Are We Truly Evolving Beyond Basic Instincts?
Questioner: Earlier you said that there has been no inward evolution, nothing has changed inwardly, so we are essentially the same people who were roaming the jungles once. But still, somewhere in the course of evolution, we did become this human species with a higher capacity of consciousness compared to the rest of the physical nature. So, hasn’t there been at least some level of inward evolution?
Acharya Prashant: There has been no inward evolution. Let’s discuss that.
Look at an amoeba or a paramecium. Don’t you see that its basic instinct is just the same as that of the most evolved human being? It wants to exist, you want to exist—what has changed? You are still the amoeba. Oh, you can contradict me in a thousand ways possible. What I am saying is so vulnerable to arguments that you can trash it in no time. But with some empathy and understanding, try to get into the truth of it.
With all our evolutionary gifts—intellect, memory, muscle, the subsequent development of a suitable and comfortable ecosystem aided by technology—are we still fundamentally different from any other kind of conscious lifeform on the planet anywhere else? Tell me, please. An amoeba reproduces, so do we. An amoeba eats, and so do we.
“No sir, but, you know, there is so much that we do not share with amoebas!”
Let’s see, please. Is there anything that you do that is fundamentally not centered on stuff that an amoeba does? An amoeba wants its space, its territory—even a little plant does, a blade of grass does, and the most primitive being does. See what you use your knowledge and your skills for. Aren’t your resources, your money going so much towards acquiring space and territory, both physical and psychological? Tell me, please.
An amoeba wants to have personal space, space that it can declare as its own, territory that it can monopolize. That’s what even an amoeba wants. You could say we do so much, but aren’t we doing so much just to do what the amoeba does? The amoeba obviously doesn’t go to the office every day. You do go to the office, but you go to the office to do what the amoeba does.
The amoeba has no laboratories, it does not develop technologies. But we have laboratories and we have developed technologies—to do what the amoeba does. The amoeba does not have language; we have language. What do we use language for? To do what the amoeba does. What do you speak for? Please, tell me.
We said today the session started late because the people around were playing loud music and such stuff. What were all those songs about? They are about reproduction, you see. Let’s put it bluntly. The fellow wants to mate. He is using words to invite the other human of the opposite gender to mate, and that’s what we call as songs. At least that’s the kind of song we use on celebratory New Year’s Eve.
So, you have language. What do you use language for? You use language to mate. That’s also what the amoeba does—without using language. In fact, the amoeba is more efficient. You use so many words just because you are wooing a female—words and instruments and loudspeakers. Goodness! You know, the amoeba is so efficient that not only does it not need words, it does not even need a female. It just multiplies on its own! It’s both a male and a female, it’s neither a male nor a female.
Is there anything that you do that is fundamentally different from what an amoeba does? So, where is evolution? Please, tell me. Whatever we do, we do for the sake of existence; we want to remain. We want to remain as we are. That’s also exactly what the amoeba wants. How are you different?
Now, today we have taken the amoeba; at other times I have taken up the dog. People find that offensive, so I said fine, amoeba. But I still maintain that the dog is more handy. If you look at all that a dog does and all that you do, it would be so easy to establish a clear mapping, a very direct correlation. There is not a single thing that you do and a dog doesn’t. Where is your evolutionary superiority? Tell me, please.
But we read! Ah, for what? For what do you read? You read to feed yourself; you read to clothe yourself; you read to acquire physical and psychological space. A dog manages all of that even without reading. You need to draw international boundaries—the dog just has to lift his leg! The dog doesn’t have to appoint a commission, McMahon or something, to draw a meticulous international boundary. “This is my territory. How do I mark it? By peeing!”
You know, that’s the truth of all territorial occupation, all territorial obsession. You want territory so that you can pee and shit over it, irrespective of whether that territory is physical, mental, or bodily. Why do you want to acquire territory in the form of a human body? “I own you. You are mine, you are my territory. Just as that’s my scooter, that’s my car, that’s my bungalow—that’s my wife or husband. What do I do once I acquire the territory? I will pee over it!” Now, that’s already offensive, but can’t help it.
What else do you do once you have acquired a man or a woman? Think of it, please. There was one thing that you could not do without acquiring that person—spoil his or her body. Once you have acquired him, then… Literal shit.
“No, but we keep our houses clean! Why are you saying that we acquire territory to spoil it? Once we acquire territory, we in fact make additional efforts to keep it clean.”
That’s what. The cleanliness that you are talking of is shit. You acquire territory to use it to maintain yourself. The dog uses territory to suit its own personal purpose. That’s what we are calling as spoiling or dirtying.
So, it might appear that you are keeping your place very clean, but still, the purpose is very dirty: “The purpose is the continuation of my existence as I am. My place will be used to provide me comfort and security.” That’s a very dirty purpose.
