Acharya Prashant addresses the phenomenon of people agreeing with some of his teachings while disagreeing with others. He explains that the very point a person finds disagreeable is often the one that is like medicine for them; they resist it precisely because it is what they need. People readily agree with statements that have no direct personal cost or application to their lives. They create exceptions, accepting all points that apply to others but rejecting the one that applies to them, because accepting it would necessitate personal change. He clarifies that he does not speak on numerous different topics but conveys one single, consistent Truth. Therefore, it is logically impossible to agree with one of his points and disagree with another, as they all stem from the same fundamental principle. He likens this to agreeing that A equals 3 but disagreeing that 2A equals 6. All his statements are logically consistent; if one is wrong, all are wrong, and if one is right, all are right. The selective agreement arises when a principle is applied to a neighbor versus when it is applied to oneself. Acharya Prashant highlights the hypocrisy in this selective acceptance. For instance, people may praise his talks on human empowerment in general, but when the empowerment of the daughter in their own house is discussed, they find him wrong because it challenges their self-interest. Similarly, some people claim to watch only his 'core spiritual' videos, avoiding the practical, actionable ones because they are unwilling to apply the truth to their daily lives. He emphasizes that his purpose is not to gain agreement or support but for people to understand. He quotes a line he once said: "Sometimes you agree, and sometimes you disagree, but do you ever understand?" To determine which of his teachings is most beneficial, Acharya Prashant advises identifying the part that seems most wrong, bad, or terrible. That very point, he states, is the most useful one for the individual—the thing they have been searching for, yet are now rejecting. He quotes Kabir Saheb, comparing those who selectively agree to a hypocritical crane (bagula), which is white on the outside but deceitful inside, suggesting a crow is better for being consistent inside and out. He urges listeners to be consistent and not to pick and choose truths based on convenience.
