What Makes You Do This?

Questioner: Sir, when you were growing up, is there any special memory, or any time you realized and had this aspiration to become, or go on the spiritual path? Is there something interesting related to your life, from your childhood, that you want us to know?

Acharya Prashant: First of all, I was a studious child. So, very ordinary and common sources, such as the textbooks, the school textbooks, they held a lot of meaning for me. I would try to go deep into what the books wanted to tell me. So, obviously, there was science, there was math, there were languages, but then there were also social studies, history, and civics. Those introductions were quite significant to me. And then, you see, I was born in 1978. So, at the age of 5 or 6, I got to read about ‘Operation Blue Star’. It was all over the papers. And I was at Rudrapur, Tarai at that time. So, the ripples from Delhi and Punjab would reach that place as well. My father was an avid reader. He still is. So, he would read about Bhindranwale. And I was curious, I would ask him. Then, there was the ‘Blue Star’ thing, and Mrs Gandhi's subsequent assassination. I was just six, and I still have a vivid memory of the entire nation mourning the loss. We saw the funeral on TV. And, on the impressionable mind of a six-year-old, all those things had quite an impact.

And, when I say, of the TV, just before that thing happened, I also saw Rakesh Sharma, the first Indian to go to space. Then Rajiv Gandhi came over. Then, there was the Shah Bano Case. And then it resulted in the entire Ayodhya Movement. Before 92, there was 90, and I was in Lucknow at that time. Video cassettes of the police firing that happened upon the Kar Sevaks in Ayodhya, were being circulated. One of the cassettes—it was a newsreel—reached my home as well. And the atmosphere was all quite charged up. We looked at it, and I had several questions. Lucknow, as you know, is very close to Faizabad and Ayodhya. And then, in 92, there would be conches blaring through the night, and processions, and shutdowns. Then, between 90 and 92, there was the Mandal Commission Report that was implemented by V.P. Singh's government. And again, being in Lucknow, I saw and experienced firsthand the entire aftermath. So, the first self-immolation had taken place in Lucknow, and I was what, 12 or 13 at that time. So, all that made quite a mark.

And then, there were events at the international front as well—the disintegration of the USSR. Just before that, I remember how Gorbachev had tried to come up with his Glasnost, and how the whole thing didn't quite work out. And there used to be discussions at home. I would read a lot. Magazines, newspapers, whatever I could lay my hand on. Then there was the Gulf war, and then the Scud and the Patriot (names of missiles) become household names. And again, that was seen for the first time, almost live on TV. So, these were the things, and if you see that all this was happening before I was even 15. And the impact of the Gulf war on India was that the Indian foreign reserves depleted badly. Obviously, that also had to do with the policies of the previous government, especially Rajiv Gandhi's government for a great GDP push. So, there were reasons behind that. But then, what Saddam Hussein did in Kuwait, precipitated that. I was curious, and I would ask, and I would try to understand what all these things are. Most importantly, because all these things were happening in different directions, almost in different dimensions, it impelled me to look at the cross-linkages. How internal happenings affect external happenings; how something in the field of religion has an impact on the economy, and vice versa. You know, it was a mishmash; entire things happening together.

Questioner: You started observing these points, started joining those dots that this happened spiritually, or internally and the result is here.

Acharya Prashant : You see, my father is quite a well-read person, and we had a significantly rich library at home. And I liked to read since my childhood. Everything. A huge collection of comic strips, and then, children's stuff like ‘Children's Knowledge Bank’, or the usual fair, ‘Parag', ‘Nandan' and those things.

Questioner: ‘Chacha Choudhary!’

Acharya Prashant : (Smiling) Ha! So, I was reading all the time. All the time, I was reading. I was not so much of a TV boy. So, I got into classical literature as well as spiritual and wisdom literature at quite an early age. And I took to it very smoothly and spontaneously. I was reading classics, and there was hardly a book in my father's library that I didn't lay my hands on. Obviously, I could not comprehend everything. Even the Upanishads, I had read, the major ones, before I was ten. So, in spite of not comprehending everything, something would make sense, something would get connected to something else. And then, there were the great writers, novelists, and poets. Poems especially, I would love. In Hindi. And, one book that I specifically remember being significant for me was ‘The Wonder That Was India’ by Arthur Basham. So, for a child of my age, it was quite a thick volume. But I just poured over it, and I loved the book. It really opened to me the gates of India's history. What helped me was that History was also a subject in the school curriculum. So, some of that was getting connected to what I was being taught in the classroom. And, it also gave a sense of pride to know far beyond what was being taught in the classroom. As a kid, you love all those things. The teacher is saying something and you already know that, and you also know the plus and minus.

So, those things were happening. And those were, you see, really tumultuous years. I went to Kashmir in 1988, and then in 89, the insurgency turned red. Mine would probably have been the last batch of tourists that visited the valley. Kashmiri Pandits; they fled in 89 or 90. And along with that was the Khalistan Movement. I was seeing all that. So, events on the social front, on the religious front, on the political front, on the economic front, international geopolitics, history, religion, spirituality, they were all coming together, and I was absorbing it, and analyzing it. Well as much as I could at that age. And trying to make sense of it. Some pictures, some patterns kept emerging. And, thankfully I had my father at home, to just throw questions at him. I would keep asking, I would keep asking.

Questioner: I just wanted to know, do you remember any pictures or patterns which you observed at that time? Like, this is happening... This is the pattern.

Acharya Prashant : You see, when the USSR disintegrated, I asked my father, I said, “I mean, there has been no war! We have been talking so much about the Cold War.” And the Cold war used to be such a threat in the 80s. Obviously, it was a threat even before that, but the 80s was when I was there to perceive the threat. And the kids would all be talking about it, and these things. So, I said, “If there has not been even a single bullet fired, not a single missile fired; we kept talking of the Armageddon. We said so many nuclear-tipped missiles would be fired from this side, and then that side. None of that happened. And the USSR just broke down.”

