under it. Candidates who require the salary to be different are advised not to apply, as they have not understood the question.

4. Age. — No upper limit. The lower limit is the age at which a person first suspects that the work he does and the work he is for may be two different things. This age varies. In some it arrives at twenty-three; in others it waits until the farewell function.

5. Essential qualifications. —

(a) Ability to sit alone in a room at an hour when nobody is watching, and to produce something that nobody has commissioned.

(b) Sustained evidence of having done the work already, without appointment, without sanction, and without a file number.

(c) Willingness to be judged by the reader and not by the reporting officer.

6. Desirable qualifications. — Familiarity with any of the following, the traditions being listed in no order of precedence:

(a) The counsel of the Bhagavad Gita (III.35) that one’s own duty, imperfectly discharged, is better than another’s duty performed well — the doctrine of svadharma, which locates excellence not in the grandeur of the task but in its fitness to the person.

(b) Aristotle’s argument in the Nicomachean Ethics (I.7) that the good of any thing lies in its characteristic function, its ergon — the flautist’s good being flute-playing, and the human being’s good being the exercise of what is distinctively his.

(c) The Confucian insistence, in Analects XIII.3, upon the rectification of names — that when names are not correct, speech does not accord with things, and affairs are not carried to completion. A person miscalled is a person misemployed.

(d) The German word Beruf, which carries at once the sense of occupation and of calling, and which the Reformation pressed into service to dignify ordinary labour — the cobbler serving as truly at his last as the cleric at his altar.

(e) The Japanese ikigai, understood in its native and humbler sense as that which makes the morning worth rising into. (Candidates are cautioned that the four-circle diagram now circulated under this name is a later Western construction and forms no part of the original idea.)

7. Nature of duties. —

(i) To notice.

(ii) To find the word that fits, and to reject the three that nearly fit.

(iii) To publish daily, whether or not the day has been kind.

(iv) To be read by strangers in countries the incumbent will never visit.

(v) Such other duties as the sentence may require.

8. Hours of work. — Chiefly before dawn. The post carries no fixed hours, which in practice means all of them; a paragraph left unfinished at nine in the morning will follow the incumbent into the afternoon and sit down with him at dinner.

9. Leave. — Nil. Casual leave is theoretically admissible but has never been availed. Applications for leave will be sanctioned and then quietly ignored by the applicant.

10. Probation. — Lifelong. Confirmation is not contemplated.

11. Method of application. — Candidates need not apply. They need only begin.

12. Note. — Attention is invited to the fact that the salary attached to this post is nil, and that clause 3 above is therefore satisfied automatically, whatever the candidate presently earns. This is not a drafting error.

A Corrigendum, Immediately Issued

The above notification is withdrawn. The post is not vacant.

It was filled some years ago by a man who never saw the advertisement, submitted no application, and received no order of appointment. He simply started, on an ordinary morning, and then did it again the next day, and has not yet found a reason to stop. There are now more than eleven hundred consecutive mornings on the record, and not one of them was paid for.

That is my answer to today’s prompt, and I concede at once that it is a cheat. The question assumes that the salary is what holds us in place, and invites us to imagine the door swinging open. Remove the money, it says, and where would you go? It is a good question and a generous one. But I find, on trying to answer it honestly, that I have already gone. The desk I would walk to is the desk I am sitting at.

I do not offer this as an accomplishment. It is closer to a diagnosis. Forty years of drafting law taught me a habit I could not put down at retirement: the search for the exact word, the suspicion of the approximate one, the conviction that a badly built sentence will eventually injure somebody. That habit was once a duty attached to a designation and a pay scale. It is now simply how I spend my mornings. The designation fell away and the work did not.

Which is, I suspect, the real test the prompt is proposing. Not what job would you do — that is easy to answer expansively, and most of us answer it with something we have never tried and are unlikely to try. The harder test is subtractive. Take the salary out of the question and see what is still standing. Some of what we do will not survive the removal, and there is no shame in that; a great deal of honourable work is done for money and is none the worse for it, and the man who says otherwise usually has money. But something usually does survive. It is generally smaller than we expected and older than we remembered.

The traditions listed at clause 6 disagree about almost everything, and it is worth saying plainly that they cannot all be right. Aristotle is arguing about human nature in general; the Gita is speaking to a particular man in a particular caste on a particular battlefield; Confucius is chiefly concerned with the ordering of a state; the Reformers were making a theological point about the dignity of the laity. They are not four ways of saying the same thing, and I distrust the anthologies that flatten them into one.

But they converge on a single practical suspicion, and it is the one the prompt is circling: that a person can be fully employed and still not be at work. That there is a difference between the post one holds and the function one performs. That the name on the door and the thing being done inside can drift apart for years without anyone raising it in a meeting.

If the salary were the same, I would be doing this. I know that with the particular certainty available to a man who is already doing it for nothing.

The vacancy, in the end, was never the job’s. It was mine — and it took a long time to fill.

What survives the subtraction, in your case? Tell me in the comments.

