Acharya Prashant explains that the language of the Upanishads is not affirmative or descriptive in a material sense. While the Upanishads frequently speak of 'wholeness' or 'completeness', they never define what that wholeness actually is. Wholeness is used as an adjective rather than a noun; it is a pointer indicating that one should not stop at fragments or partial truths. He emphasizes that objects have parts, but the ultimate truth is so complete that even if completeness is taken from it, completeness remains. However, the Upanishads do not define 'Brahman' because defining it would be a mistake. The scriptures and the Guru can only point the way or provide examples, but they cannot walk the final journey for the seeker. He further clarifies that the final step of the spiritual journey requires the seeker's own consent and initiative. A Guru can attract, encourage, or remind the seeker of their spiritual thirst, but the Guru cannot drink the water on the seeker's behalf. If one claims to have gained 'knowledge' from the Upanishads as a possession, it is merely intellectual accumulation or 'rubbish.' The Upanishads themselves suggest that they should be discarded like waste once they have served their purpose of removing illusions. The ultimate truth must be realized through one's own devotion and will, as it cannot be handed over as a commodity. Regarding the role of the ego, Acharya Prashant explains that it is indeed the ego that must give consent for its own dissolution. The ego is inherently self-centered and will only follow its own will. Therefore, the choice to move toward the truth must come from the ego itself. Choice-lessness or 'nirvikalpa' is a state that exists beyond the ego, but the initial movement toward that state requires the ego's agreement. He concludes that the Guru's role is limited to entertaining or soothing the mind so that it becomes sensitive enough to take the final leap toward the truth.