So, my father, he quipped. He said, “When the centre becomes weak, then everything around it just falls into pieces.” I don't know whether he said that intentionally or not, but I just fell silent after hearing that. The thing about the centre, and all the peripheral pieces around it. It's another matter that after around ten years later, I read a novel by Chinua Achebe, ‘Things Fall Apart’, and there was a line there. A similar line. “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold. The centre does not hold, things fall apart.” But I had heard first of this when the USSR disintegrated. And it was very, very significant for me, that observation. How pithily he had summed up the entire thing in that one sentence. He said, “You do not need any external enemy. The day Moscow became weak, it was obvious that all the loosely connected states would fall apart. And so, they did. And, you know how interesting it was to see the map of the world changing? So, there was the giant USSR, and suddenly there was no USSR. And half a dozen new states had come up. States with new names. Ukraine! What is Ukraine? Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan. And these were fantastic sounding names as well. I would want to know about it, and kids would discuss these things. There was no internet. There was no mobile. So, some of the curious kids found this as an important pastime. They would be talking about these things. And even information was not as readily available as it is today. We had to wait for the next day's newspaper, and hope that there would be a feature, an op-ed, or a news article, which would not necessarily be there. So, those were interesting times.

Questioner: So, as a youth, when you were in college, I read somewhere that you were.. and I know that you have been to IIT, and IIM, and you were thinking of, I don't know if this is right information or wrong but you were also planning to go to RAW. And that direction, and suddenly you went to the path of spirituality. So, where was the turning point, what happened to you in your thought process? Or did you realize something? We would like to know about it.

Acharya Prashant : There was no turning point at all. No turning point at all. It has been a gradual progression, you see. I loved knowledge. That's what made me do well in my academics. That's what took me to IIT and IIM. Obviously, there were some other reasons as well. But primarily it was because I liked to know and understand these things. And I never, even in my school days, visualized myself as somebody who is worldly successful, in terms of having a lot of money, or a lot of power, or fame, or anything. I was always more concerned about the big picture. What's happening all around me, and the relation of the big macro-picture to the most fundamental micro entity—man. How is the whole thing moving, and how is it impacting man. And how is it not merely impacting man, but how is man responsible for what is happening at the macro level. The interdependence; the two-way traffic.

So, I wanted to get into the Civil Services. And that too because, to my mind, that was probably the most effective way of bringing about a macro change. But then, as I went into the process of preparing for the Civil Services—the UPSCs General Studies syllabus is wonderful—and I went deeper into the Constitution, and how India's Modern History has been, and how the world has shaped up, and what has been the fate of bureaucratic system, all these things the candidates are supposed to study. I did that too. It started becoming clear to me in the process of preparing for the Civil Services that what I want to do cannot be best done through the bureaucratic route.

Questioner: What was it that you wanted to do?

Acharya Prashant : I was not very clear about it.

Questioner: But you were clear, “I don't want to do this.”

Acharya Prashant : Yes! Of a few things I was clear that, “This is what I see happening all around me, and I find it all quite pointless. Pointless and foolish. I don't want to get into this.” What was it that needed to be done, I neither knew nor was very curious to know. I was very patient in that regard. I wanted to let the whole thing gradually emerge on its own. I didn't know. And it couldn't have been known, because it wasn't something that could be planned in advance, or could be determined by way of consultation with others. So, I was quite patient with it. I allowed life to slowly reveal it to me.

Questioner: So, you never felt like, during that time also, to talk to people with wisdom, like any Guru or an Acharya? At that time also, there must have been some people around who would be revered as spiritual teachers. You never felt that some guidance can be taken from there?

Acharya Prashant : No. That didn't happen, because I had the books. And the books never let me feel that additional guidance was needed. And then, I had my father at home. So, there was really no such query that was remaining unanswered. So, that didn't happen. Additionally, you see, I had a great respect for the Greats over the course of history. So, once you have been with the Ṛishis (Vedic seers) of the Upaniṣhads; once you have read, let's say, ‘Discovery Of India’ by Nehru; once you have gone through the works of Vivekananda, you don't just want to go and meet any general person around you, and accept him as your teacher. My benchmarks had just been set very high. Maybe just by way of coincidence. But I had in front of me, teachers and ideals such as Kabir Sahab, Adi Shankaracharya. So, I didn't quite feel the need.

Questioner: I am propelled to get suddenly to the present scenario, and because it is connected to what you are saying. So, when you also see that there are courses online, do you believe that for any spiritual seeker, for a transformation, the presence of a Guru makes a difference?

Acharya Prashant : You see, you must have the drive within, first of all. That drive within is the first guru. Or rather, the first act of the internal guru. And then, that drive within will take you to the right place. And that right place need not be a person's Āśram (hermitage) or something. It could even be a library. Are you getting it? So, if I run a few courses that are for those who see that their drive and their urge would be best satisfied by, and most efficiently satisfied by benefitting from these courses. Otherwise, it is not at all necessary that one must have a person in front of him. Even if one must have a person in front of him, it is not necessary that person be a designated guru. I had my father. And he, de facto, practically, you could say, played the role of my guru. Additionally, such vast literature has been left for us, by the wise ones, by the thinkers, by the ones who cared for us, that we should first try to avail of it. And only then, if our curiosities are still not resolved, must we look for something else, here or there. That is why the people who come to me, if they are coming to me without giving themselves the right kind of literary exposure, I first ask them to read. Reading is a very important component of the practices at my end. I say, first of all, you read. Because that body of knowledge is already and readily available. If you are not availing that, then it is sheer laziness and also shows the weakness of urge. And then if you still want to ask something, then you may come over and we can discuss it.

Questioner: One more clarity I need, where we believe in Sanatana Dharma , guru helps the seeker on every step as a guide. Because there are chances that the journey will outdo us, there are chances that we get toppled on the other side, and sometimes make mistakes. So, that presence is necessary, as I understood from other teachers also. So, I want to understand those lines, is there any clarity? Or, what is your thought on that?