 Source notes to “Notification of Vacancy”

Purpose. Clause 6 of the notification lists five traditions in a single breath. The compression is a device of the essay and is not a scholarly claim. This companion sets out what each source actually says, in what context it says it, and where the popular modern use of it departs from the original. Points at which the essay simplifies are flagged expressly rather than quietly repaired.

I.  Svadharma — Bhagavad Gita III.35

Text. The verse holds that one’s own dharma, though defectively performed, is better than the dharmaof another performed well; and that it is better to die in one’s own than to take up another’s, which is attended by fear. The opening line recurs almost verbatim at XVIII.47, though the second line of that verse turns instead on action determined by one’s own nature (svabhava), and holds that one who so acts incurs no fault.

Context. The counsel is addressed to Arjuna at the point of refusing battle. It is not general career advice; it is an argument against abandoning a duty that has become distasteful.

Caution. In the received text svadharma is bound to varna — duty as fixed by station of birth. The modern reading that treats it as a summons to discover one’s individual vocation detaches the term from that setting. The detachment is defensible and has a long lineage, but it is an interpretation and should be named as one. Gandhi read the battlefield allegorically; Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, by contrast, read the doctrine as a defence of the varna order and criticised it accordingly. The essay uses the softened modern sense without argument, and the reader should know that.

II.  Ergon — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics I.7

Text. Aristotle reasons that for a flute-player, a sculptor or any craftsman, the good lies in the characteristic work — the ergon — and asks whether a human being as such likewise has one. He concludes that the human ergon is activity of the soul in accordance with reason, and, where there are several excellences, in accordance with the best and most complete of them. (Bekker 1097b22—1098a20.)

Caution. This is the passage most often misapplied. Aristotle’s ergon is a claim about the species, not about the individual: he is identifying what human beings are for, not what any particular person is for. He does not hold that each of us has a private function awaiting discovery. The essay borrows the flautist illustration for a purpose Aristotle does not sanction, and the borrowing is deliberate rather than inadvertent.

III.  Zhengming — Analects XIII.3

Text. Asked by Zilu what he would attend to first if entrusted with the government of a state, Confucius answers: the rectification of names. If names are not correct, speech does not accord with things; affairs are not brought to completion; rites and music do not flourish; punishments are not properly awarded; and the people do not know where to put hand or foot.

Caution (i). The concern is administrative and political — that titles of office and relation should correspond to conduct — not psychological. It is nearer to a doctrine of accurate designation in government than to any notion of personal authenticity.

Caution (ii). The authenticity of this particular passage has been questioned. Arthur Waley, among others, regarded it as a later accretion, partly because the vocabulary of zhengming belongs more comfortably to the philosophical disputes of a subsequent period. The point is contested and not settled; it is recorded here so that the citation is not made to carry more weight than it can bear.

IV.  Beruf — Luther and Weber

Text. The German Beruf holds together the sense of an occupation and the sense of a summons. Max Weber, in Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1904–05), argued that the word acquired its distinctively modern colouring largely through Luther’s Bible translation, and that the effect was to invest ordinary worldly labour with a religious dignity previously reserved to the monastic and clerical life.

Caution (i). The figure of the cobbler serving God at his last is a paraphrase of the Lutheran doctrine of vocation as it is commonly summarised, and is not offered as a quotation from Luther. Formulations of this kind circulate widely in a quotational form; the underlying doctrine is genuinely his, the sentence is not.

Caution (ii). Weber’s larger thesis has been contested for a century — by R. H. Tawney in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926) and by many since, on both historical and causal grounds. The narrower philological observation about Beruf has worn better than the causal argument built upon it, and it is only the narrower observation that clause 6(d) relies on.

V.  Ikigai

Text. The Japanese ikigai denotes, in ordinary use, that which makes life feel worth living — characteristically something modest and daily rather than grand and singular. Mieko Kamiya’s study Ikigai ni tsuite (1966) is the standard treatment; Ken Mogi’s later popular account likewise emphasises small satisfactions rather than a life’s overarching mission.

Caution. The four-circle diagram — what you love, what you are good at, what the world needs, what you can be paid for — is not Japanese in origin and is not what ikigai means. It is commonly traced to a diagram of propósito (purpose) published by Andrés Zuzunaga in 2011, subsequently relabelled ikigaiin an English-language blog post around 2014. That chain of attribution is widely repeated and appears sound, but it rests substantially on the later writer’s own account of what he did, and is reported here with that qualification. What is not in doubt is that the diagram post-dates and misdescribes the Japanese term — not least because it makes payment one of the four conditions, which the native sense does not.

Note. This last point is the one that matters for the essay. A prompt that asks what we would do if the salary were held constant is asking a question the Venn diagram cannot frame, because the diagram builds remuneration into the definition of a life worth living. The older sense does not.

