Acharya Prashant addresses an apparent contradiction between the teachings of Shri Ramakrishna Paramhansa and Ramana Maharshi on the nature of Samadhi (complete merging of the mind) and surrender. He begins by explaining Shri Ramakrishna's distinction between two types of Samadhi. The first is 'Jada Samadhi' (inert samadhi), experienced by the Jnani (one on the path of knowledge), in which no trace of the 'I' is left. The second is 'Chetana Samadhi' (conscious samadhi), attained through the path of Bhakti (devotion), where a consciousness of 'I' remains. This 'I' is that of the servant to the master, the lover to the beloved, or the enjoyer to the food. The devotee's sentiment is famously expressed as, "I don't want to be sugar. I want to eat it," signifying a desire to maintain a separate identity to enjoy the relationship with God. Next, Acharya Prashant presents Ramana Maharshi's perspective on surrender. Ramana Maharshi defines surrender as giving oneself up entirely to the original cause of one's being, which is within oneself, not an external God. This involves seeking the source and merging into it. He directly challenges the devotee's position by asking, "How can one surrender oneself and yet retain one's individuality for supreme enjoyment?" and refutes the sugar analogy by questioning if God is an insentient object to be tasted. This highlights that the desire to remain separate for enjoyment is a fallacy. Acharya Prashant clarifies that there is no contradiction between the two masters; they are speaking in different contexts. Shri Ramakrishna is describing the typical psychological state of a devotee. The devotee's entire spiritual journey is often fueled by a sense of separation from their beloved Lord, making it difficult to let go of the 'I' that enjoys this relationship. Acharya Prashant notes that Shri Ramakrishna himself had to transcend the form of Mother Kali with the help of his guru, Totapuri, to achieve final dissolution, demonstrating that this state of separation is not the ultimate goal. In contrast, Ramana Maharshi is directly refuting a questioner who uses the 'enjoying sugar' argument to justify retaining their egoistic individuality. Ramana Maharshi exposes this desire as a form of lust and a fallacy, emphasizing that surrender must be absolute. Therefore, both masters point towards the same ultimate truth: the final goal is the complete dissolution of the individual 'I'. Shri Ramakrishna describes a common stage on the path of devotion, while Ramana Maharshi corrects the misunderstanding that this stage is the final destination.