Acharya Prashant addresses the apparent contradiction between the teachings of Shri Ramana Maharshi and Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj regarding dietary habits and physical conduct. He explains that Shri Ramana Maharshi's advice to eat satvic food and avoid meat is intended for seekers who are still on the spiritual path. For such individuals, purification of the body and mind is essential to reduce obstacles and make the journey lighter. In contrast, Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj's statement about his body's habits comes from the perspective of one who has already reached the destination. At that level of realization, there is a complete separation between the self and the body, making any attempt to correct or purify the body a form of unnecessary entanglement or identification. Acharya Prashant emphasizes that while the words of a realized being like Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj are truthful, they may not be useful for a common seeker. He warns that imitating the idiosyncrasies of realized masters—such as smoking or eating meat—is detrimental, as ordinary people lack the extraordinary resolve and inner force these masters possessed to overcome such obstacles. He clarifies that liberation is about separation from the body and mind, not necessarily the complete purification of their inherent tendencies. Therefore, a seeker must prioritize what is useful for their own progress, which often involves following traditional disciplines and purification practices. Furthermore, Acharya Prashant discusses the nature of spiritual teaching, noting that absolute truth is often silent and useless for communication. To be helpful, a teacher must dilute the truth and express it in the language of the seeker, which inevitably introduces an element of falseness. He categorizes teachers into three types: the unreachable realized one who remains in silence, the compassionate teacher who descends to the seeker's level to be useful (and often faces criticism for doing so), and the fake guru who has no genuine experience but uses spiritual language for self-interest. He concludes that the most useful teacher is the one who risks their own purity to guide others using language they can understand.