LOYA-1: ANGER; DEVELOPING COMPLETE SATSANG
On Kārtik vadi 10, Samvat 1877 [30 November 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in the residential hall of the paramhansasin Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white, cotton-padded survāl and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white feto around His head. At that time, an assembly of munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj asked the munis, "What does the word 'Shankar' mean?"
Hearing this answer, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Last night, an hour or two before sunrise, Shivji granted Me his darshan in a dream. He was seated on the big, powerful Nandishwar. His body was very robust, and he had thickly matted hair; he appeared to be approximately 40 years of age. Along with Shivji was Pārvati, who was wearing white clothes. Shivji, like a great sādhu, appeared tranquil. Even though he showed great affection towards Me, I did not feel affection for him. Why? Because I believe, 'Shiv is a deity full of tamogun, whereas I worship Shri Krishna Nārāyan, who is tranquillity personified.' Therefore, I do not have much affection for deities like Brahmā, Shiv, Indra, etc., who have rajogun and tamogun. Moreover, I have much animosity towards anger; I do not like angry men or angry deities. Nonetheless, why do I respect Shivji? I do so because he is a renunciant, a yogi and a great devotee of God."
"What is anger like? Well, it is like a rabid dog. If the saliva of a rabid dog touches aman or a cow, then they, like the incessantly barking rabid dog, suffer and die. Similarly, one infected by 'saliva' in the form of anger, like the rabid dog, suffers and falls from the path of a sādhu.
"Furthermore, just like a butcher, an Arab, a cruel soldier, a tiger, a leopard and a black snake frighten everyone and kill some, similarly, anger frightens all and takes the life of some others. If such anger arises in a sādhu, it appears very unsuitable; after all, asādhu should be calm. But if anger were to arise, that sādhu would appear cruel to others. At that time, that sādhu's appearance would change since anger itself is ugly. Hence, anger makes the person in whom it arises appear ugly."
Then Shuk Muni asked, "Mahārāj, if a slight trace of anger arises but is then suppressed, is such anger obstructive, or not?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If a snake were to appear in this assembly at this moment, then even if it does not bite anyone, everyone would still have to rise and scatter; there would be panic in everyone's heart. Furthermore, if a tiger were to come and roar at the outskirts of a village, then even if it does not harm anyone, all would feel terror within, and no one would come out of their homes. Similarly, even if a trace of anger were to arise, it would still be a source of extreme misery."
Then Nānā Nirmānānand Swāmi asked, "By what means can lust be totally uprooted?"
To this, Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If one has extremely firmly realised oneself to be the ātmā; and one firmly observes the five religious vows, including the observance of the vow of eight-fold brahmacharya; and one thoroughly understands the greatness of God, then lust is uprooted by these means. However, even after the roots of lust have been eradicated, one should not deviate from brahmacharya and other niyams in any way. However, the method for totally uprooting even the most vicious form of lust is to fully understand the greatness of God."
Thereafter, Bhajanānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, what are the characteristics of the three levels of vairāgya - the lowest, the intermediate and the highest?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "A person with the lowest level of vairāgya remains pure while strictly observing the niyams related to the renunciation of women as described in theDharma-shāstras. But if he were to see a woman's body, then his mind would get attached to that body, and he would not remain stable. Such a person can be considered to be one with the lowest level of vairāgya.
"If a person with an intermediate level of vairāgya were to see a naked woman, then just as he would not be disturbed by seeing naked animals, similarly, no disturbance would arise in his mind. Moreover, his mind would not become attached to that woman. Such a person can be considered to be one with an intermediate level of vairāgya.
"Now, if a person with the highest level of vairāgya were to come across women and other worldly objects even in solitude, he would not be enticed. Such a person can be considered to be one with the highest level of vairāgya."
Then Bhajanānand Swāmi asked again, "What are the characteristics of the three levels of God's gnān - the lowest, the intermediate and the highest?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "A person with the lowest level of gnān initially develops the conviction of God upon seeing His powers. But when such powers are not seen in Him, or when nothing untoward happens to an evil person who maligns God, then his conviction would not remain. Such a person can be described as one with the lowest level of gnān.
"If a person with an intermediate level of gnān were to see pure and impure - seemingly human - actions of God, he would be deluded by them, and his conviction of God would not remain. Such a person can be described as one with an intermediate level of gnān.
"A person with the highest level of gnān, however, would not be deluded even after seeing any type of pure or impure actions performed by God, and his conviction would not diminish. Moreover, even if the person who initially convinced him of God were to say, 'He is not God,' he would feel, 'This person must be mad.' Such a person can be described as one with the highest level of gnān.
"Of these, the one with the lowest level of gnān attains God-realisation after countless lives; the one with a moderate level of gnān attains God-realisation after two or three lives; and the one with the highest level of gnān attains God-realisation in that same life." Shriji Mahārāj replied in this manner.
Thereafter, Motā Shivānand Swāmi asked, "Despite having complete faith in God, why does one not feel fulfilled within?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "A person whose antahkaran burns due to the enemies of lust, anger, avarice, affection, egotism, cravings for taste, etc., would not believe himself to be fulfilled - even if he does have faith in God."
Then Nityānand Swāmi asked, "What is the method for overcoming the enemies of lust, anger, etc.?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Lust and those other enemies are overcome only if one remains alert to mercilessly punish them. Just as Dharmarājā remains ready, day and night, to beat sinners with a stick, similarly, if the indriyas behave immorally, then the indriyasshould be punished; and if the antahkaran behaves immorally, then the antahkaranshould be punished. The indriyas should be punished by imposing upon them the kruchchhra chāndrāyan and other observances, and the antahkaran should be punished through a thought process. As a result, those enemies of lust, anger, etc., would be defeated. Then, by having faith in God, one would feel oneself to be completely fulfilled."
Thereafter, Muktānand Swāmi asked, "Who can be said to have developed completesatsang?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "First of all, such a person has extremely firmly realised his self to be the ātmā. Also, he believes his ātmā to be absolutely detached from the body, theindriyas and the antahkaran; he does not believe the actions of the body, indriyas, etc., to be his own. Despite this, he does not permit even a slight lapse in the observance of the five religious vows. Moreover, even though he himself behaves as brahmarup, he does not abandon his feeling of servitude towards Purushottam Bhagwān; he staunchly worships God while maintaining a master-servant relationship with Him. Furthermore, he realises the manifest form of God to be absolutely unaffected, like ākāsh. That ākāshis interwoven with and pervades the other four bhuts, the actions of which occur withinākāsh. However, the actions of those four bhuts do not affect ākāsh. Similarly, despite performing pure and impure actions, the manifest form of Shri Krishna Nārāyan remains unaffected, just like ākāsh. Also, such a person realises the countless powers of this God as follows: 'This God appears to be human for the liberation of the jivas. But, in fact, He is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of countless brahmānds. He is the lord of Golok, Vaikunth, Shwetdwip, Brahmapur and other abodes. He is also the lord of all of the countless aksharrup muktas.' With such realisation of God's greatness, he devoutly engages in listening to the talks of God and in the other forms of bhakti. He also serves God's devotees menially. When a person behaves in this manner, hissatsang can be said to be complete."
Nānā Shivānand Swāmi then asked, "At times, one understands the greatness of a devotee of God extremely well, but at other times, one does not understand it so well. What is the reason for this?"
Then Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The Sant follows the path of dharma. When he sees a person treading the path of adharma, he rebukes that person. As a result, a person who identifies his self with the body will not know how to accept the advice positively and, in return, will harbour an aversion towards the Sant. Therefore, a person understands the greatness of the Sant as long as he is not rebuked by him. Even when that person is given beneficial advice that may pain him, he harbours an aversion and does not retain that understanding of the Sant's greatness.
"One who harbours an aversion towards the Sant is unable to become pure by any form of atonement. In fact, release from the sins of lust and other vices is possible, but release from the sin of maligning the Sant is not possible. For example, if a person contracts tuberculosis, no medicine would be able to cure the disease; he would definitely die. Similarly, one who harbours an aversion towards the Sant should be known as having tuberculosis; he will certainly fall from Satsang sometime in the future. Furthermore, even if a person's hands, feet, nose, eyes, fingers and other body parts are severed, he still cannot be described as dead. However, when the head is severed from the body, he is described as dead. Similarly, he who perceives flaws in a devotee of God has had his head severed. If he lapses in following other religious vows, then his limbs can be said to be severed - he will still live. That is, he will survive in Satsang. But a person who has perceived flaws in the Sant will certainly, at some time, fall fromSatsang. He should be known to have his head severed."
Then Bhagwadānand Swāmi asked, "If one has perceived flaws in a devotee, is there any method to atone for it, or not?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "There is a remedy, but it is extremely difficult; one who has intense shraddhā can do it. When flaws are perceived in the Sant, one should think, 'I have committed a grave sin by perceiving flaws in a brahmaswarup Bhakta of God.' From such thoughts, he would feel intense regret in his heart. As a result of such regret, while eating, he would be unable to distinguish between tasty and tasteless foods, and at night he would be unable to sleep. As long as the aversion towards the Sant is not removed from the person's heart, he would experience extreme remorse, just like a fish would suffer without water.
"On the other hand, when he intensely perceives virtues in that Sant, then if that Santhas been hurt in any way, he would please him with absolute humility. If this type of thought remains in a person's heart, then even if he has perceived flaws in the Sant, they would still be overcome, and he would not fall from Satsang. Apart from that, there is no other remedy; that is the only remedy."
LOYA-2: ONE WITH FAITH, GNĀN, COURAGE OR AFFECTION
On Kārtik vadi 11, Samvat 1877 [1 December 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting facing south on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a red, kinkhāb survāl and a black, kinkhāb dagli with the word 'Narnārāyan' imprinted upon it. Around His head, He had tied a Burānpuri, sky-blue coloured feto with golden threads along the edges. He had also tied an orange-coloured feto around His waist. At that time, Muktānand Swāmi and other paramhansas were singing devotional songs to the accompaniment of a dukad, sarodā, satār and manjirās, while munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him in an assembly.
After the singing had concluded, Shriji Mahārāj said, "O paramhansas, please listen. I wish to ask you a question."
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj asked, "In this Satsang, when does a devotee become free from the fear of death and become convinced of his own liberation in this very life?"
Muktānand Swāmi replied as well as he could, but Shriji Mahārāj's question was not answered satisfactorily. So the other paramhansas requested, "Mahārāj, You will have to answer that question."
Shriji Mahārāj then began, "While you were singing devotional songs, I thought about this. In My mind, I feel that there are four types of devotees of God who no longer fear death and who feel completely fulfilled. These four types are: first, one who has faith; second, one with gnān; third, one with courage; and fourth, one with affection. These four types of devotees do not fear death, and they feel fulfilled while still alive.
"Now, I shall describe the characteristics of these four types of devotees. One who has faith has established absolute faith in the words of God and His Sant. Therefore, by the strength of his faith in God, he does not harbour any fear of death. Also, he believes, 'I have attained the manifest form of Purushottam Bhagwān, and thus I am fulfilled.'
"A devotee with gnān has the strength of ātmā-realisation and believes, 'I ambrahmaswarup and a devotee of God.' Therefore, he too does not fear death.
"All of the indriyas and antahkaran tremble with fear before a devotee who has courage. Also, he is not afraid of anyone. So, he does not transgress any of God's injunctions in any way. As a result, he believes himself to be fulfilled and does not have even the slightest fear of death.
"The fourth, who has affection, has the inclination of a faithful wife. The vrutti of a faithful wife is not drawn to anyone except her own husband, and she has affection only for her husband. Similarly, this devotee of God, like the faithful wife, has affection only for his master, God. As a result, he believes himself to be fulfilled and does not have even the slightest fear of death.
"Out of these four types of inclinations, if only one is predominant and the other three are subordinate, one still overcomes the fear of births and deaths. But if a person does not have any one of the four, then his fear of death is not overcome."
Having said this, Shriji Mahārāj asked all of the paramhansas and other devotees, "Of these four, please declare which inclination is predominant within you." So, all of theparamhansas described whichever inclination was predominant within them, and the other devotees did likewise. Hearing this, Shriji Mahārāj was very pleased.
Then Shriji Mahārāj continued, "Of these four types, all those who have the inclination of courage may come near and bow down at My feet." So, those who had the inclination of courage placed Shriji Mahārāj's holy feet on their chests and bowed down before Him.
Thereafter, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Those who wish to ask a question, please ask."
