Acharya Prashant explains that bliss is not personal; it is a state that exists only when the individual consumer or ego is absent. While happiness is personal and subjective, bliss is the state of one's own dissolution. He clarifies that a person who has attained bliss does not remain as a separate entity to decide whether to share it with others or not. Both the ascetic in the Himalayas who refuses to share and the person who vows to distribute it to the world are still living within their personal egos and resolutions. The fundamental truth is that the one who attains bliss ceases to exist as a decider, and thus the question of sharing becomes irrelevant. He further distinguishes between happiness and bliss, noting that happiness is a fleeting state of mind, whereas bliss is the soul itself—it neither comes nor goes, nor is it an experience. Bliss is the essence of spirituality and can only be understood by living it. Acharya Prashant points out that terms like 'happiness' are often used in scriptures only because humans are suffering; in reality, the promise of happiness is merely the negation of suffering. When suffering is negated, both worldly happiness and sorrow are transcended. Bliss is the state where the disturbance of all waves of pleasure and pain has subsided. Finally, he describes bliss as being beyond opposites. Unlike happiness, which has sorrow as its opposite, bliss has no opposite and therefore cannot be lost. One can be in a state of bliss while simultaneously experiencing worldly happiness or sorrow. He uses the analogy of space to illustrate this: just as light and darkness, heat and cold, and cleanliness and filth all exist within space without affecting the nature of space itself, bliss remains the unchanging background regardless of the dualities of the physical and mental world.
