Acharya Prashant begins by stating that saying you saw a soul is the same as saying you saw a ghost. He explains that Hindus have turned the greatest truth, the soul (Atma), into a ghost. This is what we have done to our sages and Vedic seers. We have turned the highest truth into ghosts, witches, and ghouls roaming around. He questions the logic of seeing a soul, asking how something that has left the body can be seen. He points out that something without a body cannot be visible. He further criticizes the common Hindu misconception of equating death with liberation (Mukti) or salvation (Moksha). When someone dies, people say they have attained salvation. The vehicle carrying the corpse is called a 'Moksha-yaan' (salvation vehicle). Language gives us many names, and these names make the incomplete ego believe it can become complete. If one name doesn't work, it latches onto another. If the concept of 'Atma' from the Vedic religion doesn't work, the ego moves towards the Buddha's concept of 'Anatma' (no-self), thinking it will find fulfillment there. However, the underlying issue, the flawed ego, remains unchanged. The person who was reading the Upanishads is the same one now reading the Dhammapada; what difference does it make? By differentiating between two names, you have conveniently made yourself forget the fundamental difference between the ego and the Truth. Acharya Prashant explains that the function of language is to provide false hope. You feel you've found something new when you move from the Upanishads to the Dhammapada, but nothing new has happened. The one who has come is still the same. The new thing is only new by name; it is not only old but also a representative of the entire nature. The ego is like a foolish person in the story of the blind men and the elephant. It grasps parts of the whole—the trunk, the tail, the ears, the legs—and breaks the whole into pieces, creating divisions where there are none. The ego is like a bacterium in the gut, unaware of the larger body it inhabsits, let alone the universe. It is so small that it cannot even estimate the completeness of the body, let alone the complete Brahman. The ego, which is the bacterium in the gut of Brahman, can never know Brahman. He clarifies that the ego is not big enough to be given the metaphor of a bacterium in the gut of Brahman. The ego is so small that it cannot know Brahman. The speaker then addresses a questioner, stating that the questioner's entire query stems from a fear that the soul might not actually exist. He explains that the entire spiritual field is for the 'I' (the ego). All suffering, pain, and bondage belong to this 'I'. If this 'I' calls itself 'Aham' (ego), Vedanta says 'Aham' is false. If the same 'I' calls itself 'Atma' (soul), then Buddha says the soul is also false. Both Vedanta and Buddha are saying the same thing from two different ends. When the ego starts calling itself the soul, the only way to address it is to say that the soul is also false. This is what Buddha did.