Loneliness Epidemic: Do You Really Need Someone?
Questioner: Good evening, Acharya Ji. I am Mohammed Arman, and I'm a first-year MST student. So my question is not very philosophical, rather a practical one, because during my prep year I was in complete isolation from friends and somewhat from family itself. I got focused, but when things didn't work out the way I wanted them to work out, it broke my core beliefs. It shook my self-confidence. So I feel socializing should be one of the things I should focus on.
Now that I'm here at BITS, the college I wanted, in a branch I wanted, I feel like I should lock in on my goals, you know, just get in the room, get on the books, but I'm hesitant to go back into that deep isolation which I used to do, because it feels heavy. I know how heavy it is when you stumble without support. So in my own field I see I greatly admire Newton, who strived in isolation, but I'm also a fan of Richard Feynman, who was a great socialist, who used to socialize with people quite a lot. How do I choose which is my path? Especially, after taking that decision, how do I accept that this is my path of life and I should stick with it?
Acharya Prashant: See, the world is made of others, right? That's the normal experience, a dualistic one. There is you and there are others. So there's no harm in interacting with others, relating to others, keeping company, all that is fine, provided one is discrete enough. Provided one is discrete enough. If you are with a person whose company fills you with random ideas of identity, obviously that person is not for you. If a fellow is just as lonely as you are, then probably the fellow is just as ignorant as you are. By "you," I don't mean you. How will the company of that person help?
I also said in the book that the union of two beggars can't produce a billionaire. Half and half is a quarter. You are lonely and the other one is lonely, and the two of you get together and think we'll now be wholesome. That won't happen. Much of this thing called loneliness is just an idea, an idea put in your mind by culture. You are a certain age and you must have company. And what kind of company? The movies and the traditions and the anecdotes have decided these are the right kind of friends, these are my guy friends, and that's my girlfriend, and you already have images. If I meet such a person that qualifies to be a good friend, that kind of girl, you know, and once that idea is there, that contributes to loneliness.
Obviously, there is the physical component also. Even as the kid is born, it wants at least the mother around. There is a physical thing also, but a big part, at least in youth, is mental. Loneliness is actually a crowd. It is not solitude. It is a crowd, a crowd of ideas, images, thoughts. You look at a certain image and you say, you know, that image has two people, whereas in my life I am just one. Therefore, I ought to suffer. But that's an idea put in your mind by somebody else. Getting it?
Now, if you can have the company of someone who can tell you this, then go for that company at all costs.
Questioner: So, sir, to what extent should we be socializing?
Acharya Prashant: There's no limit. Who will set the limit? There is no heavenly commandment, right? You can belong to the entire universe. And why not? Why should there be a limit? Why should you say, “I belong only to these four people”?
Belong to the entire universe. Relate to everybody. Wonderful! You have not been forbidden. At the same time, let no person, no idea, no object be a substitute for your inner completeness.
You cannot say, “Inwardly I am rotten or hollow; therefore, I rush to that person.” From your inner completeness, if you relate to a thousand people, that's wonderful! Don't go to the other because you are feeling dependent, miserable. See what you're doing to the other then. Your face looks like a horror, and in that moment you especially feel like rushing to the other. Your mind is full of garbage, and then you want to go and spill all the garbage on the other person, and that you call your best friend. Isn't that unjust?
Yes, relate to as many people as you can. Wonderful. But not to lean on them, not to ride on them, not to use them as means to obtain something, to fulfill your desires, to plug your hollow.
Questioner: So you talk about inner completeness. So, in practical terms, how do we actually achieve it? By completing goals or ambitions?
Acharya Prashant: No, no. Nothing. Nothing. You see, I sit here, I'm speaking to you, and I think I'll walk away just as I walked in. When I walked in, most of the seats here were filled. How does it matter to me how I am received or what is the response? Are you getting it? I still relate. I don't have to bother too much about what I'm getting from this auditorium. On the other hand, if I'm incomplete, I'll come here for the sake of some personal fulfillment. You get this?
Now, we are talking since hours. Isn't this relationship? And there are hundreds of us here. Isn't this relationship? So, you can relate to a lot of people from your completeness, from your completeness.”
Questioner: Sir, you mentioned that if being with a person gives you random ideas about yourself, then that relationship is bad for you. But if I say that whenever I'm with a certain person, they can bring out a side of me that I didn't know existed, like they can bring out feelings that I haven't felt before, it could be a parent, it could be a friend; and if I can feel differently with them, aren't they really helping me to seek out the truth about myself?
Acharya Prashant: No, that's fine. That's then a matter of experience, right? If you are with someone and you start feeling absolutely angry, that person has the great potential to make you furious. You're otherwise, let's say, a calm fellow, but there exist one or two special souls, you go close to them and you find you are furious. It's an instructive experience. You'll learn more about yourself through that experience. But that does not mean that that company is great for you. You'll know that anger was lurking within, hidden somewhere, and that fellow has helped to bring the anger out. That's fine. It's an experience you can learn from. But that does not mean the fellow is great company.
Similarly, you start feeling especially lustful looking at a person, and you used to proclaim that you're a real brahmachari with no arousal at all, ever. But this one person, you go to them and you find yourself excited. It's again an instructive experience which has helped you call out your falseness. But that does not mean that you now should hang on there.
Having a range of experiences is a wonderful thing. It helps uncover your falseness. “Oh, you know, I am the Lord absolute, never afraid of anything.” And one night you had to spend in the jungle all by yourself, and you were found in the morning with wet pants and all things. So it was a good experience because it helped you see you are not what you claim to be. You claim to be fearless, but that experience displayed your falseness to you.
Hence, it pays to put yourself through diverse experiences. You learn more about yourself. But going through an experience is one thing, and settling into a relationship is another thing. Go through that jungle. Don't settle there. Learn that you are a timid fellow and then start working on yourself. That doesn't mean you will erect a house in the jungle. Are you getting it?
