Why Our Education System Rewards Memory Over Understanding

Questioner: Acharya Ji, the purpose of life is not basically what we are often told: that do something for humanity or do something purposeful, people should know you, people should know your work. It's basically everything we do in our daily lives, our whole course.

Acharya Prashant: Now you are assuming that one kind of purpose is better than the other kind of purpose. We might come to that, but before that we need to be done with: where do the usual purposes come from?

Questioner: Where do they come from?

Aacharya Prashant: You tell me, because I'm not the only one having a purpose. We all have purposes. So you tell me. It's about life.

Questioner: Is it through the external influences of society that what others are doing, maybe I feel that I might fit into society if I follow the same paths?

Acharya Prashant: Do this. This is what is right for you. And then that becomes inner, the inner aspiration thing you said, that becomes inner. So we started with existence. No? There is somebody sitting within who is very restless, right? And the restlessness starts with the body. The body is there, and along with the body is born the restlessness. No?

And then, from outside the body, you hear these voices. The body is the instrument of hearing. Somebody says, "This is what is right for you. This is what is right for you. Do this, do that." And that you absorb as your purpose. Purpose, right? "This is what I want to do. This is what I want to do."

Without asking, what is this thing called restlessness? I do not know the disease, the ailment. There has been no diagnosis, but there are thousands of prescriptions. How does that sound to you as medical students?

There is an inner condition. There is an inner condition, definitely, but there has been no diagnosis at all because the condition is so common, that it is taken as existential. It is taken as mandatory. It is taken as inevitable. It is taken as life itself. Right?

So you don't even call it a condition. You normalize it. You say, "This is what we call life. Everybody is restless. Everybody's dissatisfied. Everybody feels incomplete. Everybody feels lonely. What's the need for any kind of diagnosis? You know, everybody is sick." Then sickness becomes a synonym for health. If everybody is sick, you do not call that sickness anymore. Right?

So, everybody feels that void within, and it is not diagnosed. But it is experienced. It is experienced. And how is it experienced? As a constant inner tension, as fear, as loneliness, as anxiety, as hope, right? As attractions toward anything known or unknown or whatever. It is experienced.

It is experienced then you ask for prescriptions. "Oh, you know, I'm not feeling all that well within. What to do?" The first one comes and prescribes you a purpose. The other one comes and prescribes you another thing, and another thing, another thing, another thing, and that's the way it keeps rolling. And without any scrutiny, we admit the prescriptions and start calling them my purpose, my purpose, my purpose. Just as the inner restlessness was not examined, even the prescription is not examined. And that's how this little thing called life plays out.

Now, what do you want to do? End it at this and say, "Yeah, fine. Since it is normal, let it be." Or, as young and intelligent people, do you want it to be better? Do you want more from life? The decision you have to make.

Questioner: So the goal is to first ask, "Where is this purpose coming from?" Right?

Acharya Prashant: Yes, obviously. Because before we ask what is the right purpose, shouldn't we first question the purposes we already hold? It's like you are already traveling in one direction at supersonic speed, investing yourself, burning the fuel of life, right? Putting everything that you have in that direction, right? And then, already traveling so fast in that direction, already quite confident of your motive and your direction, you want to discuss what is the right direction to take?

But, sir, you are already traveling. You are already committed to one particular direction. Shouldn't you first ask, "Is this direction right?" No? That should be the first thing to investigate. But remaining committed to the beliefs we have, to the directions we have already, remaining committed to that, we want to have just some kind of intellectual discussion on the right purpose, right direction, the right thing to live for.

Inside, there is no vacancy. Inside, we already have a lot of convictions, a lot of beliefs. They need to be examined first before we ask, "What is right for me out there? What more is possible? Is there anything new that can happen?"

Before asking any of this, should we not first ask, "What about all the old stuff that I have accumulated inside and am living by?" There is so much here already, and within everybody. Shouldn't that be first put under the lens and examined?

Diagnosis comes first, right? Before anything comes the diagnosis. So that's how one starts. Where did I get my pre-existing purposes from? My sense of self, my identity, my idea of right and wrong, my values, where have they come from? Is it honest of me to attach "My-ness" with any of them? Are my values mine? Are my beliefs mine? Are my desires mine? I'm just asking. And if they are not, where is the vacancy for anything new to emerge? First of all, that vacancy needs to be created. No?

Somebody comes to you, and let's say he has already been to a quack, right? And the quack has prescribed him all kinds of nonsense, and he has been ingesting that. Right? And the result is that he has grown doubly sick. Right? What's the first thing that you do as a doctor? "Stop taking whatever you are taking. Stop this. Now get these tests done so that we can start with a new treatment plan." No?

