The Gita and Vedanta are Outdated. I will not Read Them
Questioner: I'm Vijit. I'm also a PhD student. My question is that you've been putting a lot of emphasis on reading of Upanishads and Vedanta. In general, other people put a lot of emphasis on reading other holy scriptures and getting the true understanding — whatever true means.
But my question is that, why should my or anybody else's moral compass be set by somebody else's moral compass be set by something that was composed centuries, if not millennia ago? I mean, you know, the moral contours of society evolve. For example, a thousand years ago, if you said that, child of the monarch should not rule over the population, people would laugh at you, right? So the society has its own independent moral evolution, independent of whatever somebody wrote 5,000 years ago.
Acharya Prashant: Did we utter the word morality even once? Vedanta is totally immoral. It has nothing to do with your morality. It has to do with self-realization. What you do, what you do not do — it does not provide you with a list of dos and don’ts.
Listener: So we are just reading the books or listening to the interpretation. We are not realizing things.
Acharya Prashant: The very first question — what did this person start off with?
Listener: Suffering.
Acharya Prashant: No, not suffering. The need to know myself and it is out of this need that this person put books on the table. So now you are saying, “How will reading books on the table lead me to myself?” Because that’s the intention. Because that was the very intention with which this person put books on the table.
I’m reading so that I can get clues, hints, as to how to observe myself better, as to what lies within. Now, that’s not definitive proof, but that will help me inquire better into myself. That’s how. So — morality, that’s a good thing. We are not talking about religion here. Religion deals with morality.
** Vedanta is not religion. Vedanta is philosophy that forms the base of self-knowledge.**
We are not talking about religion here. No morality here. Morality — where does the word "morals" come from? Masses. The code of conduct of masses. Vedanta has nothing to do with masses. Vedanta deals squarely with the individual, because all suffering is? — Individual. You don't suffer in a crowd, you suffer all alone within. Vedanta has nothing to do with morality.
Next, you said something was written 2,000 years back — and the Upanishads were written more than 2,000 years back — something was written so many years back and times have moved on. Don't you still take birth? Don't you still suffer? Don't you still get attracted to women? Don't you still covet money? Don't you still die? Aren’t you still afraid of death? What has changed?
My insight is to come up with something better. So that's what we are saying — use the hindsight, go to the *rishis*and come up with a better life. Don’t we want to use the resources that have been bequeathed to us by other people? Or do you want to discover the law of gravity once again? You have no problem going back to Newton, or to Kepler, or more recently to Heisenberg or to Einstein — you have no problems with that. But you have great problems going back to Kanada, or Kapila, or Yajanavalkya, or Ashtavakra. How fair is that?
Questioner: No, when I read Einstein or Newton, there are ways with which I can crystallize what is still valid today, and I can discard.
Acharya Prashant: Isn't suffering still valid today?
Questioner: Yeah, but I don’t know which parts of Upanishads might be invalid today, and which ones I need to discard, and which ones are useful.
Acharya Prashant: The parts of the Upanishads that do not deal with self-inquiry can be taken as outdated. We have to see — every scripture — rather every book, rather every word ever uttered will have two components. One is kal-sapeksa, which means which is dependent on time, relevant only to the times that we live in. The other is kalatita or kal-nirpeksa, that which has a timeless utility.
For example, Gautam Buddha’s first utterance of noble truth — is: "Life is suffering." Sarvam duhkham. Now that is a kalatita utterance. Unless, through the process of biological evolution, we evolve into something that doesn’t suffer at all, but that is beyond the horizon right now; we cannot envisage that, as we are. Maybe superintelligence, AI-based superintelligence, would be that. Then maybe we could say, “Now even Gautam Buddha is outdated.”
But as long as you look at your inner condition — outwardly, yes, we have changed. The clothes that you wear are not the same as those that were worn in the Buddha’s time. The technology that you use — obviously, mankind today is more prosperous than it was ever in its history. So all those things have changed. But internally — are you not still afraid? Are you still not greedy? That’s the problem of the self that the scriptures seek to address.
They do not want to address things that change with time. For example: — Culture — How to address someone? How to greet someone? How to pray to gods? That’s not the subject matter of Vedanta. Which god is more powerful than the other one? Which day is the best for which kind of worship?
