The Biggest Mistake Young Revolutionaries Keep Making

Questioner: Namaste Acharya Prashant Ji, and I welcome you on behalf of our institution, and this is a great honor to share the stage with you. So, philosophy is a very old discipline in India. It is as old as, you know, the idea of civilization in India, and Shad Darshan has come from this land. There is also Buddhist, Jainism, and Charavak philosophy. On the other hand, we also find there is another stream of philosophy in India with people like Acharya Rajneesh, J. Krishnamurti, Ramesh Balsekar, Nisargadatta Maharaj, who basically use philosophy as a tool to address the basic fundamental existential problems.

So, how do you see this distinction between the academic philosophers who are not able to connect with the masses and people like Krishnamurti, who are actually able to relate with the people? So, can you tell us from your own journey when resolving the philosophical queries of the people?

Acharya Prashant: First of all, I thank the institution for inviting me, and I'm really glad to be here discussing questions on existence, life, meaning with bright minds.

You see, it's about the relationship of philosophy with life itself. In very bare terms, we know what philosophy means: love for the Truth. So, philosophy stands with its arms stretched out towards the Truth, and that's such a beautiful thing. Think of the philosopher. Think of the philosopher as somebody reaching out to the skies, and that's a wonderful sight to behold. But then that remains a thing between the philosopher and the sky. What the teachers have really done is that they have extended one arm to the sky and the other arm to the ego. And that's also the proper function of philosophy: to act as the bridge between life and liberation.

At one end of philosophy, there must always be the ego and its suffering. And the moment that connection is established, with the philosopher acting as the bridge, philosophy becomes a raging fire. Philosophy becomes a thing of the masses without losing its quality at all. Because the fundamental concern of all philosophy, and very strikingly in all Indian philosophy, is suffering, human suffering. And we all do suffer. Philosophy looks at this suffering, wants to understand it, and wants the liberation of the sufferer. So, that's a universal concern. Basically, that means philosophy is for each one of us because all of us are alive, and we all do suffer, don't we? And if we do suffer, then philosophy is for each one of us.

But where the academic philosophers, should I say, struggle is that they do profound work, but the work remains a little incomplete. The relationship between the philosopher and the Truth is well established, deep, authentic, but the relationship between the philosopher and the suffering ego, which is the masses, doesn't remain well developed. As a result, the bridge remains only half-made. Beautiful bridge, right? But you could say something like the last-mile connectivity is missing. It's a beautiful bridge but incomplete. Even if incomplete by just one step, but nevertheless still incomplete.

The most beautiful works then remain largely limited to universities, libraries, academicians, and fellow philosophers, and the masses don't benefit. The true function is when somebody like Socrates, for example, or Diogenes, or the ones in India like Saint Kabir, decide to bring the highest philosophy to the masses, the highest for everybody, without corruption, without dilution, but with application.

That's when philosophy comes alive. That's when it can be not just life-changing but age-changing. It defines the very epoch, the era, and that's what we all need today, given the multiple crises of our age.

Questioner: One of the primordial modes of philosophy, whether in Greek philosophy or in India, was the dialogue, as you correctly mentioned Socrates. Socrates was someone who came to the market, asked a simple question: what is friendship? And then the conversation started. And the same thing I find in the Upanishads also, that unlike whether Shad Darshans are developed, it became technical, but in the Upanishads there are basically fundamental questions asked.

Acharya Prashant: Dialectical.

Questioner: Dialectical.

Acharya Prashant: It's a conversation.

Questioner: Some of the thinkers got it correctly when they were writing Panchatantra or Hitopadesh, where there were simple stories, but they had deep... Even in Mahabharata, there are philosophical questions.

Acharya Prashant: You see, a very basic question. We look for the Truth or the truths, whatever we want to get into the depth of things as philosophers. But why and for whom? So, if philosophy is not rooted in the human condition itself, if the philosopher is not moved by human suffering, then philosophy becomes largely just a mental intellectual pursuit.

The moment philosophy arises from the ground of being and a compassion for the suffering one, it becomes something else. Not that it loses its philosophical rigor, but it starts living, starts breathing. It becomes a thing of the heart. And that is what has happened in India, to some extent also in Greece, in China, where there were those who said it's not just about ideas and thoughts and systems and structures and construction and deconstruction. It's about this person sitting in front of me and his relationship with me. I don't like the condition of this one. I don't like the condition of this world. Equally, I don't enjoy being confused inside. I need clarity for the sake of my consciousness.

