Women: Beyond Every Conditioning
Questioner: So first of all, I'd like to thank you. So over the past few years, I have inculcated a habit of being a little more critical and more curious about what is being taught to me, whether that's by my parents, the society, our teachers, even the government. But what I've also noticed is, while doing so, I've also become a little more cynical. Is there room for both to coexist at the same time? Can I be curious and critical and also be more open to the world, their views, and having a little bit of love in my life?
Acharya Prashant: No, this too is a form of conditioning, the thought that being critical does not sit well with love. The thought that inquiry, questioning, investigation, indicate antagonism or violence. They don't. In fact, they indicate an openness towards engagement. So genuine criticism, inquiry, go very well with openness and love.
In fact, I hate it when I speak to my audiences and all I see are obedient and blank faces. I know for sure that the thing I'm addressing, the inner one I'm talking to, will not so easily accept and acknowledge what I'm saying. So how come it is not displaying its resistance? That resistance, even if it comes in the form of a sharp counter-question, is far better than a silent and dead nod of approval.
Inquiry is good. What we have rather been taught is obedience, that too of a morbid kind. Just sit and say, “Yes, I agree. Yes, I agree. Yes, I agree.” But what do you agree with? You haven't even understood.
The right teacher or advisor will never seek your agreement. He or she will seek your understanding, and understanding cannot come without engagement. And engagement means exposing your position. You see, this is what you are saying, but this is where I stand, and obviously these two do not concur. That's why engagement needs to be there.
If what you are telling me is already at the point where I stand, then you don't need to tell me anything. Then you're wasting your time. Any kind of teaching or advice should be met with a little bit of resistance, but honest resistance. Honest resistance. Resistance not with the intent to defend the position; resistance with the intent to understand the position.
Self-defense is not inquiry. An argument arising from the intent to contradict the other so that you can stay where you are and who you are is not an honest argument.
So this is not cynicism, really. This is fine. And if you want to call it cynicism, then this is healthy cynicism. You can be cynical, you can be skeptical, all that is okay. What is central is honesty. Honesty.
Questioner: So I guess what you're trying to say is that the negative feeling that arises is mainly from my discomfort with being questioning and critical.
Acharya Prashant: Yes. It's the ego's discomfort with being put in the dock or with the spotlight shining on it. “Why are you trying to look at me honestly? I do not want to be looked at.” Why? Because I know I'm fake. Because I know I'm fake.
And if there is an advisor or an elder or a teacher who starts shivering or trembling when looked at, then that fellow does not deserve to be called an elder. If I am out there to teach, my job is to expose my position thoroughly, not impose it. But expose it. And it can be exposed only in light of the questions of the audience.
Some of the greatest scriptures that the world has known and India has produced are the Upanishads, and you know their pedagogy, their methodology. How do they proceed?
Questioner: Through questions.
Acharya Prashant: Through questions. The method is dialectical. The same thing that we find in Socrates. He did not write any books. He would simply have dialogues. Same thing in the Upanishads. The very word means sitting with the teacher, sitting close to the teacher.
And some of the Upanishads, they are just so brief. All they have is a brief question and a one-line answer. And the teacher won't move without question. The teacher responds and falls silent. And he says, “I have nothing to tell you because I'm not here to impose myself on you. If you have something to ask, I'll respond.”
The student asks and the teacher responds. You know the funny thing. Sometimes the answer is shorter than the question. The teacher is not out there with an agenda. The teacher is not saying, “Just give me a chance and I'll rattle for 30 minutes,” like this one does. The rishis respected their time much more than I do. So ask a question to them, and they give a brief answer and fall silent. You ask them, they speak. You ask them, they speak, and the questions are a continuum.
So every question, every successive question, is actually a follow-up. The teacher has said something, and the student proceeds from there and there and there. It's a thread. It's a thread, and it's so beautiful. That's why the Upanishads are taken so highly respected till this date. Never be afraid of questions. Never be. But always be careful of questioning the questioner as well. Otherwise, the ego will use questions to defend itself.
The greatest teacher, the greatest philosopher, the Upanishadic sage, might be sitting in front of you, and you can keep contradicting and refuting him using some silly question. After all, the ego's agenda is to just defend itself, self-preserve. “I must stay who I am.” So questions can be used as ammunition or fortress for self-defense. Let that not happen.
So when you question the teacher or anybody, always remember to concurrently question yourself. So question the teacher and also question the questioner. Question both of them simultaneously.
Questioner: Namaste Acharya ji. Ego is self-referential, and we can also call it self-hypnosis. So I want to ask, if it is Brahm, self-referential, then we use it as a therapy, hypnotherapy, at so many places, and it is also used and misused by so-called babas. So how can we take hypnosis? We can use it for the purpose, or we can discard it as a Brahm?
Acharya Prashant: In the life that we lead, ego is the central reality. Ego is the central reality in the life that we lead. It's just that the life that we lead is itself illusory. But that's a meta-view. From within the life that we lead, life is real, is it not? Or would you say this auditorium is unreal? You won't say that, right?
