Acharya Prashant explains that if one wants to form an image of what the Source is like, it would be completely uneducated and rustic. He states that the Source would be an absolute boor, knowing nothing. He contrasts this with the ego, which is knowledgeable. The Supreme, he clarifies, is utterly ignorant and unknowing, having no concern with knowing. To know, the triad of knower, known, and knowledge is required, which the Supreme lacks. Therefore, it cannot know. He further elaborates that when the ego, which is the body, looks at the world, it forms an image that the world is also the body. Similarly, when the knowledgeable ego creates an image of the Supreme, it imagines the Supreme to be supremely knowledgeable. This is because the individual values knowledge. However, the Supreme is not supremely knowledgeable; it is like a cat, grass, or a stone. It has no knowledge. Knowledge, cleverness, and information belong to the individual, the ego. The Supreme is useless, and because the individual is useful, they are used by everyone. The Supreme, in contrast, is truly useless. Acharya Prashant then discusses the concept of heroism. He points out that all popular inspirational films follow a pattern: the first half shows how bad one's destiny (prarabdha) is, with difficult situations. In the second half, a hero arises through effort (purusharth), who breaks, twists, and changes that destiny to create a new world. These are the films that people like the most. He questions this idea of heroism, asking if we have ever seen a hero who is simply content in equanimity, unconcerned with changing situations. Such a character would not be considered a hero; the movie would flop. The real hero, he suggests, is the one who does nothing. Our concept of a hero is a supreme egoist, one who must change the world. He urges a re-evaluation of what is truly heroic, proposing that non-doership is the highest heroism.