Why Yoga and Meditation Don't Fix You
Questioner: Hello, sir. Sir, my question is that we talk about strengthening the mind as a tool to navigate through life. How does one do that? There are many practices like yoga and meditation, but for how long should one practice them, or do we really need these practices or something else?
Acharya Prashant: Okay. Mind strengthened? Actually, the phrase does not mean much. The mind is nothing but a lot of objects structured around the ego.
As of now, is the entire universe present in what you call your mind? No. Only certain objects, right? You might be thinking of your classes, your assignments, certain individuals, certain objects you have, certain clothes, certain places, certain events, certain memories, right? Only certain objects, right?
And he is not thinking of all that. The set of objects he (pointing to the listener) is carrying here (pointing to the mind) will be different from the set he (pointing to another listener) is carrying, and that will be different from what he is carrying, right? Who decides that set? Obviously, the set is not deciding for itself. Who decides?
Questioner: We.
Acharya Prashant: You decide, right? So, the ego is the architect of the mind. The ego chooses the objects to keep, and it also chooses the relationship it will have with those objects, and also the priority order and many other things, the entire structure. A complex architecture. Getting it? The mind, then, in itself, is inanimate, unconscious. The mind, then, is like a building. The mind, then, is like a building. The building that has been conceived, designed, built by, and maintained by the ego. The ego builds it, and occasionally the ego also keeps...
What do you do with a building when you don't like it much?
Questioner: Rebuild it.
Acharya Prashant: Yeah, either rebuild it, reconstruct it, or simply renovate it. Furnish it. Take some items out. Get new curtains. Raise a wall somewhere, right? Or bring down a wall somewhere. But the house doesn't do all this. The building doesn't do all this for itself. So, talking of the mind is like shifting the spotlight away from the real doer.
A crime happened in a building. Do you ever launch an FIR against the building? Do you do that? And if you do that, then for sure you are trying to save the real criminal. Somebody is killed inside a building, and what does the FIR mention? The building and not the killer. Surely somebody is trying to save the killer, right?
Similarly, when we say, "Oh, the mind is doing this. Let's silence the mind. Let's bring the mind to peace." And you said, "Strengthen the mind," such things. Then we are taking attention away from the place where the real mischief is. And that place is called the ego.
The ego is the runner of the mind, the creator and the operator. The creator and the operator.
The mind is the entire environment around the ego. The mind, in some sense, is a fortress around the ego. The mind is an armor around the ego, built by the ego itself. Getting it?
Now, revisit your question.
Questioner: So, it was, how do we strengthen our mind?
Acharya Prashant: Yeah, yeah, I understand. But now, where does your question stand in light of the definition?
Questioner: Yeah, we have many practices like yoga and meditation. And many people use them for strengthening the mind. So, do we actually need them? And now, as you mentioned ego, do we need to... you mentioned the ego, and we have yoga and meditation for ourselves? So, are these all related, and are these practices for the ego?
Acharya Prashant: Originally, yes. But actually, practically, no.
What happens is that the ego starts aiming at everything except itself, whereas the real disease lies within the ego. So much so that the ego itself can be called a disease. But the ego starts targeting, for example, the body. "I have to keep the body still," as if the restlessness lies in the body.
The ego also starts targeting the mind. The thing is, if the mind is vibrating, it is probably because the owner of the house is doing something very stupid inside the house, playing some extremely loud music, which is causing even the walls to vibrate. But then the ego would say, "There is something wrong with the walls." The ego would never admit, "There is something wrong with me."
So, in the name of all the meditation practices, the ego, unfortunately, succeeds in not looking at itself. Whereas the original purpose is always to bring the ego to the mirror, because that's the only place where any problem is. The sense of the self, the I-ness, that's where every problem is. But then, you know, you are told, "If you go to such and such place, your problems will be solved." Now, the ego is focusing on that place. And in doing that, it has successfully turned the attention away from...
Questioner: Itself.
Acharya Prashant: Itself. And that's exactly what this culprit, this rascal, wants, to never look at itself. Okay, give me a rosary. Give me something secret to hold. Tell me some method that delivers salvation. And I'll focus on that method. Focusing on that method greatly appeases the ego because it ensures that now the ego won't have to look at itself.
Okay, here is the story of some divine lord. Here is some ancient secret story written in some ancient secret book. Worship the ancient hero. The ego will be very happy doing that because, in worshipping anybody outside of itself, the ego happily succeeds in turning the attention away from itself.
I will simply say, "Oh, the lord is great," without acknowledging that I'm the thing farthest from greatness. But now I won't mind. I crawl like an insect, but the lord is great. Do you have to live the lord's life? You must focus on your own life, right? That's what the entire domain of religion, spirituality, and wisdom literature is all about, to improve your life as it is.