Then philosophy becomes something very subjective, very intimate, and that's when it becomes profoundly more useful.

Questioner: Yeah. First of all, there should be a philosophical question. And as you correctly mentioned, the philosophical questions start from the existential crisis. What does it mean to be? The question of being is started in the existential philosophies, which are interesting also. So, I want to explore with you, how do you see this connection of this questioning as the original mode of philosophy and connecting it with the existential crisis?

Acharya Prashant: Why would one question if one is already settled? So, one has to be sensitive. One sees one is restless inside and very unsettled, right? And only then can there be a question. If all is all right, if everything appears hunky-dory, then why would somebody take the pains of approaching someone to discuss, to question, to examine, to listen? Why would that happen?

So, it starts from one's sensitivity to one's own suffering. It's a refusal. It's a rebellion. One says, "This is what I experience, and I'm not okay with the quality of my experience. I don't like this experience for whatever reason.”

At the same time, I do not know where the experience comes from, who the experiencer is, and what can be done to resolve this inner condition.

When the philosopher starts from here, then the whole thing becomes very different. And in fact, we need not even call this person a philosopher. It suffices to say this one is a conscious human being alive. How can you be alive and be insensitive to your own condition?

You see, when we say "Neti-Neti" in the context of Vedanta, what is that? That's a refusal. That's a rebellion. I refuse to be co-opted. I do not think this satisfies me, or even that. Yes, the crowd is that way. Yes, the convention flows that way. But how do I lie to myself? My inner condition remains restless. How do I forcibly convince myself to feel settled or at peace?

So, it is from this inner honesty that real philosophy sprouts. And then obviously there will be questions, and all questions are actually statements of rebellion, please see. All questions are actually implying that one refuses to accept the established answers. Because if you look at philosophical questions, all of them can be conveniently answered in some shallow way, right? And ready-made answers do pre-exist. One has to first of all clearly say, "I refuse to take these answers that are floating all around, that are socially commonly accepted. I do not take them.”

Why?

Because these answers fail to bring peace to me. The final criteria is my own inner condition. You give me an answer. If the answer is just a reflection of the question I posed, if the answer is just like putting a lid on inquiry, I refuse to be co-opted.

So, for young thinkers like the ones present here, it is very important to let their own inner self be the criteria, the measure. Nothing apart from that counts or suffices.

We stand at this particular stage in life, and every moment, every step is a challenge with multiple choices available, and ready-made answers are available a dime a dozen. But one has a life to live. One has to own his choices. Your choices cannot be a social phenomenon. And if you want to own your choices, the chooser must have clarity. That's what philosophy is.

Philosophy is not principally thought given by somebody else or systems provided by a certain school. Philosophy is about one's life, one's freedom, the worth of what we can call as existence.

And when that is there, then one talks, one corresponds, one questions, and one refuses to accept.

Questioner: Yeah. So my question is that suffering is a fact. Everybody is suffering. So why do some people choose a philosophical path? Why this suffering leads to like existential crisis in some people, while some people, people say, are happy to, what's called, their regards says, like a crowd disburdens actually.

Acharya Prashant: There could be an answer one can comprehend, but the comprehensible answer would also be incomplete. So, we'll begin with the comprehensible answer. The comprehensible answer is that our choices are shaped by so many factors, right?

When we talk of two persons being in a similar situation yet choosing differently, there is a convenient framework to explain away the difference. One could say they differ in their gender. One could say they are conditioned differently. One could say there is a genetic difference. One could say they come from different kinds of economic strata, and all those things. And one could say that's where the difference in choices comes from. And the complete but incomprehensible answer is ultimately choice is sovereign. Irrespective of the environment in which the chooser makes the choice, sovereignty is still available.

So, there can be then no reason why a choice is made, right? Choice then is not an effect of a particular cause. Causality cannot explain choice. Choice itself is sovereign, and what is sovereign has nothing behind it.

Now, this is uncomfortable to an extent. This is incomprehensible. We might even find it unacceptable. But this is also very empowering. It means that irrespective of the conditions without or within, you still are sovereign. You can lose everything but never your power to choose. That is always available. Always available.

