Acharya Prashant addresses a question about the gap between knowing something and understanding it, particularly in the context of relationships. He begins by clarifying that knowing and understanding are the same thing. When a person says, "I know I have to do something, but I don't know why," it means they don't truly know. This feeling is not knowledge but rather an inner tendency, a feeling, an impulse, or a wave. It is a biological and chemical process within, not true knowing. He explains that this inner feeling is an instinct. Instincts are not designed to elevate consciousness but for the survival of the body. They are the culmination of billions of years of evolutionary experiences stored in our DNA. These instincts come from our animalistic past. For example, a baby knows how to suckle from its mother, and a rabbit knows to be alert at the sound of a snake. These are survival instincts. He gives an example of a reflex action: if a stone is thrown at you, you will instinctively dodge it to protect your eyes, which is a good thing for survival. However, he cautions against relying too much on instincts, as they are slaves to the past and operate on probability, not truth. Acharya Prashant uses the example of the dacoit Ratnakar, who later became Valmiki. An instinct would judge him by his fearsome appearance and advise running away, but it wouldn't see the truth of his potential to become a sage. Instincts cannot grasp the truth. Therefore, when making important life decisions, such as being in a relationship or leaving a job, one should not rely on vague feelings like "I just feel like it" or "I don't know why." This is not a valid argument. If you don't know the reason, you must find it out. He emphasizes that ignorance is not an argument. The speaker concludes by advising against making life's crucial decisions based on such unexplained feelings, which are merely animalistic instincts, and instead encourages seeking true understanding.