Acharya Prashant addresses the idea of pursuing wealth and fame to eventually discover that they are not the answer. He agrees that this realization is possible but describes the approach as very inefficient. The statement itself is not incorrect, but the method is flawed. He elaborates on the nature of fame, explaining that it is exclusive by definition. If everybody is famous, then nobody is famous. Fame is the limited space one occupies in another's mind, which imposes a clear mathematical limitation. If a thousand people try for fame, only a few can succeed. This means for the vast majority, it is a sheer waste of effort. Even for the two who might succeed, it could take forty years of work, only to discover that fame does not help. This makes the process inefficient and a bad way of realizing the truth. Similarly, wealth is described as being both objective and subjective. For most people, it is 99% subjective. The objective component of wealth includes having enough for basic sustenance, nutrition, shelter, medical care, and education. However, as wealth increases, it becomes more subjective and relative, dependent on comparisons with others. In its subjective aspect, wealth is much like fame; not everyone can be subjectively wealthy. This makes the pursuit of subjective wealth an inefficient approach where most will fail and never get to verify that it is not the answer. The few who succeed will have undertaken a very expensive and lengthy journey. Acharya Prashant concludes that this path is an expensive, resource-consuming, and inefficient journey. He points out the waste of time, money, and natural resources, calling it a futile journey. He suggests it is far better to reach the destination of realization through other means that are inexpensive, swift, and do not consume so many resources.