Thereupon Brahmānand Swāmi asked, "That which is the cause should be greater than its effect. Why, then, does a large tree arise from the seed of a banyan tree, which is small?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "A cause may be small and subtle, yet it is still capable of producing a vast effect - that is the very greatness of the cause. For example, the entities evolved from Mul-Prakruti, the countless Pradhāns, occupy a great expanse, whereas the cause, Mul-Prakruti, has the form of a female. Also, smell, which is the cause of pruthvi, is subtle, whereas the entity evolved from it, pruthvi, is large. Similarly,ākāsh and the other four bhuts occupy a vast area, but their causes, sound, touch, etc., are subtle. Hence, the cause may be small, but it still has the ability to produce a vast effect - such is its capability.
"Agnidev, for example, possesses a form like that of a man; and his size is like that of aman; but his effect - in the form of flames of fire - is large. Similarly, the form of Varun is the size of a man, but his effect - in the form of water - is very abundant. Further, the form of Surya is seated in a chariot like a man, but his effect - in the form of light - pervades the entire brahmānd. In the same manner, the cause of all, Shri PurushottamNārāyan - Shri Krishna - is the size of a man, yet He is the cause of countless millions of brahmānds. But one who is a fool thinks, 'If the effect is this big, then the cause must be so much bigger!' Actually, this is the understanding of a fool. God, who is the cause of all, appears like a human being; yet by His yogic powers, He is able to create countless millions of brahmānds from His body and is able to absorb them back into Himself. For example, Agni, Varun and Surya appear vast in the form of their effects, but they withdraw their effect back within themselves, and only they remain. In the same way, within each and every hair of God, countless brahmānds, each composed of theeight barriers and 14 realms, appear as mere atoms. In this way, the cause is transcendental and full of greatness. So, one who is wise realises, 'God appears like a human, but, in fact, He is the cause of all and the creator of all; He is all-powerful."
Having said this, Shriji Mahārāj returned to go to sleep.
LOYA-3: ONE WITH FAITH IN GOD COUPLED WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIS GREATNESS
On the night of Kārtik vadi 13, Samvat 1877 [3 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint and a white, cotton-padded survāl. He had also tied a whitefeto around His head and had covered Himself with a white blanket. At that time, an assembly of munis as well as satsangis from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Bhagwadānand Swāmi and Shivānand Swāmi asked Shriji Mahārāj, "What are the characteristics of a person who has faith in God and His Sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "What would a person who has faith in God and His Sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness not do for the sake of God and His Sant. For them, he would renounce his family, renounce any fear of public ridicule, renounce a kingdom, renounce pleasures, renounce wealth, renounce his wife, and in the case of a woman, she would renounce her husband."
Then Shriji Mahārāj narrated the stories of the following devotees: Rajput Galuji of the village Dadusar; Kushalkuvarbāi of Dharmapur; Parvatbhāi; Rājbai; Jivubāi; Lādubāi; Motā Rāmbāi; Dādā Khāchar; Mānchā Bhakta; Mulji Brahmachāri; Lādhibāi and Mātāji of Bhuj; Muktānand Swāmi; Sāmat Patel, an Āhir from the Vālāk region; Mulji and Krishnaji of the village Mānkuvā; the two Kāthi devotees of the village Gundāli in the Vālāk region; and other satsangis. Mahārāj described in detail whatever they had done for the sake of God and His Sant.
Then He added, "One who has faith in God coupled with knowledge of His greatness never disobeys the words of God; he does as God says." Having said this, He revealed, "What was My nature like? Well, I was such a renunciant that I could stay in one place only as long as the time interval between the morning and evening milking of cows, not any longer. I had intense vairāgya. Moreover, I had deep affection for Rāmānand Swāmi. Thus, when Swāmi sent a message from the city of Bhuj via Mayārām Bhatt, saying, 'If You desire to stay in the Satsang fellowship, You will have to stay by embracing its pillar,' I literally embraced a pillar. Seeing this, Mayārām Bhatt said, 'You should live according to Muktānand Swāmi's commands.' Thus, before I had thedarshan of Rāmānand Swāmi, I stayed under Muktānand Swāmi for nine months. So, one who has the previously mentioned faith in God and His Sant can also be known by this characteristic." Shriji Mahārāj then narrated the stories of Sundarji Suthār and DosāVāniyā.
After mentioning that one who has such faith in God and His Sant has constant enthusiasm, Shriji Mahārāj narrated the story of Rānā Rājgar.
Next, Shriji Mahārāj narrated the story of Prahlād: "Prahlād said to Nrusinhji, 'Mahārāj, I am not afraid of this terrifying form of yours. Moreover, I do not consider your protection of me as true protection. Rather, when you save me from my enemy's troops in the form of the indriyas, I shall consider that to be true protection.' Therefore, a devotee of God would not be elated if God were to protect him physically; and he would not be disappointed if he were not protected. Instead, he would remain carefree and continue to worship God.
"Moreover, he would intensely realise the greatness of God and His Sant." Then Shriji Mahārāj narrated the story of the old lady from the village Kathlāl.
Continuing, He said, "Even if such a devotee were to die painfully, or if a tiger were to devour him, or if a snake were to bite him, or if a weapon were to strike him, or if he were to drown in water, or if he were to die in any other horrific way, still, a person having faith in God and His Sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness would believe, 'A devotee of God never suffers from an adverse outcome; he will certainly attain the abode of God. On the other hand, even if a non-believer were to die naturally and were to be cremated in a funeral pyre with sandalwood and full obituary rites, he will certainly go to Yampuri.' He would understand the difference between the two extremely clearly.
"So, a person who develops such firm convictions in his heart should be known as having faith in God and His Sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness. A person with such faith will definitely reach Brahmamahol; he would not reside in any other lower abode."
LOYA-4: IF ONE DOUBTS GOD, ONE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE OVERCOME MĀYĀ
On Kārtik vadi 14, Samvat 1877 [4 December 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white survāl and a whitedagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white pāgh around His head. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Akhandānand Swāmi asked Shriji Mahārāj, "There are countless millions ofbrahmānds. In those brahmānds, does the form of God appear the same as the form in this brahmānd at this present time, or not?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "God always resides in His Akshardhām. From the countlessPradhān-Purush pairs that evolve from mahamāyā, countless millions of brahmāndsevolve. Then, for the sake of His devotees, while still residing at one location in HisAkshardhām, and by His own wish, that God appears in countless forms in the countless millions of brahmānds."
Again Akhandānand Swāmi asked, "Shri Krishna Nārāyan always has a human form, and that form of God is forever satya. However, that same God appears sometimes as Matsya, Kachchha, Varāh, Nrusinh and other countless forms. How should this be understood? Furthermore, is the method of liberation and the form of God in eachbrahmānd the same, or different?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The form of God is always the same. Even then, by His own wish, God shows His form wherever and in whatever form is required. He also manifests His powers to whatever extent is appropriate in various places. He always has two arms, but by His wish, at times He shows four arms, or eight arms or even countless arms. He also appears in the form of Matsya, Kachchha, etc. In this way, He manifests whichever form is appropriate for the place; but, in fact, He always resides in His abode in one form.
"Furthermore, while remaining in one location, He pervades the countless millions ofbrahmānds through His antaryāmi form. For example, Vyāsji was one, but when he called out to Shukji, he did so by residing in all of the mobile and immobile beings. When Shukji replied, he did so in the same manner. In this way, even great, realised yogis like Shukji are capable of pervading the entire world. Such people have attained such yogic powers as fruits of worshipping God. But, Purushottam Bhagwān, who is called Yogeshwar, is the master of all yogic powers. So, while still remaining in one location, what is surprising about Him manifesting, by His own wish, wherever and however is appropriate? What is so surprising about God possessing such abilities? People become astonished even when a magician displays simple illusions, and they cannot fully comprehend the magic. But God possesses all yogic powers and is the greatest source of wonder. So, how can the jiva know Him?
"Now, the Shrimad Bhāgwat mentions, 'This many have overcome God's māyā.' However, it also mentions, 'No one has overcome the force of God's māyā.' Here, one should realise that if even Brahmā and others doubt God's yogic powers, then they cannot be said to have overcome the power of God's māyā. What is this doubt? It is the thought, 'Why does God behave like that?' On the other hand, one who understands God as flawless by believing, 'God is capable; so whatever He does is appropriate,' is said to have overcome māyā.
"In reality, the method for liberation is the same. But because there are three levels in the people who worship - the highest, the intermediate and the lowest - and because there are countless levels in their shraddhā, there are many differences in the path of liberation taken by people. But in reality, the path of liberation is one. After all, there is only one form of God. This God is extremely powerful and no one, including Akshar, is capable of becoming like Him. This is an established principle."
Then Muktānand Swāmi said to Shriji Mahārāj, "Today, Jhinābhai has become very upset, and he said that since Mahārāj did not come to my house, what is the point of me staying in that house?"
Hearing this, Shriji Mahārāj said, "When a person loves stubbornly and with displeasure, that love does not survive in the long run. Also, the bhakti and love of one who is stubborn ultimately become nullified. Therefore, it is a great mistake to wear a sad face due to displeasure."
Jhinābhai then said, "When God and His sādhus come to one's house, one's face should glow with delight; but when they do not come, one's face should definitely reflect disappointment and one should feel sorrow in one's heart."
Hearing this remark, Shriji Mahārāj said, "One should be pleased when God and Hissādhus come, but one should never grieve. If one's nature is to grieve, then ultimately, something misfortunate is bound to occur. Therefore, while observing one's owndharma, one should happily follow God's commands, but one should never become upset in order to get one's own way. If God issues a command to go somewhere and the person becomes disturbed out of grief, then the darshan and prasād previously given by God, the countless types of talks relating to gnān, and all other actions by which one had felt happiness are all lost. Furthermore, due to the disturbance, onlytamogun spreads throughout the mind; so, he goes where he is asked to go in a state of pure misery. Then, as a result of the agitation, he cannot carry out the command completely. Therefore, a devotee of God should remain ever joyful and should worship God with a cheerful mind. Moreover, however adverse his circumstances may be, he should not allow even the slightest trace of depression to enter his heart."
LOYA-5: CONTROLLING THE INDRIYAS AND THE ANTAHKARAN
On the night of Kārtik vadi Amās, Samvat 1877 [5 December 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white survāl and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white pāgh around His head. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj asked all of the paramhansas, "By revealing which thoughts can one be considered to be honest, and by not revealing which thoughts can one be considered to be deceitful?"
Since the paramhansas were unable to answer, Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Any weakness in observing the five religious vows which cannot be overcome by one's own thought process should be disclosed before the Sant, who has no such weaknesses. If one has perceived faults in the Sant, that should also be disclosed. Furthermore, any doubts in one's conviction of God should also be disclosed. Then one can be considered to be honest. If any of these internal thoughts have arisen, and they are not disclosed before the Sant, then such a person should be known to be deceitful."
Thereafter Shriji Mahārāj asked another question: "If a person is deceitful, and also cunning, how can he be recognised?"
So Shriji Mahārāj replied, "His deceitfulness can be recognised by keeping his company, and, while staying with him, by observing him while he eats, drinks, sits, stands, walks and talks. Also, when he is separated from oneself, if another person is asked to secretly observe him, then his deceitfulness would be recognised."
Shriji Mahārāj then posed another question: "Suppose there is a person who observes religious vows and keeps faith in God out of pretence. He is intelligent and egotistical, and he shows his faith and his observance of religious vows to be superior to the genuine vows and faith of others. How, then, can one recognise that such a person's faith and observance of religious vows are a mere pretence?"
So again, Shriji Mahārāj replied, "His pretence can be recognised when his prestige is offended. Otherwise, it cannot be recognised."
Again, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which thought causes one to deflect from one's faith in God and observance of religious vows? Which type of thought would not cause one to deflect from them? Also, if there is a time span, for what duration must these thoughts remain in order to deflect one from one's dharma and one's faith in God?"
So Shriji Mahārāj said, "If a person attempts to eradicate an improper thought related todharma, but the thought still remains; or, if such a thought does not arise for fifteen days or for a month, but arises some day suddenly - then such a thought would cause him to fall from dharma. The same applies to one's faith in God. However, any thought which is eradicated by applying a thought process once it arises, and which does not arise again, would not cause a person to fall from one's dharma or one's faith."
So Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Just as Dattātreya imbibed the virtues of the five bhuts, the moon, various animals, a prostitute, a virgin, his own body and others, similarly, only if a person has the disposition of imbibing the virtues of a sādhu does his foundation inSatsang become solid. If a person does not have such a disposition, then even though he remains in Satsang, his foundation is not firm."
Again, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Can the indriyas and the antahkaran be completely controlled by the company of the Sant, by reading the scriptures and by applying one's own thought process? Or can they be controlled if only one of these three is present? If you say that all three must be present, then what techniques should be learnt from theSant, what techniques should be learnt from the scriptures, and how should one apply one's own thought process? Please explain this."
