Let ‘Direct observation’ not become a convenient excuse

The following is an excerpt from a samvaad (dialogue) session with Acharya Prashant.

Acharya Prashant (AP): There is this question about direct observation and how the world when ‘directly’ observed appears muddled up, appears quite confusing. There is a question that what is all this. One of the aspects of the question is, ‘What is love? When I look at the world around, there is no clarity that emerges about love either.’ Let me just say something. ‘Direct observation’ is possible only with eyes that have been cleaned.

You have paralysis in a particular leg. Let’s say you have a fracture or something, there is something that is incapacitating the leg. After the leg has been treated, after it’s been operated on, the physician will tell you to walk on your own and that will enhance the strength of the leg. Right? But if you go to a doctor with a fractured leg, will he say that “You go for ‘direct observation’, you go for ‘direct running’ and direct running will help you”? What will happen if you go to enhance, if you try to increase the muscle strength when the leg is fractured? What will happen? Your state is going to be deeply worsened. With a fractured leg, you cannot take a walk. You first need to treat what is wrong and only then you can walk. The same is the case with direct observation. Direct observation is every bit…