Acharya Prashant explains that the concept of God's gender is a human projection, as God has no need to refer to himself or herself in any language or gender. The speaker asserts that the first absurdity is referring to God at all, because if God is total and omnipresent, there is no separate speaker outside of God to make such a reference. Any reference made to God is actually a reference to the caller's own 'god'—a self-projected image based on the caller's specific context and limitations. God is so total that any reference would exist inside God, making external description impossible. He further elaborates that human descriptions of God, including gender and attributes like 'omnipresent' or 'omnipotent,' are anthropomorphic reflections of human lack. For instance, a person who feels impotent projects a God who is all-powerful, and one who is frustrated projects a God of joy. These names and forms arise from the various situations and shapes of the caller's own false self. Because the human mind is permeated by its own biological and dualistic nature, it instinctively conceives of a redeeming figure that serves as a dualistic opposite to its own miseries. Acharya Prashant concludes that in deep meditativeness, one stops assigning genders or words to the ultimate, as the pinnacle of understanding is silence. He highlights the helplessness of the human condition, noting that the ego's attempt to talk about or reach God often results in the creation of trivial and absurd images. The self's inability to even accurately speak of God demonstrates the impossibility of the ego 'traveling' to the divine through its own mental constructs.