Then Shriji Mahārāj explained, "From the scriptures, one should realise the greatness of God and His Sant. From the Sant, one should learn techniques for controlling theindriyas, such as: One's vision should be kept fixed on the nose in this manner, and one should not listen to worldly talks. These and other techniques should be learnt from theSant. By one's own thought process, one should look upon the techniques taught by theSant positively, as being for one's own liberation. Then, one should behave accordingly. In this way, the indriyas and antahkaran can be overcome by these three means."
Then Shriji Mahārāj posed another question, "Is the antahkaran controlled by controlling the indriyas, or are the indriyas controlled by controlling the antahkaran?"
Since the paramhansas could not answer the question, Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If a person controls the physical indriyas by physical austerities, and then even after the physical indriyas have been controlled, if he still firmly observes the niyams of the five religious vows, then the antahkaran can be controlled by controlling the physicalindriyas. So, the physical indriyas cannot be controlled by controlling the antahkaranalone. However, the antahkaran can be controlled by controlling the physical indriyas. How is that? Well, if one controls the physical indriyas and does not let them indulge in the vishays, then the antahkaran within would become frustrated and would think, 'This type of enjoyment is not going to be possible in this life.'"
After this, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "By what means are the physical indriyas controlled and by what means is the antahkaran controlled?"
Again, since the paramhansas could not answer, Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The physicalindriyas can be controlled by observing the niyams specified for a renunciant in the Dharma-shāstras; by controlling one's diet; by observing vows like tapta-kruchchhra,chāndrāyan, etc.; by deliberately tolerating cold, heat, hunger and thirst; by engaging in the discourses, talks, and devotional songs related to God; by engaging in worship and remembrance; by controlling one's posture and by other spiritual endeavours. Theantahkaran can be controlled by contemplating upon God's greatness, by meditating on God and by realising oneself to be the ātmā."
LOYA-6: PURIFYING THE COMPANY ONE KEEPS
On the night of Māgshar sudi 1, Samvat 1877 [6 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white khes and a white daglimade of chhint. He had also tied a white feto around His head and had tied a bokāniwith another feto, the chhoglu of which was hanging from His head. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a thick, cotton cloth. At that time, an assembly ofparamhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj asked the paramhansas, "After joining the Satsang fellowship, what do you consider to be the most difficult achievement?"
The paramhansas could not answer the question, so Shriji Mahārāj replied, "For a person to become ekāntik is extremely difficult. What is this state of being ekāntik? Well, it is to do the bhakti of God along with dharma, gnān and vairāgya. That is the state of being ekāntik."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which one dharma-related endeavour is such that if practised, all aspects of dharma remain? Moreover, out of worship, remembrance, singing or listening to devotional songs, listening to spiritual discourses, and other God-related endeavours, which one endeavour, if it is kept even when all others are abandoned in difficult times, helps maintain all of the others?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question: "Of the dharma-related endeavours, if one maintains the vow of non-lust1, all other endeavours will develop. Of the God-related endeavours, if one keeps the conviction of God, then all of the others will develop."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which type of thinking, if maintained constantly, is beneficial, and if altered, is detrimental? Also, which type of thinking is beneficial if repeatedly altered, and detrimental if not altered?"
Again Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question: "Thoughts regarding one's conviction of God should never be altered. In fact, it would be beneficial if they are repeatedly reinforced by listening to the greatness of God. Repeatedly altering them, however, would be detrimental. But, if one has firmly decided in one's own mind, 'I want to do this,' then that type of thinking should be repeatedly altered on the advice of a sādhu. If he suggests, 'You should not sit here and should not do this,' then one should not sit there and should not do that. If, in this case, one's own decision is altered, it would be beneficial; if it is not altered and one does as one pleases, then that would be detrimental."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Despite the fact that he observes dharma, sitting with and listening to which type of satsangi or paramhansa would make one subject to developing faults?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If a person has faith in God and observes dharma, but also believes his self to be the body and has egotism as well as desires for worldly activities, then if God and His Sant denounce these, he will definitely perceive flaws in God and His Sant. Then, he will talk about the perceived flaws of God and His Sant to others and cause them to become like non-believers. One should not associate with such a person in any way; doing so is harmful."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which type of sādhu, even though he observes dharmaand has faith in God, should one not accompany to bathe, sleep near or hear talks from?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question: "A sādhu who discouragingly says, 'Can the vow of non-lust and other virtues really be realised in one life? They are realised only by the grace of God; otherwise liberation is attained after countless lives. So can liberation truly be attained in this very life?' By all means, one should shun the company of anyone who speaks such discouraging words. Conversely, someone else claims, 'We are fulfilled in this very life. The force of lust, anger, arrogance, matsar, egotism, and other vicious natures is trivial. By the grace of God and His Sant, we will destroy them all.' One should, by all means, seek the company of a sādhu who speaks in this manner and is eagerly engaged in methods to destroy lust and the other vices."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which type of sādhu, even if he speaks encouragingly, should be shunned?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question: "If a sādhu emphasises his own efforts only and believes himself to be fulfilled by his own efforts, but does not acknowledge the strength of God and does not feel, 'By endeavouring in this way, I want to please God' - then such a sādhu should be shunned."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which type of sādhu should one keep the company of, and which type should one not keep the company of?"
Shriji Mahārāj then replied, "If we are staying with a sādhu who observes the religious vows strictly and has firm faith in God, but who instead of reprimanding us, pampers us and lets us have our way, then even if he, like Muktānand Swāmi, is considered great in public opinion, his company should not be kept. On the other hand, if a sādhurepeatedly reprimands one, and maintains constant vigilance on any swabhāv he sees within one; and if he does not cease to denounce that swabhāv until it is overcome, and does not merely flatter, then even if he is not considered great in public view, one should still keep his company."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked another question: "Suppose a sādhu possesses all of the glorious virtues of bhakti, gnān, etc. However, on account of which one vicious flaw should one avoid his company?"
Again Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If he is very lazy, sleeps too much and when told by others to bathe, meditate or observe other niyams, says, 'I'll do it later; what's the hurry? I'll do them slowly' - then even though he may appear to be good, one should avoid his company."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked a question: "A sādhu may speak well; but, due to which fault in his speech should his talks not be heard?"
Shriji Mahārāj then replied, "If, out of vanity, he talks about the bhakti, gnān, vairāgyaand dharma within himself to be superior; and shows the virtues of gnān, bhakti, etc., in other sādhus to be inferior, then one should not listen to his talks."
Once again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which type of speech should be viewed as amruteven though it is harsh?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The words of a sādhu who in his speech denounces his own parents, sister, brother and caste with harsh words, should be known to be good. Why? Because one who hears those words realises the virtues of that sādhu; i.e., 'In no way does this sādhu have attachment to his bodily relations or others.' Therefore, those words should be enjoyed like amrut."
Again Shriji Mahārāj posed a question, "When should one maintain conceit, and when should one not maintain conceit?"
Once again Shriji Mahārāj supplied the answer: "One should not maintain conceit before a staunch follower of God, even though he may be a simple and meek devotee. On the other hand, one should certainly maintain conceit before a person who has fallen back from Satsang. In fact, one should not become suppressed by him, and in any question-answer exchange, his words should be answered with stern words of one's own."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked, "When should one not have a desire for the darshan, etc., of God and His Sant. When should one have such a desire?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Suppose I were to ask all of the sādhus, 'Who will go to Burānpur and Kāshi?' Then, when no one speaks, one should rise in the assembly and say to Me, 'Mahārāj, if you say so, I shall go.' So saying, one should follow My command and go there. In those situations, to gain My pleasure, one should not keep any desire for keeping the company of the Sant or My darshan, etc.
"Moreover, when one, who a sādhu or I have grieved, rebuked, insulted or expelled, and who is crying out of that shock, is approached by a non-believer, such as anekadmal, who starts to talk about the flaws of the sādhu or Me, then before him, one should exhibit tremendous affection towards the sādhu and God. One should say, 'I am His servant, and even if He were to cut me to pieces, I would still never perceive flaws in Him. He will grant Me liberation.' In that situation, one should exhibit such great affection."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "What should not be done, even if God is pleased by it? What should be done, even if God is displeased by it?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question: "If I were to give an order which seems to be full of adharma, then one should be hesitant in following it; that is, one should take some time and not accept it immediately. For example, Shri Krishna Bhagwān ordered Arjun, 'Cut off Ashwatthāmā's head.' But Arjun did not follow that command. Likewise, even if I am pleased by it, that type of instruction should not be followed. Also, an instruction by which the prescribed niyams of the five religious vowsEN-4 are transgressed should not be followed. If by not obeying these two types of commands, God is displeased, then one should definitely let Him be displeased; in those cases, one should not attempt to please Him."
Once again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "While meditating on God, countless different waves of vicious thoughts arise in the mind, just as large waves arise in the ocean. When such thoughts do arise, how can they be suppressed?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question: "When such vicious thoughts arise, one should stop the meditation, and should clap and chant 'Swāminārāyan, Swāminārāyan' aloud, without shame. One should pray to God, 'O Lord! You are a friend of the meek! You are an ocean of mercy!' Also, one should remember a great sādhu of God, like Muktānand Swāmi, and pray to him too. As a result of this, all disturbing thoughts will be eradicated and peace will prevail. Apart from this, there is no other method to eradicate such thoughts."
Then Shriji Mahārāj posed another question: "Which virtue should be renounced, even if it is believed to be a great virtue in this Satsang and is being praised by all? Which fault, even though it is a fault, is suitable to be imbibed?"
Once again Shriji Mahārāj supplied the answer Himself: "One may be like Muktānand Swāmi and may be observing religious vows more resolutely than all; however, if as a result of this, another sādhu feels inferior because he cannot behave on the same level with the former, then that virtue, even though it may be great, should be renounced. Instead, one should behave on the same level as all of the other sādhus. Even though behaving on the same level as others is a drawback, it should be imbibed."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "In these sādhus, which is the one flaw which, when abandoned, would cause all flaws to be abandoned? Which is the one virtue which, if cultivated, would cause all virtues to be cultivated?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "All flaws reside in the flaw of identifying one's self with the body. If that is abandoned, all flaws are abandoned. Furthermore, if the sole virtue of ātmā-realisation, i.e., realising oneself as the ātmā, distinct from the body, is developed, then all virtues will develop."
Shriji Mahārāj again asked, "Which types of vishays, when indulged in, enlighten the mind, and which types of vishays, when indulged in, cause ignorance to prevail in the mind?"
Again Shriji Mahārāj replied, "By indulging in God-related vishays, the mind is enlightened; and by indulging in worldly vishays, ignorance prevails in the mind."
Next, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Which places, which times, which company and which actions should one not associate with, even if it is God's command?"
Shriji Mahārāj again supplied the answer Himself: "Even if it is God's command, asādhu should not stay in a place where he has frequent contact with his bodily relations. Also, if I seat one where women can also be seen while having My darshan, and if I were to say, 'Do My darshan,' then one should not sit in such a place. Rather, one should make an excuse and leave. Further, if adverse times are prevailing and riots are taking place, then even if it is God's command to stay, one should leave that place; but one should not stay there and suffer beatings."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked another question: "Which scriptures should be heard and studied, and which scriptures should not be heard or studied?"
Once again Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Scriptures which do not promote God possessing a form and do not describe God's avatārs, but instead discuss pure Vedānta and propound a single, formless entity, should never be studied or heard, even if they have been written by someone very intelligent. Also, even though they may be merely devotional songs like those composed by Ranchhod Bhakta, if they describe God's form, they should be sung and heard. Such scriptures should also be studied and heard."
LOYA-7: REALISING GOD THROUGH THE INDRIYAS, THE ANTAHKARAN AND EXPERIENCE
On Māgshar sudi 3, Samvat 1877 [7 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. His head was adorned with a white pāgh, from which a chhoglu emerged from one side. He was wearing a white daglimade of chhint and a white, cotton-padded survāl. He had also covered Himself with a white blanket. At that time, an assembly of munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
In the assembly, Nityānand Swāmi brought the Vachanāmrut manuscript and presented it to Shriji Mahārāj. Shriji Mahārāj examined the manuscript and was extremely pleased. He then said to the paramhansas, "Today, please ask complex questions so that we may talk."
Thereupon Muktānand Swāmi asked, "The Shrutis state: 'Rute gnānān-na muktihi |1' and 'Tam-eva viditvātimrutyum-eti nānyaha panthā vidyate'yanāya |2'. These Vedic verses proclaim that the jiva attains liberation only when it realises the true gnān of God. If liberation can only be attained by gnān, why do the scriptures also prescribe other spiritual endeavours for attaining liberation?"
Hearing this question, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Gnān means 'to know'."
At this point, Nityānand Swāmi raised a doubt. He said, "If gnān means merely 'to know', then the whole world knows God through the scriptures, yet everyone does not attain liberation."
