Acharya Prashant addresses the notion of focusing on a person's good qualities while not judging their bad ones. He explains that this perspective is purely behavioral, as it focuses on what a person *has* (qualities) rather than what a person *is* (their center). He argues that if a person's fundamental center is flawed, then none of their qualities can be truly good. Praising someone's supposed good qualities while ignoring their corrupt center provides false assurance, preventing any fundamental transformation and allowing only for superficial changes. This approach, he states, prevents anyone from truly becoming better. To illustrate his point, Acharya Prashant uses the example of Duryodhana, who possessed discipline, a seemingly positive quality. However, this discipline stemmed from a wrong center—the desire to usurp a kingdom and oppose Shri Krishna. Therefore, such positivity is worthless. He extends this argument to other figures like Kansa and Shakuni, who had skills but used them for evil purposes. He emphasizes that the value of any quality is determined by its source, the center. The focus must be on the person's center, not their superficial attributes or behaviors. Acharya Prashant strongly critiques the modern paradigm of "don't judge." He refers to ideas like "life is grey," "your truth to you, my truth to me," and "who am I to judge?" as satanic statements that have contributed to the world's destruction. He questions this mindset by asking why, if judging is wrong, Shri Krishna judged Duryodhana, or why legal systems and judges exist. He points out that the statement "who am I to judge" is, in itself, a judgment about one's own capacity. The correct path, he asserts, is not to avoid judgment but to "judge rightly" and "judge honestly." Finally, he connects this reluctance to judge with a lack of personal responsibility and societal decay. When people witness wrongdoing and remain silent out of a fear of judging, they give it passive acceptance. This happens due to a lack of clarity and conviction about what is right and wrong. He compares this to knowing that drinking poison is unequivocally wrong. If one has clarity, one knows that certain things are absolutely wrong. The widespread confusion and fear of taking a stand against wrongdoing stem from this lack of inner clarity.