Evolution will not take you beyond the body or the self. Wisdom would. That’s why I keep harping: Don’t attach too much significance to age. No age is small enough to prevent you from moving into wisdom, and no age is advanced enough to prevent you from moving into wisdom.
Evolution will not help, experience will not help, age will not help; only wisdom would help. If you think that experience will deliver wisdom to you, you are badly mistaken. If you think being called a senior citizen will deliver you from Maya , you are in a fool’s paradise.
Questioner: So, we as human beings have the potential to go beyond that which we have in common with all other animals. We have the capacity to move towards liberation, and an animal cannot do that.
Acharya Prashant: And an animal does not want to do that. That’s not how it is biologically constituted.
Questioner: So, is this potential also biological?
Acharya Prashant: Yes. This potential is the potential of your body. Only your body is designed in a way that the consciousness attached to it can seek freedom from it. You could even say that only man is unfortunate enough to not remain contented with the body. All other life forms are contented with the body; only man is born with a special urge. This you could take as his superiority or his misfortune.
No animal experiences the angst that a human being does. Animals don’t have to go through so much tension and inner strife; they don’t turn depressed, neurotic, or suicidal so easily. We do because we are special. We are special animals. Not that we are absolutely special, we are just special animals.
Questioner: So, we are saying that there has been no inward evolution, and yet we do possess an evolutionary and bodily capacity to go beyond the material, a potential to transcend the body itself. This seems contradictory. How to reconcile this?
Acharya Prashant: The problem is, that ‘potential’ is a very deceptive word. You use the word ‘potential’ to defend your notion that man is special. You say man has the potential for liberation, therefore man is special. You say man has the potential for liberation, therefore man is better than animals.
I take potential as a phantom, as Maya , a myth. Potentially, we are all divine; potentially, we are all the true Self, Ātman . So what? Where is that potential expressing itself in your life? The only use you have for that potential is that you use it to defend your unreasonable sense of grandeur and superiority.
We are potentially great. Two hoots to your potential. What are you, really? What are you living as? Potentially, yes, you could be sage Angiras. What are you living your life as? Tell me that. You are living your life as the amoeba; therefore, I will call you the amoeba. I won’t call you Angiras.
You might be born with so much potential—that’s actually unfortunate because you will die with so much potential. Would have been better had you been born with no potential, because that potential is never going to fructify, you will just die with it; with you it would be turned to ashes.
What’s the point in talking of that mythical potential and singing and dancing around it? You know, our possible glory! Possible glory, or current debauchery? I want to talk of the latter. Because without talking of your current debauchery, your possible glory is anyway always going to remain just a myth, a utopia, a chimera.
Like how people talk of their great ancestors. “You know, I come from the line of the great king who once used to rule Delhi.” How does that help you? Look at your life. How does that help you? “I come from the line of the Buddha or Mahavira!” Who are you? Look at your life. All the time you are violent—and you are talking of Buddha and Mahavira.
“Oh, but, you know, I am a Bharadvāja Brahmin!”—or some other Brahmin—“I come from the line of sage Agastya!” And even as you say this, you are spitting chicken bone out from your mouth. Steeped in ignorance you are talking of this glory, that glory, this highness, that beauty.
Potentially, you could have been the topper of your class. I want to know what you actually did. Potentially, you could have won eight Nobel prizes by now—but I know you couldn’t have graduated without cheating. That’s your reality.
Isn’t it actually a disgrace that in spite of having potential, we live the life of an amoeba? Doesn’t that not only make us equal but rather worse than the amoeba? The amoeba never had the potential of being anything beyond the amoeba; you had the potential, and you still lived as the amoeba. Now, tell me, are you better or worse than the amoeba? Worse than the amoeba.
That’s the reason I keep saying the dogs are better than us. They are at least performing to their average.
You know, there is a tail-ender—I am talking of cricket—his batting average is ten; he has no more potential. His batting average is ten, and he comes to bat and gets out at ten. Is that a bad performance? Not at all, he is performing to his average. Now, you are a top-order batsman, your average is fifty-eight; that’s your potential, right? You could have made fifty-eight or more, and you come and you get out at ten. Who is better, the tail-ender or you? So, the dogs are better than us.
Happened with me, you know. I stood third in my class, class four or five, and got bashed up at home. It wasn’t a bad performance by any means, third in a class of forty or fifty. Got beaten up.
And then I rebelled. I said, “This, my sister, she never even manages a single digit rank, but happily she carries her report card, comes in, throws it away, and starts rolling on the bed, and nobody utters a word to her! All the time she is just happy. I burn the midnight oil, she keeps snoring. She came thirteenth in her class, I came third. She is still happy, I have been bashed up. This won’t do!”
My mother said, “You have done far worse than her.” I couldn’t really grasp it. Now I think I do.
If you have potential and you don’t live up to it, life will offer you the harshest punishment, because you have failed in your one duty as a human being: to materialize your potential. That’s your only dharma .
Your potential the Upanishads call as Ātman . You have it, and yet you do not have it.
