So, the Buddha, Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta all proscribed a path to enlightenment. Now some contemporary “teachers” say there is no path.
So what gives?
Well, almost without exception these “teachers” were once seekers. Of course, although our suspicions are aroused they are, in absolute terms, correct.
If there is no person seeking liberation then can be no path to liberation.
Now here’s the paradox; in the relative view of the apparent person there is a path. Now these same teachers tell us that in fact a spiritual path can be detrimental to enlightenment because they reinforce the ego. But the seeker has no free will. They will follow a path or they won’t. So this advice is superfluous
If we accept that a person on a spiritual path is more likely to attain liberation (contentious but probable, I believe) then a way to look at the paradox which satisfies the absolute view is to think of a vine growing in a jungle. It winds its way around a tree and grows toward the light. The vine doesn’t think or decide to climb towards the light. It’s just what vines do.
Similarly a human being is just doing what it does when embarking on a spiritual path, which may, in some cases lead to enlightenment, the dissolution of the separate being.
So relax. Whether you’re on a spiritual path or not, you can’t do anything but what you’re doing. It’s your nature.