The Upanishads — they laugh at such things. They have nothing to do with such things. They deal purely in stuff that defies time. They deal purely in problems that time itself cannot solve. Look at the problem of bacterial infection, for example. Has not time solved that problem? What do you have today? Antibiotics.
So that’s not a problem the Upanishads will get into, because that’s a problem that time itself will solve. That’s a problem that arises in time, and time is sufficient to take care of that problem. The problem of life expectancy. The problem even of interplanetary travel. Time solves such problems.
The Upanishads are dealing with a very peculiar problem that time alone cannot address, and that is the problem of fundamental human suffering.
Suffering without a cause — not suffering that is due to a particular object like a bacterium. No, no. All suffering that is due to a particular object will be taken care of by time. So, there are three kinds of sufferings that are mentioned in the scriptures: Adhibhautika, Adhidaivika and Adhyatmika.
Adhibhautika — that is purely material suffering. For example, “I don’t have food to eat.” So, that was taken care of in India by the Green Revolution. Done and dusted. We are happy. Adhibhautika is gone.
Adhidaivika — that is again material, but we do not know the cause of that. So that too will be taken care of by time.
Then, there is the very special third kind of suffering — Adhyatmika — that does not have any reason. I have everything in life, and yet I’m suffering. I am the richest man in the world, with half a dozen kids or a dozen kids, and yet I’m suffering. Now that’s a truly Adhyatmika problem. That’s what the Upanishads seek to address.
Questioner: Let’s say, for the sake of the argument, I accept that *Upanishads, you know, get the problem right and they identify what’s the timeless problem to attack. But how do I trust that the methodologies that they have put forward are actually...?
Acharya Prashant: There is no methodology. That’s the greatest thing there, sir. There is no method at all. The method is methodlessness — there is no method. Innocence is the method. You are suffering and your own cunningness, your own smartness prevents you from getting to the root of your suffering. Can you look at yourself innocently? That’s the method. There is no method.
Questioner: That is a method like, will this work? How do I...?
Acharya Prashant: This is not even a method. Because all methods require a methodician, just as all logics require a logician. When there is a method, there is somebody standing away from the problem and applying the method. This is a method of illumination. The thing is there, and the thing is within you. Can’t you just see? Sahaj — justness. Now in justness, there is no method. Just see. Is that a method? Does it sound like a method? Just see — without defenses, without applying great intellect. Just see innocently, like a kid. Just see. That’s the method. It’s as simple as that.
Listener: But people can’t. Therefore, they have to do something.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, wonderful. Can we move on now? Your question is.....?
Questioner: I’ll just stand by saying one thing and then I’ll give the mic. So I mean, in all this discussion, the point is that, no matter how hard I try, it’s very hard to convince myself that I’m actually suffering. So... is that an issue? It’s incredibly hard for me to convince myself.
Acharya Prashant: Lovely. And you know, that’s the reason,
Questioner: In fact, it looks like indoctrination to me at some level. Do I have to...?
*Acharya Prashant: Lovely. And that’s the reason, historically Vedanta has always remained a niche — because the common man remains so engrossed in his so-called responsibilities, in his easy pleasures, that it sounds like an oddity to him that he is suffering.
Suffering, when open, explicit, pronounced, is easier to detect. For example, you have an open wound here — you can see. But what if you have an open wound inside? And that’s where, you know, the work of psychoanalysis starting with Freud comes in so handy. People who looked otherwise so very mentally balanced and healthy — when Freud went into their dreams, or when Freud applied the method of hypnosis to them — so much horrible stuff emerged from within them — That’s Maya.
We have become very skillful at hiding what is really inside us — hiding not to others, but to ourselves. And that’s called absence of self-knowledge: we do not even know that we are suffering. And that’s the thing with the compassion of the sages. You do not know you are suffering, but he knows that you are suffering. And when he comes to tell you that you are suffering, you say: “I was not suffering till this point, but you have come and you are unnecessarily impressing upon me that I am suffering. You are my suffering!” That’s a very real problem. You’re right.