Hearing this, Shriji Mahārāj raised a question: "Just as one does not attain liberation by knowing the previously incarnated forms of God through the scriptures, do you think all those who actually had the darshan of Rām, Krishna and the other avatārs of God with their own eyes attained liberation?"
Muktānand Swāmi replied, "Those who merely see the manifest form of God attain liberation only after several lives."
Shriji Mahārāj added, "Those who know God through the scriptures also receive liberation after several lives. Why? Because whom these people know through the scriptures is whom the other people see with their eyes; and whom the other people see with their eyes is whom these people know through the scriptures. Thus, the resulting fruits of both are equal, and both attain liberation after several lives.
"After all, is not hearing God with one's ears gnān? It is, but that can be said to be merely hearing God. Is not touching God with one's skin also gnān? It is, but that can be said to be merely touching God. Is not seeing God with one's eyes gnān? It is, but that is merely seeing God. Is not smelling God with one's nose gnān as well? It is, but that is merely smelling God. Does not describing God with one's tongue also constitute gnān? It does, but that is merely having described God. In this way, gnān can be attained through the physical indriyas. It can also be attained through the antahkaran as well as directly from experiential gnān of the jiva, which transcends both the indriyas and theantahkaran. Of these, which gnān are you speaking of?
"In fact, in order to create the cosmos, God assumed the form of Aniruddha, within which dwells the mobile and immobile world along with space. In the form of Sankarshan, God destroys the cosmos. In the form of Pradyumna, He sustains the cosmos. He also assumes various avatārs such as Matsya, Kachchha, etc. He assumes these forms according to whichever task needs to he accomplished in whichever place. Some of these tasks are such that they are imperceptible to theindriyas and antahkaran, and can only be known by experience3. For the successful completion of these tasks, God assumes a form accordingly. On the other hand, some of these tasks are perceptible to the indriyas and antahkaran. For the successful completion of these tasks, again God assumes an appropriate form. Thus, the gnān of which of God's forms is instrumental in attaining liberation? Is that your question?"
Nityānand Swāmi confirmed, "We are saying that liberation is attained by the gnān of God whose form can be realised by the indriyas, the antahkaran, and experience."
Shriji Mahārāj then explained, "That God is Shri Krishna. He has said of himself:
Yasmāt-ksharam-ateeto'ham-aksharād-api chottamaha | Ato'smi loke vede cha prathitaha purushottamaha ||4
Vishtabhyāham-idam krutsnam-ekānshena sthito jagat ||5
Mattaha parataram nānyat-kinchid-asti dhananjaya |
Mayi sarvam-idam protam sootre maniganā iva ||6
Pashya me pārth roopāni shatasho'tha sahasrahaha |
Nānā-vidhāni divyāni nānā-varnākruteeni cha ||7
In these and many other verses, he describes himself as imperceptible to the indriyasand the antahkaran. Thus, knowing God perfectly means knowing the manifest form of God through the indriyas, the antahkaran, and experience. Only then can one be said to possess perfect gnān. However, if anyone of these three types of gnān is lacking, one cannot be said to have realised ultimate gnān, nor can one overcome the cycle of births and deaths. In fact, even though someone may have attained the brahmaswarup state through his personal endeavours, if he does not realise the manifest form of God in this manner, he cannot be said to possess perfect gnān. That is why it is said in the Shrimad Bhāgwat:
Naishkarmyam-apyachuta-bhāva-varjitam na shobhate gnānam-alam niranjanam |8
Karmano hyapi boddhavyam boddhavyam cha vikarmanaha | Akarmanash-cha boddhavyam gahanā karmano gatihi ||9
Even in the state of non-karma, i.e., gnān, there is still something left to be realised. That is to say, even after one has become brahmarup, one still has to realiseParabrahma Purushottam. Only one who is brahmarup has the right to offer bhakti toPurushottam.
"Now, what constitutes bhakti? It is when one becomes brahmarup and performs thebhakti of the manifest form of God with sandalwood paste, flowers, shravan, manan, etc. - just as the niranna-muktas of Shwetdwip, having become brahmarup, perform puja of Parabrahma Nārāyan by offering various types of offerings such as sandalwood paste, flowers, etc. Thus, God has mentioned in the Gitā:
Brahma-bhootaha prasannātmā na shochati na kānkshati | Samaha sarveshu bhooteshu mad-bhaktim labhate parām ||10
Thus, one who does not offer bhakti to Parabrahma after becoming brahmarup cannot be said to have attained ultimate liberation.
"Furthermore,
Bhoomir-āpo'nalo vāyuhu kham mano buddhir-eva cha | Ahamkāra iteeyam me bhinnā prakrutir-ashtadhā ||11
This describes the all-pervaded jad prakruti. Also,
Apareyam-itas-tvanyām prakrutim viddhi me parām | Jeeva-bhootām mahābāho yayedam dhāryate jagat ||12
Such is the all-pervasive chaitanya prakruti. That manifest form of God is such that He is the supporter of both the eight forms of pervaded jad prakruti and also of thechaitanya prakruti that pervades therein. For example, ākāsh is the supporter of the other four elements - pruthvi, jal, etc. Whenever pruthvi contracts, ākāsh contracts along with it. When the pruthvi expands, ākāsh also expands along with it. Similarly,ākāsh also contracts and expands along with the contraction and expansion of jal, tejand vāyu. However, pruthvi and the other elements all contract and expand withinākāsh. In the same way, God expands and contracts along with the expansion and contraction of the two prakrutis, while they themselves contract and expand within God Himself. That God is the ātmā of all. This fact is stated in the Shrutis: Antah-pravishtaha shāstā janānām sarvātmā |13; Yasyāksharam shareeram... esha sarva-bhootāntarātmā'pahata-pāpmā divyo deva eko nārāyanaha |14; Yasyātmā shareeram ya ātmānam-antaro yamayati sa ta ātmāntaryāmyamrutaha |15; Yasya pruthivee shareeram yaha pruthiveem-antaro yamayati sa ta ātmāntaryāmyamrutaha |16.
"Furthermore, even food, the mind, knowledge and bliss have been described as Brahma; that is, various such types of brahmavidyā have been mentioned. What is the significance of this? Well, even those things have been called Brahma because God is the cause of all and the supporter of all. However, they are all the sharir, and theirshariri is the manifest form of Shri Krishna Purushottam. Both the jad and chaitanyaprakrutis, along with entities evolved thereof in their expanded and contracted states, dwell easily within God. Moreover, God dwells within them all as their antaryāmi and as their cause. It is that very God who is this manifest form. To know and see God with such an understanding of greatness is called perfect gnān."
Thereupon Muktānand Swāmi asked, "If a person cannot experience the greatness of God in this manner, but does have a firm conviction of it in his antahkaran, then can that be said to be perfect gnān, or not?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "In a dark house, one can faintly see the grain-store, the pillars, etc.; but due to the darkness, they cannot be said to have been seen totally. In the same way, both the jad and chaitanya prakrutis reside within Purushottam Bhagwān, and He dwells within them as well. But if one experiences this only by inference and does not actually see it, then he cannot be said to possess perfect gnān. Nevertheless, because he has such a firm conviction, he surely must have experienced some sort of transcendental powers of God in the past; if not, he will experience them in the future.
"Despite having such a doubtless conviction, if one does not experience that transcendence, one should think, 'God possesses all those powers, but He does not reveal them to me because that is His wish.' If a person offers bhakti to God with such understanding and remains fulfilled, then he can also be said to possess perfect gnān.
"Thus, a devotee with gnān is one who thoroughly knows God through the indriyas, theantahkaran, and experience. Such a devotee has been praised in the Gitā as the best of all devotees:
Ārto jignāsur-arthārthee gnānee cha bharatarshabha || ... Teshām gnānee nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir-vishishyate |17
Such a devotee with gnān faithfully serves the manifest form of God - who eternally has a form - realising Him as transcending Prakruti-Purush and Akshar, and as being the cause and supporter of all. Such understanding constitutes gnān, and such gnān leads to ultimate liberation. Some who do not understand this merely claim 'Aham brahmāsmi18' from the scriptures. They proclaim, 'I am the form of Brahma, and Rām, Krishna, etc., are merely manifestations emanating from me.' Such sacrilegious, unorthodox Vedāntis of today are extremely evil and grave sinners. At death, they are consigned to narak, and they will never be released from there."
LOYA-8: ERADICATING THE OVER-EXCITABILITY OF THE INDRIYAS; ACCEPTING ONLY WORDS RELATED TO ONE'S INCLINATION
On the night of Māgshar sudi 5, Samvat 1877 [10 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white khes and had tied a white feto around His head. He was also wearing a white dagli made of chhint. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Muktānand Swāmi asked Shriji Mahārāj, "On seeing some inappropriateswabhāv of a sādhu, one who is thoughtless may perceive flaws in the sādhu. But why does one who is wise perceive flaws in the sādhu?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If a person is wise and has noticed an inappropriate swabhāvwithin himself, and while harbouring an intense aversion towards it, is continually endeavouring to overcome that swabhāv, then when he sees that very same swabhāvin another sādhu, he develops an aversion towards that sādhu. On the other hand, a fool not only does not overcome his own swabhāvs, but when he sees that sameswabhāv in another sādhu, he perceives flaws in that sādhu. Such a person should be considered a fool."
Then Shriji Mahārāj gathered the junior paramhansas, and He Himself asked and answered questions.
First, He asked, "The intensity and mildness of the force of lust, anger, avarice, and other inner enemies is due to the phases of childhood, youth and old age. In what way? Well, in childhood, the force is weak; in youth, the force is intense; then in old age, the force becomes weak again. Thus, the intensity and mildness of lust, anger, etc., can be noticed; but can they be weakened by any thought process?"
Shriji Mahārāj Himself replied, "The force of lust, anger, etc., can be weakened by a thought process, which is as follows: The mildness of those swabhāvs in childhood, their greater intensity in youth, and mildness once again in old age is due to food. Specifically, in childhood, since the dietary intake is small, the force of lust is mild. Similarly, in old age, one's dietary intake is small, so again the force of lust is mild. But in youth, as the dietary intake increases, lust also increases. Therefore, in youth, if one's food intake is decreased, and if one deliberately tolerates cold, heat, rain and hunger, then by maintaining such a thought process, and by maintaining profound association with the great Sant, the force of lust is weakened - even in the period of youth."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "People become addicted to many different types of things, for example, bhang, marijuana, opium, alcohol, etc. Are these addictions due to one'skriyamān or prārabdha karmas?"
Replying, Shriji Mahārāj said, "These addictions are developed not by prārabdha, but by habit. Therefore, if one maintains courage, keeps shraddhā, and becomes adamant on overcoming the addiction, then it can be overcome. But if one has no shraddhā and is cowardly, then that vice cannot be overcome."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Some children have a mature nature like elder people, whereas some have an extremely fidgety nature. Is that nature due to company, or is it inherent within their jiva?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "For the most part, a good or bad nature is due to the company one keeps, but in some cases, it is due to past karmas."
Then Kapileshwarānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, how can one recognise a swabhāvwhich has formed previously, and how can one recognise a swabhāv which has formed recently?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "A recently formed swabhāv is overcome by staying in the company of a pious sādhu and by making a little effort to eradicate it. Just as grass growing on a wall dries up when there is no rain for five days, similarly, a recently formed swabhāv can be overcome in a few days. However, an established swabhāvcan barely be overcome, even after one makes a great effort to eradicate it. For example, if there are strong weeds or a bordi tree in the soil, then even if they are set on fire and burnt by a farmer, they will still re-sprout. But if one uses a hoe to uproot them from their roots, they can be removed. Similarly, if one remains in the company of a pious sādhu and perseveres with great effort, even an established swabhāv can be overcome, but only with great effort."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked, "For one whose indriyas are overly excitable, what are the individual methods by which that excitability can be overcome?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "To overcome the excitability of the eyes, a person should fix his gaze on the tip of his nose and not look elsewhere. He should continue to study while studying, and he should also engage in worship. While doing this, if he continues to keep his eyes open without blinking for half an hour or so - until his eyes begin to burn intensely and tears flow - and he does not harbour a debased thought even if he happens to notice a woman or other objects, then even if his eyes are excitable, they will become controlled.
"The nose does not like the odours coming from someone's body, mouth or clothes. At that time, a person should think, 'My own body appears attractive superficially, but it is filled with blood, flesh and bones; and in the abdomen there is faeces, urine and the intestines.' If he thinks in this way the over-excitability of the nose is eradicated.
"The over-excitability of the ears can be eradicated as follows: When some humorous talks are on-going or a folk-drama is being performed, one develops a keen interest to listen to them; whereas, while listening to the discourses and devotional songs related to God, one falls asleep. In that situation, one should rise and subdue sleep and lethargy. One should also keep faith in and maintain a keen interest in listening to the discourses of God; thereby, the ears can be controlled.
