When Buddha Decides to Die
Questioner:Hello sir, this is not a well-formulated question or anything, but the discussion around bodies kind of disturbed me a little bit. The kind of sense that it came from a place of privilege, because, sociopolitically, the body has been made the center of discrimination at so many levels — be it disabled bodies, bodies of color, or queer bodies. So, bodies have been made the center of discrimination, and continue to be made so.
Where I’m going with this is, should we kind of acknowledge some kind of limit to spirituality? Because, can spirituality show us a way in all walks of life?
Even the question that the previous questioner had asked about ghosts and such — just imagine if I’m schizophrenic and I’m delusional and I see things that are not really there for anybody else. Just because somebody else doesn’t see it, it does not make my presence non-existent, right?
So again, I’m repeating the question: does spirituality have a kind of limit? Should it not be sought in certain cases, like social discrimination? Are there places where we have to set it aside and put it on.
Acharya Prashant: You’ll need to converse because there are a lot of things, so I don’t think I cannot have a monologue in this. There are a lot of things that you are trying to say. So why do you think that spirituality must have a ceiling somewhere?
Questioner: Not a ceiling. What I meant to say is: are we giving a misconception that all your answers can be found in spirituality?
Acharya Prashant: No, No. spirituality does not talk of giving answers. It says the central problem is the "I" itself, and there lies the solution. If the "I" is the problem and the "I" is drunk and ignorant and it’s asking a lot of questions, there is no point in giving answers to those questions. In fact, spirituality has very few answers. It has a central solution, no answers.
Of what use is an answer if it keeps the questioner alive? If you give one answer, he’ll come up with four more questions. A solution is something that dissolves the questioner. The questioner is the false "I." And if that false "I" can go away, all kinds of things that make us suffer just disappear. That’s spirituality.
Questioner: I think then my question would be: can everyone afford to be spiritual?
Acharya Prashant: How do you afford not to be spiritual? Because if you’re not spiritual, then you are making a mistake at the very first step of your existence.
Questioner: No. The discussion about the "I" …., the questioner. It kind of reminded me of Ramana Maharshi’s example, the stick which is used to keep the fire burning and it…
Acharya Prashant: Burns itself out. Lovely.
Questioner: You know, people who are living in a kind of delusional state — there, you can’t separate this "I" from the body or "I" from the…
Acharya Prashant: psyche. So, you gave an example, you said that, for example, somebody is schizophrenic and that fellow is experiencing something, and that experience is very real for that person, right? And you’re saying, how does it help? How does spirituality help that person?
What apart from spirituality can help that person? The person has to know that the thing is not the truth. Truth is absolute — absolute meaning 100% objective, zero subjectivity in it. Or you could say pure subjectivity, in the sense that objects apart from the subject do not exist, whatever you say. But truth is something that is not relative.
We suffer when we take our condition as the truth. When we start seeing that it is something only for me — not only is it only for me, it is, in fact, rooted in me — then I, in fact, feel empowered by having a choice.
If it is to me, then it can also be not to me. But if something is absolute, then I have no way of opting out.
Please understand, if the temperature in this room is 27°C, there is no way I can experience 32°C, right? Because that’s what the temperature is. But if I am feverish and I am the only one experiencing a high temperature, then I have a choice. The choice is to get rid of my disease.
Spirituality tells you, whatever you are experiencing is your own subjective matter. Therefore, you have the power to modify your experiences.
And even if you cannot modify your experiences, you can at least have control over your reaction and your attitude to your experiences.
Have you heard of John Nash? You remember the movie?
Listeners: A Beautiful Mind.
Acharya Prashant: A Beautiful Mind. You remember what he used to experience? What was it?
He was experiencing all kinds of things, and he was one of the greatest mathematicians in recent times, Game Theory. Any mathematics students here? You know the importance of Nash.
And he was seeing people. He was here seeing places. He was seeing that little girl, if I remember correctly. That movie came around a decade back.
And how did he use it to counter that? You remember that?
He used to say, he would be seeing this apparition in front of me, there is this girl, and the girl is saying something. She would look around and try to detect whether others too are looking at her. Something like that, right? And when he would see that nobody around him is looking at her, he would tell himself, it's only me, it's subjective. And if it's subjective, I give it no importance and I move on.
So, spirituality which is "I-awareness" is the only way to get rid of all that which infects you, afflicts you. So what else do you do?
You know, I had COVID. And one of the effects of COVID was that I developed tinnitus, a rather strong one in one of my ears. For the initial few weeks or months, I would be searching for the insects around that were making those noises. What is tinnitus? You constantly hear noise in your ear.
Now, I was used to having perfectly healthy ears — silence when silent. But now, there is always a constant buzz, as if you have those insects that come around in the rainy season.
So, I would actually be looking around, where's the noise coming from, where's the noise coming from? Or I would be thinking there is something in the ear that's creating the noise. So I would be trying to clean it up. After a while I learned. I said, it's only me. And if it's only me, how am I trying to fight it? Let it be there. It's doing what it would. And the doctor said, it is going to now remain your entire life. Can't be helped. That can't be helped. Can't be helped.
