Acharya Prashant addresses the tendency to give excessive importance to Khajuraho and sex in the context of Indian spirituality. He clarifies that it is not that India has lost a particular cultural perspective, but rather that India has always provided space for all streams of thought to flow freely. The philosophy depicted on the Khajuraho walls represents one such stream, which is Tantra. A temple, he explains, is a place that represents an ascension, a rise, and an upliftment of the human being to their highest potential. This upliftment can be achieved through various means, and the different deities in temples represent these diverse paths, catering to the specific constitution and tendencies of an individual's mind. In this diverse spiritual landscape, Khajuraho is a temple where the body itself, and particularly the sexual act, has been shown as a means for ascension. However, the existence of Khajuraho does not prove that ancient India was solely about sex. To do so would be to give it disproportionate attention. He points out that while Khajuraho was being built, other dominant streams like Vedanta, Buddhism, and Jainism existed, which viewed the body very differently, often as a mischief-maker rather than a facilitator for liberation. He criticizes those who selectively focus on Khajuraho to validate their own self-centered and unrestrained physical desires, noting that this says more about their own obsessions than about Indian culture. Acharya Prashant emphasizes the need to see the bigger picture and understand things in their proper context. He questions why, out of millions of temples in India, Khajuraho is singled out, especially in discussions about love. He argues that every temple is a temple of love, representing the mind's loving aspiration to unite with the ultimate. He uses the story of Adi Shankaracharya's debate with Mandan Mishra as an example. In the story, the topic of sex was raised by Mandan Mishra's wife only at the very end of a seventeen-day spiritual discourse. To ignore the vast spiritual discussion that preceded it and focus only on the sexual part is a gross distortion. He further explains that India's spiritual tradition is both monistic, where the ultimate reality is one or even non-existent (Shunya), and pantheistic, with millions of deities. This is because every individual is unique and requires a unique path to the ultimate, which is why every family might have its own deity (Kuldevta). Therefore, while Khajuraho is a unique temple, every temple, such as the one dedicated to Goddess Kali or the Kashi Vishwanath temple, is unique in its own way. The issue is not with Khajuraho itself, but with the disproportionate value given to it, which distorts its meaning and implications when viewed without the holistic context of Indian spirituality.