"The sense of touch can be controlled by deliberately tolerating the cold, heat and rain; by lying down anywhere; by keeping a blanket as a pillow and using it for covering the body only when one feels very cold. Thereby, the skin becomes numbed, and the over-excitability of the sense of touch is eradicated.
"To overcome the over-excitability of the hands, whenever the hands are idle, one should keep a rosary in one's hand and turn it while chanting the name of God in rhythm with the inhaling and exhaling of one's breath. One should not, however, turn the rosary hurriedly. Some say, 'One can chant the name of God more quickly mentally.' But that principle is wrong because, in actuality, the mind can chant the name of God only as many times as the tongue can chant the name of God. So, by applying this method, the over-excitability of the hands is eradicated.
"If the legs are overly active, they can be controlled by controlling one's sitting posture.
"Overly excitable genitals can be controlled as follows: When one gets scabies or ringworm, and one scratches oneself, the itching is not relieved until bleeding occurs. However, if one does not scratch the affected area, then the itching subsides by itself. Thus, even if an itching sensation arises on the genitals, it should not be scratched. Moreover, in the case of it becoming frequently excited, if one decreases one's diet, observes fasts and physically weakens the body, then the genitals can be controlled.
"To conquer the tongue, it should not be given items that it likes, and one's diet should be restricted. Thereby, the over-excitability of the tongue is eradicated.
"Finally, the over-activity of one's speech can be eradicated by not interrupting with wise remarks when people like Muktānand Swāmi are speaking or narrating from a scripture. Moreover, if one does happen to interrupt, one should turn a rosary 25 times. Thereby, the over-activity of speech can be eradicated."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Of all these indriyas, which one, if fully controlled, leads to control over all of the other indriyas?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered His own question, "If the tongue is fully subdued, then all of the other indriyas can be subdued."
Again Shriji Mahārāj asked, "If lust pervades a person's heart, and even though his genitals are covered by his clothes, how can one realise that he has been pervaded by lust?"
Shriji Mahārāj Himself replied, "When lust pervades a person, his eyes and all of his other indriyas become overly excited. Thereby, one can realise that he has become overwhelmed by lust."
Once again, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "One who has an overactive nature should become calm, and one who has a calm nature should become active. By which thought process can this be achieved?"
Shriji Mahārāj Himself replied, "If a person who is overactive thinks, 'I am the ātmā,Brahma1, genderless, and stable like ākāsh,' and he attains the upsham state through such thoughts, then he becomes calm. If a person who is calm wishes to become more active, then he should realise the greatness of God and His devotees. When he realises the greatness of God, he engages in the nine types of bhakti and performs the menial service of the devotees of God. Consequently, his nature becomes more active."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Is there anything in the eight scripturesEN-13 such as theShrimad Bhāgwat, etc., which should be disregarded, or should everything be imbibed?"
Replying to His own question, Shriji Mahārāj said, "In all of those scriptures there are countless incidents, and through all of those incidents, the inclinations of the devotees who have attained God are described. Therefore, they are all suitable to be imbibed. However, among all of these incidents, only those incidents that match one's own inclination should be imbibed. The others, however, may be disregarded with the understanding, 'These talks are true, but they are for the benefit of other devotees; they are not for me."
Once more, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "All of you youngsters are seated here; and from amongst you, all of the sādhus certify some and do not certify others. Now, all of you are of a similar age and all have the same company. In fact, all have the same food, clothing, mode of worship, scriptures, and mantra; and all listen to the same spiritual discourses. What, then, is the reason for the difference in levels amongst you? Moreover, he who is a sādhu observes dharma completely, is unbiased and views all equally; hence, he would describe everyone as they truly are. So, please answer the question."
Again, Shriji Mahārāj supplied the reply, "Only he who has shraddhā is praised by asādhu, and that is also why he observes dharma more staunchly. Also, he hasshraddhā in serving the Sant and in listening to the talks of God. He also has faith in theSant. Therefore, he has progressed. On the other hand, one who has not progressed despite staying in such association, should be known to lack shraddhā."
LOYA-9: FACTORS WHICH LEAD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF DHARMA, GNĀN, VAIRĀGYA AND BHAKTI
On Māgshar sudi 6, Samvat 1877 [11 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint as well as a white survāl. He had also tied a white feto around His head. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Then Shriji Mahārāj requested, "May all of the paramhansas please engage in a question-answer session amongst themselves."
Thereupon Ātmānand Swāmi asked Akhandānand Swāmi, "What are the factors that lead to the development of the four virtues of vairāgya, gnān, bhakti and dharma?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered the question, "Vairāgya is cultivated when one comes to realise the nature of kāl. What is this nature of kāl? Well, it is to know the process ofnitya-pralay, nimitta-pralay, prākrut-pralay and ātyantik-pralay, as well as the lifespan of all beings from Brahmā to the smallest blade of grass. After knowing this, if one realises the body, the brahmānd and all other objects to be subject to the force of kāl, thenvairāgya would arise.
"Gnān arises if one listens to the Upanishads such as the Bruhadāranya Upanishad,Chhāndogya Upanishad, Kathavalli Upanishad, etc.; the Bhagwad Gitā; the Vāsudev Māhātmya; the Vyās Sutras and other scriptures from a Satpurush.
"Dharma arises if one listens to the Yāgnavalkya Smruti, Manu Smruti, Parāshar Smruti,Shankh-likhit Smruti and other Smrutis. By doing so, dharma would arise, and one would develop faith in those scriptures.
"Bhakti arises if one realises the divine manifestations of God. How should one realise them? Well, when one hears about the forms of God that are in each khand; and when one hears about the abodes of God - Golok, Vaikunth, Brahmapur, Shwetdwip, etc.; and when one listens with a sense of awe to talks of the divine actions of God describing the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the cosmos; and when one listens with keen interest to the narration of the divine actions and incidents of Rām, Krishna and the other avatārs of God, then bhakti towards God would develop.
"Now, even though a person in his initial stages has an immature mind, if he listens to the ritualistic Smrutis, dharma would develop. Later, after becoming firm in his observance of dharma, if he listens to scriptures that explain upāsanā, then all three -gnān, bhakti and vairāgya - would develop. So, these are the factors which lead to the development of the four virtues."
LOYA-10: REMAINING UNINFATUATED
On the morning of Māgshar sudi 8, Samvat 1877 [13 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint and a white survāl. He had also tied a white feto around His head. At that time, an assembly of munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Nityānand Swāmi said, "In this world, there are some men who have such affection for women and other objects that if they were to be separated, they would not be able to live. There are others who also have affection for women and other objects, but it is not as intense. Hence, if they were to be separated, they would survive. Thus, there are two types of people. Now, if the former affectionate person who involves himself in worldly life with affection were to meet God, he would become attached to God in the same way; i.e., if he were to be separated from God, he would not be able to survive. Moreover, if the latter person with less intense affection for worldly life were to meet God, he would have less intense affection for God as well. Granted this, is the difference between these two types of people due to karmas, or is it eternal?"
Hearing this, Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Those differences are not inherently present in the jiva; instead, they arise as a result of karmas. How does this happen? Well, when a jivaperforms a karma, the force of its vruttis can be of three levels: mild, intermediate and intense. The force with which the vruttis attach themselves to the object determines the effect of the karma upon the jiva. As a result, three levels of affection arise due to thesekarmas."
Again, Nityānand Swāmi asked, "Granted that fact, do the three levels in the force of thevruttis occur as a result of the gunas, or is there some other reason?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The three types of differences are not due to the gunas; rather, when only the indriyas indulge in an object, then a mild force results. When the indriyasindulge in an object along with the mind, an intermediate level of force develops. When all three - the indriyas, the mind and the jiva - combine and indulge in an object, then the vruttis develop an intense force. Even if that intense force affects only the eyes, the other indriyas would follow, and the force would affect them as well. In this way, whichever indriya is primarily affected by the intense force, the other indriyas follow. Moreover, that intense force affects all three types of people, rājasik, sāttvik andtāmasik. In fact, such intense force is present in each of the indriyas; thus, affection for objects arises correspondingly."
Then Nityānand Swāmi asked, "Why does he not develop affection for God with such an intense force?"
Shriji Mahārāj said, "Good and bad behaviour is determined by the factors of place, time, action, meditation, scriptures, initiation, mantra and company. So, if one attains favourable places, times, company, etc., then one develops affection for God quickly. But if one encounters unfavourable places, times, etc., then one would develop affection for objects other than God."
Thereafter, Chaitanyānand Swāmi asked, "What should one do in adverse times?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Whenever and wherever times are adverse, one should abandon that place for another location; that is, one should not stay where the factor of time is adverse. In fact, time, in the form of Satya-yug, Tretā-yug, Dwāpar-yug and Kali-yug, exists both externally and internally. So, when Kali-yug is prevalent within one's heart, one should not visualise the form of God within one's heart; instead, it should be seen externally, before one's eyes."
Then Muktānand Swāmi asked, "How can one distinguish whether a mild, an intermediate or an intense force prevails within someone's heart?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "When the force is mild, one would harbour the same feelings on seeing a young girl, a young woman or an old woman. Why? Because only the vruttis of the indriyas have become involved. Consequently, a mild force has developed. When the mind unites with the indriyas and they see the three types of women, then no base thoughts arise towards the young girl or the old woman; but base thoughts certainly do arise towards the young woman, and disturbance is experienced. This should be known to be an intermediate-level force. But, when both the mind and the jiva combine with theindriyas and look at the three types of women, then base thoughts arise towards all three types of women, and disturbance is experienced. In fact, one would experience such base thoughts even on seeing one's own mother or sister. This should be known as an intense force."
Then Brahmānand Swāmi asked, "Suppose a person notices the distinction between the three types of women, and notices their beauty and ugliness, yet he does not experience any base thoughts - which type of force is that?"
Shriji Mahārāj said, "Having realised an object to be the cause of intense misery and having contemplated upon that fact, one attributes grave drawbacks to that object. The contemplation of those drawbacks in the mind then leads to those drawbacks being acknowledged by the jiva. The witness1, who transcends the jiva, also affirms those drawbacks, and so an extremely firm conviction in those drawbacks is developed. Thus, when the vruttis of the indriyas enter the object, the mind and jiva also go along with the vruttis; but since the jiva's deep conviction of the drawbacks in the object pierces the mind and indriyas, even though the object is seen and fully recognised, still an intense aversion arises for it. For example, if a snake's venom is dropped in a bowl of sweet milk, and one sees the venom being added, then even though the milk appears exactly as before, an intense aversion for it prevails in one's heart. Why is that? Because one has realised, 'If I drink the milk, I will die.' Similarly, such a person has realised, 'This beautiful woman is an obstacle on the path of liberation; and she is the cause of extreme misery in this realm and in the higher realms. In fact, I have attained the company of women countless times in past lives in various life forms, and if I do not worship God, I will attain the company of countless more females. Thus, this attainment is not rare. However, the company of God and His Sant is extremely rare, and this woman is a major obstacle in the attainment of that.' A person who has realised this and has intensely realised the flaws in the object will never be infatuated on seeing a woman, regardless of how beautiful she may be.
"Furthermore, there is another way to remain uninfatuated: Janak the Videhi, who was a great king and a devotee of God, stayed in his kingdom and, due to his firmness ingnān, remained uninfatuated even while indulging in enticing vishays. Similarly, a devotee with gnān like Janak, harbours the thought, 'I am the ātmā - pure, chetan, unchanging, the embodiment of bliss, and imperishable. Vishays like women and other things, however, are full of misery; they are vain, perishable, and jad.' With this thought, he believes only his own self, the ātmā, as being the embodiment of bliss. Also, he believes, 'The pleasure and pleasantness which are apparent in the vishays - i.e., sounds, touch, etc. - are only experienced due to the ātmā. But, when the ātmā leaves the body, that which was once pleasurable becomes miserable.' He contemplates upon his ātmā in this manner.
"Also, he contemplates upon Paramātmā, who transcends the ātmā, as follows: 'I have attained this gnān of the pure ātmā, which transcends māyā, by the grace of the Sant. That Sant is a devotee of God. Moreover, that God is the ātmā of even Brahma, who is the ātmā of all. He is the ātmā of Akshar and is also the ātmā of the countless millions of muktas. I am the brahmarup servant of that Parabrahma Purushottam Nārāyan.'
"Further, he understands the greatness of God by realising 'Dyupataya eva te na yayur-antam-anantatayā tvamapi... ||2'. Such verses have greatly expounded the greatness of God. When a person who has such gnān of his own self and of God attains a vishay, regardless of how appealing it may be, his mind would not be even slightly affected by it. He does indulge in the essential vishays, i.e., sounds, touch, etc., but he does not become dependent upon them; rather, he indulges in them independently, of his own accord. Just as a spider spreads its own web and then, when necessary, it independently retracts it, in the same way, such a devotee possessing gnān engages the vruttis of his indriyas in the vishays and retracts them of his own accord. Such a person, even if he is amongst people, feels as if he is in the forest; and though he may be in the forest, he experiences more happiness there than one does from ruling a kingdom.
