How to Find a Real Lover?
Questioner: Namaskar Acharya Ji. And we're very grateful you're here. You've come all the way. So, who am I, that's irrelevant. We're just very grateful that you're here. Thank you very much for your presence.
My question is more of a conflict, and I'm in a constant conflict, and what is the thin line between being polite and kind, or what you say sugarcoated or politically correct versus blatantly truthful, which can also be a kind of compassion. When you witness your loved ones or close ones constantly being in a victim state and putting it onto others and more circumstantial, when you know that it's more perceptional and self-induced.
But when you are trying to convey that, then you are the one who's being given statements like: 'The way you are, there will be no one left in the world who will like you.' Then all such people will leave you anyway. Everyone has their own journey. (Duniya mein koi bhi nahin reh jaayega jo aapko pasand karega, fir to aise saare hi chhoot jaayenge, sabki apni journey hai). You cannot pinpoint. Why does it matter to you? (Aap apni taraf dhyan do, aapko kya farq padta hai). So, it's been a constant conflict where that thin line is. I think I manifested you here. So I did.
Acharya Prashant: Thin line for whom? It depends on who you are. It depends on what you are choosing to be. "Politically correct," you said in the beginning. See in your daily life, in your relationships, you can choose to be the politician or the preceptor.
The politician has a purpose, an ambition, right? The politician wants to become something and stay there, and therefore he will have to compromise with the Truth. We're talking of the relationships that we have, right? We are not talking of politicians of the kind that we have in assemblies and parliaments, because that's not the question here.
So if you are acting politically correct, you must know that you have a personal stake somewhere. No politician can ever speak absolute Truth to his audience. He'll have to dilute the Truth. He'll have to compromise there, because there is something that he wants in return from the audience, right?
He cannot afford to antagonize the audience, and if the audience is not ready to take the Truth, the politician will not come up with the Truth — even if he has it, assuming he has it. That's a politician. And you can be the politician in your relationships.
I want something from you. So I'm not going to run the risk of Truth. I want something from you. So I'll bring to you what you desire and not what you need. I need something from you. So I'll bring that to you which pleases, not that which elevates. I'll bring something pleasing to you rather than something elevating. That's the politician in relationships.
And then there is the preceptor in relationships. The preceptor is a teacher. I could have said 'teacher', you know — just to make "P" and "P" sound cute, I did this, you know, I don't need to do this. Fine. The teacher. Or you could be the teacher in relationships. But that sounds so uncool — "The teacher in relation... teacher." What else do I say? Teacher, preceptor, sage, real friend. "Friend" is fine. Or you could be the friend.
The friend does not have anything at stake. The first commitment of this one — the sagely friend is towards the Truth rather than the person he or she is related to.
So this one is not going to compromise. Now, in the short run, it would appear as if the politician does better. The relationships of the politicians would appear to be better in the short run, and most of us are concerned only with the short term. So there, the politician looks like prevailing. And that's why most of us prefer to be politicians in our relationships. But in the long term, it's the preceptor that wins.
The politician seems to care too much about the other — the one he is related to. So he says, "I don't want to hurt your feelings. I want to be polite. I don't want to be too straight, in your face, too rude. I'll say things in a way that doesn't displease you. In fact, I'll not say the right thing at all. I'll keep you enclosed in the kind of illusions that you prefer."
In the short term, this seems to work. In the long term, it's the way of the teacher, the friend, the preceptor or the prophet that seems to work. It depends on you, how much love you have.
If you don't have enough love, then you will choose to be a politician in a relationship. But if you have enough love, you'll choose to be the prophet in a relationship. It depends on how much love you have. Love not really for this (pointing outward), this one — the one you are related to. Love for that (pointing upward), love for this (pointing toward inner self).
If you don't have love for the first thing or the first one, how can you have love for all the others you are related to? In fact, if you want to judge the person you are related to, that's the way to judge. Don't see whether that person loves you. See whether that person loves the truth.
Never ask, "Do you love me?" See whether the person loves the Truth. If the person loves the Truth, everything is fine. You don't need to ask — are you in love? Do you love me? All these are needless questions. The only question to be asked is, do you love the Truth? Truth. The first thing, the first one.
If that is loved, all will be in place. And if that first thing itself is missing, then you might keep professing love or commitment or loyalty or whatever — the fact is that your relationship will remain self-serving and violent. Are you getting it?
