Is Philosophy Truly 'Life-Changing' or Just a Degree?
Questioner: Pranaam Acharya Ji. My name is Krinali Nayak and I am a student of humanities stream in class 12th. So now the time is approaching when I have to choose subjects for my graduation. Keeping in mind my inclination and interest, I found it appropriate to choose philosophy which is closest to life.
Acharya Prashant: So you are a student of class 12th humanity stream right now.
Questioner: Right sir, right sir. So keeping in mind my inclination and interest, I found it appropriate to choose philosophy for graduation which is closest to life. But when I discussed it with a close relative of mine, he gave me many other perspectives.
One of the basic things that he wanted me to understand was that philosophy is a subject for which you need to get prepared to reach. He stated that approach philosophy with love, with questions and not as a subject which is just a part of your curriculum.
And then after that I also read Osho Ji on this and then he said that be careful with this subject. It makes you very intellectual unnecessarily.
So Acharya Ji, the question is raised from here (pointing towards the heart) that if I choose philosophy as an ordinary routine subject, will it be able to leave a deep impact? Will it be able to penetrate with it?
Acharya Prashant: Philosophy is not a doer or an agent with consciousness. You are the one choosing, deciding, acting. It depends on what you want from any of the choices you make. You could choose philosophy, you could choose engineering, you could choose botony, you could choose history.
It depends on what you want from your field. Nothing will do anything on its own to you. The doer is not history or philosophy or science. You are the doer. If you want to just exploit the subject to fatten your intellect, the subject will be used for that. If you want to have a love affair with philosophy or history or science or architecture, that too is possible.
It's a weird thing to say that if you are in love with something then you should not let it become your life. I've heard this kind of reasoning before. If you love philosophy or or whatever music then you should not approach it in a formal way. You should let it remain some kind of behind the screen's love affair.
I do not know what that means and why that kind of thought should be entertained. If I love the Gita for example, the field of wisdom and self-knowledge, I would rather devote time to it. I would let it become my life. I would let it permeate my 24 hours in as many ways and as deeply as possible. I won't say that I would rather work in a slaughter house and then on the weekends I'll pick up the Gita to ease my guilt. But that's how the world approaches love.
He says your regular life should be an affair of lovelessness. And then behind closed doors, you can fulfill the urges of your love. Right? So you can have a secret library. Camus is there, Dante is there, Dostoevsky is there and all these people are there and all the Indian philosophers are there and when nobody is watching then you go to them and read two pages and then go to sleep.
I don't know why the real thing in one's life has to be a covert affair and an exercise in stealth. Why can't one boldly come out and declare her love? First of all, I'm assuming here that there is love. If there is no love, then this discussion is meaningless. But I'm assuming that you have a certain real inclination towards knowing and understanding.
Philosophy is not just an intellectual process. It is deeper than that. In the name itself, there is love. Philo (love) and Sophia (wisdom); you know that right? Very obvious. The name itself consists of love. So if there is love please do not consign it to the backyard of your life. Please do not make it something hidden, secret, part-time or past time. Let it become your heartbeat. Come out with it, express it, live it. Right?
I do not know what kind of careers are possible in philosophy, but that should be none of your concern. So, that's a very boring question. What's going to happen after 3 years, after 5 years, right? It's a pretty, pretty stupid thing to ask. One might not even be alive after 5 years. It's an unnecessary speculation. Do what you love right now and the future will take care of itself. Who needs to worry anyway in the middle of love? One anyway does not have the time or space or inclination to worry.
Questioner: But their main point that they want me to understand is that if you are pursuing, especially this subject— in terms of philosophy they talk, if you're pursuing this subject then you won't be able to have it as the core of your life. If you make it very formal and curriculum based, you won't be able to get to the essence of what great people have tried to tell you.
Acharya Prashant: Why? I just don't see where the argument is coming from. Why? It's like saying, ‘You know papa, I love tennis.’ Papa, ‘I love tennis.’ All right then you enroll in history and then 2 hours per week, you play tennis and then you will be able to make tennis your life. If you want to make tennis your life, go to a tennis academy. But here the argument is just the opposite.
The argument is saying if you choose to study philosophy then philosophy will not become your life. How? And how will philosophy become your life? If you rather study science? I don't see where that argument is from.
Okay, I know where that argument is from. I should stop pretending. Their argument is do not burden your love with your livelihood. That's the argument. They're saying your livelihood should be from some regular source, regular and secure. And then once you feel relieved, of the pressures of livelihood, then for a little while, every week or every month, you can attend to your love. That's what the argument is. But the argument is still equally specious. There's a thing in this argument.