Acharya Prashant : See, Sanatana Dharma realizes two fundamental entities. When you say Sanatan Dharma , you mean the Vedic Dharma . Right? The golden peaks of the Vedas are the Upanishads. They realize only two entities: the Mana (mind), and the Ātmā (self). What is 'Mana '? Mana is all the field around Aham (ego), ‘I’. This field consists of one’s perception of the self, which is the body, and the entire world. Okay? All that comes within the Mana , mind. At the centre of that sits the Aham , ‘I’ sense, the ‘I’ ego sense. And the foundation of all these businesses is called the Ātmā . So, there are only these two: ātmā , which is the Truth, the reality that neither begins nor ends and then there is the ‘I’, ‘mind,’ ‘world’ business, which are all one. I, mind, world, which are all one. Right? So now, who is the guru? Who is the guru? Do you want to look for a guru within the I-mind-world system? Or, is the Ātmā the guru? This has to be realized. The Ātmā is the first and the most important guru. The Truth itself is the guru.

So, while it is very true that one does necessarily need a guru, but, that does not mean that the guru necessarily needs to be in a physical form. And even if the guru needs to be in a physical form, it is not necessary that the guru must be a person, a human being. For example, in the Advaitic literature itself, if you go to the Avadhuta Gita , there Dattatreya talks about the 24 gurus of the Avadhuta . And the Avadhuta is learning from a bird, from a fish, from a fisherman, and from all kinds of appearances around him. Now, why is he able to learn from everybody around him? Because, first of all, he has an urge to learn. The urge to learn is the blessing of the inner guru. Are you getting it?

When that blessing is there, then a physical guru also emerges from somewhere. Whereas, if that urge is not there, and you still keep sitting at the feet of some celebrated guru, it hardly helps you. As you see evident in the case of millions. There are so many gurus and there are millions of followers; frankly, not many of them progress in any sense. I am talking of the followers. It is because one has to, first of all, rely on himself. The first reliance has to be on oneself. And, when that reliance is there, then you also come to see what are the appropriate sources for you in the external manifested world, that can be of help to you. There, you could have any number of sources, and any number means—zero, or one, or twenty-five thousand. Are you getting it?

All possibilities are there. And all of those possibilities hold good and true. Any of those possibilities might be beneficial to a given person. But what is essential is that, first of all, one has to have the drive to realize. The drive to realize. And one has to do the utter maximum that one can do on his own. And it is not as if I am saying that you do the utter max that you can do on your own, and then you come to a guru, and the guru does it for you. No. You have to continue doing the utter maximum that you can do for yourself . And if you are doing that, then in-between, you will keep receiving guidance from the external world as well. So, what remains continuous is your ‘self-enquiry’. That remains continuous. And if you are really sincere in enquiring, then in-between, episodically, you will also have external events, which might be in the form of the appearance of external persons, which will assist you along your internal journey. But, in the internal journey, if you rely solely on an external being, then you are not being responsible towards yourself.

Questioner: So, that makes me ask another question. I now understand your inclination towards Jñānayoga (path of spiritual realization through the cultivation of knowledge), as we were talking, so I wanted to know about the four paths of Yoga (spiritual discipline practiced to become linked with the Supreme)—the bhakti , karma , jñāna , and raja , among these which is more relevant for today's time, from your perspective?

Acharya Prashant : See, first of all, I do not take these as fundamentally different. All the four paths of yoga. If you look at the Bhagavad Gītā, the 18 chapters are all, in a sense, different paths of yoga. The speaker is the same. The listener is the same. And the objective is the same. And to the same listener, all the different paths of yoga are being mentioned. Sāṅkhyayoga is being instructed to Arjuna, and Arjuna is being instructed in Bhakti Yoga as well, Vibhūtiyoga as well, Kṣetrakṣetrajña-vibhaga-yoga as well. Now you must ask, “What is it that Krishna wants Arjuna to learn? Which particular yoga?”

All. Because, they are not fundamentally different. And unless one sees the underlying unity of all paths, one will remain confined and conditioned to a particular path. There can be no jñāna without bhakti , please. And there can be no bhakti without jñāna . Jñāna without bhakti is sheer egoism. And, bhakti without jñāna is blind superstition. So, they all, to me, are one. Maybe one can start from a particular point, but if one is sincere, then he would soon discover their interoperability, their in-separation, their undifferentiation, their essential unity. That would become obvious.

What is it that is relevant in today's times? Be it this age, or any particular age, any time, one has to start with self-observation . One has to, first of all, know his condition. If you want to travel, there are three things that you must know—where you stand, first of all; your destination; and the path you want to take. These three things. And there is a fourth thing called the vehicle, which starts becoming clear then. Most of the time, we do not know the two most important things. ‘Where do we stand, and where do we want to go.’ The first thing to be known is: “Where do I stand?” Only when I clearly see that I stand at a point of tension, confusion, inner conflict, jealousy, hatred, lovelessness, then I realize that I want to reach a point where I would be free of all these things. Right? So, the first point decides the second point. How do I know the destination if I do not know where I am? If I do not realize that I am sick, how can I ask for help? So, first of all, there has to be self-observation. And that self-observation leads to an urge to be free of bondages. Once these two are there, then you also know by the definition of your condition, what path you can take. Because that has to be a practical thing, you see. Having observed myself, if I see that such and such is my inner configuration, and, such and such are my external conditions, then I can obviously infer what kind of route would be best for me. And then, the vehicle also shows up. One has to leave a bit for the grace to do.

Sadly, in the whole process, commonly, people just do not begin with self-observation. They begin with an imagined picture of divinity. They say, “O! There is something called ‘great spiritual peace’ that we want to attain.” Now, why do you want to attain peace if you, first of all, do not see that you are tense and surrounded, and chaotic within? So, one has to start from his own actual state. And then, everything else will become clear.

Questioner: So, the next question we bring is, how important is chanting in the name of the Lord? Any specific mantra you teach your students, or do you recommend people to do at home? Because many of my readers are housewives and males of advanced age.