But what if he insists, "No, this is something I'm committed to. This is something I'm just not going to leave. But you please tell me some other new route, a fresh map towards health." What would you say?

Questioner: Not possible.

Acharya Prashant: No hope for you. If you're already committed to whatever you have been randomly consuming. No hope for you. So should we not first, you know, put that on the table and examine it? What have I consumed? And whether there was any need to consume. That's a good question to ask. It's a strange question, but it must be asked. I have taken in so much. Was it even needed? We are not talking of physical ingestion. We are talking of the mental stuff that we have absorbed.

Questioner: And when one stops taking all the wrong stuff he has been taking? What's the next step then?

Acharya Prashant: No, we can't go to the next step because you haven't stopped taking. You see, who is the one who is so fond of taking in things from here and there? Who is the one? A feeling of incompleteness, a feeling of unworthiness. “I'm not all right. So I need to add something to myself, or I need to correct myself. I need to become somebody. I need to be better.” Right?

And if that is there, how can you reject what the quacks recommend to you? The quacks don't come first. The demand comes first. The quacks simply supply something that meets the demand. Right? And the demand is physical. The demand takes birth with the body. Though the demand is not physical in the same sense as the need for food is physical.

When you say food is a physical demand, then your system demands food, and the system gets food, and the system is satisfied for a while. Right? When we say the demand for psychological satisfaction is physical, what we mean is that it is born with the physical body. It is born with the physical body. But does anything physical, like food, satisfy it? Is it satisfied?

When you're hungry and you eat, a point comes when you say, "I don't want to eat anymore." You're done. But is that also the nature of inner incompleteness? If it is always empty, then quacks will always succeed.

Don't blame the supply. The demand is so overwhelming. It's like a vacuum that sucks in everything around. And once that thing goes in, it becomes mine. The difference between outer and inner is lost. They become equal. Equal. They become the same. And this is called identification.

What is an identity? A equals B. So when you say A, you might as well have said B. They are identical. There is no difference between the two. The same thing happens inside us. The external stuff has gone in, and the one who took it in has forgotten that it is external. Now this is identification. The external becomes equal to the internal. And now you're identified.

You say, "This is me. Oh, I want to become this. I want to earn so much. This is my religion. These are my beliefs. That's my hope, my dreams, my desires. This is the food I love so much."

The external has become internal. No problem with that, provided the external satisfies the internal. Identification might even be said to have succeeded. But that's not the experience, or is it? We are all so full of beliefs. We all hold a big inner structure. But does it give you freedom from dissatisfaction? It does not. So that identification is not succeeding, or is it? No, it's not succeeding, but still it's sustaining. It's not succeeding, but still it's prevailing. That identification remains in spite of its very obvious failure.

You gave me something to live by. You gave me a set of values, right? You, whatever, wherever we took it from, you gave me all that. And in my ignorance, I accepted it. Not only did I accept it, I became identified with it. Fine. So good, so far. But what is that identification giving me? I'm still restless. My eyes still carry fear. I still look towards the future and feel uncertain and insecure. That's the experience I have.

So then, what is the worth of all this that I'm carrying within? This that I'm carrying within gives me this quality of inner experience. Should I still continue carrying it? Should I sustain the inner architecture, or rather demolish it? Difficult question, or dangerous rather.

So, you know, and yet, still very loyal to the inner stuff. Very loyal. Very determined to protect it. "No, don't question my values. You're hurting me. Who are you to tell me to doubt my dreams, my aspirations? Who are you to tell me? They are all mine." Now, this is identification. It's a false identity. A is not really equal to B, but in ignorance, the difference has been overlooked. The difference has been overlooked, and the consequences too are not being taken seriously. Probably a lack of love towards oneself because I am the one bearing the consequences, and yet I'm not really examining where the discomfort is coming from.

Questioner: Thank you so much, Acharya Ji.

Questioner: I had a doubt. You said that nothing is mine. My beliefs are not mine. My hopes are not mine. So how, what exactly is mine? Like two people who are conditioned in the same environment. They learn the same values. They have the same beliefs. They have the same hopes. So how I am different from that person who is conditioned the same? What makes me different? If everything is the same.

Acharya Prashant: Okay, let's play a game. First of all, you'll tell me what's the hidden assumption in your question?

Questioner: That we both are conditioned the same.

Acharya Prashant: You'll have to go deeper than that (pointing towards the listener). Though very, very obvious. By deeper, I don't mean hidden.

Questioner: That we two are different.

Acharya Prashant: The question is, if that's not mine, if that's not mine, if that's not mine, all of that is external, what exactly is mine? And I'm asking, what's the hidden assumption here?

Questioner: That something is mine.

