Acharya Prashant addresses a question about a female disciple who entered a state of deep meditation (samadhi) claiming her deceased guru instructed her to do so to bring him back. He explains that such beliefs arise because we are unwilling to accept that we are merely soil (mitti). The ego accepts that the body is made of soil, but believes that "I" am not soil, but an individual soul (jivatma) that will survive the body's demise. This belief in a non-material entity within the body is the root of all delusion, sin, and suffering. This delusion is what is called ego or jivatma. Acharya Prashant clarifies the concept of 'samadhi' as the solution to the mind's problems. The fundamental problem is that the ego, not knowing itself, fills the mind with useless things that weigh it down. 'Samadhi' is the solution to this, and it is not something magical, otherworldly, or metaphysical. The depth of the 'samadhi' corresponds to the depth of the solution. The most profound solution, and thus the deepest 'samadhi', is the self-realization that "I am the problem." This is the pinnacle of self-knowledge. 'Samadhi' is not about physical postures like closing eyes or lying down. He further explains the distinction between 'atma' (the Self) and 'jivatma' (the individual soul). 'Atma' is another name for understanding (bodh) and the infinite Truth, while 'jivatma' is a complete falsehood. The realization of 'atma' is knowing that the 'jivatma' is false. However, people have mistakenly equated the two, leading to spectacles like a guru's soul entering a disciple. He discusses rebirth (punarjanma) from a Vedantic perspective, stating that it is the ego-tendency (aham-vritti) that is reborn, not the individual person. He quotes Kabir Saheb: "A human birth is rare, this body is not obtained again and again. Just as a leaf falls from a tree, it does not reattach to the branch." The individual does not return; it is the collective (samashti) that is reborn, not the individual (vyashti). Finally, Acharya Prashant criticizes the kind of guru-disciple relationship that fosters dependency, where the disciple believes the guru will take on their karma. He contrasts this with the approach of figures like J. Krishnamurti, who was vigilant against creating followers. A true guru, he asserts, does not make the disciple handicapped but empowers them to walk on their own feet. The responsibility for one's life and spiritual journey lies with the individual. A guru can offer guidance and light the way, but cannot walk the path for the disciple.