Why Words Fail to Capture Life’s Truth?
Questioner: Greetings, Benevolent Master. My first question is more of an observation. I am reading the Gita book from a Kindle eBook. Now, Kindle provides popular highlights—so Kindle keeps track of those texts which people are highlighting in their eBooks.
Now, this particular verse, verse number 13, is one of the most popular highlights of Kindle. This is the verse that has been most misquoted and misunderstood. Maybe that is the reason this particular verse is highlighted the most.
Acharya Prashant: Yeah, but yeah, like one highlights the target, like one has the victim in one's crosshairs—you highlight that which you want to consume or prey upon or feast upon. In that sense, we have highlighted this one. You highlight a potential threat, don’t you?
Questioner: Yes.
Acharya Prashant: So we have highlighted this one because this verse, if rightly understood, is a huge threat to our existence. So we have taken great care not to let this one pass safely. We have ensured that we will corrupt its meaning so that we remain safe.
Questioner: So it's a typical example of the ego laying its hands on holy scriptures.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, an example of the ego identifying a threat and neutralizing it. And you can extend this observation to all the things in the world in the sense of our relationship with them. If we are highlighting something in this world, chances are we are going to destroy and distort it. We do not highlight things because they are virtuous or truthful. The ego does not want virtue. The ego has nothing for the truth. For the ego, its own security and preservation come first.
So if it just gets a whiff of truth somewhere, it becomes very alert. Alert—not in the sense of getting eager to surrender, alert—not in the sense of getting eager to welcome the Beloved. Alert—in the sense of getting ready and aggressive to counter an enemy.
If you find people rushing to temples, now you can see what that means. We highlight temples, don’t we? We highlight temples so that we can distort their purpose.
If there is something that the ego gives attention to, the thing is in danger. It’s now running the risk of being misused, misappropriated, and robbed of its authentic nature and purpose. If the ego says, I love you or I respect you, it's a red flag.
Questioner: When someone says, I love chicken.
Acharya Prashant: Yes, in the same way,
Questioner: Travelers like Goa. When they say, I like a particular mountain. When travelers say—
Acharya Prashant: In the same way.
Questioner: My next question is related to—uh, you talked about life being in a constant movement, flux. You talked about Buddha. So I have one observation.
I was reflecting on this verse today. Uh, I find that there is a conflict between linguistics, language, and life. Now, life is continuous. Life is dynamic. But language is static.
When we say, This is a tree, This is a tree, so it means static. This is. Is-ness means static. This is a boy. Is. Whereas what it is pointing to is continuous. So clearly, there is a difference between the tool using which we explain life—that is, language—
Acharya Prashant: One almost feels like seeing that it's an intentional difference. Because if the tree is static, then so is the seer of the tree. So you want to assert that the ego is an entity, just as the tree is an entity. It's a thing. Equally, I am a thing. But if you see that the tree is a process, the tree is a stream, then you'll have to admit that the ego too is a stream. And if the ego is a stream, then the ego is nothing.
Therefore, language has to be deliberately constructed in a way that supports the ego. If the tree is a flux, then so is the seer of the tree. No?
Questioner: Because you said today that seer and the seen are of the same dimension. Now, if the seen is in the flux dimension, that means the seer also is in the flux dimension.
Acharya Prashant: Yes. Yes, and that can even be seen very logically. You say, I am the body. Now, your body and the tree's body are very similar. So if the tree is a flux, so are you—because you say you are the body.
Questioner: So we, uh, intentionally or maybe not intentionally, also—we, uh, say this is the body. But, uh, I think we have to give the benefit of the doubt to the ego because the least count of the senses using which we perceive cannot detect very subtle changes.
Now, since it cannot detect subtle changes, it is unable to see that it is a flow.
Acharya Prashant: You cannot detect subtle changes in the gross material of the body, but can't you detect the almost instantaneous changes in your mind and mood? In a fraction of a second, your universe changes, right? How did that happen?
If you were a static thing, how did the thing so completely change in almost zero time?
Questioner: Yes, but, okay. Okay, I have to think, uh, reflect on this even more. Because it is very unnatural to—unnatural, nonbiological to know that something is flux. It is very conducive biologically.
Acharya Prashant: You could, you could, uh, look at it in a totally opposite way as well. This moment, you were thinking of somebody as your beloved. And think of your state, and think of the meaning that that person has for you.
And then somebody tells you that this person is not that one, and your beloved is out there somewhere. There is confusion.
And see how completely everything has changed.
Questioner: Immediately.
Acharya Prashant: How immediately. And how, then, can you miss seeing that everything is a flux?
Questioner: It's a classic example of that mother in a maternity ward.
Acharya Prashant: Yes.
Questioner: The mother is having the child, and she's caressing the baby. And suddenly, the nurse says, Oh, by mistake, the baby was exchanged. And suddenly, the string of belongingness is cut.
Acharya Prashant: Yes.
Questioner: So, uh, my last question is related to the state of a liberated man. So, you describe the state of a liberated person at two, three places in your discourse. I was reminded of Ramana Maharshi.
I was reading his book Advaita Bodha Deepika, where he explains the state of a man who is egoless, who is liberated. He says, His state is like that of a burnt rope. There is a rope—the burnt rope—so its shape and size are still maintained. But its ability to tie, its ability to bondage, or to bind—that is gone.
So this is a very nice way of putting it. Burnt rope. A liberated man is a burnt rope.
Acharya Prashant: Externally, just like the rope, but without the typical attributes of the rope. Or externally, just like anything. Externally, just like anybody else. Internally, nobody.
Like a room that has been vacated. Like a room you have checked out of. The room is there. When you are passing through an aisle between a series of rooms, can you distinguish between rooms that are occupied and those that are not?
Can you?
Questioner: No.
Acharya Prashant: 106, 107, 108. So externally, all the rooms look the same. The liberated person is a room without an occupant.
Questioner: So, you mean—the room, the walls of the room, that is the body—that will be there?
Acharya Prashant: Yes,
Questioner: That will be there.
Acharya Prashant: Yes. Internally, there is nobody making mischief or doing anything else. Or a more befitting example could be—a vacated prison cell. A hotel room sounds a bit tempting. You know, why should I check out? Especially if it's a good hotel.
So, a liberated man is like a vacated prison cell. The cell remains. The prisoner is gone. The prisoner is free.
Questioner: Before going— last class, you told many definitions about what is ego. You also said, at the end of the class, that today you told so many definitions of the ego. So today, I was sitting and compiling those definitions. I found 20 definitions. So I noted them down and sent them to Anmol Ji and a few other people.
Now, one thing I found very common—last class, you laughed a lot. The moment you gave one liner definition, you exhaled. Means you said one line and you laughed. You gave another definition of ego and you laughed. Because I was noting down the definitions, I could hear it. Every time a definition comes from you laugh.
I was thinking whether the wisdom lies in the word or in your laughter. It was nice.
Acharya Prashant: It was like, you know, asking whether the real thing is the rain or the thunder. Nothing. It's just a little more cloudy on a few days. Just happens. Sometimes there are the clouds, sometimes there is the clear sky, sometimes it rains without the thunder, sometimes there is thunder without Rain, sometimes there is rain and thunder.
Questioner: Koi Din khaaja, koi din Laadoo. Yes. Thank you so much.