So, ultimately, if you say why somebody chose like that, the convenient answer would be because the conditions were this way or that way, adverse or favorable. We can, and that answer will not be incorrect, just incomplete, shallow.

The real answer is, choice is sovereign. It's your will. It's your will. Which means you could have chosen something else. Not that you were helpless. Not that you were so much in bondage that you lost all agency. That never, never happens. Never happens.

Questioner: So, I see this very interesting connection between this choice and sovereignty as a being's essential relationship with the Truth.

The being is, in our being, we are somehow attracted by the Truth, and again, I'm connecting with your book, “Truth Without Apology,” that Truth is something which human beings cannot put on hold. It always attracts the person, and one has to become responsible to the Truth. Either one can live an inauthentic life, or one has to affirm one's sovereignty in relationship with the Truth.

So, what I'm, because you have recently written the book on the Truth, this is a raging problem in philosophy. What is Truth actually? One is like, we all know the scientific notion of the Truth. Truth is correspondence. The cat is on the mat. So, if it is corresponding with the fact, then okay, that is the property of a statement, proposition.

But then there is another dimension of the Truth which I find interesting in your speeches and also in this book, like Greek called the Truth as aletheia, unconcealment. It is a kind of the struggle. One has to involve into that struggle, then the Truth is uncovered. And Isha Upanishad also said that the face of the Truth is covered with the golden veil actually, and one has to unveil it.

So, how do you see this relationship between the being and the Truth with respect to your book?

Acharya Prashant: See, the search for Truth is very misplaced right from the beginning, right? Searching for Truth is like darkness searching for light, you know. And if darkness searches for light, the primary concern always is to find light while remaining as one is, which is dark.

If darkness is the searcher, its primary concern would be to first of all self-preserve. I want to remain who I am. I also want to know the Truth. Therefore, it is possible that the searcher does come to a certain Truth, but that Truth will be a personal Truth, a subjective Truth, my Truth. Therefore, it won't be the Truth. It's like darkness says, "This is my light." Now, had it really been light, darkness wouldn't have remained to declare the accomplishment. No?

So, what Vedanta would say that the search for Truth itself is a futile endeavor. You can come to something, declare it as Truth, but that would be another form of falseness. Search rather for falseness in the searcher. Instead of the searcher proceeding on the journey of finding the Truth, the searcher should rather hold a mirror and encounter its own falseness.

How do I proceed on a long, unpredictable, probably unending journey with a faulty self, a faulty driver, a faulty vehicle? Do we do that? Do we do that?

So the first thing is to search the searcher, right? You are so eager to learn about the Truth, but all your tendencies and instincts are primed towards self-preservation. So that is your primary concern, right? Not the Truth. How will you then ever come to the truth? Your primary concern, I repeat, is not Truth but self-preservation. That's how the ego is. I want the Truth for myself. And what will you do with the Truth? Maybe brandish it, wear it on my forehead, put it on sale, use it to inflate myself or acquire power, prestige, position, something that would be my Truth for my sake. And then that is not the Truth, obviously. It's something much smaller. It's something spoiled and dirtied by the touch of the one who claims to have discovered it.

So, therefore, the search for Truth will always remain elusive. What is needed is that we search wholeheartedly for the false. Look for falseness, not for Truth. And in looking for falseness, one sees that the engine is Truth, that the ground is Truth. Falseness will never have the guts to face itself. In looking for falseness, in boldly encountering the fact of one's own falsenesses, there is Truth in action. It is only Truth that inspires, empowers, enlightens one, and encourages one sufficiently enough to face what is false. And the false one, when faced, does not remain anymore.

This progressive removal of falseness is what one can call the journey of Truth, an unloading and unburdening.

It is not a journey of acquisition. It is not a journey of accomplishment. It is a journey in which the traveler loses himself bit by bit, progressively, because it's an inward journey. It is not something on the outside that you can travel to and attain. The traveler has to go within and discover all that is rotten, biased, borrowed, and fearful inside. And just looking at it mostly suffices. It falls. It managed to remain within for long only because it was not seen as false, only because it was thought of as true, as real. No?

When you think of something as real, you preserve it. You hold it to your heart. The moment you see it was fake, inauthentic, borrowed, the cohesion ends. That which should not be inside simply drops. And that we can metaphorically call movement towards the Truth. But actually, it is a movement away from the false, not towards the Truth. The Truth is no particular destination. You cannot move towards the Truth.

