What Is Meant by ‘Leaving the World’?
Acharya Prashant: Leaving what is not, That is all right, but that leaving is not done with an objective to get joy. Had the thing been so transactional that you could leave one thing and as an exchange offer get another thing, then everybody would have taken the deal. Were joy so cheap that it came in exchange for this and that, then we all would be full of joy. This is not exactly what the Ashtavakra Gita says.
There is this mind which wants something. The world is an object. Whenever you say ‘the world’, you do not mean the same thing. You mean one thing, he means another, he means a third thing. We use a common word, ‘world’. Is the world the same in your mind as it is in his mind? The world is your favorite set of objects. Do you see this? What is the world?
Questioner 1: World is what we have created in our mind.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, but what is the world? Quickly! Whenever you say 'world', what do you mean?
Questioner1: People, objects…
Acharya Prashant: And particular people?
Questioner1: Only a very few people.
Acharya Prashant: (Asking another listener) Now, what is the world? Same world as his world?
Questioner 2: No.
Acharya Prashant: Same world as his world?
Questioner2: Country, people, religion…
Acharya Prashant: Same country, same religion, whenever we are looking at different people? Is that so? Same house, same husband, same wife, same job, same bank account? Yes? Same garments, same language, same preferences? Is there anything same in two person's worlds?
We all live in our private worlds. We all live in our personal worlds. That is why ordinary communication is so superficial. You're using the same word but referring to something else because your world is different. I'm assuring you, even when you use the same word, you do not mean the same thing.
When you say ‘honesty’ and when he says ‘honesty’, you do not mean the same thing. That is why there can be no communication or very superficial communication. When you say ‘love’ and when she says ‘love’, rest assured, you do not mean the same thing. If I just say A and ask, “Please draw A. Instead of this, draw anything. Draw A,” and you will find all of you are drawing different things. Even A means different things.
So, when Ashtavakra is saying, “Leave the world,” what he's saying is: leave this personal thing, leave this sense of limitation.
Usually, when you hear the word ‘world’, you think of something very expansive. But actually, when you look at it—world—the world is a limitation. It is not an expanse; it is actually a contraction. It is a limitation because your world is a little private world; her world is her little private world.
So, when Ashtavakra says leave the world, what does he mean?
Questioner1: Leave the pettiness.
Acharya Prashant: Get rid of your pettiness. Why are you acting so small? What is this little thing?
Questioner2: It’s the same with Shankara when he says the world is unreal. It means the same. It's unreal in the sense that it is limited.
Acharya Prashant: Limited.
Questioner2: In fact, the fact is we don’t even have the capacity to accommodate the whole world.
Acharya Prashant: Even your neighbor's world. Forget about the whole world—even your neighbor’s world! It's impossible. You'll have to be that person in order to know his world.
Questioner2: Or even care. We don't have the capacity to even care.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, because I care only about my own world. And till the time I live in this personal thing, there can be no meaningful communication. Forget about love; there can't even be communication. That's what Ashtavakra is asking you to give up.
Questioner1: We're afraid that the other's pain will become my pain, and I'll have to react to that if I let him in.
Acharya Prashant: Yes. “I will pass away. I will become him.” Such a big problem! (Chuckles)
Questioner1: If we don't have the capacity, then what are we thinking of?
Acharya Prashant: Exactly, exactly.
So, if you're talking about words, somebody's words, you see the problem there. You can never relate to someone through words—never—because his world is different, your world is different. If ever an alien comes to this earth, completely alien, the only way to talk to the alien would be through silence because his world is anyways totally different. No language will succeed. Only silence will succeed. In that silence, there is communion. Only through love can you really talk to someone; otherwise, you can't talk.
You see the uselessness of negotiations and prolonged arguments and discussions? We talk so much not because we want to say something; we usually talk a lot because we want to hide something. You remember that thing about writing questions? You don't write because you want to uncover; you write because you want to let it remain covered. That's also why we talk—so that we don't have to really come close.
You meet somebody, and how awkward it is to remain in silence! You must talk so that the separation is there. Talking maintains that separation. That separation must be there, so you talk even if it is a senseless, meaningless talk.
