Acharya Prashant explains that he does not think about public speaking; instead, when he is in front of someone, he is speaking to them. His primary effort is to communicate what needs to be communicated. The manner, style, words, language, and metaphors all follow from the supreme intention, which is to help the listener. He states that his only concern is to gauge whether the audience is really benefiting. All else, such as where the stories or examples come from, is secondary to the intent to help. He contrasts this with a polluted intention, such as trying to impress an audience, which would distort or dilute everything. Public speaking, he clarifies, is not about speaking in a way that impresses an audience or leaves them speechless. He views the attempt to impress as a form of violence and self-centeredness, aimed at leaving an imprint of one's own superiority on the listener's consciousness. A real speaker, he asserts, speaks to give voice to their audience, not to render them speechless. He criticizes the common teaching of public speaking that focuses on mesmerizing an audience, sometimes by confidently throwing 'garbage' at them. The speaker advises that one must be honest rather than just looking confident. If you don't know something, you should ask. If you need to listen, you should keep your mouth shut and listen, even for hours. Public speaking is not a vocation or an art, but an expression of your truth and your love. The goal is to uplift the audience, not to burnish one's own ego. He warns against the habit, particularly in India, of being impressed by incomprehensible things, such as complex Sanskrit or English, and surrendering to what one does not understand. He advocates for using simple, relatable language, even if it means slightly diluting the content or compromising on perfect pronunciation. The chief concern is not linguistic accuracy but the audience's internal comprehension. One should speak *to* the audience, not *at* them, much like one adjusts their pace when walking with a child. When asked about criticism, he describes it as a form of engagement. If criticism helps uncover the truth, it should be welcomed. However, if it is merely an egoistic attempt to score points, it should be ignored.