Think, what kind of paradox it would be if the ego says, "I'm moving towards the Truth." You can move towards the Truth only when you know its location, its coordinates, right? And you can know the location and coordinates of only an object. So by moving towards the Truth, or trying to know the Truth, we are de facto turning the Truth into an object of the ego. The ego becomes the subject, the Truth becomes the object, and that is…

**Questioner: **This is a very interesting philosophical problem you have brought out, like the ego and its relationship with the Truth. Because, on the one hand, it has a disadvantaged position. It is in ignorance, yet it seeks to remove it. But again, my question is then, how to distinguish between, say, the person who is on an ego trip and a genuine seeker? How do we know that, okay, this is a genuine seeker and this is the person who is on the ego trip?

Acharya Prashant: The genuine seeker, the jigyāsu, the mumukshu, will not be afraid, if not very willing, then also not very resistant to things that demolish his identity. Obviously, when it comes at first, it shocks. At first, the instinctive reaction is to resist. But then he would welcome it upon consideration, would say, "After all, my love for my own welfare, my love for my freedom from suffering, is bigger than my insistence on maintaining the status quo. So if there is something that hurts but relieves, I must admit it." That's the seeker.

So the seeker you will find open, if not welcoming, at least open towards hurt. If there is something that attacks his or her deep-rooted beliefs, the seeker won't flinch beyond a point. Being human, we all kind of wince initially, at least. But if the seeker has depth, he will say, "Fine, let it come to me. Let it prove me totally wrong. I'm open."

So all his efforts, whether speaking or listening, will be directed at knowing where he has gone wrong. On the other hand, the one on the ego trip will be accumulating knowledge to defend himself. That's the opposite: knowledge to test oneself is one thing. Knowledge to better oneself, knowledge to dissolve oneself, that is one thing. And knowledge to fatten oneself, knowledge to secure oneself, is a totally different thing.

So, in the egoistic one, you will see a lot of misinterpretation, deliberate misinterpretation. Might be extremely knowledgeable, but all that knowledge will be food and fodder to the ego cannon. You teach him more, and he becomes even more dangerous because knowledge to him is ammunition. Knowledge to him is an object to be used by the ego-subject.

The real seeker operates differently, altogether differently. He says, "If something is coming to me, it is to be used to test myself, clear away whatever rubbish I am holding. That is not coming to help me remain more of what I already am. That is coming to displace me from my current position, my current center, and elevate me to a better and higher position." That's the rightful function of knowledge. But most of us don't use knowledge that way.

Science, for example, is used to further self-interest. No? And that's how it becomes technology. We say, "Here is science, and we'll use science to fulfill our desires," and then technology becomes destructive.

Now, that's not the attitude of the seeker. You see, so many people who use technology so much have no scientific attitude at all, right? Must have seen. Thick users of technology, rather compulsive users, and still the mind is steeped in superstition and belief and prejudice. Seen such people? So what are they doing? They are using knowledge to cement their own center.

On the other hand, there could be people who say, "We believe in certain gods in the sky that ride the planets like chariots. So now we want to use the telescope to verify our belief." Now, that's a totally different use of science, totally different use of science. Now science is being used to check, verify one's own existing internal position, and there is an openness to correct oneself. There is a certain humility. There is a certain love for betterment, internal betterment. So these are two different centers altogether.

Questioner: So interestingly, you have brought up the topic of technology. So, as you know, in the contemporary debates in the philosophy of technology, this problem has been: what is the relationship between technology and values? And one of the chief critics of technology, one of the main critics of technology, Martin Heidegger, in his The Question Concerning Technology, says one of the problems is not with technology but with the technological mindset, where everything can be calculated, quantified, measured.

Now, what we see is that the only values which become important in technology are the instrumental values. And what we think of as values, like the value of solitude, the value of what we in philosophy call the intrinsic value, love for wisdom, love for Truth, and valuing relationships.

So the important thing which I would like to ask you is: how do we distinguish between these two different realms, that this is the realm where technology can help, and this is the realm of values where we need an altogether different disposition and mindset?

**Acharya Prashant: ** Hiedegar, Foucault, Derrida, technology, words, interpretation, Truth, wonderful things to talk of. What we probably need to emphasize is the user of that technology. And why do we need to emphasize that? Because that is the first step. Genuine philosophy starts from the ego, the self, the sufferer, the doer, the user, the consumer, right? So that is the one at the center of everything. All our pursuits, not just philosophy, all that the self does is for itself.