Acharya Prashant : The mind loves gossip, does it not? The mind is continuously chanting some name or the other. Is the mind ever silent? The mind is always reciting and repeating some word or the other because words are all that the mind can have. The mind cannot have the Truth. The mind cannot really contain peace within itself. But it can have lots of images, symbols. So, words are symbols. And the mind has a great affinity for words. So, the mind is always full of words. Words represent the world. So, the mind cannot, for example, contain bread within itself, because the mind is subtle. But it can contain b-r-e-a-d. The mind, for example, cannot contain an entire person within itself, because the person for the mind is the body. And the body is gross; the mind is subtle. So, the mind would contain within itself the name of that person. The name of that person could be r-a-j-i-v, Rajiv. Now, what is the mind doing? The mind is obsessed with the word ‘Rajiv'. And the mind is continuously chanting that. So, the mind is a prākṛatik (natural) chanter. Are you getting it?

Now, you see why the Lord's name has been given to the devotees. The Lord actually can have no name. The Truth is nirguṇa (devoid of material qualities; transcendental), nirākāra (beyond all forms); how can it have a name? So, when it is said, “Chant the name of the Lord!”, what is actually being said is, “Stop chanting all those names that you usually do.” Stop chanting all those names. Or, when a name comes very forcefully to you—the name could say ‘a new air-conditioner’, the name could be ‘Rajiv’, or the name could be anything that the media throws at you, all the names that occupy the mind, that are there—question it.

“Are you the name of the Lord?” And the Lord has no name. You tell that name, “You see, I am supposed to recite only the name of the Lord. So, I will not allow you to circulate in my mind. I will not allow you to occupy a position within myself.” That is the real meaning of chanting the Lord's name. Chanting the Lord's name does not mean burdening the already burdened mind with one more name. You already have a million names in your mind, and those names are what makes life hell, right? ”Jo man se na utare, maya kahiye soye” (One that doesn’t get dropped from the mind, that should be identified as an illusion). Already the mind is so very loaded. And then you bring in Viṣṇu-sahasranāma , and so many more names have been added to the already very long list. That is not the purpose. The purpose is to clip the list. The purpose is to get rid of the mental burden.

So, that is the real meaning of chanting the Lord's name. It is in ‘negativa’. Chanting the Lord's name means getting rid of all the names that are not the Lord's name. Get rid of all the names that are not the Lord's name. And the Lord has no name. Which means, all the names that are there in your mind, need not be there. Because the Lord can have no name.

Questioner: But this can be very difficult for any ordinary seeker to...

Acharya Prashant : But then, you need to have that commitment. And, even if you find it difficult, at least you must realize that the real thing indeed is difficult. Would you want the real thing and all the difficulty associated with it, or, because the real thing is difficult, you would settle for a fake thing?

Questioner: Of course not! But, like, millions of people who chant, I don't know what to tell them about this. How are they going to..(laughing) respond and react to this?

Acharya Prashant : It is something that needs to be told. Because a great device in the form of chanting or sumiran or japa has been rendered very useless by the wrong application. The device that was handed over to us by the wise ones was perfect and beautifully crafted.

Questioner: So, on those devices—I just want to extend this—there are mantras mentioned. Some mantras which we, at that time also we used to recite. Like, for example, “Asato mā sadgamaya”, and other mantras which everybody recites everyday, in the evening or morning. So, even that is chanting, in a way. Does that also have any relevance or not?

Acharya Prashant : It has a great relevance. But it has to be understood. Anything done by way of dead habit, obviously, cannot be useful. Anything is useful only when it arises organically from your understanding, right? Now, what is a mantra? Any and every verse of the Bhagavad Gītā is a mantra. Any and every verse of the Upanishads is a mantra. Any śloka or sakhi by the saint poets, even in the language of the masses is a mantra. Nanak Sahib, Kabir Saheb say something; that is a mantra. And what is that something? Not something special. Anything that they have ever said, all of that is a mantra. Which means there can be no single common mantra for everybody.

Questioner: Okay!

Acharya Prashant : Because the mind differs. All that differs is the mind. Because the mind differs, therefore, the mantra that would be useful to the mind at a particular stage, at a particular time and place would also be specific to that time and place and situation. Which means you cannot have one mantra for an entire lifetime. Which means you cannot have one mantra for an entire community. Which means that one mantra that is useful to you in the afternoon would not be so effective by the evening. By the evening, you might require another mantra. Therefore, the mantra must also be dynamic. The Truth cannot change, but the mantra must change. Truth is immovable, unchangeable, but the mind keeps fluctuating, right? The mind is never still. The condition of the mind keeps changing according to time, place, situation, everything. So, that which will take the mind to the central, unchangeable Truth also must keep changing.

So, when somebody comes to me and, let's say, demands a mantra, first of all, I try and explain what ‘mantra’ means. And then, I would say, “All these that I have spoken to you, from all these, pick up what you find most relevant and most useful for yourself. And that is your mantra.” And that could be something very, very simple. Something very simple as ‘Keep still'. Keep still. Now, that is your mantra.

Questioner: I am still a little confused here. I want to put this in perspective. So, when I am asking about chanting the name of the Lord, you are saying that there is, first thing, you have to not chant anything. Become silent. Completely. No words, and then you are saying about…

Acharya Prashant : Yes, that mantras can be useful! So, you see a contradiction here. You see, there are two kinds of words. There is a word that arises from the noisy mind and it furthers the noise. And, there is a word that arises from Silence. The word that arises from silence is what we have called as the ‘Divine Word'. That is why we do not call the words of the Holy Books as coming from mankind. We say that these words have descended from the skies. It is because there are certain words that do not come from the usual state of the mind. They come from a very, very silent mind. Therefore, they need not be called as ‘man's words’ at all. So, we say, “They are brahmavākya . They come from somewhere else." In India, we have said that. Elsewhere also, it has been said. That these words are not man's words. Obviously, they came from the mouth of man, but they didn't come from the usual, noisy mind of man. They came from a most centered and still mind. And, when the mind is most centered, and still, that is what is called as ātmā or Truth.

