Acharya Prashant explains the nature of emotion (bhavna). He states that a newborn child is a mass of tendencies (vrittis), with the primary one being the ego-tendency (aham-vritti). External influences that remain on the surface of the mind are called thoughts (vichar). For instance, a minor annoyance might lead to thoughts about changing the situation, which remain a private mental process. However, when these influences penetrate deeper, they awaken the vrittis, which are stored in the "basement of the mind" and hold immense energy. The awakening of these vrittis is what is commonly called becoming emotional. This process manifests physically: a thought of anger can lead to a red face, clenched fists, and a trembling body. Similarly, thoughts of sorrow, when they gain momentum from the vrittis, can lead to tears and sobbing. At this point, one says, "I have become emotional." Emotion is nothing but the manifestation of these hidden vrittis, which are like snakes in the mind's basement. It is the influence of the world on you, now supported by the vrittis. Therefore, emotions should not be considered pure or sacred, as they, like thoughts, arise from the world's force. The speaker distinguishes between emotionality (bhavukta) and sensitivity (samvedansheelta), or sentimentality and sensitivity. He advises against being emotional and encourages being sensitive. Sensitivity is a subtle quality of a conscious, living mind that responds to even the smallest events, like a fine musical instrument. In contrast, emotionality makes one insensitive and kills sensitivity. There is great violence in emotionality, while sensitivity is non-violent and contains love. The more easily a person becomes emotional, the more "garbage" is in their mind, making them dangerous. The speaker warns that emotionality is a tool for manipulation. Those who wish to enslave others will display emotionality to ignite their vrittis. He points out that all great sins in the world are committed by making people emotional. He uses the example of a person in court who might claim, "I did not commit the murder, I was swept away in a flow of emotion." This is, in fact, true, as the murder could not have happened without emotionality.