Acharya Prashant responds to the question of whether he opposes natural tendencies like attachment, desire, and attraction. He clarifies that he does not oppose natural tendencies but, in a way, cooperates with them so they can attain what they truly want. He distinguishes between opposing nature and transcending it. He argues that if humans were meant to live a completely natural life, they would not have left the jungle, built cities, developed language, or worn clothes. The entire human civilization, including science, art, and culture, is a testament to the fact that man is not satisfied with nature alone and is constantly seeking something beyond it. The speaker explains that if natural pleasures like food and sex were the ultimate goal, man would have been content in the jungle. However, man took great risks and pains to move beyond the limitations and dangers of a purely natural existence, such as low life expectancy and threats from wild animals. This indicates an inherent human drive to transcend the given conditions of nature. He points out that the argument 'it is natural' is flawed because what is natural for an animal is not the complete nature of a human being. Acharya Prashant establishes a fundamental difference between the nature of an animal and that of a human. An animal's nature is Prakriti, and it lives according to its instincts. A human's true nature (swabhav) is the Self (Atma). Therefore, if a human being lives merely by the dictates of Prakriti, they will remain unfulfilled. The right relationship with nature is not to oppose it, but to observe it, to be a witness to its play. By observing nature, one can understand what lies beyond it. Man is 'Prakriti plus something more,' and it is this 'something more' that he truly seeks. The very act of engaging in such a discussion is a sign of this quest, an activity a purely natural creature would have no interest in.