So, those special words have a special ability. What is the ability that they have? They make the mind silent; they remove all the words that are circulating within the mind and having removed all the words they themselves disappear. They themselves disappear. Like a cleansing agent, you see. Like soap. When you use soap to wash a piece of cloth, all the dirt and the dust are carried away. But then after that, does the soap itself remain? No, the soap also goes away. The Upanishads put it very beautifully. They say, “The words of the Upanishads are like the logs of wood on the funeral pyre, on the chitā .” You see, what is it that they do? They say, “They burn away all that which is dead inside you, and then in the process of burning all that which is dead inside you, the wood also gets burned away.” So, nothing remains. You are now absolutely clean and empty of everything. So, these mantras are those kinds of words. But they cannot be made to co-exist with our usual crowd of words within. As I said that you cannot have a thousand words that occupy your mind, and along with that, side by side, you have viṣṇu-sahasranāma . That makes no sense at all.

Questioner: So then, to begin that journey, first quieten yourself and then take up…

Acharya Prashant : Quieten yourself. Be very committed that, “Only the right thing can stay in my mind”. And the right thing is not merely a sound. It has to be the light of your understanding. So, for example, when you have, let's say, a Sanskrit śloka as your mantra. Let's say, you are using that as your mantra. You must very well know what the śloka is saying. And you must be committed to abiding in the spirit of the śloka. So many times, people have a mantra and they do not even fully realize what the mantra is saying. It is not merely the sound or that process of repetition that is important. It is understanding that is important. You see, Truth is realisation, right? The rishis said, “Bodho ahaṃ.” Who am I really? Understanding. “Prajñānam Brahma". What is Brahma? Understanding. So, without understanding, what is the point of repetition?

Questioner: So, the next question is, India has always been the land of spirituality. But the times we live in are very challenging. How does one conduct oneself in these testing times to attain bliss, or liberation, or centre oneself? To become quiet or something.

Acharya Prashant : You see, times have always been challenging. It's just that, today, man has so much ammunition that he is bringing about the carnage that is visible to the eyes. Otherwise, the essential animal vṛittis (tendencies) of man have always been there. Violence, disquiet. It is not that man has suddenly learned these things. They were always there. It's just that, today, by virtue of progress through time, man has reached a point where he has a lot of knowledge available to him. Knowledge about the world, you see. And that knowledge has manifested itself in technology. Technology that has enabled man to live long, has greatly increased the number of people living in this world. But technology has given just unlimited destructive power in man's hands. So, today we say that you know, this is the utter nadir of the yugas . We say this is Kaliyuga . If this is Kaliyuga , then it has been a very long Kaliyuga . It's just that we are now seeing the results of what we have been since the last 5000 years at least. The results are becoming evident now. Otherwise, we are not newly indoctrinated sinners.

Questioner: Got it! So, this situation where we are already… We have been like this. Now, the situation is where everybody can glaringly see this happening. Now, that's why the situation is tense and more stressful. How do we conduct ourselves?

Acharya Prashant : Obviously, if it is our doing, then we have to clean the mess. We created it, we will have to clean it up. In some sense, it is good that now the results are very obviously evident. There is widespread extinction of species, the climate catastrophe is upon us, we are already 8 billion. And then, you know, hundreds of species are disappearing every week. Let that sink in. Hundreds of species are disappearing every week. Even as we have been speaking, maybe a dozen species have gone extinct. So, that is the kind of time we are living in. You know of biodiversity loss; you know of how close mankind is to a nuclear war that can be precipitated at any time. Nations keep blatantly threatening each other with their nuclear arsenal. All those things are happening. And the number of nations with access to nuclear weaponry has been continuously increasing. It used to be 2, then 4, and now it’s practically going to reach a dozen. So, anything can happen anytime. It's obviously a very, very bad situation and anybody can see that.

We have to realize that the root of all these external problems is man's mind. So, first of all, we have to get rid of the notion that by having the right kind of legislation, or structures, or systems, or international treaties or agreements, or social processes, we can just sail out of these troubled waters. That is not going to happen. You have to address the problem where it really is. And the problem really is here (pointing towards the mind) . In man's mind. Man needs spiritual education. Man's animal ego needs to be educated. It needs to be rather, edified. Otherwise, there is no hope at all.

Questioner: So, one method, macro-method if I take it, is spiritual knowledge, or spiritual education for as many people as possible.

Acharya Prashant : Yes, yes! It has to be a part of the school and college curriculum.

Questioner: This is something very interesting.

Acharya Prashant : Yes. You see, what else will the ego do? The ego is born hungry and dissatisfied and chaotic. That's how it is born. Look at the newborn baby. Do you find it meditative? It is shouting. Throwing about its limbs. And it has no realisation of who it is, and it's always trying to get hold of something; grope this, grope that, shout for this. It's continuously crying. It's attached to the body. So, that's who we are. That's how we are born.

Now, if you do not educate the ego, what will it do throughout its lifetime of, let's say, 80 years? It will go outwards to seek satisfaction. And how will it seek satisfaction? Through consumption. And that sense of consumption is what is destroying the world today. It has already, very nearly, totally destroyed it. If you do not get contentment at the right place, you will obviously seek satisfaction at all the wrong places. How will you seek satisfaction? By amassing wealth, by consuming material, by consuming another human being, by trying to dominate another human being. No? Through all these means, what are you trying to do? What is so much of all this human activity about? It is just to please the ego, right? “I am not okay. I want to be okay, so I am doing something.” What am I doing? I am chasing a woman, I am chasing wealth, I am attacking another nation, I am becoming sectarian, I am proving my superiority, I am amassing more knowledge. Why am I doing all this? “Because I feel hollow within. Something is not alright. So, I am trying to set it right by doing all these things.” Now the thing is, you do all these things all your life and yet, the fundamental dissatisfaction does not go away. The result: you do more of those things, with more misery for yourself and the world. Far better than that is to take the student within and point to the real source of dissatisfaction. Once he knows the real source of dissatisfaction, then at least, he will not foolishly run behind the world. So spiritual education, to me, is the unavoidable solution.

