Congratulations. You're The Perfect Prisoner.
Questioner: Hello sir, I'm Jitendra Shah, second year PhD student. Coincidentally, my question is in contrast to hers. So basically, I wanted to ask why there is a need to have a goal, like why is it considered a virtue? Suppose she said she does not have an idea and she's trying random things, but one fine day she discovers something she loves. But again, people try to attach that thing to a goal. Suppose she likes music, again, people, "Oh, why don't you pursue it further?" and all. So, why is having a goal considered a virtue? Why is it necessary? I don't understand that.
Acharya Prashant: No, you see, there are possibly two kinds of goals. So, if you are a prisoner in a jail, you will not be allowed to sit idle. They'll want you to work. They'll want you to be productive. They'll give you tasks and targets. Right? This is what you have to do, just to survive here, to be called a decent prisoner. And if you do this, you will have some compensation. Even prisoners do get paid. Do this, and they'll be disburse money credited to your account, and you can have it when you walk out, if you walk out.
That's one kind of goal, a goal imposed on you. In the jail, it is very gross, very optical, very visible, undeniable. It is very clear that what you are doing is somebody else's wish. But you have to do that, right? By evening, you have to do something. That's a goal. Type 1 goal. The type that the prisoner in the jail has.
And then, there is another prisoner who's serving a life term, in touch with reality, knowing fully well they'll never release him. This life term is not 14 years. It is actually a life term, a full life term. So, his goal is to somehow break away and break free. That's type 2 goal. Now, you tell me whether or not you should have goals in life.
And there is a situation 3 as well. The prisoner actually manages to flee. Now, it's the third situation. Now, must he have goals?
So, there is no need to have goals only when you are really free. When you're really free, then go play. Life is a playground. Enjoy yourself. No need to have any goals.
But we are not free. We are prisoners. Therefore, we need to have goals. Unfortunately, we all have type 1 goals. Keep pursuing these type 1 goals, and you will stay in your prison all your life. You definitely and desperately do need goals, but you need type 2 goals. But you're so busy. So busy. Super occupied. “Oh, I'm very busy. I'm very busy. I'm very busy.”
Doing what?
Carrying out the jailer's wish.
“Oh, I'm very busy.”
Just that the jailer remains invisible. Just that the walls remain invisible. Just that the handcuffs remain mental rather than physical. So, we keep flattering ourselves that we are free. No, we are not free. We are all prisoners here. We are all prisoners here, puffed up in pride. You know, there is this particular prisoner, prisoner number 101, and he says, “I’m the topper.” Why? Because I achieve all the type one goals instructed to me by my oppressors. They have given me these goals, and I'm the topper. I'm the most obedient one. I'm the most pliant slave. I'm the most cooperative prisoner. I'm the topper.
Who am I?
The type 1 achiever. Give me a goal, and I'll beat everybody to it. Give me a deadline, and I'll be the first one. Show me a target, and I'll be rank one.
Who am I?
The top prisoner. And the top prisoner remains the favorite of the jailer. Anybody can be released, but this one would never be released.
Do have goals. Do have burning goals. Don't sit idle for a moment. Let the fact of your slavery keep incinerating you from inside. You must be smoldering. There must be smoke. You cannot be happy, satisfied, content, because you are in a jail. We are born there. We are all born there. Almost like in the legend, Shri Krishna was born in a prison. That's where we are all born.
**The purpose of life is to break free. Instead, we are busy decorating prison walls, and hanging expensive artworks in our prison cells, and displaying them on social media. Marrying fellow prisoners, and raising families in the prison. And once you have done that, even if you want to get away, the family won't allow you to get away. They'll say, “We are all here. And you're trying to scale the wall? Disloyal.”
Must you have a goal?
Questioner: Type 2.
Acharya Prashant: Type 2.
Questioner: Is there a way to become type 3?
Acharya Prashant: Can type 3 come before type 2?
Questioner: No.
Acharya Prashant: Sorry.
Questioner: Namaste, sir. My name is Maheshwar. I am from Niger. I'm doing a PhD. First of all, it is really a privilege for us that we got this opportunity to be here with you.
So, my question first will be started from the follow-up from Subhalakshmi, that you said that how do you know ourselves? That is the essential thing to move forward. So, we have to be selfish, but how can we be selfish? How can we know ourselves? That is a first follow-up question. And after that, I will say my second…
Acharya Prashant: You are knowing yourself all the time. This constant feeling of being is the initiation of self-knowledge. Don't you constantly know that you are? The sad part is, you know of yourself only as a lingering dissatisfaction. Why does it feel peaceful to sleep? Because the dissatisfaction subsides for a while. And so, you say, “Fine. Too much tension. Let me go to sleep.”
The moment you get up, there is again that feeling of being. I am. You don't wake up. I-am-ness wakes up. Does it not? The moment you wake up, you say, “Oh, I again am.” And all the usual nonsense returns. So, you do know yourself. What else is all restlessness for? What else is all the tension, the worry, the anxiety for?