Acharya Prashant: A little deeper than that. That there is somebody here (pointing towards the inside) in the first place. What belongs to him presupposes that he exists, but that looks so obvious. No? But I do exist, don't I? I'm just asking you, sir, what is mine? What is mine? But behind that is a mammoth assumption: I am somebody. Now just tell me what is rightfully mine. Just tell me, what is it that I have not borrowed or absorbed from the world?

I don't want to question whether I exist at all. Why? Why does this I-amness really exist? Why is there such… okay, putting it differently, why is there such a pressing need to have anything as yours? This question arises from a need, does it not?

Okay, fine. This (pointing towards the water glass) belongs to him. This (putting towards the cup of tea) belongs to her. This (putting towards the handkerchief) belongs to him, and this (putting towards the mic) belongs to her. Right? Why can't I simply say all this belongs to them? After this, why must there remain the question, "Now what is mine?"

There is a need. I feel vacant. I feel hollow. So I want to ask, if everything belongs to somebody else, what am I left with? What is mine? Why must that need exist?

Questioner: Because we want to be different from others.

Acharya Prashant: Why must that need exist?

Listener: For our own identity that we exist. I am here. Recognize me.

Acharya Prashant: No, but the body is there irrespective of adding anything to it, right? And what you want to add is not physical at all. What you want to add is psychological. Why must there be that inner need to add something to the one called I? Why must that need exist?

Obviously, the body wants to add something to itself, which is all very fine. The body is a machine of nature, and the body will say, "Give me food, give me clothes, give me medicine," which is fine, fine. But we are not talking of food and medicine and clothes right now, or housing right now. We are talking of values, beliefs, dreams, hopes, fears. We are talking of dogmas, such things. Why must there be a need to have any of these as yours?

And if that need exists, it will act like a suction pump. So you'll reject what he gave you and what I gave you. And in rejecting what the two of us gave you, you will then absorb what two others give you. So this will be simply replacement, substitution, not freedom.

Why must there be anything called yours? Why can't there be total freedom from inner ownership? Get into that. And won't that freedom be nice? Why must you carry stuff here (pointing towards the mind)?

And you know, when you don't carry anything, then you have something wonderful with you that you can call as discretion, the ability to know.

And if you insist on having something for yourself, sir please give me at least one thing that I call myself, my own. Please, if everything belongs to somebody else, let me have at least one thing that I can call as my own. Let that one thing be your ability to know, your ability to know. Discretion. I don't own it, but I can see.

If at all something is to be called as mine, let this be mine. Though even this is not really mandatory, because the inner one then starts screaming, "Give me at least one thing to live by." Say this is your one thing: pure intelligence, pure intelligence, the faculty to know, see, and see with clarity, lucidity. That's mine. That's who I am.

The classical texts would put it this way: “Bodho Aham.” Who am I? Knowing itself, understanding itself. **Not ownership, not carriership, not the one who possesses, not the one who identifies, but simply the one who knows without filters. Knowing without being. Knowing without filters. Knowing without any identity. I'm not anybody knowing without being. I'm nobody. I don't care in identity.

And that's what enables me to know clearly and know with freedom. That's who I am: not bound, not fettered, not attached, absolutely. Therefore, to know, just to know, and that, if needed, I'll call as mine.**

Acharya Prashant: Pranam Acharya Ji, when I look at myself, it feels like I've spent my life going to one pursuit after another, and it might continue indefinitely without ever giving a sense of true fulfillment. Is there any universal goal that I'm meant to step forwards? Is there any deeper reason for our existence? It's the question of essence versus existence. What comes first? Do we first exist and then define ourselves? Is purpose something one creates for himself, or are we born with some inherent or predetermined purpose, or is there no purpose at all?

Acharya Prashant: As long as the restlessness you mentioned remains there, there ought to be a purpose. No? Removing the restlessness itself is the obvious purpose. When we say restlessness, that describes a situation, an experience. Who is the experiencer there? That often remains undiscussed, unexplored. Maybe that's what we need to start with. No? Existence, essence. Sartre, if by existence you mean physical existence, then restlessness starts with physical existence itself, does it not? Right?

The moment you are able to feel that you exist, not even verbalize, not even speak in words, just feel that you exist, that feeling itself is restlessness. So existence is restlessness. "I exist. I exist," and that's never a statement of completion. That is never a statement of total peace. There is always a wandering there, a longing there, something left incomplete there. That entity that comes in existence along with the body and keeps feeling incomplete, that's what we call the ego, the sense of self, not the Freudian ego.

Ego in the sense of I-amness. I-amness. I exist. And saying "I exist" is itself a burden, a responsibility, project, and agenda, depends on how you want to look toward it. What to do with it? This I-amness. I exist. I exist. And if I exist without knowing who I am, what do I do with this existence of mine?