"Such a devotee may reside in a kingdom, thousands of people may be under his command and he may be wealthy. But he himself does not feel, 'I have become very great.' Furthermore, if the kingdom is destroyed and he begs for food from house to house with an earthen begging-bowl, he does not feel, 'Now I have become poor.' This is because he remains absolutely carefree in his own bliss, and he knows the greatness of his own self and that of God. Thus, he views gold, dirt, iron and stones as equal; he also feels equanimity in honour and insult. Since his vision has become broad, and he knows all worldly objects to be vain, no objects are capable of binding such a person with gnān. For example, when a man who was initially poor receives a kingdom, his vision becomes broad. At first he may have been selling bundles of wood or doing various other insignificant jobs, but he forgets them all and he begins to do important tasks related to his kingdom. Similarly, to such a person with gnān, all objects become vain, and due to that gnān, his vision becomes broad. A person with such an understanding becomes happy.
"Also, if a person has faith, i.e., he believes, 'Whatever such a great Sant and God say is the truth; there is no doubt in it,' and with such a belief, he does as God and His Santinstruct him to do, then such a person remains happy. So, these two types of people are happy, and apart from them, others are not happy. Thus the verse:
Yash-cha moodhatamo loke yash-cha buddhehe param gataha | Tāvubhau sukham-edhete klishyatyantarito janaha ||3
Also, in th Bhagwad Gitā, it is said:
Vishayā vinivartante nirāhārasya dehinaha | Rasa-varjam raso'pyasya param drushtvā nivartate ||4
So, all objects, except God, become vain to a person whose vision becomes divine in this way. Moreover, the meaning of these two verses is the same."
Then Muktānand Swāmi requested Shriji Mahārāj, "Mahārāj, now please ask the question You were going to ask."
So Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Is there only misery in māyā, or is there also some happiness in it? That is the question."
Muktānand Swāmi replied, "Maya causes only misery."
Thereupon, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Of the three gunas - sattvagun, rajogun and tamogun - which arise from māyā, sattvagun is said to give happiness. Furthermore, in theShrimad Bhāgwat it is said, 'Sattvam yad-brahma-darshanam5' and that the products ofsattvagun are gnān, vairāgya, wisdom, tranquillity, self-restraint, etc. How is māyā in this form a cause of misery? Furthermore, it is stated in the 11th canto:
Vidyāvidye mama tanoo viddhyuddhava shareerinām | Bandha-mokshakari ādye māyayā me vinirmite ||6
Hearing this question, Muktānand Swāmi and all of the other paramhansas said, "Mahārāj, we are unable to answer, so please have mercy and give the answer Yourself."
Hearing this, Shriji Mahārāj said, "To a sinful person, the form of Yamarājā appears frightful and terrible, with large teeth and a large, frightening mouth; he appears black like soot, huge like a mountain and horrific like death. In this way, his form appears dreadful. But to a virtuous person, the form of Yamarājā appears very pleasant, like Vishnu. Similarly, to those who are non-believers, māyā causes attachment and intense misery, while to a devotee of God, that same māyā is the cause of intense happiness. Also, the entities that have evolved out of māyā - the indriyas and the antahkaran, and their presiding deities - all support the bhakti of God. Therefore, for a devotee of God,māyā is not a cause of misery; it is a source of great happiness."
Then Muktānand Swāmi asked, "If māyā is a cause of happiness, why is it that when a devotee of God visualises the form of God and engages in worship, māyā, in the form of the antahkaran, causes misery by generating many disturbing thoughts?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "Māyā, in the form of the antahkaran, does not cause misery to a person who thoroughly understands the greatness of God and has an absolutely firm refuge of God; but it does cause misery to a person who does not have such a refuge. For example, a kusangi would attempt to dislodge only an irresolute satsangi, but no one would dare to dislodge a staunch satsangi. In fact, no one would be able to speak ill of Satsang in his presence. Similarly, māyā, in the form of the antahkaran, would never entertain a desire to daunt a person who has a firm refuge in God. Rather, it would help his bhakti to flourish. However, māyā does deflect a person who has a slight deficiency in his refuge in God and does cause him misery. Then, when that person develops a complete refuge in God, māyā is not able to disturb him or cause him pain. Therefore, the answer is that if a person has such complete faith in God, māyā is not capable of causing him misery."
LOYA-11: BELIEFS OF A HOLY AND UNHOLY PERSON
On the morning of Māgshar vadi 8, Samvat 1877 [27 December 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. At that time, an assembly of sādhus as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shuk Muni asked Shriji Mahārāj, "What understanding does an unholy person adopt from the Shrimad Bhāgwat, the Bhagwad Gitā, and other sacred scriptures?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The answer is as follows: An unholy person believes that all of the mobile and immobile male and female forms in this world have been created through māyā and the primordial Purush, Virāt, the form of God. This implies that all of these forms are, in fact, manifestations of God Himself. For this reason, a person aspiring for liberation should initially conquer his mind, and thereafter, if his mind is attracted towards a higher or lower form of either a male or a female, he should meditate on that very form in order to attain instantaneous samādhi. If the mind perceives any flaws in that form, then he should believe that form to be Brahma by thinking, 'The whole world is Brahma.' Thinking in this manner, he should refute the perception of those flaws. In this way, to accept only the transcendental words regarding experiences from the scriptures is the understanding of an unholy person. Such a misunderstanding reflects the wicked nature of his mind, and, at the end of one's life, its result is consignment to the deep, dismal regions of narak and the cycle of births and deaths."
Thereafter, Shuk Muni requested, "Now please explain what understanding a holy person adopts from the sacred scriptures."
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "The answer to this question is given in the sacred scriptures themselves. Specifically, those desiring liberation should not meditate on - with the exception of Purushottam Nārāyan - any deities such as Shiv, Brahmā, etc. Instead, among all humans and deities, they should meditate only on the forms of Rām, Krishna, etc. that are forms of Purushottam Nārāyan. Furthermore, the wise among them consider all of the places where God's forms of Rām, Krishna, etc., reside to beVaikunth, Golok, Shwetdwip and Brahmapur. They consider the attendants that dwell in those realms to be the attendants of Rām, Krishna, etc., i.e., Hanumān, Uddhav, etc. They also regard the divine forms of Purushottam Nārāyan in those realms, which are radiant with the light of countless millions of suns, moons and flames of fire, to be the forms of Rām, Krishna, etc. So, one who adopts such an understanding from the sacred scriptures and with a sense of divinity meditates on the forms of God that are in human form, never equates the forms of God's avatārs and other forms. In reality, all forms of God's avatārs have only two arms. However, for the sole reason of dismissing any similarity that a person lacking wisdom may perceive between God's form and other forms, they are often described as having four arms or eight arms.
"Moreover, one should only meditate on the form of God that one has attained, not on the forms of the previous avatārs. Thus, like a woman who observes the vow of fidelity, one should remain totally faithful to the form of God that one has attained. Parvati has also said:
Koti janma-laga ragad hamāri | Varu Shambhu, ke rahu kumāri ||1
Such a vow of fidelity has also been mentioned in order to dismiss the similarity that a person lacking wisdom perceives between the form of God and other beings. This is because if someone strays from the form of God which one has attained, and instead, meditates on the previous avatārs of that very God, then later he may even forsake God and meditate on other deities or other human forms. That is why the vow of fidelity has been mentioned, not because there is any difference between the forms of God themselves. This is the understanding of a holy person. Therefore, one should only hear the sacred scriptures from a holy person, but never from an unholy person."
LOYA-12: THE SIX LEVELS OF FAITH; SAVIKALP AND NIRVIKALP FAITH
On the night of Māgshar vadi 9, Samvat 1877 [28 December 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was dressed entirely in white clothes and was also wearing a red, woollen dagli. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj raised a question: "Faith in God is of two types: one is 'savikalp faith', and the other is 'nirvikalp faith'. In each type of faith there are three sub-categories: the highest level, the intermediate level, and the lowest level. Please describe, in turn, the distinguishing characteristics of each of these six categories."
The paramhansas were unable to answer, so Shriji Mahārāj said, "The characteristics of a person with the lowest level of 'savikalp faith' are as follows: As long as God exhibits lust, anger, avarice, egotism, cravings for taste, etc., to the same extent as other humans, the person's faith in God remains. But if God were to display these swabhāvsmore so than others, his faith would be shattered.
"The faith of someone with an intermediate level of 'savikalp faith' remains firm even if God exhibits lust, anger, etc., to a double degree than that of humans.
"Finally, one with the highest level of 'savikalp faith' would never doubt any action of God, even if God were to behave coarsely like a person of a low caste; or exhibit anger, violence, etc.; or indulge in drinking alcohol, meat-eating or adultery. Why? Because he understands God to be the all-doer, the supreme lord, and the experiencer of everything. Such a person realises that whatever actions take place in the world are the result of God, who is anvay within all beings as their controller. If, then, He were to indulge in some degrading deed, it would not affect Him at all since He Himself is the all-doer. In this manner, one who has realised God as the lord of all is known as a devotee of God with the highest level of 'savikalp faith'.
"As for a devotee with the lowest level of 'nirvikalp faith', no matter what pious or impious deeds he witnesses being performed by God, he understands that in all actions God performs, He is still a non-doer, since He is Brahma. That Brahma is like ākāsh in that everything resides in ākāsh and all actions take place within it. The devotee realises such qualities of Brahma in God. For example, during the narration of the Rās-panchādhyāyi, King Parikshit asked Shukji, 'God assumes an avatār to uphold dharma. Why, then, did he associate with the gopis?' Shukji replied, 'Shri Krishna is radiant like fire; whatever actions he performs, pious or impious, are burnt to ashes.' In this manner, one who understands God as Brahma, unaffected by the actions He performs, is said to have the lowest level of 'nirvikalp faith.'
"One who becomes like the niranna-muktas of Shwetdwip - who are free from the six physical and emotional sensations - and worships Vāsudev is said to possess an intermediate level of 'nirvikalp faith'.
"Finally, one possessing the highest level of 'nirvikalp faith' realises that countless millions of brahmānds, each encircled by the eight barriers appear like mere atoms before Akshar. Such is the greatness of Akshar, the abode of Purushottam Nārāyan. One who worships Purushottam realising oneself to be aksharrup can be said to possess the highest level of 'nirvikalp faith'."
Thereafter Chaitanyānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, how have such distinctions in faith arisen?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "When an aspirant initially approaches a guru, several factors cause distinctions in his faith: the auspiciousness and inauspiciousness of place, time, company, initiation, action, mantra, scriptures, etc., with regards to the guru; as well as the intensity of one's own shraddhā. Therefore, one should always associate with favourable places, times, etc. Moreover, one should acquire wisdom from a speaker who is serene and faultless."
Chaitanyānand Swāmi asked further, "If under such circumstances one develops the lowest level of faith, can it later develop into the highest level of faith?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "If the listener possesses extreme shraddhā; and if he encounters favourable places, times, etc.; and if he encounters a guru with the highest level of gnān, then the highest level of faith will develop. Otherwise, such faith would develop after many lives."
LOYA-13: NOT BEING OVERCOME BY ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES
In the early morning of Māgshar vadi 10, Samvat 1877 [30 December 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar'sdarbār in Loyā. He had worn a red, woollen dagli and a white khes. He had tied a whitefeto around His head and had tied a bokāni with another white feto. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a thick, white cotton cloth. At that time, an assembly ofparamhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Shriji Mahārāj then told the senior paramhansas to ask questions amongst themselves. Thereupon Gopālānand Swāmi asked Brahmānand Swāmi, "What type of person is not overcome by adverse places, times, actions, company, etc.; and what type of person is overcome? After all, it is said that even Brahmā was infatuated upon seeing Saraswati, as was Shiv when he saw Mohini. So please answer carefully, because even such greats have been overcome by adverse circumstances."
Brahmānand Swāmi attempted to answer but could not give a satisfactory reply.
So Shriji Mahārāj explained, "A person who has withdrawn his nādis and prāns, and by way of his nirvikalp state remains at the holy feet of God, would not be overcome by adverse places, times, company, etc., even if he was an insignificant being. In fact, ifBrahmā and the other deities behave in this manner, they would also not be overcome. However, if he has not developed such a state, and instead, behaves as if he is the body, then average beings as well as greats such as Brahmā and the other deities would be overcome. If this were not so, then the meaning of the verse:
Tat-shrushta-shrushta-shrushteshu ko nvakhandita-dheehee pumān| Rushim nārāyanam-rute yoshin-mayyeha māyayā||1
would not hold true. Therefore, God alone is not overcome by those influences. While all others, however great they may be, if they are not engrossed in the holy feet of God, would be overcome; those who do remain engrossed are not overcome. This is a universal principle that I have firmly established within Myself.
