Discussions should be twofold; those about the relative (vyavahaar) should be in accordance with the relative viewpoint and those about the Real (Nischay) should be in accordance with the Real viewpoint. Otherwise it would become one-sided (ekantik). Whereas the former is actually syaadvaad (accepting of all viewpoints, and acceptable to all)!

What is exact meaning of 'relative'? Superfluous [that which is superficial].

What is this Knowledge? It is neither vyavahaar (the relative; worldly interactions) nor is it Nischay (the Real). It is in fact Akram Vignan! What is Akram Vignan? It is pure Nischay (the Real; the Self) and pure vyavahaar [worldly interactions].

If someone picks your pocket and you are not affected, then you are within the boundary of the Real (Nischay). You have come out of the boundary of the relative (vyavahaar) and begun [to remain] in the boundary of the Real.

If you understand the relative (vyavahaar), then you will understand the Real (Nischay).

When you give up eating food, then give up the worldly interactions. On what basis is the Real remaining in existence? If there is the relative, then there is the Real. If you distance yourself from the relative, then the Real does not exist.

In religion, when is it considered that 'One has Known'? When not only does the adverse internal state of being that hurts oneself and others (raudradhyan) not arise, but also the slightest resultant effect of raudradhyan does not arise, to the extent that one does not even come across such a circumstance!