Yes. If you can somehow stand outside this reality, you do get the license to declare all this as mithya or Brahm or illusory. But for us, this is real. So ego is the lived reality. Yes, it does exist. It is for Acharya Shankar to say that “Jeev is mithya.” But you are Jeev.
In your eyes. Are you mithya?
Questioner: No.
Acharya Prashant: You're not, right? You're not. Ego does not exist at all, that is fine for a sage to say. But as we live, would you ever say, “I am not?” So the honest thing is to not begin with “I am not.” The honest thing is to say, “I am.” Now I want to investigate whether that which I claim I am holds any ground. That's the scientific method. That's how you also proceed in statistics, don't you?
First of all, you very honestly declare your hypothesis. You declare that very openly. And what is the hypothesis? Truth? No. It is an assumption you are proceeding on. So you declare that, yes, there is an assumption, but I'm sticking to the assumption, just that I also want to check it. And then you check the hypothesis, and towards the end you declare whether or not you want to still hold it.
Similarly, the way of wisdom starts with the ego. It would be hypocritical to dismiss the ego right at the beginning because the one dismissing the ego would again be the ego. So don't dismiss the ego. Inquire. The ego always says, “I am doing this. I am deciding that. This is my identity. This is my goal. That's my ambition. This is my past.” You know, all these things the ego is made of. You inquire into that. That's the method. That's fine.
Questioner: So about hypnotherapy or hypnosis?
Acharya Prashant: I'm not sure what you do in that. Not at all sure. Because from where I see, we are all already hypnotized. So what do you mean by hypnotizing a hypnotized one all the more?
Questioner: So we can discard it as an illusion?
Acharya Prashant: I don't know what you do in that. It's like delivering anesthesia to someone in a coma. I don't know what you'll achieve from that. You're already hypnotized. Are we not hypnotized?
Questioner: Yes.
Acharya Prashant: So what kind of super-hypnosis can you deliver to a hypnotized one? What we require is dehypnosis, not more hypnosis. You get this?
We require to be shaken up and woken up. Somebody's already sleeping, and you deliver a shot of some sedative drug. What sense does it make? He does not need to be sedated. He is already off.
But that applies not just to hypnosis, but all kinds of treatments we deliver to ourselves. What else is entertainment? You are already out, and then you want to be further out. So you start watching a cricket match or something or something. You are already out of touch with reality, and you want to drift further away. So you say, “No, I'm going out. It's the evening. I'll entertain myself, visit this place, that place, some shopping mall, some entertainment.”
There are just so many ways we keep ourselves perpetually hypnotized.
Questioner: So if we all are hypnotized, then how to dehypnotize?
Acharya Prashant: You're not happy with being hypnotized. Nobody is content in being hypnotized. And that's the redeeming hope. You would have been perfectly all right had you been perfectly hypnotized.
You stand hypnotized, but there is one part of you which will never be satisfied with being hypnotized. Never. And it is for the sake of that part, it is from that part and that point, that you must act.
It's like getting drunk. You can get drunk to whatever extent you like, N pegs, X bottles. Still, drunkards would vouch for it, some part of you does retain some consciousness. You can never get 100% drunk. 100% drunk or 100% drugged or whatever. There is that faint consciousness that still remains.
Similarly, you can be in your deepest moment of some stupid ecstasy, “I attained this. I'm successful now. I got this job,” or “I got so much money,” or “I got that man or woman.” And you can be in the deepest ecstasy you can conjure, and yet one part of you knows the reality. It can never be satisfied.
It is for the sake of that part, and it is from that part, that you must act. Because what is the point of deceiving oneself inwardly? You're giving yourself what you think is the best possible, but something within you is still wailing. Some little kid within is still sitting desolate in a corner, not joyful at all. Do you get this?
Questioner: Yeah.
Acharya Prashant: That's the difference between being hypnotized and being dead. Once you are dead, the problem is actually over. Now there is nobody to be sad or dejected. But as long as you're alive, no amount of hypnosis can rid you perfectly of your misery. That little quivering voice within will remain and keep complaining, “It's still not all right.” And that voice is everything.
Questioner: Acharya ji, we all know that voice, that inner voice, but still we act according to the world or according to ego.
Acharya Prashant: That's a decision. That's a decision. Nobody can change it for you. Nobody can act rightly on your behalf. It's your life, and you have to act. Others can at most sit and talk and demonstrate and advise and hold a mirror. But ultimately, it's your life and your decision.
It's about whether you value self-realization more than self-preservation. Whether you value love over fear. Most people are too afraid to value love. It's a decision. And there can be nothing behind that decision. It's just a decision. It's a sovereign decision. It's a decision that you have to make, “I value love more than fear.” Full stop. And you're not accountable to anybody. And nobody can cause this decision. This decision is sovereign. This decision arises from you and you only. This decision is not conditional. No favorable conditions outside of you can precipitate this decision. This decision is totally yours, and only yours, to make.
Questioner: Okay.