"Moreover, it is mentioned in the Shrimad Bhāgwat:
Etad-eeshanam-eeshasya prakrutistho'pi tad-gunaihee| Na yujyate sadātmasthair-yathā buddhis-tad-āshrayā||2
"Krishna Bhagwān has also said:
Daivee hyeshā guna-mayee mama māyā duratyayā| Mām-eva ye prapadyante māyām-etām taranti te||3
"Thus, only God remains unaffected by māyā; and one who has realised God through anirvikalp state is also not overcome by māyā. On the other hand, someone who has realised God through a savikalp state, however great he may be, would still be overcome."
Thereafter, Nityānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, as long as a mukta is associated with the gunas, he is affected by places, times, etc. It is accepted, however, that God is not influenced by places, times, etc. – even while He remains within the gunas. But when all of the muktas are free from the association of the gunas, and having become nirgun, dwell in Akshardhām along with God – who dwells there in the same manner – then all of the muktas are nirgun and composed of chaitanya. Also, as explained by 'mama sādharmyam-āgatāhā4', they have attained qualities similar to those of God. How, then, should we understand the distinction between the muktas and God?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "Look at the moon and the stars. Isn't there a difference between the two? They are not similar in terms of brightness, and there is a vast difference between the intensity of their rays as well. All of the herbs are nourished by the moon, but not by the stars. Also, it is the moon that dispels the darkness of the night, not the stars. God and the muktas differ in the same way.
"Also, a king and his servant are both the same in that both are humans; yet the authority, power, beauty and charm of the king are by far superior. His servant, regardless of how great he may be, cannot achieve what the king can achieve. In the same way, Purushottam Nārāyan is the all-doer, the cause of all, the controller of all; He is extremely attractive, extremely radiant, and extremely powerful; also, He possesses the kartum, akartum and anyathākartum powers. If He wishes, He can eclipse all of themuktas of Akshardhām by His own divine light and prevail alone. Also, if He wishes, He can accept the bhakti of the muktas and reside with them. He can eclipse even Akshar, in the form of the Akshardhām in which He dwells, and preside alone independently. If He so chooses, He is capable of supporting the countless muktas by His own power, without even needing Akshardhām. For example, King Pruthu had told Pruthvi, 'I can kill you with the arrow from my bow and still be able to support the whole world by my powers.' Likewise, through His powers, God reigns as supreme. He who equates God with Akshar and the other muktas should be regarded as evil-minded and as a grave sinner. One should avoid even looking at him. In fact, merely looking at such a person is as sinful as committing the five grave sinsEN-10.
"Of course, by considering their association with God, it is acceptable to endow greatness upon anyone. Brahmā, Shiv, Nārad, the Sanakādik and Uddhav can all be called God because of their association with God. At present, even a sādhu like Muktānand Swāmi can be considered to be like God because of his association with God. Without God, however, even Akshar cannot be called God – let alone anyone else. In fact, the Vedstuti prose 'Aparimitā dhruvās-tanubhruto yadi sarvagatās-tarhi na shāsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathā |5' reflects the same truth. If this were not so, then why would we, despite regarding ourselves to be brahmarup, and distinct from the body, and possessing gnān, vairāgya, etc., try to please God by staying up day and night, clapping, singing devotional songs and chanting His holy name tirelessly? Why would we engage in spiritual discourses day and night and encourage others to do so as well? Why would we make so much effort if we could become like God? Hence, only God is like God; no one can become like Him. The Vedic verse 'Ekam-evādviteeyam brahma6' also explains that God alone is like God. This is the principle of all of the scriptures."
In this manner, Shriji Mahārāj addressed the devotees for their benefit, when in reality He Himself is Purushottam Nārāyan.
LOYA-14: PERSONAL PREFERENCES
On Māgshar vadi 11, Samvat 1877 [31 December 1820], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white khesand had tied a white feto around His head. He had covered Himself with a white cotton cloth. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Then Shriji Mahārāj said to the paramhansas, "All of the āchāryas of the past have had differing beliefs. Of them, Shankar Swāmi seems to have leaned predominantly towards the Advait doctrine. Rāmānuj's principle is that jivas, māyā and Purushottam are eternal; Purushottam is the controller of the jivas and māyā; He is the ultimate cause of all; He forever dwells in His Akshardhām in a divine form; all avatārs emanate from Him; and it is this Purushottam Nārāyan that individuals should worship. This seems to be the understanding of Rāmānuj. Vallabhāchārya seems to have intense faith only inbhakti. All of these āchāryas have occasionally referred to other principles in their own scriptures, but ultimately, in one way or another, they have leaned towards their own personal preference. Their views can be accurately inferred from the statements in their scriptures.
"In the same way, having listened to My discourses, what have all of you realised My personal preference to be? Just as a thread passes through the eye of a needle, or a thread runs through each and every bead of a rosary, which principle is consistently interwoven in all of My talks? Please state your beliefs."
Then, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Here, allow Me to reveal My own principles and preferences.
"First of all, I like the fact that although Rushabhdev Bhagwān had attained oneness with Vāsudev, and despite being God himself, when yogic powers manifested before him, he did not accept them because he wished to set an example for all renunciants. Also, the Shrimad Bhāgwat states: 'Even an accomplished yogi should never trust his mind - even though he may appear to have conquered it.' There are verses to that effect as well:
Na kuryāt-karhichit-sakhyam manasi hyanavasthite | Yad-vishrambhāch-chirāch-cheernam chaskanda tapa aishvaram ||1
Nityam dadāti kāmasyach-chhidram tam-anu ye'rayaha |
Yoginihi kruta-maitrasya patyur-jāyeva punshchalee ||2
In this manner, I like a renunciant who does not trust his mind.
"Also, in My mind I do not like other realms as much as I like Shwetdwip andBadrikāshram. In fact, I feel that it would be very good to go there to perform austerities without any food. I would prefer not to indulge in the various types of pleasures of the other realms.
"Furthermore, I realise that the many avatārs are all ultimately of God; yet, among theseavatārs, I like Rushabhdevji greatly. I also like Kapilji and Dattātreya equally, but to a lesser extent than Rushabhdevji. But more than these three, I have a million-fold more affection for the avatār of Shri Krishna. I feel, 'This avatār is greater and more powerful than all of the others. Also, in him, one cannot make the distinction of the avatār and the source of the avatār.' On the other hand, I do not have a great liking for the otheravatārs of God such as Matsya, Kachchha, etc.
"In addition to this, My understanding is as follows: There is an all-transcending mass of divine light which cannot be measured from above, below, or in any of the four directions; that is to say, it is endless. Amidst this mass of light lies a large, ornate throne upon which presides the divine form of Shri Nārāyan Purushottam Bhagwān. Countless millions of muktas are seated around that throne and enjoy the darshan of God. I constantly see Him accompanied by the muktas. Moreover, that God is extremely luminous. At times when, due to this luminosity, I cannot see God with the assembly of muktas, I feel deeply hurt. Despite being able to constantly see this mass of divine light, I am not attracted by it; I experience profound bliss only from the darshanof God's form. This is My method of worship.
"Moreover, I like the bhakti that the gopis had towards God. For this reason, I continuously observe people, and having seen the affection a lustful woman has for aman, or a lustful man has for a woman, I feel, 'It would be good to have such affection for God.' Also, whenever I see someone having great affection for their son, or their money, I again feel, 'It would be good to have such affection towards God.' That is why whenever I hear someone singing, I would either send someone to that person, or I would personally go there, and I would feel, 'What he is doing is very good.'
"Also, I only get along with one who has no swabhāvs, i.e., lust, anger, avarice, affection, egotism, jealousy, hypocrisy, deceit, cravings for taste, etc.; one who observes dharma as prescribed in the Dharma-shāstras; and one who has bhaktitowards God. I enjoy the company of only such a person. If a person is not like that, then I do not get along with him, even if he is staying close to Me. In fact, I feel an aversion towards him.
"Initially I had a strong dislike for anyone with lust. However, now I have a strong dislike for those who have anger, egotism or jealousy. The reason is that a lustful person passes his days in the Satsang fellowship by being meek - like a householder devotee; but as for those who have anger, egotism or jealousy, they can be seen to definitely regress in Satsang. For this reason, I am deeply saddened by these types of people.
"What is egotism like? Well, a person with egotism remains arrogant even before those who are superior to him, but he cannot become humble and serve them.
"Now allow Me to summarise My preferences in brief. I do not agree with Shankar Swāmi's propagation of the non-dual Brahma. Rāmānuj Swāmi describes PurushottamBhagwān as transcending the perishable and the imperishable, and I worship thatPurushottam Bhagwān. My bhakti towards that Purushottam Bhagwān is like that of thegopis, and the virtues of vairāgya and ātmā-realisation within Me are like Shukji's and Jadbharat's. These are My principles and preferences. The intelligent can realise this if they analyse My talks as well as the scriptures of our sampradāy which have been accepted by Me as authoritative."
Thus, Shriji Mahārāj spoke for the sake of His devotees, while He Himself isPurushottam Nārāyan.
LOYA-15: EXPLAINING ĀTMADARSHAN USING THE ANALOGIES OF A DOLL AND A COW
On the night of Māgshar vadi 13, Samvat 1877 [2 January 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a warm, red dagli and a whitekhes. He had tied a white feto around His head and had tied a bokāni with another white feto. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a thick, cotton cloth that had been placed together with a white blanket. At that time, an assembly of devotees from various places as well as paramhansas had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj said out of compassion, "The jiva pervades the entire body from head to toe through its three powers of adhyātma, adhibhut and adhidev. Through the indriyas and their presiding deities, it experiences the vishays, but it cannot experience anything by being distinct from the presiding deities and the indriyas."
Thereupon Nityānand Swāmi raised a doubt: "Mahārāj, it is said that the jiva pervades the whole body in general, but resides specifically within the heart. How, then, should one understand the fact that awareness is not present everywhere equally?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "The sun pervades each and every object equally by its rays, but its light is seen according to the object before it. For example, pure sunlight is not experienced as intensely on stone or sand or in dirty water as it is on a floor made of glass or in clean water. Thus, just as one experiences a greater and lesser intensity in the sun's light, in the same way, even though the jiva resides equally in the indriyas, theantahkaran and the indriyas' organs, one experiences its power more intensely in theindriyas because of their purity. Just see, does one experience as much sensation in one's nose and ears as one does in one's eyes? Certainly not. Furthermore, the fourantahkarans are even purer than the indriyas, and so the jiva's power can be experienced there even more intensely. In comparison, it is experienced to a lesser degree in the indriyas. Nevertheless, the jiva does pervade the entire body equally."
Thereafter Brahmānand Swāmi asked, "Many see the jiva to be like a star, or like the flame of an oil lamp, or like the flash from a firecracker. How should one understand these differences in experiences?"
Shriji Mahārāj explained, "Just as a person who has mastered akshividyā can see thejiva and the form of God therein with his eyes, one who has attained realisation through the indriyas sees the ātmā in a similar manner. For example, if there were a glass doll shaped in the form of a human - with all of its limbs, hair and vessels made of glass - and if it were filled with light, then the light would be seen only according to the size and shape of the tubes within; it would not be seen everywhere. In the very same way, people describe the nature of the jiva according to however they have seen it. But, because they have not attained transcendent vision, they do not see the ātmā as it is. However, when a person's vision does become transcendent and one with his ātmā, he no longer perceives the divisions of the different organs of the indriyas; instead, he realises the ātmā as it truly is. Just as one who has attained the viewpoint of ākāshdoes not perceive the other four bhuts, similarly, one with transcendental vision does not perceive differences in the jiva's light arising from its indriyas, their organs and presiding deities, and the antahkaran; instead, he realises the jiva precisely as it is. Conversely, one who perceives distinctions does not realise the jiva as it is. For example, from a group of people, someone saw the tail of a cow, someone else saw its mouth, someone saw its hoof, another saw its stomach, and yet another saw its udder. Whichever part of the cow was seen did, in fact, belong to the cow, yet no one saw the cow completely. But, because at least one part was seen, it can be said that the cow was actually seen. In the same manner, a person can be said to have seen the ātmā to the extent to which he has seen the light of the ātmā through his indriyas or antahkaran. This, however, cannot be said to be perfect ātmā-realisation. Thus, I explain the general and the specific experiences of the jiva in this manner."
At that point, Nityānand Swāmi questioned, "Mahārāj, you have described the jiva as being formless. Therefore, when God dwells within the jiva, does He reside without a form, or does He possess a form?"
