Acharya Prashant addresses the dilemma of whether to confront worldly people or avoid them for the sake of one's spiritual life. He states that both are true. There is no need for confrontation where it is not necessary. However, no matter how much one tries to avoid it, confrontation is inevitable. It is very difficult to determine when to confront and when to simply move on; this decision can only be made in the moment. He cannot provide a formula for when to appease people and when a face-to-face encounter is required, as both situations occur. The speaker then analyzes the fear associated with leaving the known for the unknown. He explains that this fear arises not from the unknown itself, but from the frightening images we create about the future. The unknown is blank and void, so one cannot be afraid of it. The fear comes from imagining what will happen after letting go. This imagination is flawed because it is created from the perspective of one's current state of bondage. He uses the analogy of a drunkard who, while intoxicated, tries to plan his life for when he is sober. Such plans are useless because the sober person is different from the drunk one. Similarly, we try to imagine liberation while still in bondage. This imagination of liberation is deliberately made terrifying by the mind to justify remaining in bondage. We create a scary picture of freedom and then tell ourselves that our current state is better. The speaker's advice is to stop imagining the future. Instead of asking what a liberated future will be like, the focus should be on the reality of the "bound present." This is a fact that is right in front of us and can be examined honestly. We avoid looking at our present reality because seeing it clearly would compel us to break our bonds. The correct approach is to look closely at what is now. The more one observes the present, the more its flaws become apparent. This realization will itself generate the energy to break free. This act of leaving and breaking, which he calls "destruction," is actually a "creative destruction." He refrains from describing the "creation" that follows, as it would only fuel more imagination. One must have faith that creation will happen on its own after the old is destroyed.