But most of these so-called practices succeed in having you look away from yourself. Look at Babaji. Look at that mountaintop. Look at that desert. Think of that miracle. Many other things, you know of them, right? Wait for that particular auspicious day. Wait for a particular position of the moon. And you're looking at the moon and not looking at...
Listener: Yourself.
Acharya Prashant: And the ego is rejoicing. I finally got another object to stay distracted. The ego loves objects. After all, the mind is itself an aggregation of objects. The mind loves objects. So, it would objectify even the concept of God. So, I am the subject, I am the thinker, and I think about God. So, God is now my object. So, in the building, there are hundreds of objects, including something called the God-object.
The ego loves objects because so many objects help secure the subject at their center. Putting all those objects around itself, the ego-subject stands fortified. So, irrespective of the discipline or the ritual you are following, never forget yourself. Remembering yourself, that is the bottom line.
Questioner: Sir, but then what is the difference between ego and self?
Acharya Prashant: Same. I. Even literally, I.
Questioner: In the normal sense, when we talk about ego, it is something we can imagine in a negative manner, ego. And self as positive. Then how can they both be the same?
Acharya Prashant: That is the prevalent ignorance. You think of ego as pride, vanity, such things. No. Ego is a technical term. It simply means I-am-ness. So, if somebody says, "Oh, I'm great. I'm strong. I'm rich. I'm knowledgeable," that you will easily say is ego, right? But if somebody says, "I'm meek. I'm humble. I'm nobody," even that is ego, because that too includes "I am."
"I am great." That's ego because that includes "I am." "I am meek." Even that is ego because that includes "I am." So, "I am X. I am X." In this, X is not the ego. X is the object of the ego. "I am" is the ego. "I am" is the ego, not X. But this "I am" collects a plethora of X's - X₁, X₂, Xₙ. And in the middle of all the X's, it stands and says, "Now I'm safe. I have all these objects to defend me." This is money. This is knowledge. This is a network. This is friends. This is a memory. This is my latest gadget. That's my big car. That's my wife, the four kids. So, all these objects, plus, "This is my religion."
Anything, everything that you can think of is an object to the ego. And the ego accumulates objects so that it can feel a little certain of itself, a little safe.
Questioner: Sir, now, as you mentioned that these practices succeed in taking us away from ourselves. But what if someone feels that he has come to that mirror? Because there are some instances that I have experienced with my own self. So, should one practice them, or how much should one practice them? And where does rationale come into place between all this?
Acharya Prashant: “I am feeling.” Even feeling is an object. The ego loves to feel because even feeling is an object. Thoughts and feelings are just objects. The ego enjoys them, greatly enjoys them. In feeling, do you look back at yourself? Is any feeling a mirror? No. In fact, feeling allows you to get away from yourself.
All feelings are themselves objects dependent on other objects. Is there ever a feeling without an object? So, even feeling is an object to the ego because you say, "I am the feeler." Or you say, "I am feeling something." Right? So, even that is an object. Right? And the ego would love each of these.
Similarly, you said, "I have experienced with my own self." All experiences have the ego as the experiencer. In enjoying the experience so much, or in valuing it or respecting it so much, we tend to ignore who the experiencer is. The ego is the experiencer of all objects.
You see, there is the ego. There is that object. One of the relationships between these two is experience. In fact, experience can also be called the umbrella relationship that includes all possible relationships between the ego and its objects.
So, just because you experienced something does not mean that the something is good, bad, ugly, nice, whatever. Because, after all, who is the experiencer? The ego is the experiencer, and the ego will ensure that its experiences never violate its existence. All your experiences are customized to help you stay who you are. That's the reason.
Take an example. Right now, as I speak, what you experience is very different from what he experiences. Whereas, I'm saying the same thing, right? And you both are equidistant from me, almost. But you, as an experiencer, are different. You are EX1. He is EX2. Therefore, your respective experiences will also be very different.
In fact, if I ask both of you to pick up a notebook and enumerate what I have said just now in the session till now, in, let's say, ten points, the ten points here will be greatly different from the ten points there. How? Because the ego has no concern for facts or truth. It will hear only what it wants to hear. It will remember only what it…
Listener: Wants to remember.
Acharya Prashant: It will interpret only as it…
Listener: Wants to interpret.
Acharya Prashant: Wants to interpret. The experiencer itself is a fraud. Now, how do we respect the experience? The inner experiencer is a big fraud. It has no respect for facts. It has respect only for its own survival. And its survival is always questionable, always threatened. We'll come to that later, you know, why the ego in itself is a false thing. But let it suffice for now that the ego is always afraid. Always afraid. Therefore, it will not easily admit facts. It will filter according to its convenience.
