Acharya Prashant explains that the language of the Upanishads, and indeed most spiritual texts, is somewhat special, much like their authors. They use the same words that we do, because the vocabulary in any language is the same. However, when these ordinary words are used by a person who knows the Truth, by a sage, they take on a different dimension of meaning. For example, when it is said that God saw Hiranyagarbha, in our common language, 'to see' means to see with the eyes, to perceive with the senses. We call the experience of the ordinary eyes 'seeing'. However, when a spiritual text says 'saw', one must read it with caution. There, 'to see' means to understand, to be beyond the object being seen, to be a witness. Just as in English, when you say, 'Oh, I see,' it doesn't mean you just opened your eyes; it means you have understood the matter. Similarly, when you explain something to someone and say, 'Look, Kamal, the matter is not like this,' you are not asking Kamal to open his eyes. 'Look' here means to understand. Use your insight. The physical eyes are seen by everyone, but use your inner sight. This is what 'to see' means. In the use of insight, what does 'to see' imply? It means you are not attached to or engrossed in the object or subject being seen. Without non-attachment, a clear vision is not possible. Without non-attachment, the eyes will remain stuck to the object, which means the mind will remain stuck. Therefore, one has to read spiritual texts in a very different way, with great respect, constantly remembering that the authors are not like us. We should not impose our life's principles, events, and examples on them. When we say, 'Ramesh saw Suresh,' it is an event on a lower plane. But when the Upanishads say, 'God saw Hiranyagarbha,' we think the language is the same, so the seeing must also be the same as Ramesh seeing Suresh. This is where a great mistake has been made because we have never learned to read the Gita and the Upanishads correctly. We think of the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna as a conversation between two ordinary people. This is a matter of deep ego. We think that 'seeing' must be as we experience it, because we believe there is no flaw in us. The ego does not want to accept a dimensional change. The ego says, 'I am Gupta ji, and I know about 25 houses. God is omniscient, so He must know about 25 crore houses.' The ego thinks that if its own knowledge is expanded, it will become God. This is the ego's perspective. We have conceived of God as an inflated version of ourselves. God is an enlarged, expanded version of man. This is why the stories we have created about our gods and goddesses are just like our own stories. We get married, so we have arranged marriages for the gods and goddesses as well. This is the ego. This is the difference between the Upanishads and the Puranas. The Puranas make the Supreme Being like you, while the Upanishads try to make you like the Supreme Being. I am not against the Puranas, but I have always said that if you have not read the Upanishads, the Puranas can be dangerous for you. You will misinterpret their stories. The utility of the Puranas is only when you have first studied Vedanta. Otherwise, you will make a mess of their meaning. To understand the Upanishads correctly, the required eligibility is the desire for liberation, an intense longing for freedom (Mumuksha). Otherwise, you will get whatever you want to read from them. You will only spread misinformation about the Upanishads. You will use the verses of the Upanishads to justify your own intentions, which is a misuse.