Let the body do what it wants to do. I'll do what I want to do. Even at this moment there is somebody speaking to me in my hair. Let him speak. I'm speaking to you. Do I have that choice? Do I have that choice?
That's what spirituality asks you: don't you have a choice? Exercise that choice. Why must you needlessly suffer? Why must you be a slave to the body and therefore to the world? You have a choice to be your own master.
But I'm sure it's not yet complete. Please continue.
Questioner: So, the question of consent came to my mind when you're having the ringing in your ear, you're able to say, “I'm the only one who's hearing it.” So, I think from the beginning, my question has been this: what if someone cannot make this call for themselves?
Acharya Prashant: That’s a choice. It's not that you cannot make this call. Spirituality just does not admit the word "helplessness." There is no space for this one word. If there is one sin, it is called helplessness. Never say, "I never had a choice." You had a choice, you chose not to exercise the choice. Take it upon yourself. Be responsible.
Questioner: But in certain medical situations, the consent falls on the family when the individual is not able to give some kind…
Acharya Prashant: That’s fine. The individual is then already gone. If the individual is not conscious enough even to give consent, take him as already gone. The choosing agency itself is no more there now. So how do you call the patient even alive?
Questioner: No, are you suspending the judgment here?
Acharya Prashant: No, see. Please understand. Would you want to call yourself alive by virtue of the fact that you breathe? You eat? Give a nuanced answer. Or do you call yourself alive when you are conscious? And to be conscious is to have a choice.
There is a difference between human beings and animals and vegetables. If a vegetable can grow, you say it’s alive, right? If it’s not rotting, it’s alive. If an animal can move about and breathe and eat, it’s alive. But should the same definition be applied to human beings?
We are not animals. We are creatures of consciousness. We are alive only if we can know, we can experience, and we can decide. If you can neither know, nor experience, nor decide, how are you alive? But by that definition, you're going to have a huge problem. By that definition, 99% of the people of the world are already dead. Because we move about, we eat, we do a lot of things, but are we really conscious enough to know and choose?
Well, we are not. We run around like automatons. We are very deeply conditioned beings, machines. So we are actually not alive in the truest sense. But it appears at least that we are alive. When that person is there on the deathbed, not having any consciousness and also the probability of him regaining consciousness runs close to zero, I do not see how we are still calling him a living person.
Questioner: If I faint now and I am not able to do anything on my own, am I good enough dead?
Acharya Prashant: The probability of your regaining consciousness, that remains to be seen. If I know that you can be brought back, let's say in 6 months, in 1 year, and the cost of bringing you back is not so high that it turns many others unconscious, then I'll want to revive you. Otherwise, not.
See, let's be very realistic. How can I keep one person alive if keeping that one person alive is tantamount to turning 10 others dead? Unless that person is potentially so full of consciousness, that even a major possibility of reviving him is sufficient to keep us going.
A Buddha. A Krishna. Christ. If he were on his deathbed, probably it would be fair enough for 20 others to sacrifice their lives to bring him up. But that's a very, very unique and impossible kind of case. So let's not discuss that.
Questioner: But again, I’m feeling more disturbed now, because we have a classic case, the trolley example in philosophy, where you judge which life matters. Like you said, if you can sacrifice 20 lives to save the life of one Buddha, is it morally right?
So, I don’t know. I still cannot agree with you. But I don’t want to be more annoying with myself.
Acharya Prashant: No, no. I think everybody is enjoying it. Are we not? We are really enjoying this, and it's going deeper and deeper. Please continue.
See, When we say that it is all right to have 20 people go for the sake of one Buddha, I'm talking of 20 lovers. I'm not talking of 20 sacrificial lambs. Is that not clear?
I am saying the nature of the Buddha is such that, in love, there would be 20 willing to lay down their lives so that the Buddha can be resurrected. Not that I'm purchasing animals from the market and forcefully slaughtering them to somehow revive one VIP. No, that's not what I'm talking about.
If I really love you and I know your worth, I lay down my life for your sake. Is that not what love is? That's what I'm talking about. And I'm not talking of attachment. I'm talking of knowing your worth and therefore laying down my life. Knowing. Knowledge. Not attachment.
Questioner: I'll leave the mic for something else to take away.
Questioner: So, the question which was raised before and how you finished — I got motivated actually to continue. So, when you were talking about the Buddha and 20 people giving their lives willingly because of love to save Buddha, Christ, Krishna, whatever.
So, the first question which was raised in me is, will Buddha want something like that? And the second question is, you said for Buddha. But is it important? Is it Buddha or me or anybody here?
Because I think that those two are quite important questions to talk about. Is it because Buddha is Buddha and because the idea that Buddha will save us after that, when he is rising or Christ or whatever?
What is love then? Is it love related to love towards something which is going to somehow save us? Or help us or do something for us? Or love is giving life? Not just life, it doesn't have to be at the ultimate level, okay. but actually the level of sacrifice, which is not anymore of sacrifice because it's done by.
