Acharya Prashant responds to a question about viewers who comment, "Sorry, I can't agree with you." He explains that even their disagreement is not understandable, not because what he says is right, but because his words are not meant for agreement or disagreement. He clarifies that he is not seeking votes or likes. The real issue is not about agreement and disagreement, but about knowledge and ignorance, and about understanding versus the lack of it. He questions the audience, asking if they ever truly understand, pointing out that their agreement is as detrimental as their disagreement when it lacks understanding. He elaborates that many people, perhaps thousands or even lakhs, appreciate his words only because they believe he is echoing their own thoughts. They perceive their own principles, beliefs, and ideologies in his message, leading them to praise him. However, he asserts that in doing so, they are not speaking in his favor but in their own, reinforcing their existing views. This creates an echo chamber where they only hear their own voice reflected back at them. They are not listening to him, but to their own prejudices through his words. He notes that people may interpret his words in a way that makes them happy or unhappy, but he is not concerned with either emotion; his only concern is whether they are understanding. Acharya Prashant explains that when a person who usually agrees suddenly disagrees with a specific point, such as a statement against astrology, it signifies that this particular point has struck a sensitive nerve. He considers this the one video that was truly beneficial for that person because it challenged their beliefs. He states that if his words hurt, it is a sign of success for him. He warns the audience to be most cautious when they feel his words align perfectly with their own thoughts, as this can be a significant problem. He uses the analogy of a math problem: if someone uses a wrong method but coincidentally gets the right answer, their faith in their flawed process deepens, which is dangerous. The focus should be on the underlying process and principles, not just the outcome. The work being done is not to establish mutual agreement but to elevate the mind and cleanse the consciousness. He concludes by stating that his words are not a product of mere thinking, and to equate them with one's own thoughts is a great audacity.