VI.  What the Five Do Not Share

It is worth stating plainly that these five cannot be harmonised. Aristotle is making a claim about human nature as such; the Gita is addressing a particular man in a particular station at a particular moment; Confucius is prescribing for the government of a state; the Reformation doctrine is theological, concerned with the standing of lay labour before God; ikigai is descriptive and domestic, and makes no metaphysical claim at all. Anthologies that place them side by side as five expressions of one insight are performing a conjuring trick.

What can honestly be said is narrower. Each tradition, from its own direction, takes seriously the possibility that a person’s designation and a person’s actual function may come apart — and each treats that gap as a matter of consequence rather than a private inconvenience. Confucius thinks it disorders the state. Aristotle thinks it forfeits the good life. The Gita thinks it invites fear. The Reformers thought it misdescribed where holiness was to be found. Kamiya thought it drained the morning of its reason. That is a convergence of concern, not of doctrine, and the essay claims no more.

Select References

— Bhagavad Gita, III.35 and XVIII.47. (Consult a translation that prints the Sanskrit; the two verses should be read together.)

— Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, ch. 7, Bekker 1097b22—1098a20.

— Confucius, Analects, XIII.3. See also Arthur Waley’s introduction and notes for the doubts as to the passage.

— Max Weber, Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus (1904–05); English translation by Talcott Parsons (1930), particularly the discussion of Beruf.

— R. H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926).

— Mieko Kamiya, Ikigai ni tsuite (1966).

— Ken Mogi, The Little Book of Ikigai (2017).

— B. R. Ambedkar, writings on the Bhagavad Gita and varna, for the contrary reading noted at Part I.

Standing note on attribution: where a source is paraphrased rather than quoted, or where an attribution is widely repeated but imperfectly evidenced, the fact is flagged in this companion rather than smoothed over in the essay. Readers who find an error are asked to write; corrections are published, not absorbed.

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 30 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:2791

My Hobby Is Artificial Intelligence. It Has Made Me Steadily Less Modern.

You expect a post about the future. This is a report from the opposite direction.

Tell someone your hobby is exploring artificial intelligence and you can watch them assemble the rest of the sentence for you.

They assume you are one of two people. Either you are an enthusiast, breathless about the future, forwarding threads about how everything is about to change. Or you are the other sort, secretly hoping the whole thing collapses so you can be right about something. Nobody’s third guess is that you might be a person who, after months of doing this nearly every day, has become quietly and steadily more old-fashioned.

But that is the honest report, so it is the one I am filing.

It began the way these things do. Curiosity about a new technology, entirely ordinary. Then experimenting. Then, somewhere in the accumulation of unremarkable evenings, a habit — learning something, trying something, turning up some little possibility I had not considered. It has never stopped being interesting.

What I did not anticipate was the direction it would push me.

The contrast dye

There is a technique in medical imaging where a substance is introduced into the body not because anyone is interested in the substance, but because it makes the surrounding structures visible. On its own, the tissue is a grey blur. Against the dye, the shape appears.

That is what this hobby has turned out to be. I went in to study the machine. What I have actually been studying, for months now, is everything the machine throws into relief.

You do not learn what a thing is by looking at it directly. You learn it by encountering a very good imitation and noticing precisely where the imitation runs out.

And so, evening after evening, I have been finding out what was load-bearing all along — not in technology, but in reading, in writing, in thinking, in the company of other people.

What turned out to be load-bearing

Slowness, which I had always treated as a defect. When competent prose becomes abundant and instantaneous, the scarce commodity is no longer the prose. It is the hours of consideration behind it. I have started deliberately doing certain things more slowly, not out of nostalgia, but because slowness has quietly become the rarer input.

Provenance, which nobody used to ask about. For the whole of my life until recently, a sentence carried an implicit guarantee: someone sat down and chose it. That guarantee is now optional, and I have found myself caring intensely about a question I never previously had to ask — who made this, and what did it cost them. It is a startlingly old-fashioned question. It is also, suddenly, the interesting one.

Books written by people who could not have looked it up. I have drifted towards older writing, and I have thought about why. I think it is because an author working from a lifetime of accumulated attention writes differently from one assembling from what is available. The difference is not accuracy. It is a certain weight-bearing quality in the sentences, the sense that they cost something.

Idiosyncrasy. The machine has no accent. It has no regional habits, no crotchets, no wrong-but-alive turn of phrase that could only have come from one person who thinks in one particular way. After enough hours of unfailingly smooth competence, I have developed something close to hunger for a human being’s peculiarities — including the irritating ones.

Disagreement with actual people. The machine is agreeable. It will argue if instructed, and it will do so without any stake in the outcome. A friend who thinks you are wrong has something to lose by saying so, and that risk is precisely what makes the conversation worth having. I value it more now than I did a year ago, and I value it more because of a technology that cannot supply it.

The unexpected shape of it

None of this makes me a sceptic. I am not filing a complaint. The habit continues, most evenings, and I expect it to continue for years.

But if you asked what I have actually acquired from taking up the newest thing on earth, the answer is not a set of predictions about where it is going. The answer is a much clearer sense of what was quietly holding everything up before it arrived — the slowness, the cost, the peculiarity, the friction, the fact that a person chose the words and can be asked why.

