When Friends Prefer Nonsense
Questioner: It's from a thirty year old Assistant Professor. She is asking, Namaste Sir. Often while talking to friends and colleagues, I tend to nowadays talk about the Upanishads. But they see it as some sort of exotic, different type of reading that I’m undertaking, as opposed to realizing that they’re the very essence, the authority on life. In my social circle, an academician is an authority. I cannot seem to communicate that Upanishads are not a side study, but really everything that could be seen and heard.
How do I communicate to them that the Upanishads are really the essence and the authority on life?
Acharya Prashant: You’ve to continue going deeper into the Upanishads. Two things will then concurrently happen. One, you’ll gain the conviction and the argument, to be more convincing to others. Secondly, you’ll lose the need to be more convincing to others. So, you’ll gain the power, the argument, the clarity to be more convincing to the others. Equally, you’ll lose the need to be more convincing to others.
In your question, I sense a lot of need. Where does that need come from? That need comes from the desperation to keep the company of the Upanishads and still not lose your old company. If you’re with the Upanishads, and with people who do not acknowledge the Upanishads, what’re you doing with those people?
Right now, it’s not as if you want to do others a favour, by explaining the Upanishads to them. Right now, you’re in a need to explain to the others, because probably you cannot afford to be without the others. That’s because your study of the Upanishads is still not deep enough.
What is liberation, if not liberation from bad company? Of what use have the Upanishads been, if they couldn’t give you the strength, the conviction to reject bad company?
And bad company is not merely that which would abuse the Upanishads. If they think of Upanishads as some exotic toys, what else is bad company? What else is bad company?
So, it’s a funny combination — you become more capable of explaining to others, and you become less needful of explaining to others. Now you don’t explain to others because it’s an obligation upon you; now you do not explain to others because you cannot survive without the others. Now you explain to the others from a position of strength, not a position of desperation. And that’s when the funniness in the story continues, that’s when others realize that Upanishads indeed do have power.
When they’ll see that you’re not even interested in explaining to unworthy people, they’ll realize you’ve understood something important and then they’ll come begging you. They’ll say, “Please tell us what you have known, please tell us what you’ve known.” And now you’re not desperate to explain to them. Now you’ll choose the worthy listeners, and when the worthy ones will be there, you’ll find you’re very capable of explaining to them.
Initially the condition is the opposite. You’re desperate to explain to the others and not capable of explaining at all. So, you can imagine what happens. You run around gathering people, trying to convince them that the Upanishads you’ve recently gained familiarity with, are nice things to read. But you yourself don’t have much depth. So, the crowd that you gather doesn’t get impressed by you. Your arguments have hardly any depth.
There’s this huge crowd you’ve gathered out of your need, out of your own desperation, to maintain a relationship and company. And the crowd just feels bemused and amused. “What is this new thing he has gotten into?” And all in all, one gives the Upanishads a bad name. Some smart chap comes up with a smart question, and that fellow has had nothing to do with spirituality at all, and he comes up with a funny question. People are smart and you’ve no proper response. What have you done to the Upanishads? You’ve given them a bad name.
First thing in liberation is, feel empowered to dismiss unworthy people. Why do you’ve to be in their company? If a worthy one is spotted, do everything you can to relay this special knowledge to him, or her. But unworthy ones, unwilling ones, two hoots to them.
People come, take the Upanishads from here and then feel depressed, their parents or spouses are not heeding to the Upanishads. So, I ask them, “Why must your spouse or your parents be the first ones to gain this knowledge from you?” If they’re not listening to you, go and teach this to your neighbour, or to some random person on the street, no? There are so many eligible and willing people, they’ll be very happy to receive this knowledge from you.
But to them you’ll not go, because you don’t have a blood relationship with them, because you don’t have selfish interests tied to them. So, you won’t go to them, instead you go to your spouse. It’s alright, I don’t say, “Don’t teach the Upanishads to your spouse.” But having tried with your spouse, if you meet resistance, and unwillingness, and also ineligibility, why do you still keep wasting your time with that ineligible person? Aren’t there other more deserving candidates to invest your time upon? Go to them, teach them.
But no, we’re held captive by bonds of blood, by bonds of pecuniary or social interest, no? “I’ve just learned the Upanishad and If I can impress my boss with it, I’ll gain a quick promotion.” So, I’ll go to the boss and gift a copy of the Upanishads, and the boss doesn’t care and then I’m hurt. Then what do I do? I ask Acharyaji, “Acharyaji, how to impress one’s boss with the Upanishads?”
Offer your resignation, he’ll be impressed. Your resignation will be your first baby step towards the Upanishad. Why work under a boss, who’s stupid enough to not respect the Upanishads? Aren’t you ashamed? But the boss is the boss. Even if the boss throws the Bhagvad Gita to the dustbin, in front of you, you’ll not resign, because we’re servants to money, no?