Acharya Prashant: Beautiful. So what's love? What's sacrifice? How does the whole thing happen? Who are we?
We are conscious entities that seek contentment in consciousness. We want to be more conscious. We want to be absolutely conscious. Our consciousness remains blemished with all kinds of nonsense. We want to give that up. We want to be pure ourselves. That's who we are.
Then what is love, and what is sacrifice?
To give that up which impedes your ascension is sacrifice. If there is something that blocks you from rising upwards, it is sacrifice. And that's why sacrifice is no big deal, because you are only giving that up which was anyway unnecessary. In that sense, sacrifice and renunciation are one.
What is love?
Love is the desire to rise upwards. And if the desire is not about rising upwards, then it cannot be called love. You want to be a better and higher self. You have that adulation, that respect, towards that which is high up there. That is love. That is the purest definition of love.
Questioner: Is there a want? There is want, that is important in that.
Acharya Prashant: That wanting exists. You say there is nobody who does not desire. Is there anybody here who does not desire? In fact, we all would have desired something or the other even in the last 10 minutes, right?
All desires are in some way forms of love, however, unfortunately perverted forms of love. All desire is for your own betterment, is that not? You desire something for your own sake. It says that we do not know what would make us better, so we keep desiring all the useless things.
When the desire is right, it is called love. When the desire is about getting something that would actually take you upwards, it is called love. So there's this beautiful story by O. Henry, if I remember correctly — that husband and wife story where they are a poor couple and the husband probably wants a wristwatch.
O. Henry. Does anybody remember the title?
Gift of the media? No, not the watch. If somebody would google, you'll know — but it's a very, very popular story.
So we are talking about sacrifice. So what happens is this: the husband wants a watch, and the wife wants something for hair — hair clips, let's say hair clips.
This one! The Gift of the Magi. And it's probably Christmas time, right? Christmas time. So they both surprise each other on Christmas Eve. The wife has given away her hair to get the watch for the husband, and the husband has sold off something important.
Listener: The watch itself.
Acharya Prashant: The watch itself to get the clips for the wife. That's how sacrifice operates. You do it for the other. You do it for the other, knowing perfectly well that what you're doing for the other would indeed be helpful to the other — wanting nothing in return.
So you said, would Buddha want 20 people to lay down their lives for his sake? He won't. In fact, there is a beautiful anecdote from Buddha's life. We do not know whether these things happened or not, but if these stories exist, there's a reason.
So the Buddha is going, and there is this butcher taking away a goat for slaughter. And the Buddha tells the butcher, “Why are you slaughtering the goat? Please leave the goat.” The butcher says, “But you know, I kill the goat and I make my ends meat. There's certain money to be had.” So the Buddha says, “How much money?” The beggar quotes, and the butcher tells an amount. Buddha does not have that kind of thing. So the Buddha says, “Fine. It's the flesh that you would get from this animal, right?” The butcher says, “Yes.”
So Buddha says, “all right, you take that similar weight of flesh from my body and leave the poor animal.”
Now here you find the one with the highest consciousness prepared to sacrifice himself for an animal with a very low level of consciousness. That’s how love operates.
Love, for the one who is at a low level of consciousness, is to aspire for a higher level. And love, for one sitting on the Himalayan peaks of consciousness, is to be compassionate towards those at lower levels — and, for their sake, if needed, lay down your life.
The one who is at the lower level needs to lay down his life so that he can be higher. In fact, if you do not lay down your life at the lower level, how will you ever rise higher? You will continue to be existent at the lower levels.
So, if you are here, then you need to quit your life at this level so that you may rise up. And if you are up, then by the virtue of being up there, you get so much compassion that you are prepared to lay down your life for the ones who are lower down.
Now you do not know who must die for whom.
Questioner: Is there a higher and lower level If you're there?
Acharya Prashant: If I do not answer this question, why would you remain dissatisfied? Because this question is asked so that you can move to a higher level. The existence of this question itself proves that there indeed is a lower and higher level. Otherwise, why will you ask a question?
Questioner: Because you mentioned.
Acharya Prashant: That does not make it obligatory on you to do anything. No. Does anybody like being lied to? When there is something in front of you, you want to know its truth, right?
We all have a natural love for higher levels of consciousness. It's our duty to do justice to that love. We exist for the sake of that love.
All this that is happening here — what is this? This is an exercise in love. Love — not in the sense that, you know, they are loving a mortal person here or vice versa. Love in the sense that we are sitting here to raise ourselves up. And that is what is called the action of love — to raise yourself up.
I am attracted towards the highest, that’s called love. And therefore, all attraction towards anything other than the highest is not love. We may call it love, but it is not love.
So, example — if you say, “I love chicken,” that’s not love. Even the love that we exhibit towards most of that we exhibit towards our families, our girlfriends, boyfriends, or this or that. That's hardly love, because that hardly ever amounts to a rise in consciousness.
Thank you.