I took up the future as a pastime.

It made an antiquarian of me, and I did not see that coming at all.

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 29 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:823

Everyone has a coincidence story. I checked, carefully, and I do not have one. That absence turned out to be far more interesting than any story I could have told.

The Coincidence I Never Had

Today’s prompt asks for the weirdest coincidence I have ever experienced. I sat with it for a while, walked back through the years, and came up with nothing.

Not a modest nothing. No lost heirloom returned by a stranger. No chance meeting with someone from my own street. No phone call from the friend I had just been thinking about. If the universe has been sending me signals, it has been doing so on a frequency I do not receive.

For a while, I blamed my memory. Now I suspect it is something else: a failure to notice.

What I Was Trained to Do with a Coincidence

I work with evidence. That changes how you hear the word coincidence.

Outside the courtroom, coincidence is a charming story. Inside it, coincidence is a claim—usually a contested one. One side says, “Look how unlikely this is.” The other says, “Unlikely things happen all the time, and noticing this one tells us something about you, not necessarily about the event.”

The law recognizes that repeated occurrences can become relevant when deciding whether something was accidental or intentional. Once may be chance. Twice invites a question. Eventually, a jury may stop believing in luck. But the law cannot tell us exactly where that point lies.

The Most Expensive Coincidence

Sally Clark’s two infant sons died thirteen months apart. She was convicted of their murder after a paediatrician testified that the odds of two such deaths in one family were one in seventy-three million.

That figure was based on squaring the estimated probability of a single death—an assumption that required the two deaths to be independent. That had not been established. The Royal Statistical Society later stated that there was no statistical basis for the figure, and Clark’s conviction was eventually quashed.

The error became known as the prosecutor’s fallacy: confusing the probability of the evidence if someone is innocent with the probability that the person is innocent given the evidence. They are not the same.

So no, I do not collect coincidences. I was taught to interrogate them, and the lesson stayed with me.

What I May Have Trained Away

And yet.

J. E. Littlewood offered a useful corrective. If we experience roughly a million events a month, even a one-in-a-million occurrence should happen to us about once a month.

The improbable, in other words, is not necessarily extraordinary.

But statistics explain why an unlikely event occurs. They do not explain why that particular event catches our attention.

Jung saw synchronicity as meaningful connection beyond ordinary causality. The Stoics imagined an interconnected cosmos. Buddhism’s dependent origination likewise sees events as conditioned and interconnected, while the empiricist offers the simplest explanation: the pattern may be real, but its significance lies in the observer rather than the world.

I can keep my scepticism. But one possibility costs me something.

If coincidence reveals what the observer is already carrying—an unanswered question, a forgotten name, a decision postponed—then someone who notices no coincidences is not necessarily seeing the world more accurately.

He may simply be refusing to say what he carries.

Perhaps he has stopped knowing.

That, I suspect, is my honest answer to today’s prompt.

I have no weird coincidence to offer. What I have is the suspicion that they have been arriving on schedule all along—and that I have filed every one of them under ordinary before it could ask me anything.

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 28 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:649

Most people who abandon a book can tell you the page. I cannot, and that turned out to be the real confession.

No Admittance Except on Business

Most confessions of this kind come with a page number. People remember where they stopped — the paragraph, the airport, the winter. The abandonment has a scene, and the scene does most of the work of the essay.

Mine doesn’t. That is the part I find harder to admit than the abandonment itself.

The book is Marx’s Capital, Volume One. It is still on my shelf. I read most of it. I could not tell you, under oath, where I stopped.

Marx warned me, and warned me kindly. In the preface to the first German edition he grants that “every beginning is difficult, holds in all sciences,” and then, with a candour I still think is the most attractive thing about him, tells his reader outright that “to understand the first chapter, especially the section that contains the analysis of commodities, will, therefore, present the greatest difficulty.” He was right. The opening is where most readers are lost — the value-form, abstract labour, the commodity that appears at first sight a trivial thing and turns out to abound in metaphysical subtleties. Later, to his French publisher, he put it less gently: “There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits.”

I climbed it. Slowly, twice over in places, with the particular humility of a man who reads a sentence, understands it, and finds by the next morning that the understanding has drained out of him.

And then the book opens out, the way a mountain path does. Whatever else Marx is, he is a tremendous writer, and once the categories are laid down he turns them on the factory inspectors’ reports, and the argument becomes unbearable in the good sense — the hours, the children, the lungs, the working day. I read that. I read a great deal further. Somewhere past all of it, without a decision and without a page, I stopped.

This is where I am supposed to produce a reason. Work, perhaps; a season that ran long. But I have finished other long books in similar seasons, and I distrust the alibi. The truer account is duller and less flattering. Understanding the principle behind a passage was, for me, sometimes not easy — and more often it was easy in the moment and impossible to keep. I could follow. I could not carry. Somewhere in there I began to read the way one reads a long document one has already decided about, which is not reading at all.