So, in religious practice, don't give too much weightage to experience. A lot of people fall into this trap. They say, "But we experienced a certain divine energy." Sir, why do you experience divine energies only at your preferred places? A Hindu will not experience divine energies at a mosque. A Muslim will not experience divine energies at a temple. Right? Why does all that happen only as per your dogma? Right?
"Oh, I had a great dream in which my beloved God came to me." Okay, fine. You are a Muslim. Why doesn't the Jewish God come to you? Or you are a Hindu. Why doesn't the Buddha come to you? Right? So, don't give too much weightage to the experience. Never say, "It is true because I experienced it." Experience is a great liar.
Spiritual practice is actually about using experience to detect the lies of the experiencer. Use experience to expose the experiencer.
Questioner: How?
Acharya Prashant: Let's say you were chased by a dog when you were a kid. Right? There is some random stray dog. Harmless. And you find that one coming to you, and you still get nervous, even anxious. And if he's coming speedily towards you, you feel like running away. Right? The same kind of reaction he does not display. Use this experience to see what is sitting within. Use experience to know the experiencer.
The same dog is coming towards both of you. Let's say the two of you are walking on the campus, and a random dog is just coming to you. And he's all right, not even noticing it. And you find you're sweating. See where the experience is coming from. The experience is not real. The experience is an imprint of a past event. It has no authenticity. It is conditioned.
The same thing applies to all experiences. This little thing, if you can remember and practice, not to give too much weightage to your experiences. Don't give too much weightage to your likes and dislikes. Never say, "Oh, I'll go towards it because I like it." You like it, fine. How does that matter? Endorse something only if there is authenticity in it. Go towards something only if it is truthful, not because it is likable.
At your age, your hormones can make you like almost anything. So? You have to see through the experience. I know where it is coming from. It's all coming from that experiencer. I know where it's coming from. If you can do that, you'll stay clear of a lot of traps in life.
Questioner: Sir, but then what is Truth if the ego filters? Then what is Truth?
Acharya Prashant: The ego and the Truth, anyway, do not go together. We don't even need to talk of the Truth. Facts are sufficient. The ego doesn't even want to admit facts. When the ego, for a change, honestly comes in complete contact with facts, it tends to disappear. Facts are sufficient.
Have you seen how people live in their opinions and stories? Do they live in facts? Have you seen how easy it is to spread misinformation? Seen that? The ego loves opinions, stories, and falsehood. Have you seen how difficult it is to clear away falseness?
If somebody is living in a certain narrative, a certain story, and you want to talk him out of it, have you seen the kind of resistance he gives? Because the ego has no taste for facts. Even if it will pick a fact, it will be a convenient fact. The ego will do some kind of cherry-picking and pick up some isolated fact from somewhere that suits its own narrative and survival. So, Truth can be left alone. That's a deeper engagement.
Even facts, learn to live in facts. And facts are not just something that exist outside of you. The inner facts also. You're jealous of someone. That's an inner fact. Do you admit that? Rarely, because it doesn't feel morally good to admit that I'm jealous. You're afraid of someone. Do you admit that? No. You're coveting something that someone has. Do you admit that? You don't.
The practice must be to surrender to fact wherever you find it. Just bow your head. If the fact is seen, I can't unsee it. Almost like the scientific method. Just that the scientific method deals only with external facts. External facts, right? An equation that you solve yields the result x = 1.98. You don't approximate it to 2.0. Do you do that? That's the kind of sincerity, rigor, and care you must apply to the internal world also. You must know what is what. 1.98 is not 2.0. Getting it?
Similarly, possessiveness is not love. Don't approximate. Attachment is not care. Don't approximate. Keep things very rigorous, very clean, very precise. Are you getting it? Is respect another name for fear? Have you examined that most of the times when you say, "Oh, I am respectfully silent," you are actually fearfully silent? Have you seen that? If you have seen that, that's worse. Because even after seeing that, you still continue to remain silent.
Just as 1.98 is not 2.0, fear is not respect. Insecurity is not care. Or is it? And insecurity is not ambition either. Have you noticed, so many times when you say, "Oh, I have this ambition," you are actually talking of insecurity, just giving it a decorated name?
That's the inner scientific rigor. I will not approximate. Right? The whole thing must follow a very honest progression, like when you solve a mathematical equation. Spirituality is not mumbo jumbo. It's not about Babaji's antics and the demons that have to be exorcised. None of that.
Questioner: Thank you, sir. And I hope that I can include this in my life, to not believe in experiences and to focus on ego or self, synonymous. Thanks a lot.