I exist and I am incomplete. So I go out searching for things to grab, stuff to do, accomplishments to have. No? Own stuff. Strike relationships. Get into this, get into that, reach somewhere. Who's demanding all that? Who is the one demanding all that? The one raising that demand. Is it physical? Is it real? Where does it come from? Does it really have any substance, any Truth to it? No?

If that is not explored, then the restlessness indefinitely will continue. Obviously. I am born with something, that something within me itches for completion. It does not know in the first place where the incompletion comes from. But without knowing its own constitution, its own incompletion, it indefinitely scans and wanders in the world, right? And then it says, "What would be the right purpose of life? What to live for?" And any answer to this question is nothing but a replacement of one object of longing with the other. Right? That's what we usually call purpose.

Whenever there is a statement of purpose, can it be free of an object to achieve? No. You say, "That's my purpose." So there would always be an object somewhere. This is to be done, that is to be done, this is to be done, without asking who the subject is. Who is the one longing to achieve that object, right?

And when one purpose fails, which is basically when one desire goes unfulfilled, when one object fails to satisfy, we simply substitute one object with the other. And the universe has an infinite number of objects. So we'll never be short of objects to run after. Right?

And when objects are changed, then we say, now the purpose has changed or the purpose has improved. Now I have a higher or bigger or more refined or clearer purpose. But that is not much except the same slot being filled by one object after the other. A replaces B, then C replaces A, and then D replaces something, something, something.

Some merry go around, and life is short. Ultimately, you find that the body that hosted the ego has completed its cycle, and the clamor stops only to be, you know, seen in the other bodies that exist. That does not sound like a particularly good story, does it? Does it?

So when we say what to do in life, which direction to take, what purpose to hold, won't it be much better to first ask who is the one asking for purpose? Won't it be better to investigate the purposes you already hold and see others hold? There is nobody without a purpose. You may debate the quality of purpose or the stability of purpose, but there is nobody having no purpose even for a moment. Everybody has something to do, something to achieve, somewhere to go, right?

So you see that all around you, and in your own life also, you have had purposes. So can you go into that and discuss where they came from and what did they leave you with? Maybe that will tell you about the very nature of the machine, the very architecture of the building. Otherwise, substitution is a very easy thing to do. The last thing didn't work out for me. So what do I do? I try the next thing, the next object, and there would never be a dearth of objects to try.

But, you know, that's not what this opportunity called life is to be wasted in. Am I making sense, or is it too sudden and too fast?

Questioner: No, no, that does make sense, Acharya Ji. You talked about finding the answer to who I am and who is the one asking for purpose. How can one try to find these answers? Like, how can we know who we are?

Acharya Prashant: I'm glad. So I think we are together. You see, you must be 20-something, 19, and being a fellow with intellect, composure, you're looking at your life and the lives of those around you. And you must have read maybe a bit, maybe a great deal, but you surely know about personalities in history as well and the common man across the flow of history. You know of them. They all have held purposes, right? Where did their purpose come from?

You look at the common man on the street. He had the purpose. Where does he get it from?

Listener: Inner aspirations.

Acharya Prashant: Inner aspirations really? So today is a Monday, right? We have just been through a weekend, right? So the fellow had a purpose. The tourist had a purpose. Rishikesh was thoroughly jammed over the last two days, Saturday and Sunday. Even 2 kilometers would take 40 minutes.

What gave them this purpose to leave their place and come over to this place? And now Monday, they have all checked out, and they have returned. Many returned yesterday night itself, and they'll say, "This is a Monday, so I have to attend office, and that's my purpose."

Where is that purpose coming from? And how come all of them have a shared purpose? How is that possible? Is that inner aspiration? If it is inner, how is this inner thing so common among everybody?

If there is something that is very, very common to everybody, is that really inner? Inner would probably mean individual, and that would have some kind of distinction, a little bit of uniqueness. No? If you're doing the same thing as she wants to do, as he wants to do, if all of us want exactly the same object, is the demand inner really, or has it reached the inner place from an outer source?

You know, if something is really inner, really yours, chances are it would be a little different, a bit distinct from what he holds within. But that does not seem to be the case. Where does the usual purpose come from?

Questioner: Sir, could it be the instinct to survive and sustain oneself?

Acharya Prashant: Great. But how is it possible that the survival definition, the very definition of sustainability, is common for so many people? How is it possible? And at the same time, at the same time, somebody from another culture might not be having the same definition of survival. They might not be spending their weekends the same way. They might not be eager to return to their offices the same way.

So where do our purposes come from?

Because what you are saying is a little bit of an extension of what she said. She said it's an inner aspiration. And you are saying survival. That too seems to be something inner. Is it really inner? I want you to explore that.

show_less