Why Don’t We Accept Brilliance?
Questioner: So, sir, I want to ask you a question about a pattern I've noticed in the field of art, all forms of art. I was reading more about famous poets, writers, or artists from the olden days, and one thing that I noticed in all their lives was that all of them got the appreciation they deserved only after they were gone.
For example, we can take Franz Kafka, Emily Dickinson, Sylvia Plath, or Vincent van Gogh, all of them died thinking that they were terrible human beings.
Acharya Prashant: Nietzsche.
Questioner: Yeah. All of them did not get the recognition they deserved during their time, but after they were dead, they were glorified. Not only did they get the attention, but they are now seen as the greatest of all time. Isn't it unfair for them? And why is it that in this world, after people are gone, they are glorified?
Acharya Prashant: First of all, it doesn't matter to them beyond a point. Obviously, if you are an artist, your art comes from a high point within you, and you want that art to elevate others. So, if others are not appreciating it, there's something missing then. One part of it is all right, that you are able to express the highest within you in the form of your art. That part is taken care of.
But still, one part remains, out of compassion or just as our highest, deepest nature, we want a thing of beauty to be understood by others. So that part will remain missing. Similarly, if you're a philosopher or a social reformer, you're working for the sake of others, right? You're writing a book. You want the book to be read by others. You won't be reading your own books. So, if others don't read it, yes, something does remain missing.
However, the principal thing has already been taken care of.
The principal thing, the thing of greater importance, is that you express the highest within. And that requires, first of all, that you discover the highest within.
Once it is discovered, you are helpless, it will be expressed. Thus, the manifestation, the expression, is spontaneous and unstoppable. So that part is taken care of. The other part, you just keep wishing and remain a little sorry about: “Well, if I could see them understanding this that I’m gifting them, wouldn’t that be great?” That does not often happen, as you rightly pointed out.
Why doesn’t it happen? Because, as a people, we of this world are not used to compassion or to greatness. Because, what is it that you see all around? Do you see compassion, or do you see self-interest and selfishness? What do you see all around? Do you see colossal figures, towering Everests, or do you see petty dwarfs? What do you see? Petty dwarfs.
When somebody extends a hand towards you, what’s your usual instinctive reaction in general? Somebody extends a hand, what would be your instinctive reaction? Would you really think the fellow is coming to help you? Come on, you ask me so many questions on groping and such things. You know better than me, right?
You'll question it, and you'll be suspicious. There is a hand coming towards me, surely it seeks to snatch something, right? But when the fellow is gone, there is no more hand left to come to you. There is work left. So your suspicions that the fellow was doing something for self-interest or petty self-gratification hold no more ground because the fellow is no longer alive. There is no way he can ingratiate himself through you. So now one of your suspicions becomes baseless, now he’s gone.
Secondly, now there is a greater time and a greater objective opportunity to appreciate his life and his works, because the fellow was like a whirlwind, like a meteor. Suddenly the sky was set ablaze, and you didn’t even get a chance, in front of his speed and his brilliance, to properly soak him, absorb him, understand him. You require maybe some 200 years to just understand what he said or did, because in some sense he was ahead of his time, too speedy, too much beyond the ways of this world. Later on, first of all, your suspicions reduce, and secondly, you get more time.
Thirdly, because of what he has done, you become capable of appreciating him. It is not just the objective passage of time, it also has to do with what he has offered you. Because of what he has offered you, in part, you become capable enough to understand him. Are you getting it? So, it takes time. The more important thing is, what kind of world is it in which greatness and love and compassion are just so rare that when we encounter them, if at all, we just doubt them or reject them or misunderstand, misinterpret. What kind of world is this?
You look at our situation, first of all, 99.99% trash, that’s what surrounds us, right? And if, by glorious chance, as a great exception, there is 0.01% greatness, brilliance, selfless compassion, you will never accept it because you are used to the usual 99.99%. You will think even this one is of the same type. Out of 10,000 people you meet, 9,999 are corrupt. So first of all, the remaining one is extremely rare. Secondly, exactly because he’s very rare, he would not be appreciated. He would be considered similar to the 9,999.
Look at his, what you may call as misfortune. But he is not unfortunate, Internally he is totally fulfilled. For himself he is totally fulfilled, but some part of him also longs to see you fulfilled. And all his life, that person will bear the pain of not being understood. Though inwardly, for himself, he will be quite content, totally fulfilled when it comes to his own expression, he’s at peace. But still, something would be left unfinished. He would look at your faces and say, “I tried my best, but I couldn’t bring the real thing to them; anyway.” That’s how, with a shrug of the shoulders, he would respond, “Anyway, I did the maximum possible.”
You need to be very careful about this because it’s a double trap. One, you are surrounded by 9,999 idiots. Two, when you meet the one exception, you are so conditioned to idiots that you take even the exception as an idiot. In fact, you are doubly suspicious of the exception. You say, “At least those idiots don’t sound so wise. This one is sounding so wise, so he must be not just an idiot, but also a crook. He is a very clever idiot.” It seems that’s how it happens. But it’s a commentary on us, the way we are, the way the majority of mankind is.
Questioner: Sir, one thing you mentioned is that artists are ahead of their time, that they think very fast, they are very fast. So can we infer from that statement that society is not ready to see the mirror? Are they not mentally prepared for what the artist is saying?
Acharya Prashant: See, readiness is subjective. Are you ready to run at a great speed right now? Well, not really. What if a mad dog just enters this place and starts baring its sharp teeth at you? You will run like a Ferrari. Readiness is subjective. Have you been chased by a bull or a snake ever? Do you know how suddenly you find yourself ready? Ready to run in whatever you have, sandals, slippers, shorts; 'Run.' You’re ready.