I teach, among other things, and teaching has given me an unforgiving test for whether I have understood something: can I set it in front of another person without hiding behind the author’s sentences? For long stretches of Capital I could not. I could summarise. Summary is what understanding looks like from the outside.

But there is a second thing, and it is the reason I still think about the book rather than merely regretting it.

Near the end of Part Two, Marx does something I have never quite got out from under. He announces that we are leaving the marketplace — “this noisy sphere, where everything takes place on the surface and in view of all men” — and following the buyer and the seller of labour-power into “the hidden abode of production, on whose threshold there stares us in the face ‘No admittance except on business.'” The sphere we are quitting, he says, is “a very Eden of the innate rights of man. There alone rule Freedom, Equality, Property and Bentham.”

Freedom, Equality, Property.

I earn my living in that Eden. Those are not slogans in my working life; they are the load-bearing assumptions of an instrument. Willing parties. Consideration. A meeting of minds. An agreement that is valid precisely because nobody was compelled. And Marx does not say the words are lies — that would be easy to argue with, and I would enjoy arguing with it. He says something more disquieting. He says they are entirely true at the level where I am standing, and that the level where I am standing is the surface.

I want to be careful here, because this is not a conversion narrative. I did not put the book down because it had convinced me, and I have not spent the years since as a Marxist. A good deal of the machinery he builds in that volume is contested, for reasons I think are serious ones. The form he calls a surface has also, in my experience, sheltered people who had nothing else standing between them and someone stronger; freedom of contract is not only an illusion sold to the weak, and a person who has ever been protected by a signature knows it.

And yet.

What haunts you is never the part of a book you failed to understand. It is the part you understood. I already knew how to read an agreement for what it does not say — that is most of the job. He made me wonder what an entire vocabulary might not be saying. Mine included. And then, somewhere in the later pages, I closed the book and did not open it again, and I have never been able to satisfy myself that the two facts are unrelated.

So I have no scene to offer you. No bookmark at page 612, no slammed cover, no moment. Only a volume on a shelf that I have read most of, and a threshold I keep finding myself back at, standing on the wrong side of it with a book I never finished — which is, I suppose, business enough.

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 27 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:1015

You Would Hate It There

Daily Prompt, 26 August 2026: Which fictional world would be the most fun to vacation in?

The question carries a hidden assumption — that the worlds we love would be pleasant to occupy.

Almost none of them would.

Loving a world is a reader’s relationship with it: total immersion, total safety, and an exit available on every page. Visiting is a consumer’s relationship, and consumers ask duller questions.

I ask the duller questions for a living, which has spoiled me as a reader. I can no longer enter a fictional world without wondering what my standing in it would be.

So: five unromantic questions. What is the water like? Who treats you when you fall ill? What is your legal position as a foreigner? Is there anyone to complain to? And can you leave on the day you meant to?

Hogwarts is a school with a serious record of injury and death, and a single matron holding the line against children who fly, duel, and occasionally meet Dark wizards in corridors. In fairness, wizarding medicine outperforms ours: bones regrown overnight, injuries our hospitals would call permanent treated before dinner. None of which is available to you. You would arrive without a wand, which in that society is not an inconvenience but a social disadvantage. And if you are a Muggle, you will not find the castle at all — it presents itself to outsiders as a ruin with a sign advising them to keep out.

Middle-earth means weeks on foot between anywhere and anywhere else. Its medicine is better than the joke allows: Gondor keeps the Houses of Healing, with trained healers and genuine herb-lore, and the returning king’s hands are said to heal what they cannot. But the Houses are a war hospital in a besieged city, and their best healer is otherwise engaged becoming king. You would arrive in Gondor as an undocumented foreigner during a siege, which is the worst possible arrangement of nouns.

Wonderland runs the most efficient legal system in fiction: sentence first, verdict afterwards. Delightful to read. Ask yourself how it reads as a party to the proceedings.

Westeros everyone already concedes is spectatorial. Nobody who claims they would visit means they would like to attend a wedding.

A galaxy far, far away offers unregulated transport, no consular service worth the name, and slavery practised openly on the stops your itinerary will actually cross. The Republic outlawed it; Hutt space never noticed. There are pleasant planets, presumably. The itinerary has a habit of ending somewhere dusty.

The pattern is not accidental. We love the worlds with the most jeopardy, because jeopardy is what makes a story worth telling — and jeopardy is exactly what you pay a travel agent to remove.

The better a world is to read about, the worse it is to be in.

Fandom has this backwards, and cheerfully so.

The honest answer to this prompt, then, is somewhere nobody would put on a poster.

I would defend the dullest place in English literature.

In defence of the Hundred Acre Wood

No currency. No exchange rate, no tipping, no taxi from the airport, nobody to overcharge you.

No courts, no bureaucracy, and very little crime. Rabbit once organised a kidnapping and the matter was settled by lunchtime.

