Acharya Prashant explains that in the Upanishads, whenever there is a negation, it is always directed at the 'one' that appears as 'many'. Whether the text negates destiny, distinctions, or names and forms, it is essentially negating the false and the non-existent. Conversely, when the Upanishads affirm something, they are affirming the Truth or the Primal Cause. He emphasizes that while different names may be used for affirmation or negation, the underlying subject remains singular. This principle applies to life as well: a clear mind rejects only the false and accepts only the Truth, regardless of the situational names these may take. Addressing the concept of the 'Subject', Acharya Prashant clarifies that in the context of the Upanishads, 'Subject' does not refer to the egoistic observer or enjoyer involved in duality. Instead, it refers to the Witness or the Self (Atman) that observes both the mind and the world projected by the mind. He cautions against misinterpreting English translations, stating that 'Subject' should be understood as the Witness, which stands apart from all states of the mind, representing the state of Turiya. He further discusses the relationship between the Imperishable and the universe. He explains that while the universe is the body or manifestation of the Imperishable, the body itself cannot know its source. The existence of the universe depends on the Imperishable, but the Imperishable is independent of the universe. Finally, he explains 'withdrawal' as the process where the senses, which are naturally outward-looking, return to their source. Comparing this to a tortoise retracting its limbs, he describes it as a state where the mind loses interest in worldly expansion and returns to its center, a state often referred to as Vairagya or Uparati.