And that’s also the reason why, in today’s world, when we have more objects to gratify ourselves — Historically, the common man never had such an abundance of objects to choose from — It becomes even more difficult to show it to someone: “That you’re suffering.”
But when you go into the subtle indicators — for example, the metrics of mental health — then you find that the level of anxiety in the common man today, in several circles, is equivalent to the level of anxiety in soldiers fighting in World War II. Are we suffering or not?
If you look at the state of the Earth, and if you see that 70% of the wildlife has been eliminated by us in just the last 50 years — does that indicate suffering or not? Not the suffering of the wildlife, but suffering even of this species — our own. Does that indicate a question?
Listener: Let's say I don’t have enough time to even worry about myself, okay. Let alone — forget about suffering — care about myself. Because I’m so busy. So what do you suggest? Should I now sit on myself and now understand that I’m suffering or not, let alone give my life.
Acharya Prashant: No. If suffering is a stream, how will you watch the suffering? By bringing the stream to a standstill? Suffering is in the continuous process of your busyness. Instead If you pause that busyness and take a break to reflect upon you — what will you reflect on? The thing that you need to reflect on is the continuous flow. In the middle of the flow, you have to be observant to see what's really flowing.
If you are so busy, what is that busyness, that sense of occupation for? What is it for? I mean, I need to ask myself: had I not been really terrified or greedy or something, or something — I know it sounds bad, rude, hurtful, but excuse me for that — would I really have chosen to remain so busy? Would I really? What is it that is driving me from within to remain busy?
Now, that's not something that you can discover during a vacation. That’s something that has to be discovered right in the middle of your occupation. When you are occupied and terribly busy. you're saying, “I'm so busy, I don't even have time to worry about myself.” The thing is — why are you so busy? What keeps you so busy? It's a choice. From where is that choice coming?
That's what Vedanta encourages you to ask. Please ask yourself: Why must I remain so busy? Vedanta does not say, “Don’t remain busy and just go and wander about like a rascal.” It's an honest question, a very innocent question: Why have you chosen to fill up your life with these things?
Remaining busy means there are objects in my life and I'm dividing, devoting my time to those objects. What are these objects? Where are they coming from? Who told you these objects are important? Were you born with the knowledge that these objects are important? Or is it a borrowed and implanted knowledge that these objects are important?
The thing about Vedanta is — it ruthlessly questions your beliefs, your knowledge. How do you know, “I'm so busy with this”? How do you know this is so important? You have one life, and time doesn’t return. You are devoting so much time to this. How do you know this is worth your time? How do you know? That's the question Vedanta will ask: How do you know this is worth your time?
Questioner: I'm questioning this very need to read Vedanta, okay? should I stand up if—
Acharya Prashant: No, wait. First of all, it's a bit like a straw man thing because there is no need to read Vedanta.
Questioner: Yeah, exactly. There is no need to read Vedanta.
Acharya Prashant: There is no need to read Vedanta. What is the fundamental problem we started with? Was the problem that “I do not know *Vedanta”*— was that the fundamental problem? What was the fundamental problem?
Questioner: The agenda was suffering.
Acharya Prashant: No, not the agenda. The problem is suffering. There is no agenda here. I have a real burning problem in my heart. When I have a real burning problem in my heart, I won’t care about agendas. So I have a problem at my heart, and the problem is suffering. And I have tried my best on my own to take care of myself. And if you can do that, there is no need to go to Vedanta or anybody. There is absolutely no need to go to Vedanta.
You know what the Upanishads say? If you happen to have come to us, and if you have gained clarity — throw us away. One of the greatest commentators has said — and some people will say this sounds like blasphemy, but then it is coming from a learned scholar — he has said: “Treat the holy books, including the ones of Vedanta, like kakavistha.” Kakavistha — understand: excreta of the crow (kae ki tatti).
Once you are done with us, there is no need to cling to us. Because even clinging to us will become another cause of bondage, thereby suffering. So it’s not that we are pushing Vedanta here, sir.
Questioner: No sir. but I’ll go further. I would say that Vedanta would probably cause more problems.
Acharya Prashant: No, we are not speculating here.
Questioner: I'm not speculating.
