Acharya Prashant addresses the question, "Should I live for myself or should I live for others?" He begins by explaining that the question itself is based on a false assumption of a dichotomy, an "either/or" choice. This traditional representation, exemplified by the concept of the renunciant (sannyasi) who must forsake self-interest to serve the world, creates a tough choice. This perceived conflict, he states, arises because we operate from the wrong center: the center of the ego. The ego's perspective is that its interests are separate from and contrasted with the interests of the world, leading to a competitive or transactional worldview where one's happiness necessitates another's sadness, or one's gain requires another's loss. He then introduces an alternative center of operation, which he calls the center of maturity and wisdom. From this viewpoint, one's own real interests and the interests of others are seen as inseparable. Attempting to secure only one's own limited, personal interests is ultimately self-defeating, as it is impossible to be truly happy or prosperous while others are suffering. From this higher understanding, the initial question becomes invalid. The relationship between the self and others is not competitive but symbiotic. Acharya Prashant elaborates that when you take care of your own real interests, you are, even without knowing it, helping others. Conversely, if you are genuinely helping others, you will find that you are also helping yourself. The two become one, united and undivided. He uses the analogy of a pilot flying passengers to a destination; it is inevitable that the pilot also reaches that place and, moreover, has good company. What is the fun, he asks, in reaching a great place alone? In contrast, the center of immaturity operates on the belief that one can be happy at the cost of others or by being blind to their welfare. This, he clarifies, is not a positive attitude but a blindness to one's real situation. People suffer without realizing it, much like being infected with a virus whose symptoms have not yet appeared. This unrecognized suffering is then propagated, as we teach others our own ways of suffering. The inner, mental infection can only be detected through careful self-observation, an art that our education and society often fail to teach. The core of the problem is the self that seeks its own separate happiness, which is the very source of suffering and bondage. Therefore, to do things only for this "little self" is to inflate and increase one's own suffering. The one you call 'I' or 'the self' is exactly your suffering. The solution lies in realizing that universal good is personal good, and the two are indistinct.