No enduring antagonist. Not a defeated one, not a dormant one, not one who returns in the third act. The local monsters — heffalumps, woozles, the Backson — exist mainly in the Wood’s imagination, and the imagining is done by the residents themselves.

The worst incident on record is a flood. The second worst is a misunderstanding about a jar.

Adventure is correctly scaled. The local expedition — an expotition — is an afternoon walk with a stated purpose that nobody minds failing to achieve. This is precisely the amount of jeopardy a holiday can absorb.

And the melancholic donkey is not fixed. Not converted, not given an arc, not told to try harder. His house falls down and his friends rebuild it — in the original account, out of the very sticks they had unwittingly taken from it — and not one of them suggests the falling down is his fault.

Yes, it is boring.

That is the argument, not a concession to it.

Everyone wants a story to tell; almost nobody wants to be inside one while it is happening.

A story, experienced from the inside, is simply a stretch of time in which you cannot rest and events are outside your control. We call that a crisis when it happens to us and a plot when it happens to someone we are reading about.

A holiday is the deliberate purchase of a few days with no plot in them at all.

The test of a destination is not what could happen there. It is what could go wrong, how far wrong, and whether anyone would help.

Measured that way, a wood of a hundred acres, a small and settled population, a reliable honey supply and no history to speak of beats every world that arrives with a map in the front of the book.

Your turn — and not which world you love. Which one would you last a fortnight in, and come home glad?

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 26 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:912

The Water Clock

If you could go back and witness any historical event, which one would you pick?

It is a spring morning in Athens and the court has no roof. Five hundred men sit on wooden benches in the open air, chosen at dawn by lot — potters, farmers, a shipwright with salt still in the creases of his hands. Some of them will sleep.

At the front a bronze vessel drips water into a second below: a man’s allotted time, measured not in minutes but in water. When the upper jar runs dry you stop speaking, mid-sentence if need be.

The charges: that the accused does not acknowledge the gods the city acknowledges, that he introduces new divinities, that he corrupts the young.

Then the old man stands. Seventy, barefoot, famously ugly, and he does not do what the court expects. He does not weep, has not brought his sons out to soften them, and says so, and says why — and the benches make a low sound. Thorubos, the Athenians called it: the murmur of a crowd deciding something. That is the sound I want. Anger? Delight? Or the noise a room makes when it understands that something has gone too far to be stopped?

Athens, 399 BCE. That is my answer, and here is the unromantic reason for it.

I would go as a witness in the narrow, legal sense — not to feel the day, but to fix the record. Because the record is terrible.

Almost everything we know of that trial comes from two men who loved him. Plato wrote years afterwards, a work of art rather than a transcript. Xenophon wrote another and was not even in Athens; he had it secondhand. Both are titled Apology — not apology, but defence speech, a literary genre with its own conventions and its own permissions. Neither is a stenographer’s page; there were no stenographers. Even the count, some two hundred and eighty against to two hundred and twenty for, reaches us through a compiler working six centuries later.

The most famous trial in Western memory survives as a partisan reconstruction, a genre exercise by an absent friend, and a late piece of arithmetic. In any court I would trust, that is not a record — it is hearsay with excellent prose style.

Take the seat and you could settle it: what was charged, in what words; whether he really proposed, as his own penalty, that the city feed him at public expense for life — an answer so precisely calculated to lose that I have never decided whether it is true or merely improved.

Then the honest limit, which the fantasy always skips.

A witness establishes what was said, never why. I could give you the words and the tally, not what moved two hundred and eighty men to raise a hand — piety, the long memory of the Thirty and the well-born young men he had taught, fatigue, the opinion of the man three benches down. Motive never enters the record. It stays in the room and leaves with the people.

Worse: I would come back carrying a memory, and memory is the instrument on trial here. Witnesses compress, smooth, acquire certainty about details they never saw, and do it in perfect good faith. I would return no more reliable than Plato — only more confident.

So the real reason is smaller, and harder to admit. I would want to know what it looked like from the benches: whether five hundred ordinary men, walking home to their suppers, understood that they had just made it a capital matter to ask the wrong questions in public — or whether it felt like an unremarkable Tuesday, a bit long, hot, and probably correct.

I suspect the second. That is the finding worth travelling for: not that injustice is loud, but that it is procedural, well attended, and adjourns on time.

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 25 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:692

A tattoo artist asks three questions: what, where, and how large. They are the questions of a trade. There is a fourth he never asks, and it is the only one that matters.

This reflection takes an ordinary writing prompt and follows it into the comparative ground where four great traditions have thought carefully about the marked body. Their disagreement is about ink. Their agreement is about motive — and about the danger of allowing a sign to substitute for the thing it signifies.

Written from the perspective of someone who has spent a lifetime shaping words meant to endure, only to witness how few of them do.

Three Questions at the Counter

What one word would you carry on your skin — and what would that choice reveal?

WordPress Daily Writing Prompt  |  24 August 2026

Prompt: If you had to get a tattoo right now, what would it be and why?

