Acharya Prashant addresses the question of why the Upanishads are not central to Hinduism, leading to its weakening. He explains that there are numerous reasons for this, which have varied over different periods. A primary cause has been the lack of propagation of Upanishadic teachings. While the Upanishads are very lofty, their wisdom was historically limited to a select few. The prevailing social system, particularly the structures of caste and varna, overpowered spirituality and acted as a significant barrier, preventing these profound teachings from reaching the general populace. As a consequence of this limited reach, people who were deprived of the high knowledge of the Upanishads turned to various rituals, customs, and superstitions, which then became widespread. Furthermore, Acharya Prashant clarifies that Upanishadic knowledge is not something that can be passed down as a hereditary inheritance. It demands self-inquiry and investigation from each new generation. When this knowledge is transmitted ancestrally, for instance, from a pandit father to his son, the essential affinity and deep understanding are often lost. This has led to a situation where both groups—those who never received the knowledge and those who received it merely as a tradition without true comprehension—have been deprived of its essence. Therefore, a fresh start, almost from scratch, is necessary. Acharya Prashant further elaborates that the interference of external bodies like courts in religious matters is a symptom of the internal weakness of the religion. This weakness stems from ignoring the true source of strength, which is Vedanta. Instead, people cling to minor books, outdated customs, and traditions, which invites objections from everyone. He asserts that no parliament or court is greater than Dharma, which is eternal. It is regrettable that these institutions have been given the authority to control Dharma, a situation that has arisen because Dharma itself has become defeated, powerless, and distorted. It is so ailing that without external discipline, it risks falling into a ditch. Responding to the idea that diversity is Hinduism's strength, Acharya Prashant refutes it by questioning whether all the various scriptures and beliefs are compatible with Vedanta. He uses the analogy of a plate containing poison and dung to mock the notion that all forms of diversity are beneficial. True strength, he states, lies in the One, the Atman, not in multiplicity. Any diversity that leads one away from the Atman is Maya, a deception that will lead nowhere. He challenges the romanticized view of history, pointing out that many groups did not come seeking refuge but were invaders. He concludes by defining what it means to be a Hindu, rejecting the notion that "anything goes." A word without a definition is meaningless, and there must be essential conditions. He posits that Vedanta is indispensable, and if one does not have faith in it, they may live as they please but should not call themselves a Hindu.