The moment we see that, we stop thinking so much in terms of what technology does. We start seeing it more in terms of what we do with and to technology. Is technology conscious or sentient? Well, no. So what can poor technology do? It's a question of what we do with technology. But this one, the doer, the user, the consumer, the inventor, the thinker, is easy to ignore and forget, right? So we think in terms of the age-specific instruments, the instrumental value of technology, for example. So this is there, this is there, this is there. What is this doing? What is the impact of this on human life and society? Is it reducing us to mere utilities?

We think in these terms, and it's beautiful to think that way. Nevertheless, incomplete, because it's all our creation. The one sitting here (pointing towards inward) is the creator and the consumer. So technology in itself means nothing. It depends on who you are. And that, therefore, is the fundamental question of all philosophy: Who am I?

With self-knowledge, everything will be put to the best use. Without self-knowledge, even the most benign of technical instruments will be put to a harmful and destructive use. We know of this. Nothing in the universe is, in itself, useful or useless, good or bad. It's all in the context of the self. The self is the center. By self, I mean the one who we are internally, the ego. It's all for us. If we are healthy, our relationship with all objects, including technology, would be healthy. If we are not healthy, it doesn't matter what we have been given or what we have created or invented for ourselves; it would definitely prove to be destructive.

Think, for example, of an animal, a wolf or a chimpanzee, having access to cutting-edge technologies. What's this beast going to do with all that? So what has happened is that science and technology have raced ahead in leaps and bounds. But when it comes to the masses, philosophy has lagged behind, not the field of philosophy, but the spread and acceptance of philosophy.

So technology is now available to everybody. You are holding it in your hands, and we all are users and consumers, right? The same cannot be said about philosophy. So internally then we remain the wolf, the chimp, and externally we have nuclear-tipped missiles and all kinds of wonders of technology available to us. The result is disastrous.

No technology is inherently bad or useless. Everything can be put to a virtuous use, right? Provided there is light within, provided there is this constant question and reminder: Who am I to do this? Don't I know my condition? Am I not sensitive and awake to my suffering? Will this fetch me what I really need?

This new tech toy that I'm now going after, have I not already had versions of it in the past? Could they liberate me from my inner angst? And if they could not, how is it possible that what a particular phone, Model 10, failed to achieve, not just Model 10, Models 1 to 10 failed to achieve, now the new one has hit the market, Model 11? How will Model 11 succeed in doing what the previous ones couldn't?

And please remember, we don't really buy a phone just to capture videos or to communicate. It might sound strange to hear, but whatever we do, whether it's buying a phone or sipping a cup of tea or entering a relationship or entering a movie hall, it is done for the sake of the one who is within and restless.

Since we are restless, hence all these actions ensue. And if all these actions come from a center of restlessness, then there can be only one valid objective behind any action, which is: Would it take care of my restlessness? Would it? And if it won't, why am I wasting myself? Limited life, limited energy, limited money, limited time, limited everything. Why am I wasting myself on this, if this one is essentially the same as the previous 10 models?

If this one is essentially the same as the previous 10 models, and the previous 10 failed to deliver, the proof that they failed to deliver is that I'm looking for the 11th one. Had those 10 succeeded or sufficed, I wouldn't be in the queue for the 11th. And the 11th is not fundamentally different from the previous 10. So why am I wasting myself here? That's the approach one must have towards all objects, including objects of technology. And those objects include human beings as well, right?

I have tried a relationship, or friendship, or whatever situationship, with this, this, and that, and now a new one seems to be knocking. But is this one really fundamentally different? And if not, why am I now again intending to waste myself?

So that question of self-remembrance becomes very central to the thinker, to the lover, to the one who is sensitive to herself.

Questioner: So this is a very important thing, the question of self-remembrance with technology. But again, I would like to ask: how do you see, currently, there is a term called the attention economy? Attention is now monetized. Technology has been designed in such a way that it can grab more and more attention because it is monetized. So people are, I understand this is also a policy-level problem, an ethical problem, but what it's actually doing is that people are spending more, they are conditioned in such a way that...

So how do we see the problem of self-reflection, which requires switching off from technology?