Questioner: You have started something on those terms?

Acharya Prashant : Obviously.

Questioner: Some school?

Acharya Prashant : Obviously, obviously! Since the last 13 years, there has been a course called the ‘Holistic Individual Development Program’ which has been running in universities, colleges, and schools. But you see, it is coming from a person, a private organization. So, it can have only so much impact. Are you getting it? Plus, the ecosystem, right now, is not favorable. Schools and colleges are now places where one is supposed to get jobs. Education has become just a means to earn a livelihood. So, when you want to introduce this kind of thing in an educational institution, it is not quite easy. Yet we have been doing it. And, there has been at least partial success. And we just concluded a three-day camp here in Mumbai. So, stuff is going on. There have been online media through which we have been reaching out. And the process of education is continuing. But it needs to be a thousand, maybe a million times more intense.

Questioner: I get this. So, Acharya Ji, what is the purpose of one's life? Straight away, like, people want to understand. Those who are on the path. (Both laughing)

Acharya Prashant : There has to be some problem, only then there has to be a purpose, right? So, the purpose depends on the problem. If there is no problem at all, would you want a purpose?

Questioner: I have come across some people who are happy and satisfied. Like, there are people who are running after money, but there are people who have already attained career success, money, family, everything. And then they still feel something that they are missing. They also ask some questions like what is the purpose of life.

Acharya Prashant : So, if somebody is missing something, obviously the purpose of life for that person is to figure out what he is missing and obtain it.

Questioner: Yes, that I understand... (laughing at his own confusion)

Acharya Prashant : (jokingly) But, that is so obvious! The purpose of life is to come to a point where you can be purposeless. Because purpose and problem go together. We are problemed, we are troubled, so we must have a purpose. And that is alright. If you are not feeling alright, then you must have a purpose. And what will the purpose be? Do something that makes you feel alright. But if you are really alright, then there is no need for a purpose. So, ultimately you have to come to a point where there is no need for a purpose. Ultimately, that is the purpose. To come to purposelessness.

What must be the current purpose? Look at your life and figure out what is it that troubles you. Get rid of it. That is the purpose.

So, there is no long-term purpose as such. The purpose has to be right now. You are in a job that is eating you out. But you are still continuing in it for the sake of something that you may call your responsibility, your obligation, or your helplessness, whatever. If that is what is troubling you, then realize that Peace is higher than any other obligation that you hold. And then, the purpose must be to somehow get out of that job. And that is the purpose for now. Once you are out of that job, figure out if there is still something else that is troubling you; get rid of that. So, the purpose has to be dynamic. The purpose of life has to be very, very dynamic. Varying from moment to moment, depending on what troubles the moment is offering you. And, ultimately, you must come to a place where there are no troubles left. And then life is purposeless, and it's so beautiful.

Questioner: I understand this. At a micro-level, as an individual question is asked and you are answering. But what I wanted to understand, at a macro-level question, from the outside, the bigger picture. There are many seekers who spiritually want to know, what is the meaning of life and what is the purpose of life.

Acharya Prashant : Then it could be just said in a very blanket way, “The purpose of life is Liberation.” But, liberation from what? Liberation from all that which troubles you. And what is it that troubles you? Your essential sense of self is what troubles you. So, it is very easy to say that the purpose of life is Liberation. Alright, Liberation. But liberation from what? Liberation from oneself. Because we sustain our troubles. If your office is what troubles you, does your office come to your home and harass you there? No. You travel every day to your office to get harassed. Right? So, we sustain our troubles. We willingly walk into our troubles. So, the purpose of life is to be liberated from the obligation to remain troubled all the time.

Questioner: Okay. I mean, I understand literally what is being said. But, there are people who have responsibilities towards society, families and all that, so they have to go, travel, and make that painful sustenance.

Acharya Prashant : One has to, first of all, know what ‘real responsibility’ is. Because you see, responsibility comes from the sense of who you are. Most of the time, what people call their responsibility is something that has been just taught to them. If you take them aside and ask them, “How do you know that you are responsible for such a thing?” They will have no answer. They will say, “Isn't it obvious?” You say, “No, no it is not obvious. Explain to me.” And they will not be able to explain. Because they do not know. How can they explain? Everybody is carrying so many responsibilities towards others, towards oneself. “I must be successful. It's my responsibility towards myself. I must have a great career. It's my responsibility towards myself. I must have a great house. I must be able to bring up my kids in that way.” How do you know that all this is your responsibility? I repeat, how do you know that you must do it? And, when you ask this, the fellow usually goes silent. Because he has never bothered to enquire. Had our responsibilities been genuine, then fulfilling those responsibilities would have been a source of great joy to us. The very fact that our responsibilities are a burden to us, proves that our responsibilities are false.

Real responsibility is real delight. If your responsibility does not give you delight, that means you neither know yourself nor your responsibility. Responsibility can arise only from self-knowledge, you see. If I know who I am, then I will know what I must do. And that which I must do is called my responsibility. So, I cannot be responsible unless I have self-knowledge. But people act very, very responsible without having an iota of self-knowledge. How is that happening?

Questioner: Sir, I will ask the next question. This is about food habits. Like people in Sanatana Dharma , and also at many places I have heard that people who are on the spiritual path or following a spiritual path or a guru should eat generally vegetable or vegetarian food. What is your perspective on this? What do you recommend?

