Deep Superstitions of The Modern Mind
Questioner: You have quite an illustrious standing when it comes to demolishing all that is false. I personally find that intriguing. In a world of distrustful agendas that people carry, what has been your driving force? People either have blind faith in a failed leader or they don't connect at all with this side of spirituality. So, how is it working between these two extremes that you often come across?
Acharya Prashant: You see, both these extremes are one thing, really. When people go blindly into accepting something or somebody, then they are not inquiring, they are not questioning, they are going by belief. This belief is on the traditional or religious side. Nevertheless, it is a belief. Then there are people, who reject stuff and are convinced that the entire field of wisdom or spirituality is fraught with charlatans and mischief-makers. Even these people are not inquiring or questioning, trying to seek the truth; no, that's not what they are doing. They, too, are just believing. And this belief is a little bit on the progressive side, so-called progressive side, modern side, liberal side, whatever you want to call it. Nevertheless, it is just a belief.
Real wisdom or spirituality deals with inquiry. It does not exist to reinforce beliefs on either end of the spectrum, or anywhere in the middle of the spectrum. So it's not as if one has to straddle between these two ends. No, not really in between them, but beyond them, above them. One has to ask, one has to question, and one has to try to understand. You see, Vedanta very emphatically elaborates, and if you pay attention, it comes from our everyday experience also, that our nature is to know. The nature of our consciousness is to know, and without knowing, we do not feel at rest, at peace. That is the reason we do not like it when somebody lies to us, because he has prevented us from knowing. Knowing what? - the truth, truth at a factual level.
The truth is not at an absolute level, but we are always looking for something. We want to find, we want to inquire. We question so much. Even a newborn is touching this, holding that, groping in the dark, doing stuff. And it's very obvious that even in a one-year-old or two-year-old, the nature of consciousness is to know. So, that's what spirituality is all about—knowing, not believing.
Spirituality has nothing to do with any kind of any belief system. People who think that wisdom is about believing that such things exist, God or gods or goddesses exist, or heavens exist, or life after death exists, or reincarnations exist, or so many other things.
No, that's not spirituality. Spirituality wants to find out and question in all possible ways, including all means and at both ends. It wants to find out the truth of what we see, and the truth of the one who is seeing. It wants to find out the reality of the seen universe, as well as that of the seeing mind. The subject and the object both have to be known; that is spirituality.
So, whether it's believers or atheists, they, from where I look at them, belong to the same bracket. They are living in ideologies. They are living in imported knowledge into which they have not bothered to delve deeply and figure out the reality.
Right now, we are conversing this way, this is a spiritual process in progress. A scientist, in his laboratory, experimenting to know what is really happening, or what really happens, is doing something deeply spiritual. Equally, a person just sitting calmly and introspecting is doing something spiritual. You write in your diary, you're reflecting on the day even as you have to retire to your bed at night, that's something spiritual; now this is spirituality. Spirituality is not some mumbo-jumbo, or system of superstition, or this or that, no.
Questioner: It is a very different perspective when coming from you that they don't necessarily belong to different classes. It's just one way from where you see it. And it gives me a little insight as to how you look at people. And I think that also supports why you're easily becoming people's favored person to go to these things. Because whenever you are telling somebody something, which they don't necessarily believe in, you don't come out as a hostile person, which is otherwise the case. If I go to some person who has the knowledge and if I tell them that I don't know this and may not really believe in this. They either would belittle my number one, or they would try to put forth their opinions in quite a harsh way. So, if you are coming from a perspective like that, we are both on the same part of the spectrum. So it becomes very easy to speak to you, and then the conversation might be more meaningful and more accommodating as a viewer, as a receiver, or a listener.
It is very easy to say that you are people's favorite, or it is very easy to say that you enjoy a kind of audience that relates to you. But behind this is where you understand that it's not different at all. It's just about knowing at the end of the day. It is not related to a belief system. It's just that the day is the day you realize that we are just all the same.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, if you read the central texts of Vedanta and the Upanishad, they are all in the form of conversations. The entire process is very dialectic. Two people are conversing: the seeker and the seer. One is asking a question, and the other is saying something in response. And then comes another question and then another response, and it's not as if the seeker is sitting there already converted, already prepared, or predisposed to just accept anything. There are a series of arguments.
If you read how Gargi and Yajnavalkya are talking to each other, you would often even sense anger in the respondent, because the questions are so sharp. Similarly, when in the Bhagavad Gita, Arjun is not an easy one to convince. At some point, he even almost goes to the extent of accusing Krishna, that Krishna is misleading him. So, it is not preaching at all; in any sense, it's a conversation. Now, that's where real spirituality comes from. Now contrast that to what we see, even in some of the elite ideological circles today.
People believe in stuff without knowing the facts, the reality. I'm not here referring to the transcendental truth; I'm referring here to the world facts. For example, somebody has a position on climate change, somebody has a position on flesh consumption, and somebody has a position on farm laws. People are sticking to their guns and very stubbornly defending their opinions, and you just scratch things a little and discover that those opinions are without any factual base.
We do not even know what is really going on, and yet we are so insistent on what we want to say. Now, this is superstition. So a lot that is very, very modern is actually very, very superstitious, and a lot that is very ancient is actually very scientific, very pure, and very egalitarian in the sense that there is a conversation in which there is no real authority. Even if there is an authority, the authority does not want you to accept his words merely because they carry the weight of the authority. The words have to be weighed and assessed on their own merit. So that's the way of the ancients, a way of equals, a way of liberty, a way carrying the most liberal and progressive values.
In contrast, what you see, as we said, even in the most modern, even post-modern circles today, we call ourselves modern, but we are actually operating from very primordial centers. The center that we have inherited from the jungle is the center of the animal. The way of the animal is not to enquire. The way of the animal is to just rush after its animal instincts, and later on, we use arguments to defend our instincts. No, that is not good at all! That's not the way of consciousness to operate as per your instincts, and then use logic, reason, or argument to just defend your instinct. That's hardly good.
Questioner: You are quite an insightful person when it comes to understanding what is your method of approaching the content that you share with your audience. To me, this conversation not only tells me a lot about how you oppose, but also why you are so conveniently convincing when you speak to someone. Probably, if somebody is getting to know this for the first time, they might have their inhibitions, but if they are working with you, through this idea that you carry with you, it's very easy to really understand. It's very easy to imbibe, and it's very easy to relate.
