Acharya Prashant explains that the source of all religions is life itself. He states that anyone who has spoken with wisdom, whether they call themselves religious or not, has done so by observing life. The word 'religion' is merely a label. Whoever has spoken any words of wisdom has done so by looking at life. One must remember that understanding does not arise from anywhere other than life. Whoever has known, has known by looking at life. This includes observing plants, mountains, the eyes of a person, birth, and death. Only by observing these has anything ever been known; there is no other source. He clarifies that there is no such thing as a divine voice. The belief that the Vedas came from the mouth of Brahma is merely symbolic. The Rishis who wrote the hymns of the Vedas were in contact with life, not with Brahma. However, if one chooses to call life itself Brahma, that is a different matter. They would observe life, seeing how a child is born, how it gradually acquires habits, how leaves appear on trees, and how a flower suddenly blooms. They would watch in awe, just as a child does, and from this silent, attentive, and immersive observation, religion emerges. Regarding the differences among religions, he asserts that they are only due to differences in language. The silence that is known is one; when you express that silence, languages will differ. Whoever has known, has known the One. Life is one, so how can religions be different? Truth is one, so how can there be different truths? Just as science is one for a Christian and a Hindu, the truth is also one. He gives examples of Lao Tzu in China and Heraclitus in Greece, or Farid and Meera, who were separated by vast distances and time, yet spoke of the same thing. This is possible because the source is one. The religion of all religions is life itself. He concludes that there are only two types of people: the religious and the irreligious. A good Hindu and a good Muslim are exactly the same; there is no difference between them because both are religious. The real distinction is between who is religious and who is not. The question should not be 'what is your religion?' but 'do you have religion or not?'