Acharya Prashant explains that not all utterances by wise men represent absolute truth; rather, they are intended to help the listener based on their current state of consciousness. He notes that even in the Upanishads, only a few statements are considered Mahavakyas, indicating that most wisdom literature is tailored to the listener's position. The objective is often to shake a person from their deep sleep or provide incremental improvement relative to where they currently stand, rather than demanding an immediate leap to the absolute truth, which can be dishearteningly far. A fairer way of assessing help is with respect to one's current condition rather than the targeted condition. Regarding the text by Kahlil Gibran, Acharya Prashant suggests that the author is speaking to individuals who are deeply conditioned and adamant about killing for food. The poem is a compromised statement born of compassion and practical necessity, not a representation of perfection. It aims to offer a second-best path when the absolute best is currently unattainable for the audience. However, he warns that such words can be dangerously misused as excuses for self-deception, allowing people to justify their addictions and habits under the guise of gradual progress. The philosophy conveyed is relatively weak but serves as a tool for relative assistance. He further explains that any teacher using words is dealing with inherent imperfection, as silence cannot be perfectly translated into worldly language. A student must perform a tightrope walk, respecting the physical medium and the teacher's words while simultaneously remembering that the ultimate truth lies beyond them. True understanding comes when one resonates with the source and intention behind the words, rather than just the words themselves. Ultimately, the scriptures and the teacher serve as mediators that must eventually be transcended for a direct union with the truth.