I have never set foot in a tattoo studio. But suppose I did — this morning, at my age, with four decades of ink of a very different kind behind me.

The artist would not be startled. He has seen older men than me come through that door, usually after a funeral or a diagnosis. He would put down his coffee, open a folder, and ask the three questions he asks everyone.

“What do you want?”

Not a design, I would tell him. A word.

He would wait, pen ready, expecting a name. A date. Somebody’s initials inside a heart.

Nevertheless.

Four syllables. Twelve letters. It is the least decorative word in the language, and I have loved it for most of my working life. In the statutes I drafted, words like that one did the heavy lifting — the small hinges on which large consequences turned. Everything before the conjunction is the situation as it stands. Everything after it is what shall now be done regardless.

It is also, if you look, the word most traditions have been trying to write on the body all along. Not the fact, but the defiance of it. The Baiga women of central India believed the godna on their skin was the one possession that would travel with them past death — everything else surrendered, this alone carried through. That is a nevertheless in ink.

“Where do you want it?”

On the palm, I would say.

He would shake his head. Palms are the one place ink will not hold. The skin there renews itself too quickly, the hand is used too hard, the lines are too deep. Whatever you put on a palm fades within the year. Choose the wrist. Choose the forearm. Anywhere but there.

And I would sit with that, because it is one of the more interesting facts I know.

Notice how much of the world’s marking gathers at the hand anyway, knowing it will not last. Henna on a bride’s palms in Kerala and in Cairo, elaborate beyond reason, gone in a fortnight. The tilaka pressed on the forehead at dawn and wiped away by evening. Pilgrims to Jerusalem taking the same cross from the same family of tattooists for seven hundred years, on the arm, where it will hold — but the ordinary devotion of ordinary days goes on the palm, where it will not.

There is a shrewdness in that. The deepest things are marked in the places that cannot keep a mark. What has to be reapplied daily is what has to be chosen daily.

“How large?”

Small, I would say. Very small.

He would push back, gently, the way a good craftsman does. At that size the letters crowd. Nobody will read it. What is the use of a word nobody can read?

But that is the point. The great truths have never needed large letters. A vow is eight words. A verdict is one. The most consequential sentence ever spoken over a human being takes up less space than a shopping list. It is the trivial that has to shout; what is true can afford to whisper.

Small enough to be private, I would tell him. Large enough that when somebody takes my hand at a hospital bedside and their own hand is shaking, they can read it at that distance. Twelve letters. Nevertheless.

Then he would set down his pen, because his three questions are done. What, where, how large. Those are the questions of a trade. He has no fourth.

But there is a fourth, and it is the only one that matters.

“Why?”

Here the traditions, which disagree about nearly everything else, turn out to agree with one another almost completely.

They disagree about the ink. Islamic jurisprudence, in the main, holds permanent tattooing forbidden — an alteration of fitra, the created nature a person is given rather than authors. Hindu thought carries two impulses at once: the body as an instrument to be consecrated, and the Vedantic warning that to identify with the perishable is to mistake the vehicle for the traveller. The Levitical prohibition, shared by Jews and Christians, was aimed narrowly at cultic self-marking for the dead, and has been read broadly ever since.

But on motive they converge, and they converge hard. Marking as identity, protection or consecration is tolerated nearly everywhere. Marking as self-display is commended nowhere. Not in any of them.

And there is a third thing none of them permits: letting the visible sign stand in for the invisible thing it was supposed to point to. The mark on the skin is easy. The inscription on the character is the labour of a lifetime. Where the first is offered as evidence of the second, something has quietly gone wrong.

So I would stand up at that point, and thank the man, and walk out without it.

Not because the word was wrong. Because the word is not meant for the skin, and putting it there would have been the cheaper way of keeping it.

That is the harder art, and no studio in the world can do it for you.

John Britto Kurusumuthu

Founder and Principal Author, Rise & Inspire

What word would you carry — and would you put it on your skin, or somewhere it costs you more to keep?

Written in response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 24 August 2026.

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:1078

What Outlives a State

In response to the WordPress Daily Writing Prompt for 23 August 2026 — “How did you meet your significant other?”

I

The question carries a hidden premise, and the premise is that there was a time when the two of you did not know each other.

It assumes a meeting: two separate parties, previously unacquainted, brought together on a particular day by chance or design, after which everything was different. It is a good assumption for most attachments. It is not a good assumption for the deepest ones. There are relations we do not enter into. We wake up already inside them, and the only discovery available to us is the discovery of what we have belonged to all along.

I want to write about one of those, and about what it taught me — which is a lesson not about affection at all, but about what a State is, and what survives the death of one.

II

My mother’s place and my father’s place lie a few hours apart. For every generation before mine, they were places in the same country. Both belonged to Thiruvithamcore — Travancore — a princely State with its own Government, its own courts, its own statute book, and a coastline that ran from the Arabian Sea deep into the south.