Acharya Prashant: You see, all of them want to capture my attention. It's a term that was coined in the 1970s. It's been in the making for 50 - 60 years now. All of them want my attention because they think attention is money and power. The politician wants my attention because attention is votes. The marketer wants my attention because attention is money. The family members want my attention because attention is security. They all want it.

But even if they have my attention, will they get what they want? Because they have already had enough attention from enough people. Did that ever suffice? It didn't suffice for them. Now, looking at the other end, where I am situated, what must I attend to? What must I attend to?

I stand in a market, in front of a pharmacy. I experience an ache within, as we all do, a nameless anguish, a causeless restlessness. We all experience that, don't we? Something remains restive. Mostly it is subtle. Sometimes it becomes very obvious, very glaring. You even start saying, "It pains. It pains within," without knowing what that within really is. That's the most nebulous term we use: inside, within, right? And I don't know what lies within. Instead, I'm prepared to dish out my attention to him, to him, to her, to her. Is it wise of me?

There is something far more important, rather critical, I need to attend to. Now, instead of attending to that, I'm attending to his marketing, to his proposals, to his glamour, to her demands. Is that wise of me?

And one needs a reminder. One needs a mirror so that one sees that behind the normal, clean, and healthy-looking façade, there is a lot of turbulence. It requires courage to acknowledge that turbulence. No, I am not all right within. And I don't want to just blame the world for that. I want to own the responsibility for my life, my choices, and my wellness. And if I own the responsibility, I'll attend to it. That's where, then, my attention goes.

Is it not common sense that there must be a hierarchy of values, that you must know how to prioritize? And there are so many objects, and we want to differentiate between them and prioritize. But please, please tell me: to whom are all those objects? To whom and for whom are all those objects? For this (pointing towards oneself) subject, right? For this subject.

So this subject has the highest value, should be the first one in priority. Therefore, before one attends to any object outside, that object could be a person, a thing, a place, an idea, whatever, before one attends to any object outside, one has to attend to this one, the receiver and the experiencer of all objects.

If this is remembered, if this is seen and this seeing requires a lot of self-love, if this is seen, one will not allow himself to be dissipated. Yes, the entire world is a big banner, a big advertisement. This and that, everything is vying for your attention because they are incomplete in themselves. They too hold the false notion that if they get your attention, they'll feel fulfilled, or if they get your money, it will suffice. So that's about them. We'll come to them later. We have to begin with ourselves.

Am I all right? And if I'm not all right, and I don't know what my situation is, standing in front of this pharmacy, why am I gossiping about the various kinds of medicines? And to the man at the counter, I'm saying, "Hey, that one, the cover looks very glitzy. New gloss, new shine. Who's the maker? Are they offering discounts?" I don't know what I need because I don't know who I am, and I'm busy gossiping about the several things on the several shelves.

That's what the attention economy is about, and the attention deficit is about.

See, whatever comes to you actually comes as some kind of remedy, some kind of medicine, right? And that pharmacy has 10,000 units of them stocked there. Of what use are all those distinct medicines if you do not know the sick one?

And I repeat, it takes guts and humility to acknowledge that we are internally sick. And if you are internally sick, then medicine should not be entertainment. One has to know how one is, and then one knows what to go for. One shoots that one, that and only that, and that is one-pointed attention.

I know what my ailment is. Therefore, that's what is going to be life-saving for me. That and only that. One gift. Come on. No more gossiping, no more advertisements, no more dissipation, no more fragmentation. Give me that. And I can know that only if I first of all know myself.

So all these things, fragmentation of attention and all these things, they all arise from a lack of self-knowledge.

Questioner: So this is very important, this clarity about self-knowledge, seeking what is the Truth, discovering Truth about oneself. Another dimension, which I think has been missing, especially in philosophy and also in the sciences, is the relationship between art and the Truth.

So basically, especially in the Enlightenment, Truth was considered scientific truth, fact. And in India, and in the other Western traditions, it was also argued that when the Buddha is saying that suffering is the fact of the world, or when somebody in The Truth says, "Okay, life is a struggle," it is not like a subjective statement, "I like Coke," or, "I don't like this brand." They are actually making some Truth claim on the basis of the experience they have in life.

Now, how do we see that? Again, coming back, in India there is a beautiful concept of sahṛdayatā, that when you read the plays and the literature, you empathize with the character because you yourself are suffering from something. And when you relate to their condition, it develops a kind of empathy, sahṛdayatā, with the character, which, in turn, edifies your character. So how do you see that relationship?