Acharya Prashant : You see, man is the only creature who has a choice in food, right? Isn't it obvious? The lion has no choice, the elephant has no choice, the fish has no choice, the bird has no choice. The rabbit or the cow has no choice. They will eat what they are prākṛtikally—you could call that nature; I don't want to equate nature with prakṛti , but that's the common equation, so I will proceed with it—what they are naturally designed to eat. Man is the only one who has a choice in everything. Prakṛti didn't tell man to raise houses for himself. But man raises houses. Prakṛti didn't tell man to fly to Mars or to the moon. But man flies to Mars or the moon. Man has a choice. Man need not abide by prakṛti . All other animals, all other creatures must live strictly by their prākṛtik code. The moment it is close to sunset, at the time of dusk, what do you find the birds doing?

Questioner: Going back to their nests.

Acharya Prashant : And, just before twilight, what do you hear?

Questioner: The chirping of the birds.

Acharya Prashant : The birds start chirping! So, they live strictly by the prākṛtik code. Man, he works all night. The place where I am staying, people have been shooting the entire night. I suppose they find nights more conducive for having a shoot. Man does what he does. Man is not confined by the rules of prakṛti, except that he has to take birth and die. But, even in that, he has a choice, you see. No other animal has a choice. Man can abort birth, and man can delay death. Or man can bring about his death sooner than usual. Both things. So, even in food, man has a choice.

Questioner: Yes.

Acharya Prashant : And what should man choose? What must every choice take into account? Man is fundamentally restless. Is he not?

Questioner: Yes.

Acharya Prashant : So, every choice must be in a way that brings rest and peace to man. Are you getting it? Man must choose because man is the only being in the entire universe that is so restless. Animals are alright. Give them food, give them their right habitat and they are alright. They don't complain then. Man always keeps complaining. Right from his moment of birth, till his moment of death. Man is an animal that complains. Correct? So, man must choose in a way that brings peace to him. That is his most fundamental requirement. Accordingly, he must decide on his diet. Now, will killing an animal make you more peaceful? If it does, go ahead and kill it.

The thing is, you are already troubled. And when you kill an animal, look into its eyes. You are creating trouble for the animal, are you not? You are already suffering a lot, and now you are making the other creature suffer. Is that reducing your suffering or compounding your suffering? So, it is not even so much a matter of having pity or compassion for the animal. The moment you kill an animal, you have compounded your own suffering. You must choose to eat in a way that relieves you of your inner turbulence and conundrum. Instead, if you choose to eat flesh, you are making life worse for you. That is why the spiritual seeker cannot eat flesh. If he is really seeking, if he really wants to bring calmness to his consciousness, how can he go about slaughtering consciousness? Do you understand? On one hand, our consciousness is troubled. On the other hand, we are slaughtering the animal and the animal, too, is consciousness. How can you do that?

Some people argue that even when you eat plants, aren't you slaughtering consciousness? But that is the very minimum that the body requires. You see, you have a choice. You have a choice. And living on this earth, everything is relative, no choice can be absolute. So, living on this earth, eating a leaf or a fruit is the minimum that you require for physical survival; to the extent physical survival is needed. So, that is something that you will have to do. But even in that, the best way to live would be to not live through a farm but to live through an orchid. —Fruits and leaves. When you live on fruits and leaves, and there can be abundant diversity in that, then you don't have to kill a tree. The present mode of feeding populations is through agriculture. And agriculture is quite violent. Not as violent as meat consumption. But still, there is a lot of blood involved in agriculture as well. Do you understand?

Questioner: Blood involved in agriculture? I didn't understand.

Acharya Prashant : You see, you cannot raise crops without first clearing fields. For people to eat, first of all, forests must be cleared away. And when you clear away a forest, you have made so many species go extinct. You won't even realize that your simple potato or chapati is soaked in blood. But it is. Obviously, that is nothing in comparison to the violence that happens when you eat meat. But what I am saying is in response to the argument that even vegetable consumption involves a certain level of violence, I agree to that. Even a vegetarian diet involves a certain level of violence. But then, that is the very basic minimum violence that you have to do because you carry a body. Even that is bad, that to maintain this body, you have to kill a plant. Even that is bad. Why do you want to make it worse by slaughtering an animal? And if you are saying that it does not matter whom you slaughter, then why stop at animals, go ahead and slaughter a human being. The question is, why don't we eat human beings? We don't eat human beings because they carry a certain consciousness. By the same logic, you should not kill animals. And if you say that consciousness does not matter, then go ahead and eat human beings as well. But, even the most prolific meat-eater does not eat human beings. So, just as you can spare human beings, try sparing animals as well. And try sparing plants as well. Try eating in a way that involves minimum destruction of plant-life.

Questioner: Yes.

Acharya Prashant : If mankind evolves, you see, if we really become spiritual people, then the future is not farms, I say, it's orchids. We will learn to live through orchids. We will have trees. The evolution of man, today we have come to a point where, you know, where even using your mobile phone is causing climate change. Do you know that? Please, figure that out. Using social media, using mobile phones is in itself a contributor to climate change. So, you have had the internet, before that you had the industrial revolution. And in the industrial revolution, we know how much the mills and factories emitted carbon and other gasses into the environment. Before that, we had agriculture. And agriculture itself is a great contributor to climate change. Agriculture, the harmless-looking agriculture, the innocuous plant diet is itself a contributor to climate change. Obviously, I say that it is not even a tenth in comparison to a meat-based diet, but even then, it has some blood on its hands.

You will have to, therefore, go beyond agriculture. Not only will you have to change the other external aspects of living, if you are really sincere about living in the most spiritual, most peaceful, most fulfilling way possible, then you will have to revisit the glorious image of farms and fields. We think of farms and fields as almost holy places. They are not. Man's decline took a great step ahead the day he turned a farmer. So, it is not that a farm is a great place and we love it.