Acharya Prashant: You said “probably.”
Questioner: No, but the point is — if you forget Vedanta — if you pick up any book, the best which the book can provide you is: it can give you some image, or it can destroy some image. Right? These two things a book can do. So let’s say — and it doesn’t require a book or a sage to tell you that you are suffering, if you are sensitive enough.
Acharya Prashant: As he said, it is very difficult to see I’m suffering. You are saying it does not require somebody else to say you are suffering?
Questioner: No, my point is — I’m not talking with him.
Acharya Prashant: What he said is applicable to everybody through the centuries. On your own, it is very difficult to come to the cause of your condition.
Questioner: No sir, I don’t agree with that.
Acharya Prashant: Then Vedanta is not for you. You don’t need to go to Vedanta.
Questioner: So my point is: if you are sensitive enough — not “enough,” if you are mildly sensitive — you’ll find that: “Okay, I felt bad because probably I have hatred,” right?
Acharya Prashant: The sages are extremely happy when left alone. They do not want you to come to them. That’s the reason they ran away to the jungles.
Questioner: So the problem with Vedanta or any books for that matter — is that they will either create an image.
Acharya Prashant: We are talking about questioning. Vedanta is a huge question mark. Where is the image in this?
Questioner: So why do you want some books?
Acharya Prashant: See, if you do not need Vedanta we have settled — there is no need to go to them. But the thing is, the vast majority of people need them — probably. It's their own discretion. If you think you don't need them, the sages are all too happy to be left alone. Even if — chances are — even if you chase them, they'll not entertain you. You are saying as if Vedanta is some salesperson pursuing you. Vedanta does not want you to come to them.
Questioner: Namaste sir. My name is Atal Singh. I'm an Integrated PhD student. So my question is very direct. If I am a religious person, do I need to be spiritual? Or if I am a spiritual person, do I need to be religious? I mean to ask: Are they mutual to each other? Do they complete each other or are they mutually exclusive?
Acharya Prashant: Who am I? See, I don't need anything. I don't need religion. I don't even need spirituality. I don't need anything — if I am all right with myself. I do not need anything at all — provided I am all right with myself.
You are born, you are enjoying, you are blissful in yourself. Go play, engage yourself. Everything in the world is something you can accompany without getting hurt, and the world is your playground. Why do you need religion? Why do you need spirituality?
First of all, because you realize your inner condition. And if I realize my inner condition, what is this thing called "religion" that I typically go to as a layman? If I'm all right, I don't need to go to anything or anybody. Right? But I'm not all right. First of all, I have the honesty to admit that I'm not all right. And if I'm not all right, then what is this thing called "religion" that I go to? Religion with all its paraphernalia, and the rituals, and the belief systems. Why do I want to go to that?
Remember, the thing is of purpose. I am not all right — now I'm going to all this mumbo-jumbo. Why am I going to this? How will this help me? I want to be helped. All this talk of gods and angels and this and that — and the genesis and the creation and the day of judgment. Why do I want to go to all that? How will that help me?
My concern is my immediate state. I'm here to live — and I don't find myself being able to live fully. Why do I want to go to a particular belief system? Why? Because we are afraid. Let's face it. Because you are afraid. Because if we question religion, we will probably be ostracized. Because in our private circles we might say: “No, I don't believe in this, I don't believe in that.” But if we declare that openly, then there are forces that would hound us. Let's accept it.
And even if I have my doubts—really strong ones—still there is the feeling: What if there really is some superpower? What if I really will be fried, deep-fried, in hot boiling oil after my death? So, risk only—you know—just tow the line, just follow the masses.
Kindly explain to me: Yes, I'm suffering. And for that, why will I go and perform a certain ritual? Why? Why will I do that? Except for fear and ignorance, is there a reason? Please tell me. You know that, sir.
So, will this thing called popular religion — I address that as Lok Dharma, not Dharma, Lok Dharma — now this thing called Lok Dharma. Will it address the problem of suffering, or will it deepen my suffering? Please tell me.
Listeners: Deepen my suffering.
