Acharya Prashant addresses the topic of religion and animal treatment by first dividing religions into two streams for the sake of conversation: the Abrahamic and the Indian. He explains that the Judeo-Christian view, and similarly the Islamic view, posits that God has dominion over man, and man has dominion over animals. In these traditions, animals are seen as created for the sake of man. In contrast, the Indian stream, encompassing Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism, speaks of "Ahimsa" (non-violence) and "Ekatva" (oneness). The speaker then questions whether we should be talking about organized religions, which he describes as man-made constructs. Instead, he proposes discussing "religion as such," which he defines as man's relationship with himself and the outer world, including animals. This relationship is the essence of religion. He explains that how a man relates to the world depends on his self-concept. If a man feels incomplete and hungry, he will view the universe as a resource to be exploited. This utilitarian and exploitative mindset extends to everything—men, women, rivers, and animals. Man values himself based on his ability to consume, plunder, and hoard, and this exploitative tendency is rooted in his pride in his intellect. Acharya Prashant argues that man considers himself superior to animals because they are not "rational beings" in the same way, making them seem fit for exploitation. However, the true purpose of religion is to be one with God, who is unlimited, which requires letting go of the limited, including the intellect. He posits that animals, in their simple innocence and surrender to the flow of life, might be closer to God than an intellectual, exploitative man. When a person's self-worth is tied to their ability to exploit, they will not respect a being, like a bird, that has little power. This exploitative view is not limited to animals but extends to everything a person encounters. Addressing the argument that eating plants is similar to eating animals because plants also have a spirit, the speaker asserts that a non-violent mind would not want to kill a plant either. He distinguishes between being one with a plant's ecosystem and the exploitative nature of organized agriculture. For instance, when a fruit falls from a tree, the tree, in a way, wants it to be consumed to spread its seeds. Eating this fruit is fulfilling the tree's wish. This is different from cultivating a plant solely for consumption. He concludes by noting that the view of non-violence seems impractical only because we are centered on the assumption that the Earth must sustain an ever-growing human population, an idea that itself stems from a human-centric, exploitative worldview.