Acharya Prashant clarifies that he is not suggesting one should not give importance to the body, but rather that one must know what the body is, and this knowledge will reveal its proper importance. He describes the body as a lifelong neighbor or spouse that one is born wedded to and cannot simply wish away. Therefore, it is impossible not to give it importance. The key is to know exactly how important it is, in which contexts, and not to let it dominate one's life. This means taking care of its practical needs, like cleaning and feeding it, without being cruel or oblivious to its natural requirements. The human body is delicate and requires maintenance and medical care. Addressing the role of society, particularly concerning issues like homosexuality, Acharya Prashant states that society exists for the body. A person who understands the body's right place will also understand society's right place. This understanding allows one to resist being controlled by societal dictates. However, he warns against a form of "pseudo-rebellion" where a body-identified person rebels only against external social norms. This can create a false sense of being a great rebel, while one remains a slave to their own unexamined internal urges. The real challenge is to go against oneself, not just the outside world. He further explores the danger of an external master, like society, masquerading as one's internal self. He critiques the slogan "My life, my choice" by questioning the identity of the "my" that is making the choice. Without self-knowledge, choices are not truly free but are based on superficial influences, such as what others are doing or what seems most tempting. This is how choices are made in the absence of self-knowledge. The one who knows the right place of the body also knows the right place of society. Applying this to sexual orientation, he questions the idea that exposing children to various sexualities is the path to freedom. He argues that before discussing different orientations, one must first understand the nature of sex itselfâwhether it is merely physical or has deeper psychological and spiritual dimensions. Without this fundamental clarity, one is simply carried away by the current of bodily urges and social influences. He distinguishes between being "normal," which is what the majority does, and being "healthy." In a sick age, he posits, health is abnormal. One should aspire to be healthy, not merely normal.
