Acharya Prashant responds to a question about learning from life versus learning from a teacher. He begins by questioning the premise, asking what this mysterious thing called "life" is. He explains that life is not a vague, nebulous concept happening in some other dimension. Instead, life comprises our day-to-day existence: breathing, eating, interactions, relationships, the food we eat, and the work we do. Therefore, he questions how he, as a teacher, can be considered outside the purview of the questioner's life. He points out that people tend to define "life" selectively. They readily accept all the trauma and nonsensical interactions with foolish, unworthy, and mediocre people as "life." For instance, they would say, "Life brought me in contact with this girl, and I fell for her," and accept that as a life experience. However, when a teacher comes into their life, they treat it as something external, something outside of life. The speaker finds this distinction fishy and fails to understand it. The speaker clarifies that the real issue is not about learning from life versus a teacher, because the teacher is also a part of life. The real question is what within life one chooses to learn from. He asserts that everyone is constantly absorbing influences, like a sponge, from their so-called life. The choice is not whether to learn, but from whom to learn. One can learn from an ass, which will deliver a solid kick, and call that "life." Or one can learn from a great teacher like Shri Krishna or Kabir Saheb, but people often dismiss this as being "outside the syllabus." He explains that the option to not absorb anything at all is not available, as everyone is born conditioned and has a tendency to soak in even more conditioning. The difference is that life, without a teacher, operates on the principle of action and result—do something foolish, and you get kicked. Life has no conscious agenda to uplift you. A teacher, on the other hand, has a conscious agenda to help you, to enable freedom from your shackles. The speaker addresses the questioner's concern that the teacher's theories might be holding him back from inquiring on his own. He finds this strange because the entire teaching is about encouraging inquiry. He explains that people do not inquire on their own because their conditioning prevents them from doing so. The common man is too afraid and ignorant to inquire into life. This is precisely why teachers have to continuously prod and encourage people to inquire into their actions, intentions, thoughts, and relationships. He concludes by stating that the issue is not that the teacher's teachings are preventing inquiry; rather, the individual was not inquiring before, is not inquiring now, and has successfully resisted all attempts by the teacher to move him towards self-inquiry. The voice that speaks from within, which one might call their own, is also just an internalized influence from someone else, as the real Self is silent.
