The text claims experiential advice was 'infinitely more valuable' than his verbal advice. Doesn't this imply his spoken teachings were essentially worthless or secondary? Please clarify this seeming contradiction.

The source material from Chapter 0 makes a distinction between Maharaj's verbal and experiential advice, but it does not render his spoken words worthless. His verbal advice consisted of 'general ethical principles' delivered through stories during daily sittings. This was a deliberate method, described as 'purifying the disciple's ground and then sowing the seed of knowledge.' In contrast, the experiential advice was the profound, personal impact he had on devotees, which led to the 'highest benefit.' Therefore, the verbal advice served as a necessary and foundational preparation for the deeper, more transformative experiences followers had with him, guiding them toward ultimate welfare.