If you do not know yourself, who is hoping? Who is dreaming? Who is envious? There is constant experience of the self. Right? Just that the experience tells of an unhealthy self. We do not experience the self as bliss. We experience the self as tension, stress. Being awake is stress. To be is to be anxious. And therefore, that's where you must begin from. What exactly is this constant humming inside? Who keeps buzzing? What's this inner voice? What's the background noise? Because it is in this buzz, this noise, that the self is experienced.
The Buddha said, first principle, first noble Truth: suffering. The self is experienced by the common man as nothing but suffering. Right? We all do suffer. Right? It's just that sometimes we give this suffering very, very decorated names. For example, ambition.
“Oh, he's very driven. Oh, he's a go-getter. Oh, he's so ambitious. Or, Oh, she's so dominating. She's so possessive.” All these are just decorated names for suffering. When you are truly yourself, full and healthy, you cannot be ambitious, really. So, all this that you carry within, all this that you attach your name to, is actually an experience of the self.
The self is not some mysterious entity to be found through exotic spiritual means. The self is there in everyday experiences. In fact, you cannot have an experience without the self, because the self is the experiencer.
Constantly, when you say you are, that's a declaration of the self. “I am.” That's a declaration of the self. The self is there, and the self is suffering. Don't ignore that suffering. Don't try to mask it by renaming it. You get this? Don't give it a colorful mask. The self is there.
Somebody asks you, “How are you?” Don't say, “I'm so good. All is well.’ It's lit large on your face that you're under something. Don't deceive yourself. Camouflage won't work inwardly. For self-knowledge, discovering the self, all these are nothing complex. In fact, I wonder how somebody can avoid the self. It's almost like saying, “I'm sick, but I avoid suffering.” How can you do that? It will take a terrible kind of inner pretense to do that. No?
Keep looking into the mirror. Keep looking into the mirror. That's self-observation. Not just this face, the inner face. That's self-observation. You can deceive the world with your smiles, but inwardly, if you're not smiling, that's not the way to be.
Questioner: Still sir there is a confusion whenever we introspect, that what we really are is. But sometimes this conditioning will be mirrored, that we are that person, that is our true identity. But sometimes we again introspect that that is not our true identity. So, this confusion is always going on. So, how can we know that this is our true identity?
Acharya Prashant: Self-observation is not about introspecting and trying to think about your true identity or trying to discover it. All that involves a phase lag. Introspection involves a time gap. Something has happened, and now you are looking back at it. That's not self-observation.
Self-observation is real time, knowing the inner thing as it moves, not after it has moved. Knowing the inner thing as it moves. And that is not difficult. Why? Because the one who will know the inner thing is the same as the inner thing. So, it's not difficult to avoid the phase lag. If the one observing the thing within were different from the observed thing, then there would be a lag. And then you will say, “I'm introspecting.” Right? I'm introspecting because there was something within, and now I am observing it. So, there are two, the observer and the observed thing. And wherever there would be two, there would be a gap and a lag.
But, thankfully, that is not the case with self-observation, because the ego has to look at itself. So, the observer and the observed are one. Which means you don't have to make any efforts. Which means you already know. You have to look at yourself, right? How can anything be hidden? You're not looking at a separate object. You're not looking at a second thing. You're looking at yourself. So, you already know. Then what is missing? Honesty. What is missing? Honesty.
We are master deceivers. Something is happening within, and we don't admit it. The state of the self, we don't acknowledge it. So, self-observation is simply honesty.
It is not an activity. All activities take time. All activities will lie behind. All activities will keep playing catch-up. All activities will involve separation and, therefore, obfuscation, deception, signaling, and decoding. And in decoding, there can always be noise. The self has to look at itself. It's like looking in a mirror. The one looking is looking at himself. You're not looking at something else.
Therefore, it's not introspection. We're not talking of thinking about yourself. “Oh, why did I get so angry in the morning? Why am I still angry till night?” No, this is not self-observation. Self-observation is simply inner honesty. Inner honesty. I am. I do. I know. No second party here. I am. I do. And therefore, who else will? If I don't know, who else will? I am. I do. And therefore, obviously, I know. This is self-observation. Okay?
Questioner: If I am observing myself constantly in real time, won't there be distractions?
Acharya Prashant: You're again taking it as an…? He's saying, “If I'm constantly observing myself, won't I be distracted? For example, I'm driving, and I'm observing the road, and I also have to observe myself, so I'll be distracted and the car will bang against something.” That's the assumption. How do I answer this?
It's not that there is the road ahead of you and the self behind you. So, two times. You have to look into the windshield and the rearview mirror at once. Therefore, the car collides. That's the mental model you're coming from. It's a flawed model.
