The text advises against argumentation, yet the author admits to being argumentative and cynical. Isn't this a major contradiction, and why should we trust an author who embodies the very traits the text warns against?

Chapter 2 directly addresses this apparent contradiction by presenting it as a before-and-after scenario. The text warns that a mind for argumentation is filled with ignorance and unsuited for self-knowledge. The author, Hemadpant, then confesses that he was initially mischievous, cynical, critical, and proud of his logic-driven mind. This confession serves not as a contradiction, but as a testament to the transformative power of the Satguru. Sai Baba's instruction for him to "dissolve his ego and surrender it at my feet" was the prerequisite for receiving divine assistance. The narrative uses the author's past flaws to emphasize that surrender can overcome such traits, making him a suitable, albeit surrendered, instrument for the sacred work.