Acharya Prashant: And that's what has been happening through the centuries. That's what has been happening throughout the centuries. Then the word "spirituality"— it has come to denote spirits. Bhoot-pret, jaadu-tona, jantar-mantar, dayan-chudail.
No! I am jealous of my neighbor because he has a bigger car. How will that Chudail relieve me of my jealousy? I think my wife is turning indifferent to me because I'm becoming sexually impotent. That's my inner doubt. For whatever reason — my wife may have no inkling of this in my mind — but that's what is burning me from inside. And then you go to Baba ji and he says, "You circumambulate a tree." How will that remove this—this bloody suspicion—from my mind? How will that take care of the lovelessness in my life? Is spirituality about spirits? — No!
The right word is Self-knowledge — Adhyatma. Knowing yourself more deeply — Adhyatma, Self-knowledge. Know yourself, because you are the sufferer. Come on — go into yourself. Go into yourself. What's really happening within? Come on. Don't fake. Don't pretend.
Very ruthlessly, very honestly, go into yourself. Find out. Figure out. Look at your actions. Don't just say, "No, but I intend to be loving." Look at your actions. Look at your thoughts. Look at your desires. Don't just claim noble intentions. See what your real dreams are.
Listener: Why are we not able to sense it?
Acharya Prashant: You tell me, if it's about our own life, we should be the ones to be able to very clearly sense it, no? But we don't do that, because we have been deeply conditioned to be hypocrites. We have been conditioned to smile when there is no reason to smile. Look at your social media profiles, DPs, and other things. We have been conditioned to congratulate people when we feel no reason to congratulate them. We have been conditioned to say "Good Morning" when it's a gloomy morning.
And when you fake it so much and for so long, the result is that the truth becomes invisible even to you. You want to display a false and fake face to others, right? That's what all culture is about in some sense. Please see.
Somebody comes and you say, "He's a very cultured kid. Sir, Namaste. Shat-Shat naman. Namaskaram." And what does naman mean? Bowing down. Are all these people really ones you must bow down to? You are taught to fake things without validation, without verification, without any authenticity. So when you fake it for so long, you start faking it to yourself as well.
You — two centers develop within yourself, one which is totally out of touch with the other. We have come to lead lives where we have become totally dissociated with ourselves. Therefore, if you go into the etymology of the word religion, it means tying you back to yourself, tethering you back to yourself, pulling you back to yourself.
There is an inner dissonance. That dissonance is the cause of all human suffering. That which you really are versus what you have become — Vedanta calls one as Atma, the other as Anatma. This gap. And you can address it by any other name. You don’t need to go by Vedantic names.
By the way, Vedant does not really need to be just the scriptures that were written so many centuries back — millennia back, actually. Anything written today that addresses the fundamental question of human condition is Vedant.
Questioner: Can you elaborate more on how that gap has appeared in ourselves?
*Acharya Prashant: See, that's what — what do you mean by culture, for example? We don’t say animals are cultured. We say human beings are cultured, right? All cultures are internal. And the external manifestation of that culture is — you have buildings where you have separate lavatories. We don’t start peeing here in the auditorium, right?
We are cultured people. Therefore, we’ll construct spaces. So, the gentlemen here, ladies there. And then you have a separate hall for this. You have a hall for sleeping. You have a place for cooking stuff. So all that. So it all starts from here (mind). This is the way you must behave. “This is the way you must behave.”
Now please tell me — where is this code of conduct coming from? Because all cultures are behavioral. This is the way you must behave. These are the beliefs that you must hold as sacred. Where is this coming from? Is it coming from within you, or is it coming from your environment? So, these are the two centers. One is the original you. The other is the environmental you.
One is the original you. The other is the environmental you. Animals don’t have the environmental ‘I’ — unless they have been put in captivity, unless they have been trained to perform in a circus. Animals just have one ‘I’, which is their prākṛtik ‘I’. Human beings have two ‘I’s — one which they really are. One which they have been trained to become.
And we call that as civilization, or culture, or upbringing, or education.
Real education should be about relieving ourselves of the false ‘I’. Instead, the kind of education that we have—it reinforces the false ‘I’.
That’s how the dissonance has become so huge. And the larger this gap is, this partition is — the bigger is the suffering.