Self-observation does not mean looking at anything. Observation, the word is there only for practical reasons. Language requires some word, so that word is being used. Self-observation is not the same as observing the road in front of you or observing anything else. There is nothing second here. There is no other here.
You're driving, right? And today you're driving at 90 or 100. That's significantly more than your usual speed. Should you allow the accelerator to remain pressed? Should you allow the engine to just keep revving? Or should you just spontaneously know that you are angry, or impatient, or hurt, and that hurt is showing up in the speed of the car or the bike?
Spontaneous acknowledgement, that's self-observation. The car is running not just on petrol today. The car today is running on my hurt. I used to do 60. The extra 30 is the hurt. That's self-observation. That does not require you to look at the speedometer or the fuel tank or something else. You already know because it's happening to you. Who else will know? How can anybody else know? Only you can know.
Questioner: Sir, I did not mean it in terms of material. I meant, suppose anger is fine. If I start addressing that, oh, I'm getting angry, then it comes down. But suppose if I'm doing something very pleasurable, and if I start thinking, okay, this is very pleasurable, then the pleasure goes down.
Acharya Prashant: You already know that, right? You already know that. But just so that the pleasure continues, you will not admit. See, you already know. In fact, you know beforehand. Therefore, in your moments of pleasure, you switch off the lights so that you don't have to admit.
Had you not known it to be a dark thing, you wouldn't have switched off the lights. You'd have said, “Let it remain visible. What's the harm?” That's why, when you want to celebrate, you need loud music, so that it becomes easier to deceive yourself. And you also need some beer, something to intoxicate you, so that it becomes easier to forget the reality.
Have you seen how difficult most people find it to celebrate in silence? Why do we need loud music? And why does one need beer or whiskey? So that it's easier to remain dishonest. You already know. And nobody can force you to admit that, right? So, the whole thing stops there. It's your life, your sovereign decision. You have to admit what's really going on. Nobody else can do it for you.
Questioner: Namaskar, Acharya Ji. I'm Arushi Deshmukh from B.Tech first year. Actually, I walked in with a different question, and now I have a different question based on the discussion we are in. So, how do we know that the self exists? Can it be a delusion?
Acharya Prashant: How do I know that I exist?
Questioner: I mean, all emotions.
Acharya Prashant: “I mean.” Whose emotions?
Questioner: The emotions that the body feels.
Acharya Prashant: Is the body talking? Introduce yourself as the body. Don't say, “I am…”
What is your name?
Questioner: Arushi.
Acharya Prashant: No, not Arushi. Thirty-two teeth, ten fingers, and the rest of it.
Questioner: So, isn't everything just neurology? Whatever we feel, whatever we think.
Acharya Prashant: You're right. You're very right. And I wish this stays with you. Yes, obviously, the self, the ego, is a biochemical, neurological construct, and it really does not exist. Unfortunately, in spite of not existing, it controls life. Maya. You search for the self, and you won't find it. There is no molecule, no agency, no node, no cell, no neuron inside called the self. It really doesn't exist. It's a flawed perception. It's a self-referential agency.
Only the self says that I exist. But then, there is nobody here who'd admit that he or she doesn't exist. Right?
Questioner: Yeah, exactly.
Acharya Prashant: So then, the thing is, it doesn't merely exist. It exists and suffers. This entire discussion is not for the body. This entire discussion is for the suffering one who is false. Actually hollow, still suffering.
If we are discussing, it's not for the sake of our nose or our hair or our arms. This entire discussion is for the sake of the ego, the self, because only the ego suffers. The self exists as a suffering entity. This entire discussion is only for the self, the ego-self. And the discussion is so that the ego-self can see that it does not exist.
The seeing self, which is the ego, has to be made, rather helped, to see its own non-existence. Non-existence in terms of, “I think I am, but I'm just a bundle of influences. I think I decide, but the decision is actually being made by forces that I don't even know of.”
I articulate the decision. I own the decision. I take credit for the decision. But the decision is being made long before I even know of it. So, this I-ness is actually false. But, so sad, it's very difficult to accept that. This entire discussion is to make it easier.
You can very happily be without this self-referential, this circular reasoning called the ego. You can very well be. And that's the point of all philosophy and all wisdom literature. To happily exist without the inner burden. To joyfully be without the inner dictator. To live healthily without the false disease inside.
You can speak without the inner agency. It is possible. You can listen without the inner agency. It is possible. In fact, if you are listening at all this moment, that listening can happen only if the ego is not intruding. In the process of listening, the self is not needed. And if the self is there, listening will be impeded. The same applies to all other activities and moments in life. Everything can happen very nicely, very smoothly, very perfectly without the self.
You are greatest when you are not. You are the most beautiful without yourself. You are the fastest, the best, the perfect one, when the inner thing is not.
The entire field of what you may call philosophy, or wisdom, or spirituality, since centuries, is just there so that life is, and the false owner of life is not. Now you're really alive.