Acharya Prashant: The Buddha did say that life is suffering, that suffering is a fact. But he didn't say suffering is inevitable. Never. Never. Go to the Fourth Noble Truth. Suffering is not inevitable. The entire purpose of philosophy is liberation from suffering. So if suffering is inevitable, then there is no point getting into anything. Suffering is optional. Suffering comes from our misplaced subjective choices, right? So the Truth is not really fact.

Kant, for example, said categories and forms and all those things we construct, whatever there is in the mind is actually very carefully either picked or constructed by the ego for the sake of self-preservation. For the sake of self-preservation. Yes facts don't lie, but don't we choose our facts? When the ego can't escape facts, it will pick and choose, cherry-picking. And whenever possible, it would totally avoid facts. It would get into imagination, imagination that has nothing at all to do with facts.

And when you slap the facts in its face, it will accept them partially, selectively, as per convenience. "This fact I want to pick. This I don't. I would turn a blind eye, or I would say, 'Well, you know, the authenticity is disputed. Go and fact-check. The source itself might be biased. Data integrity is a problem,'" all those things.

So we suffer for a reason. There is a reason. That's the Buddha's philosophy. There is a reason, and the reason is subjectivity. The reason is that the subject keeps itself at the center of everything. The more the subject is present, the more present is suffering. The more one is present in his or her own life, the more life becomes suffering.

So our facts, it sounds strange, but even our facts are subjective. Yes, imagination, projection, fiction, we all readily see that as subjective. But even in our facts, there is a lot of subjectivity. A lot of subjectivity.

Think of, for example, the climate debate, right? The climate denialists, who declare climate change is a hoax, they come up with a lot of facts. They don't dare to come up with fiction in front of informed committees, scientists, and empowered panels. They can't do that. But what do they do? They come up with convenient facts, and they try to establish causation where there is none, right?

So the subject is at the center of everything, and the primary concern of the subject is to just remain, just remain as one is. The subject is a very fearful one. Who is the subject? This one, this one, I. The subject is just so afraid. Why is it afraid? One then has to go into the fact of its genesis, its very construction.

Where does the ego-subject come from?

It comes from the flow of evolution, in the physical sense, and then from social and temporal conditioning. That's where it comes from. And none of that is eternal or time or place-independent. All of that is something that changes and thereby dies every moment. Evolution itself means continuous change, and social norms too change from time to time and place to place. And that's what the ego is made of, the subject.

Who am I? The one made of several influences I have gathered over time, either in the body or in the mind. The body too is just a collection of influences, right? We know how evolution proceeds. So that's what I take as the self. And this self is a motley collection of all kinds of desperate influences, and it calls itself the I. "This is who I am."

Obviously, it will be very afraid. This subject is always insecure because it knows its reality somewhere. Even if it doesn't know its reality, it experiences something is immensely wrong with my being, because our being is all secondhand. Our being is all secondhand, accumulated from here and there.

One is born as a woman. One thinks of herself as a woman. But then you never chose to be a woman. You never chose to be a woman. And now you are terribly identified with the body, and therefore with your womanness, and you will therefore be insecure.

You carry certain beliefs because they came to you from the flow of tradition, but you have never checked them. Therefore, within, you'll be insecure. That's the state of the subject because it is an accumulation. It is a blind accumulation. Seen all kinds of blind accumulations? They happen during rain. Debris from here, here, here, here, here, and rainwater causes it to flow down the drain. And then, at some place, there is an obstruction, and it all accumulates. Seen that? That's how the ego is. That's the subject.

Now, can this subject have any coherence, any integrity? No. Nothing. But it exists as if it is one homogeneous mass, which it is not. I say, "I." But I'm not homogeneous. I'm a collection of fragments that don't talk to each other. I'm a collection of ideas and beliefs that don't internally reconcile. Therefore, I would always be internally very shaky, very uncertain, and I won't know what to do. And that shows up in our life decisions. One doesn't know what to pursue next. One doesn't know which stream to choose in engineering. One doesn't know whom to marry. One doesn't know when to break up. One doesn't know where to settle. One doesn't even know whether to buy a shirt. And one asks, "Is this one looking good on me?"

Think, why does it happen? Why does it happen?

