Acharya Prashant addresses the perceived contradictions between the teachings of J. Krishnamurti and Osho, particularly regarding the role of authority and the style of spiritual discourse. He explains that while Osho emphasized the guru as an authority and Krishnamurti rejected all authority, both were deriving their stances from the same central principle: that truth is the only authority. Osho's approach positioned the guru as a representative of truth, while Krishnamurti's approach aimed to prevent worldly entities from falsely claiming the mantle of truth. Acharya Prashant notes that both methods carry risks of corruption, such as personality worship in Osho's case or the ego becoming its own authority in Krishnamurti's case. Regarding the differences in style, such as humor versus seriousness, Acharya Prashant argues that these distinctions are largely superficial. He points out that Osho was actually a deeply serious and dedicated man despite his jokes, while Krishnamurti possessed a sharp wit and was not as dry as often perceived. He suggests that their different methods were influenced by their specific contexts and audiences. Ultimately, Acharya Prashant asserts that there is no real contradiction between the two; the apparent differences arise from a lack of understanding. When one understands the core message, the various methods and styles are seen as different expressions of the same singular truth.