Acharya Prashant addresses the query about the concept of the "end of time." He explains that the mind desires to know what happens after time ends, believing this knowledge will bring peace. However, this very question creates a puzzle. The mind is accustomed to a linear sequence; when it hears "end of time," it immediately asks, "What happens next?" This is likened to imagining a clock that has stopped and then asking what time it will show next. The mind attempts to form an image or concept of something that is beyond its conceptual framework. The speaker points out that our experience in the world is based on duality. Every end is followed by a beginning. When a room ends, another space begins. Due to this ingrained habit, when we hear of the "end of time," we instinctively ask, "What begins after?" We try to fit the concept into the duality of beginning and end. However, the "end of time" signifies the end of this very duality—it is the end of both beginnings and endings. The mind cannot perceive what is beyond time and space. Acharya Prashant states that it is beneficial for the mind to encounter such mysteries, as it makes the mind uncomfortable and breaks its settled state of "knowing everything." The mind then tries to grasp the ungraspable, like a dog chasing its own tail, eventually getting exhausted. This exhaustion can lead to the realization that a different approach is needed. He extends this to the "end of space," noting that the mind cannot imagine a lack of space without creating another space, as all imagination is based on the concept of space. This is connected to the subject-object reality. For science to exist, for an object to be observed, there must be a subject, a "me" or an ego, to observe it. The very act of perceiving an object strengthens the ego. Everything we perceive, including our sense of time—whether fast or gradual—is relative to our personal context, with the ego at its center. Therefore, what is born is the ego itself.