Because there is no integrity inside. The subject, I repeat, is a collection of random influences. There is no central idea there. There is nothing to hold the various pieces of the ego together. Hence, the fundamental concern always is to somehow stay alive, because the end is always imminent. You are carrying something fictitious within. It can end any time. Any time, it can just come to a shattering. Gone.

Now, if this is the inner condition, please see: how will we be feeling continuously? Will we have an affection for greatness? No. Will we have stamina for meaningful, large endeavors and projects? No. Will we be able to keep others' welfare above our own, ever? No.

Why?

Because the primary concern would always be to somehow, somehow stay alive internally, not physically. Physically is all right. We are all young. I mean, you are all young. Physically is all right. But internally, it's always very, very, very doubtful. We are always ready to be shattered within because that's the nature of the thing, the space we call within. That's the very nature of the space. Therefore, there can be no greatness, no love, no beauty. All that remains is a pathetic concern for self-preservation, pathetic, continuous, and unrelenting. Do we see this?

So this subject, as long as it remains unexplored, all other kinds of inquiries are wasteful. Not just wasteful, harmful. Harmful. Very harmful. You'll clear away the forests. You'll tear into the heart of the planet. You'll make hundreds of species go extinct every day. You'll exploit in the name of love. All kinds of nonsense and cruelty emanate from this unillumined core of mankind.

So, how to replace it with something radiant, resplendent? You can't. You don't have to replace it. You simply have to remove, remove. Therefore, philosophy really whenever it has assumed depth, has been negative in character, negative in the sense that it aims at removal rather than replacement.

And that terrifies the ego even more. The ego says, "Yes, this is rotten and borrowed and fractured, and it contains something toxic. Yet I at least have it. Yet I at least have something to hold. And you're telling me this is secondhand. This is just flowing to you from tradition, that this is the wolf and the chimpanzee in the jungle in the form of your body. You're telling me all these things about this. But please tell me, what do I have if not this?" So, if you want to take this away, kindly replace. That's how we insist, right? "If you want me to accept that this is rotten and useless and harmful, then kindly replace it." But real philosophy doesn't replace. It simply removes.

And that's where something important comes in, something so important, and Western philosophy totally lacks it: faith. Faith. By faith, I do not mean trust or belief or the religious or traditional kind of systems. I'm not talking of them. Faith is courage. Faith is, rather, carelessness. I don't bother what happens once I drop it. It suffices that this is toxic. I'll not ask for a replacement. I'll be bold enough to drop it without caring for a substitution or the future. I don't bother what happens in the future. That's faith.

Unless that faith is there, philosophy won't succeed. It cannot succeed because philosophy will reveal to you all that which deserves to be dropped. But how will you drop it? You'll say, "I'll go lonely. Yes, my boyfriend is a lusty beast. But I at least have somebody to walk beside. And he carries my bag, doesn't he? Yes, he's an animal, but he does carry my bag and opens the door. Otherwise, you know what will happen to the profile pic? I'll appear so lonely, a desperate loser, nobody beside me." So you ask for a replacement.

Philosophy is the courage to do the right thing without asking for a guarantee, without caring for the future. And that's faith. That's the real meaning of faith.

Do we see this?

Because this is a gathering of students. Nothing lacking in intellect. What we sometimes lack is faith. We do see, often, where things are rotten there (outside) and here (within), both. We do see that. But then we say, "Something is better than nothing. A bird in the hand is better than two in the bush." Something of that.

Dare to be alone. That void is what the Buddha would call the Truth, a great, pure emptiness. Empty not of something auspicious, empty of suffering. Nirvana. Am I reaching out? No?

No, you all have good IQs. You do see what's wrong there and here, often, don't you? But then that thought comes in the way: "If not this, if not this, then what?"

Sir, don't worry. This, that ought to be removed, is the one making you ask the question, "If not this, then what?" When this goes, the question goes along with it. This that you are holding on to is the one inducing insecurity in the holder. This is the one inducing insecurity in the holder. As long as you hold it, this will make you ask the question, "If not this, then what?" The moment you drop this, you have also dropped the question, "If not this, then what?" Don't worry. You'll be all right. That's faith.

Questioner: Yeah. So I think this is a very important dimension of faith you brought out. And I think Kierkegaard also talks about faith in Western philosophy. Kierkegaard talks about the leap of faith, actually. But I think it's high time we open it up for discussion. The students must be having, and others, a lot of queries.

show_less