Questioner2: Sometimes we feel like being in silence but still we talk.
Acharya Prashant: Still we talk because it's awkward. It's a screaming silence. You can't tolerate it.
Questioner2: Because it seems our mind has started talking by itself.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, unbearable. "So, say something. Say something about the road, the weather. Say something for God's sake! How can you be so rude?"
Questioner2: Why does this happen?
Acharya Prashant: You want to avoid love. Love is the death of ego. You want to avoid any kind of connection. Your entire purpose in life is to avoid love.
Questioner2: We always think that there is someone somewhere whom I'll meet and love.
Acharya Prashant: Even if you do not think that, you want self-preservation. “I want the preservation of the ego, so I must avoid love at all costs. Attachment is all right. You ask me to be attached, I'll be happily attached. You want me to be attracted, I'll be happily attracted. You ask me for a bodily relationship, I'll be more than happy for a physical relationship. But love? That I cannot tolerate.”
Questioner2: So, because we call attachment as love, that's why we become confused. We want love…
Acharya Prashant: We want attachments.
Attachment feeds the ego. Love dissolves the ego. They are opposites.
Attachment feeds the ego and love dissolves the ego, so attachment is alright. “Please let me be attached to you!” But if love starts really blossoming, you will go away. Till the point there is only attachment, you'll remain with that person. But the day love actually starts, you'll find that you're going away from that person. You cannot tolerate love, and you also cannot tolerate the really lovable.
Questioner2: We start getting into ego.
Acharya Prashant: You can be very easily attracted to some mediocre ignorant person. But the really lovable, you'll be scared of that person. That you cannot tolerate.
Questioner2: You’ll feel like being with him all the time, and you are scared that you have to lose your life.
Acharya Prashant: You’re gone. You'll find some excuse, you’ll find some reason, you’ll find some way of maintaining separation. But the only actual reason is: “My falsenesses must live. And in the light of Truth, in the light of love, my fakeness cannot survive. For my fakeness to survive, distance is important, separation is important.” And look at the entire world. We say, “Fakeness is more important than love. For my disease to continue, I'll reject love.”
That's why Jiddu Krishnamurti had said in a talk in Chennai, with great frustration he had said, “What a loveless country this is!” Specifically he chose that word, no other word. “What a loveless country! No love. Attachment is great. You have huge families!” And when he spoke these words, the family size was even larger. “Great attachment to each other; no love, no love! You don't know what love is. You feed like parasites upon each other without knowing love.”
Questioner2: Now, this can be a good testing round. You are sitting in silence, and somebody feels like talking; this is not love, this is actually attachment.
Acharya Prashant: With others, you want to chat using words. It is a proof that you do not love the other person. And when you are with yourself, then you want to chat with yourself using thoughts. It is a proof that there is no love for yourself, no self-love.
The person who cannot be alone, who always needs thoughts, will never be able to, hence, love anybody. When he's with himself, he'll think, and when he's with others, he'll just chat and gossip.
First thing: when you are with yourself, please love yourself, please accept yourself. Do not engage yourself in thought. Have a loving relationship with yourself. And silence is your loving relationship with yourself. Meditation is that.
But when you're talking so much, you feel you are on good terms with that other person. That's our usual reaction, right? If two fellows are talking a lot, what do we feel? “They must be friends.” That only means they are uncomfortable with each other. Otherwise, what is the need to talk so much? But if you won't talk, your wife will say, “He doesn't talk to me!” Friends will say, “You've changed. You're not interested in us. That's why you don't talk.”
Questioner1: Some people use not talking as punishment.
Acharya Prashant: In general, you use this as your show of disapproval. “I do not like you, so I’ll not talk to you.”
Questioner1: But even that silence as punishment is actually thoughts. It’s not silence.
Acharya Prashant: It’s thoughts, it's not at all silence. Well said.
Sitting side by side, you may not be trading words but you're dealing in thoughts—and more severe thoughts, more intense thoughts. You may not be communicating to me through words but it’s written up on your face; you’re thinking of me all the time. Even if in hatred, but I’m the object of your thought. Is that silence?