So you cannot say society is not ready. The society is withholding its consent because the society does not know of its own miserable state. Society thinks it is more or less all right as it is. So when a great artist comes and challenges your notions of beauty, you say, “But we already know what beauty is. Why are you teaching us?”
What we all need is more self-awareness so that we can boldly encounter our ugly face. And when you can encounter ugliness, then only can you respect beauty.
As long as you think of your ugliness as beautiful, why will you appreciate real beauty? Ugly we all are, but we have labeled this ugliness as beauty. False we all are, but we have labeled this falseness as Truth. So when somebody comes with beauty and Truth, we just shoo! them away: “Shoo! we already have it. No, no, don’t hawk your wares to me. No, no, tomatoes I already have. Knock at some other door.”
That’s the way you treat vegetable vendors, right? “No bhaiya, I already have bread for the day. Come some other day.” So when a Vincent comes to you, or a Nietzsche comes to you, you say, “No, we already know the Truth. We already know what beauty is. Don’t teach us these things. We already know, bhaiya. Go bhaiya.”
Questioner: Sir, you said that we should not be burdening the other person; we should be the unburdening one. But sometimes Truth burdens people. When you’re speaking the Truth, it burdens other people. How do you deal with that?
Acharya Prashant: Somebody who takes Truth as a burden is not worth being with. Full stop. It’s a relationship founded on a lie. And lies are things that don’t really exist but appear to exist. That’s what you call a lie, right? What is really not there but appears to be there, it's a façade, a mirage, that’s what you call a lie.
A relationship founded on a lie, will it have any substance? Can it last? And even if it is made to artificially last, it would be life-sapping. The fellow who cannot take the Truth is not worth being with. No. And it need not necessarily be the fellow at the other end; it could be the fellow at this end.
Have you seen how frequently so-called lovers exchange lies? When you go to meet your so-called lover, you dress up in the best possible way, I’ll call it the most deceptive way. Later on, when he discovers your true face, I mean literally the true face, not just the symbolic one, the relationship is gone.
Why do we dress up so much? Why do we put on so much makeup? Is that not a lie? I’m asking. I’m not talking about general things like combing your hair or washing your face. I’m talking about the obviously false face that we present to others. Is that not a lie? Though you may present it in more acceptable and diplomatic terms like “Putting your best foot forward,” but that’s not your best foot, it is somebody else’s best foot, an artificial foot, and you are putting it forward. And the same thing is being done from that end as well.
Ever seen why it happens that later in the relationship lovers accuse each other of having changed? “You are no longer the same person. You have changed.” No, the fellow has not changed; the fellow is only revealing his true face now. The changed face was the first face, the one he showed you at the beginning, that was a changed face. This is the face that he always had. He has not changed.
Why must the relationship be based on pretence, on demonstration?
The lady decided to skip college, the entire day was skipped. Why? Because she had a date in the evening. For the 7:00 p.m. date, she didn’t attend any class the whole day. What was she doing? Manufacturing lies. What else? You would say she was preparing, I would call that manufacturing; manufacturing lies.
Here I have just addressed the physical part of it. Then comes the emotional part of it. And then comes your deepest reality. If the other cannot take it, why do you insist on being with him? Why? You love freedom, and he says, “No, no, I’ll prefer you to be the queen of the house. I make enough money. You just sit at home and do the kitchen and the bedroom and raise the kids.” And you don’t want to tell him bluntly, “Dude, this is not the deal.”
Why don’t you tell him bluntly? If he can’t take your Truth, why must you be with him? And that applies not just to a person; it applies not only to a boyfriend or a husband or a father or a mother. It applies to every relationship, even the relationships that you have with institutions, the relationship that you have with the nation, the relationship that you have with religion.
Let the other accept you in your naked reality. If the other wants you to first go and dress up and present a beautiful mask, then the relationship is anyway not going to last. The masks, you very well know, they come off, and then so do the gloves.
70% of murders of women all across the world; tell me, who commits them? Their close relatives (Source: UN WOMEN). When it comes to women, they are not killed by strangers. When it comes to women, they are murdered to the extent of 70% by their own relatives or persons known to them or their lovers. Is this the quality of relationship you want to have?
Questioner: So sir, my name is Nasima Muzawar. So you write books, you are also a philosopher, so from where did you get that thought of writing books, of starting to write books?
Acharya Prashant: Most of my books are authored, not really written. Only a handful of them are really written. This is one of the books that I actually sat down and wrote. Otherwise, for example, this discussion, this will take the form of a book. It will be transcribed and then edited to make it reader-friendly, and this will then become a book.
So, it’s not that I set out to be a writer. My purpose was to have an inner sky, a place of freedom, and share it with everybody because you are much the same as me.
Freedom is not my monopoly. We are all human beings. Your pain is my pain, my joy is your joy. If I can have it, you can have it. And in attempting to help you, I help myself.
Are you getting it? That’s how it happens.
So, out of these interactions, after a few years, books started coming out. I never aimed to be a book writer. These discussions were there, they were compiled. Somebody said, “This, this, and this, if put together, would make great reading material.” I said, “Proceed.” So that’s how the first book was published ten years back. Then it was received well, so more books came. And now this one that I have actually come to Goa to write, it was written mostly here, at your place. I wrote it here, and now it is being released. I came specifically to write this book, and thank you so much for Goa, it’s a very nice place to write a book.