Questioner: You were saying, because he had to cut a lot of trees and extinct many species, because of this…

Acharya Prashant : Yes, that is one aspect. And the other aspect is that when man became a farmer, he lost a lot of freedom. The farm started ruling over man. The farmer's life, the agrarian life, came with a lot of constraints. In fact, in the jungle, there was not so much subjugation of the woman, for example. But when the village came about, it resulted in a lot of subjugation of the woman. Not only that, the free time that was available to man in the jungle was hardly available when he became a farmer. So, we need to really collect and know the facts about agriculture as well. Though agriculture is not the topic of today's discussion, we have just trodden into it. But all these things have to be revisited. We have to look at the entirety of our lives. And there need not be any holy cows. Whatsoever needs to be changed and reformed must be changed and reformed if you want to avoid the catastrophe that is impending.

Questioner: Acharya Ji, please tell us about your teachings and spiritual practice, and how you teach your students.

Acharya Prashant : This way; this is how. This is how.

Questioner: Okay. One-on-one?

Acharya Prashant : No, not one-on-one. There might be a group. So, there used to be a group here. People were sitting here. But it's quite didactic, you know.

Questioner: Okay. Any specific technique?

Acharya Prashant : The method is discussion. The method is dialectical. So, people would ask something, and then I would respond. And then usually there is a counter question. So, it proceeds through this kind of engagement.

Questioner: Okay. Then you also accept students? Disciples?

Acharya Prashant : Not formally. Not formally. It's not that somebody is a student and somebody is not a student, somebody is formally enrolled and somebody is not formally enrolled. I rather like to be a companion. You could say a facilitator. I say, use me to the extent I am useful to you. It's not that I am a permanent guru or something. I don't quite fit-in with the usual image of the guru. And nor do I want to. So, I am okay being just a facilitator.

Questioner: Just one or two more questions. One question is, how much do service and charity help in raising human consciousness? What do you think is the best form of service?

Acharya Prashant : The ego wants to service itself. That's the problem. Because it is always dissatisfied, hungry, and angry. If it has to serve, it will serve itself. It takes care of its own interests. That is called selfishness. In that context, service has to be seen. Service is when you are really able to see the futility of trying to please only yourself. And then you say, “Oh! This won't work.” And then you become of use to others as well. Otherwise, even if you act in a way to help others, you are only causing a disservice. See, in general, there are people who try to be good to others. Parents try to be good to their kids. Friends try to be good to each other. Colleagues try to be good to each other. Spouses try to be good to each other. But then, the world is like this. If people actually are good to each other, why is the world like this? Which means that even when we ostensibly want to be good to the other, we only end up harming the other. Because the ego cannot be good to the other even if it tries to be. The ego can be good to the other only when it sees its own limitations, gains some humility, and gets rid of its usual ways. That is real charity. That is ‘real service’. Otherwise, if you just give out some money, or dole something out, or engage in yearly donations, and all those things, they just serve to beef up the ego.

Questioner: So, that also answers what is the best form of service, because you explained very correctly that it has to first be understood in terms of ego. Okay. And so, what is true worship?

Acharya Prashant : Seeing one's own limitations. How can you worship somebody if you consider yourself as the biggest of them all? And that's what the ego does. The ego does not consider itself secondary, or smaller, or inferior to anybody. Even if the ego professes an inferiority complex, somewhere it still acts as the master. It says, “I know I have an inferiority complex.” So the ego, in its own eyes, is the final authority. What is worship? How can you worship someone if you do not take that entity or power or whatever it is, as bigger than yourself? To worship, first of all, there has to be humility. How can there be humility if you are egoistic? Because the ego cannot tolerate being second. The ego has to be the first. The ego is the principal authority in its own eyes. The ego judges even the one it worships. So, you might become a student, you might take somebody as the guru. But you are the one who would decide whether the guru is worth it. And you keep judging the guru as well. So, who is the real authority? The guru or you?

Questioner: Of course, you. (Laughing)

Acharya Prashant : Just as you choose a trouser or a t-shirt for yourself, you also choose your guru. So, who is the authority? The guru or you? That's the thing with ego. It has no humility. Even if it wants to be humble, it wants to be humble according to its own values and thoughts and perceptions.

Questioner: So then, is there any way worship could be possible?

Acharya Prashant : Worship has to begin, like anything else, with self-observation. One has to see that one worships himself. One has to see that one has been so very conceited that he has been worshiping nobody else but himself, all his life. Even the most wretched person, in the most dilapidated of conditions, is a self-worshiper. He says “I” with profound pride. And he feels hurt when the “I" is hurt. So, everybody, every single being is a worshiper of the little ego, which thinks itself to be great. So then, what is real worship? Real worship is to stop worshiping yourself, first of all. If you keep worshiping yourself, which God are you going to worship? If you keep worshiping yourself, then the slot is already occupied. You cannot place two deities on the same podium, or can you? The Heart has a single, central seat. It can be occupied only by one entity. Unfortunately, in our case, it is the ego. So, first of all, the ego has to be unseated. First of all, the usurper has to be dethroned. And then, real worship naturally happens. Therefore, real worship need not necessarily be an external act of prostrating, or bowing down, or pilgrimage, or anything. Real worship is rather an act in negative. It is not about doing something extra; it is not about going to a temple and bowing down your head. It is rather about not doing what you have been doing till now. And what have we been doing till now? Worshiping ourselves.

Questioner: Yes.

Acharya Prashant : So, it is not about doing something extra. It is rather about stopping what we have been doing till now. That is worship.

Questioner: Sir, I am done with the questions, because other questions have been answered by you in a different way. If you want to say something else (joining his hands) , please.

Acharya Prashant : Those who will be going through this article might find a few or many of the things that have been discussed, initially, a bit unacceptable. Because they look a bit polemical. They appear a bit contradictory to the usual notions. They really are not. If you will bother to go through the whole thing once again, maybe there will be more clarity. Or if you still have very strong doubts, then maybe you can go to the YouTube channel. There are 7,000 or so videos there. And, every conceivable topic has been discussed there in much detail. That would help. Try not to dismiss this conversation instinctively. Because that is often the first instinct. To just rubbish the whole thing away or to dismiss it as false, or whatever. Give it some consideration. It might be of use to you. That is my humble request.

show_less