Then, on 1 November 1956, the States Reorganisation Act came into force, and the map was redrawn on the principle of language. Travancore-Cochin, which Travancore had by then become, was reconstituted. Most of it went to form the new State of Kerala, together with Malabar and Kasaragod. But four southern taluks — Thovala, Agasteeswaram, Kalkulam and Vilavancode — together with Shencottah, were transferred to Madras State, which would later be renamed Tamil Nadu.

The four taluks became Kanyakumari district.

Nobody moved. No family was displaced, no house was vacated, no one packed anything. And yet, between one day and the next, my father’s homeland and my mother’s homeland suddenly fell on opposite sides of a new State boundary. The line did not run between two peoples who had been apart. It ran through a people who had been together, and it was drawn by a Parliament sitting two thousand kilometres away, on a principle — linguistic homogeneity — that was reasonable in the general case and simply blind in the particular one.

That is the whole of the personal part of this essay. I set it down not because my family is interesting, but because it is the doorway to something that is.

III

Here is what ought to have happened next, if a State were the sort of thing our intuitions take it to be.

Travancore had legislated for a century and a half. It had laws of land tenure, of registration, of succession, of religious endowment, of local administration — a mature and in many respects an advanced statute book. When the polity that made those laws ceased to exist and its territory was parcelled between two successors, the natural expectation is that its laws died with it. A law is an act of a sovereign will. Remove the will, and the act should fall.

It did not fall. It could not be allowed to fall.

Consider what a legal vacuum would have meant on the morning of 1 November 1956. Every title to land held under a Travancore tenure would have become unprovable. Every marriage solemnised under a Travancore enactment would have hung in doubt. Every pending prosecution would have lost the section under which it was launched. Every registered instrument, every mortgage, every trust, every settlement of a temple’s affairs would have been suspended in mid-air. Not disputed — merely undocumented by any law then in force, which is worse.

So the Constitution and the reorganisation statute did what such instruments always do. Article 372 had already provided, at the founding, that laws in force immediately before the commencement of the Constitution should continue in force until altered by a competent authority. The States Reorganisation Act carried the same logic through the redrawing of the map: the reconstitution of territories was not to be treated as having altered the extent of any law then in force, and territorial references in existing laws were to be read as meaning the territories to which they applied immediately before the appointed day, until a competent Legislature provided otherwise.

Which is to say: Travancore’s laws continued to operate in Kanyakumari district after Travancore had ceased to exist, in a State that had never enacted them, over a population that was no longer its own.

The sovereign was gone. The statute book kept speaking.

IV

I find that fact more moving than I can easily justify, and I have spent a long time working out why.

Part of it is professional. A person who has spent his working life in the Government Secretariat at Thiruvananthapuram, in the service of the Government of Kerala, and who returns each time to a district where Travancore’s enactments had never quite stopped speaking, is standing at a seam that most people never see. The revenue records of that district still carry the vocabulary of a vanished administration. The tenures have Travancore names. The categories in which land is held were invented by clerks in an office that no longer exists, for a Maharaja who no longer reigns, in a State that is no longer on any map. And they still determine who owns what.

But the larger part of it is not professional at all. It is this: we habitually mistake which part of a polity is the real one.

We think the real State is the flag, the boundary, the seat of Government, the name on the map — the visible apparatus. And the visible apparatus turns out to be the most fragile part. It can be dissolved by a statute in an afternoon. What proves durable is the sediment: the law, the record, the practice, the habit of a people who have been governed a particular way for a long time. That is not administered from the capital. It is deposited in the ground.

A State is not abolished when its Government is dissolved. It is abolished when the last of its law has been repealed and the last of its practice forgotten, and that takes generations, and sometimes it never happens at all.

V

Now return to the question we began with.

We are all born into a set of attachments that we did not choose, cannot resign from, and did not meet. A language was in the air before we could speak it. A faith was practised in the house before we could assent to it. A body of custom shaped what our elders thought obvious, and they passed it to us as though it were the nature of things rather than one arrangement among many. A political and legal order determined, before we were consulted, whose courts would hear us and whose statutes would bind us.

None of that was met. All of it was inherited.

And I have come to think that the moral life consists very largely in what we do with the inheritance — because the one thing we cannot do is pretend to have arrived at it freshly. There is no neutral ground from which to evaluate what formed us. We assess our inheritance with faculties that our inheritance gave us. The honest position is not to claim independence from it but to know it well enough to be answerable for it: to keep what is worth keeping, to amend what needs amending by the proper procedure, and never to imagine that repealing a thing removes it from the ground.

Borders are provisional. Governments are provisional. What we have been formed by is not.

VI

So: how did I meet my significant other?

I did not. A line was drawn through a family, a State was dissolved, and its laws went on quietly governing the district where I was raised — and I discovered, many years later and by profession, that I had been living inside a relationship that predated my capacity to notice it.

The meeting, when it came, was not an introduction. It was recognition.

John Britto Kurusumuthu Rise & Inspire

Explore more at the Rise & Inspire archive |  Daily Prompts 

© 2026 Rise & Inspire.

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

Word Count:1395