Acharya Prashant explains that the issue is not about preference, about who you like. Preference belongs to the ego. The ego moves in two directions, and this distinction must be understood very clearly. One direction is that of its preference, and the other is that of its liberation. The ego is eager to move in both directions. In one direction, it says, 'I am using my freedom,' and moves towards the things it likes. In the other direction, it says, 'I want freedom.' These are two very different paths. He distinguishes between 'freedom of the ego' and 'freedom for the ego'. For instance, if you want to eat pizza, that is the freedom of the ego. The ego asserts, 'It is a matter of my freedom, my tongue, my money, my stomach, my pizza. I will eat it.' The law would also support your right to eat pizza if you are paying for it. However, eating pizza will not bring you liberation. This is the freedom of the ego, which is always eager to move in the direction of its preferences. In spirituality, preference is a worthless thing. Spirituality is not about choosing pizza. Spirituality is 'freedom for the ego,' where the ego says, 'I want to like that which will annihilate me.' While eating pizza, the ego likes what enhances it, what makes it fatter. In spirituality, the ego moves towards liberation from itself. It says, 'I need freedom from myself. I no longer want what enhances me; I want what annihilates me.' He points out that we are attracted to two kinds of people: those who enhance our ego and those who are the 'flowers of this earth,' like prophets and saints. It is strange that at one moment the mind runs after something trivial, and at another, it is desperate to listen to a saint. This is indicative of the two directions of the ego. When he says to make someone an ideal, he is talking about the direction of liberation, not preference. The ideal should be one who leads to liberation by cutting your bondages, not one who merely satisfies your preferences.