Acharya Prashant addresses the concept of having multiple romantic or sexual partners by first questioning the fundamental need for a partner at all. He explains that one seeks a partner due to a feeling of vacancy, an urge, or a sense of incompleteness, believing that the partner will provide what is missing. He then poses a dilemma: if you succeed in finding fulfillment with one partner, why would you need another? Conversely, if you do not succeed, why would you need another partner? The issue, he clarifies, is not a moral one of one versus many partners. One could have 40,000 partners, but it would not bring contentment and would be a waste of time. Even those who are loyal to one partner often find they are not getting what they truly wanted from the relationship. The core problem is that the question is not about one partner versus multiple partners, but whether any of these partnerships are truly beneficial. Most relationships, he states, are blind attempts to get from people what they cannot give. These are often shallow flings, attempts to get something from people using ways that cannot reach the desired destination. The desire for a partner stems from a deep spiritual urge, but people try to fulfill it through shallow, physical means. The body is a very shallow way to get what the consciousness desperately craves. All relationships are attempts to fill an inner void because the consciousness is wounded, incomplete, and lacks its own center, causing it to stumble from door to door seeking relief. Acharya Prashant advises one to honestly question what they truly want: another person or something deeper. He suggests that the answer is written on the 'inner wall'. He contrasts the superficial search for a 'sexy woman' with the profound love for an animal, which can awaken a part of one's consciousness. An inclusive love for the universe does not exclude men or women, but focusing on genitals is pathological and sick. He uses a tennis analogy, saying 'love-all' quickly becomes '15-love', illustrating the transient nature of such relationships. He concludes that physical nearness should be the 'tail of the elephant,' a small consequence of a much larger spiritual nearness, not the other way around. The spiritual aspect cannot follow physicality, but physicality can sometimes follow the spiritual.