It's an argument coming from insecurity and fear. First, to assure your money and then you should look at your passion. No, that's a very lifeless and loveless argument. You attend to your love and forget about money, livelihood, these things have a way of taking care of themselves. Nobody who very honestly, very sincerely pursued her love was found dying of starvation ever. You may not become a millionaire, but your genuine needs will be taken care of. Don't worry, the world has a great need for people who can understand, who can think, who have some intellect, who have some depth and since the world has a great need for these people so you'll be paid. Don't worry.
Questioner: So the concern is not about the career options that I would get later on. It is more about if I approach the subject from the perspective of—’Okay, this is what the professor is going to teach me tomorrow or this is the kind of assignment that I need to complete.’ So I would make it more memory based less than what you….
Acharya Prashant: You know what reality is. You don't make philosophy the subject of your academic pursuit and you will find you are not even reading philosophy at all. One must learn to be a little skeptical of herself. If you are pursuing architecture, do you really think you will find time and motivation and reasons to immerse yourself in philosophy? Really, is that going to happen? Where have you seen that happening?
Except in the rarest of exceptions. You are pursuing whatever sociology, mathematics, physics, MBBS, whatever and you think you will have the need and the time and the urge to still go deeply into philosophy? You won't even pick up the books. Or even if you'll pick up the books, that would be like ticking a box. Don't trust yourself so much.
On paper, it always feels one has a lot of time, but time has a way of slipping away. You might think, ‘Okay fine, I'll attend my college classes 8 to 2 then I'll return then I'll attend to this. Then I'll eat, then I'll play a little, then I'll sleep a little and then I'll have 4 hours to read philosophy.’ That's not materializing girl. That won't happen that way. So wherever there is a need rather an opportunity to discipline yourself, use that opportunity. If you get something worthwhile, find a way to tie yourself to that thing and ensure that the knot is tied in a way it cannot be easily opened.
Yes. Rare is the one who finds something worthy of love. And once you find it, you must learn to trick yourself into being coupled irreversibly with it. Just holding hands won't suffice. Tie a knot. A very difficult hard knot. Yeah.
Otherwise you'll never know when the other has slipped away. Rather when you have slipped away from the other. Commit yourself. Commit. Commit yourself. If you ever find anything wonderful, commit yourself to it. That's the best expression of choice. To say in this matter, I give up my choice. I give up my right to choose in favor of separation.,
Questioner: Sir, what if my interest towards the subject is just a result of conditioning?
Acharya Prashant: Conditioning. Okay.
Questioner: Or maybe or maybe, I'm trying to make myself secure. So the way you said that if I'm not going to read the subject otherwise, it's better to take it as a mainstream subject
Acharya Prashant: So you give a philosophy and you take up history. What's your inclination towards history?
Questioner: It is also a result of conditioning.
Acharya Prashant: That's a much bigger question to ask here. There is 10% doubt and there is 100% doubt, yet you are ready to side with 100% doubt. You are never going to be 100% sure as a young person. That's not going to happen. Never. You have to operate on probabilities.
Obviously, it is possible that this affinity for philosophy is a fleeting one. It is possible that in course of time you say no, I don't like philosophy. If that happens, drop philosophy. Fine. You have a lot of time.
But if you drop philosophy right now, my question is what reason do you have to choose the other thing? Do you have any love for that? No, for that I have zero love. So it's 100% certain there is no love. In the case of philosophy, it is 80% certain there is love but there is some 20% doubt. So I'm using that 20% doubt to make a different decision. Not logical, not sensible.
Questioner: So when I was listening to the question that the lady was asking. And I got the reply, I understood that as well. But I was reminded of a quote from Kahlil Gibran which probably I also felt when I heard. So it says, ‘Travel and tell no one. Live a true love story and tell no one. Live happily and tell no one. People ruin beautiful things.’ So in what context is Kahlil Gibran saying this?
This quote must be coming from somewhere. So that is the context. It must be part of a story or some other work. So wherever it is coming from, that thing is the context.
There are times when you'll say let it be manifested, let it be radiated, tell everyone. There are times when you say, tell no one. The contexts are different. Maybe what he is saying here is that the real things must not be done for the purpose of social approval or social sanction, social aggrandization. So tell no one. Others should not form the core of your action. So in that sense tell no one. That's all.
Questioner: More poetic expression.
Acharya Prashant: More poetic expression. And maybe it is said to someone who is too fond of declaring things at the market square. You'll be told, "Sir, if you have something real with you, live it, eat it, breathe it. It's not there to be publicly exposed. To that kind of person, this thing will be said.