Shriji Mahārāj clarified, "God dwells as the refuge of the indriyas, their presiding deities, the antahkaran and the jiva. Shri Krishna Bhagwān, for example, made Uddhavji explain to the gopis, 'I am near to you by being the refuge of your indriyas, antahkaran, their presiding deities and jiva. Just as the very same five mahābhuts which reside in the brahmānds are also within everyone's body, similarly, I reside in Mathurā like themahābhuts reside predominantly in the brahmānds; but just like those mahābhutsreside subtly in the bodies of the jivas, I also reside within all of you. The fact that I cannot be seen is to keep the vrutti of your mind confined within me; that is why I cannot be seen. Nevertheless, I reside within you possessing a definite form."
Hearing this, Nityānand Swāmi questioned further, "But Mahārāj, does God, who resides as the refuge of the indriyas etc., reside in the form of Purush, Akshar, or asPurushottam Himself?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "The light of the jiva, Purush, Akshar and Purushottam is very similar in terms of luminosity. So much so, that no one is capable of distinguishing between their light. Actually, though, they are absolutely distinct from each other, but no one is capable of seeing these distinctions. Only one who receives a divine body composed of divine light by the grace of God realises, 'This is myself, this is Purush, this is Akshar, and this is Purushottam - who is distinct from all.' In this way, one can see them separately and their light distinctly. However, no one else is capable of distinguishing between them. Thus, God may reside in whichever form He chooses, but it is He Himself who resides within the jiva - no one else."
Then Shriji Mahārāj continued, "There are three sets of scriptures which are eternal and which describe only the form of Shri Krishna Paramātmā. They are Yoga, Sānkhya andVedānta, i.e., the Upanishads. I shall now explain the principles of each, so please listen.
"Those belonging to the Sānkhya philosophy propound the existence of 24 elementsEN-2and believe Paramātmā to transcend them; that is, Paramātmā is the 25th element. However, they do not accept jiva and ishwar as being distinct from the 24 elements. Their reasoning is that the elements cannot be sustained without the jiva, and so, thejiva is conceived only as a form of the elements because of its close co-existence with them. As a result, they do not consider the jiva to be distinct. Also, just as they regard the jiva as a form of the elements, they regard the ishwars - who believe the brahmāndsto be their true form - as a form of the 24 elements. In this manner, they conceive bothjiva and ishwar among the 24 elements, and thus count them together with the 24 elements; they do not consider them as being distinct from the elements. So, this, along with believing Paramātmā to be the 25th element, is the philosophy of Sānkhya.
"Despite this, one should not conclude that there is no jiva at all, because the propounders of Sānkhya have prescribed the six endeavours1 as well as shravan,manan, nididhyās, etc., for the jiva. By endeavouring in this way, the jiva attains a thought that eventually leads to the realisation of its distinction from the elements. Then, realising oneself to be brahmarup, one engages in the worship of God. This is theSānkhya philosophy. It is also mentioned in the Moksh-dharma, where Nāradji explains to Shukdevji,
Tyaja dharmam-adharmam cha ubhe satyānrute tyaja | Ubhe satyānrute tyaktvā yena tyajasi tat-tyaje ||2
The meaning of this verse is that when a spiritual aspirant prepares to contemplate upon his ātmā, he should renounce all thoughts of dharma and adharma, truth and falsehood that disturb him. In fact, he should also renounce the thought by which he renounces these other thoughts. In this way, he should behave as brahmarup. However, the verse does not suggest that one should physically forsake the niyams in the form of dharma. This is the correct interpretation of the verse.
"Next, propounders of the Yoga philosophy propagate the 24 elements distinctly from the jiva and ishwar, whom they regard as the 25th element, and Paramātmā, as the 26th. With the power of discernment they distinguish the 25th element from the other elements, and firmly resolving that to be their form, they gather the vruttis of the 24 elements and forcefully attach them to the 26th element - they do not allow them to be drawn towards the vishays. They believe, 'If my vruttis forsake God and wander elsewhere, I will have to pass through the cycle of births and deaths.' Therefore, they forcibly keep the vruttis of their indriyas and antahkaran on God.
"In comparison, the propounders of Sānkhya believe, 'I have no indriyas or antahkaran, so where shall they go?' Thus, they consider themselves to be brahmarup and remain fearless. Those belonging to the Yoga philosophy remain constantly fearful. For example, if a person had to carry a vessel filled to the brim with oil up some stairs without spilling any oil at all, and if two swordsmen with drawn swords were on both sides trying to frighten him, that person would be extremely fearful. Followers of Yogaremain just as fearful of the vishays and strive to keep their vrutti fixed on God. This is the philosophy of Yoga.
"Vedānta, that is, the Upanishads, expound only Purushottam Nārāyan Brahma, the ultimate cause of all, as being satya, and claim all else to be false. Just as when one attains the viewpoint of ākāsh one does not perceive the other elements, in the same way, one who sees only Brahma, perceives nothing else. That is the philosophy ofVedānta."
LOYA-16: WORLDLY DESIRES BECOMING BLUNT AND UPROOTED
After the evening arti on Māgshar vadi 14, Samvat 1877 [3 January 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white khes and a warm, red dagli. He had also tied a white feto around His head and had tied a bokāni with another white feto. At that time, an assembly ofparamhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
So saying, He Himself asked a question: "What are the characteristics of one whose worldly desires have not become blunt, one whose worldly desires have become blunt, and one whose worldly desires have been completely uprooted?"
Muktānand Swāmi began to answer the question but could not reply satisfactorily.
So Shriji Mahārāj said, "The vruttis of the indriyas of one whose worldly desires have not become blunt cling to the vishays. In fact, they cannot be dislodged even by a thought process. In comparison, the vruttis of one whose worldly desires have become blunt do not enter the vishays immediately. If they were to enter the vishays, and he were to attempt to withdraw them, they would withdraw instantly - they would not remain attached to the vishays. However, a person whose worldly desires have become completely uprooted is oblivious to the vishays during the waking state, just as he is during the state of deep sleep. He would regard all pleasant and unpleasant vishays as equal and would behave as one who is gunatit."
Then Gopālānand Swāmi asked, "One's worldly desires may have become blunt, but what is the reason for them not being removed from their roots?"
Shriji Mahārāj explained, "The answer is that if a person has perfectly imbibed the following four qualities, then his worldly desires would become uprooted: gnān in the form of knowledge of the ātmā, vairāgya in the form of detachment from all things that have evolved out of Prakruti, dharma in the form of brahmacharya, etc., and bhakticoupled with the knowledge of God's greatness. Any deficiency in these four qualities leads to a proportional deficiency in uprooting one's worldly desires."
Having given the reply, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Now allow Me to ask a question. Countless spiritual endeavours have been prescribed for a spiritual aspirant to perform in order to attain God. Out of all of them, by which one, powerful endeavour can all flaws be eradicated and all virtues be acquired?"
So Shriji Mahārāj revealed, "If one has bhakti coupled with the knowledge of God's countless powers as described by Kapildev to Devhuti in 'Mad-bhayād-vāti vāto'yam sooryas-tapati mad-bhayāt... ||'1 then all of one's flaws would be eradicated. Moreover, even if one does not possess gnān, vairāgya and dharma, one still attains them. Thus, this spiritual endeavour is the best of all."
Then Shriji Mahārāj asked another question: "A deceitful person who is also clever, cunningly conceals his deceitfulness. Please explain how such a person's deceitfulness can be recognised?"
Brahmānand Swāmi answered, "Such a person can be recognised by the fact that he keeps the company of someone who is an antagonist of Satsang and who speaks ill of the Sant and God; besides this, such a person cannot be known by any other means."
Shriji Mahārāj accepted the answer, but questioned further, "Yes, but how can such a person be recognised if he does not keep the company of such people?"
Brahmānand Swāmi then added, "His deceitfulness would be exposed in times of adverse circumstances."
Shriji Mahārāj confirmed, "That is the correct answer to the question."
Thereafter, Shriji Mahārāj asked another question: "Which single fault transforms all of a person's virtues to faults?"
Shripāt Devānand Swāmi replied, "If someone spites a devotee of God, then all of his virtues become as good as faults."
Shriji Mahārāj clarified, "That is true, but I had another answer in mind. A person may well be endowed with each and every virtue, but if he believes God to be formless - not possessing a definite form - then that is a grave flaw. So much so, that because of this flaw, all of his virtues become flaws."
Thereafter, Shriji Mahārāj asked, "Why does one perceive faults in a sādhu?"
So Shriji Mahārāj answered the question Himself: "An egotist perceives faults in asādhu. This is because it is the very nature of someone who is egotistical that if someone praises him, even though that person may have a hundred faults, he would overlook them and would instead greatly highlight a single virtue. Conversely, if a person does not praise him, then even though that person may have a hundred virtues, he would overlook all of them and highlight an utterly insignificant fault. Consequently, he would initially spite that person mentally, then verbally, and ultimately physically as well. Thus, egotism is a grave vice. However, do not think that only the shrewd are egotistical and the naïve are not. In actual fact, the naïve are more egotistical than the shrewd."
Thereupon, Muktānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, how can egotism be eradicated?"
Shriji Mahārāj explained, "He who thoroughly realises the greatness of God cannot be egotistical. Look at Uddhavji, how wise he was! He was proficient in the Nitishatak and had physical characteristics like that of a king. Yet, because he had understood the greatness of God, he put aside his self-importance upon seeing the gopis' love for God, and prayed, 'May I become a tree, a vine, a blade of grass or maybe even a shrub - anything that has been touched by the dust from the feet of the gopis.'
"Tulsidas has also said,
Tulsee jyāke mukhanse bhoole nikase rām | Tāke pagkee paheniyā mere tan kee chām ||2
That is, even if someone utters the name of God unintentionally, a person who realises God's greatness would make shoes from his own skin and offer them to that person. If that is so, would he harbour any egotism before a devotee of God who constantly engages himself in worship and in chanting the name of God, who bows down to God and who realises the greatness of God? Certainly not. Thus, egotism is eradicated when one realises the greatness of God, but without understanding the greatness of God, egotism simply cannot be eradicated. Therefore, whosoever wishes to eradicate egotism should realise the greatness of God and the Sant."
LOYA-17: REVERENCE AND CONDEMNATION
On the night of Māgshar vadi Amās, Samvat 1877 [4 January 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He had tied a whitefeto around His head and had tied a bokāni with another white feto. He was also wearing a warm, red dagli with a white angarkhu inside. He was wearing a white khesas well. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a thick, cotton cloth, over which He had wrapped a yellow blanket. At that time, while Shriji Mahārāj was sitting in a pleased mood, an assembly of munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Then, of His own will, Shriji Mahārāj said, "See how powerful the force of God's māyāis! It can cause great perversity. Someone who previously seemed very virtuous, for example, can suddenly become extremely vile."
So saying, Shriji Mahārāj urged the paramhansas, "Ask questions today, so that we can talk."
Thereupon, Nityānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, the very same person who was previously virtuous and who revered God later begins to condemn Him. How, then, can a virtuous person remain virtuous and never let his understanding become impaired, amidst even the most adverse places, times, actions and company?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "If a person is indifferent to his body, has firmly realised his self to be the ātmā, maintains vairāgya towards the panchvishays and has absolute faith in God coupled with the knowledge of His greatness, then his mind will never become perverted - even amidst the most adverse circumstances imaginable. On the other hand, one who believes one's self to be the body and does not have an intense aversion for the panchvishays would spite a sādhu if he were to denounce the vishays, even though the sādhu may be senior. Such a person would ultimately spite God as well. Furthermore, if someone has firm faith in God but lacks an extreme aversion towards the vishays and is still attracted to them, then even if a person like Muktānand Swāmi were to denounce those objects, he would go as far as to cut off the person's head with a sword in order to harm that person."
Nityānand Swāmi then asked, "Someone may identify his self with the body and may be attracted to the panchvishays as well; yet he seems to survive in the Satsangfellowship. How can this be explained?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "He survives in Satsang only as long as he is not confronted by an adverse situation. If a great sādhu or God were to denounce his egotism, cravings for taste, avarice, lust, anger or his belief that he is the body, then he would surely develop contempt for that sādhu. Then he would certainly malign him and thus fall fromSatsang. For example, whoever has drunk sweetened milk that has been poisoned by the venom of a snake, even though he may be living at present, is sure to die - within half an hour or an hour, in the morning or in the evening, today or tomorrow; eventually, he will die. In the same manner, he who identifies his self with the body will definitely bear contempt for the sādhu and will eventually fall from Satsang - either after one month or after two months; after one year or after two years or even after ten years; or maybe at the time of death or even after death - he will certainly fall.
"In comparison, if a person does not identify his self with the body and believes, 'I am the ātmā, due to which this body functions; I am characterised by eternal existence; I enlighten the indriyas and antahkaran. I am not one who becomes happy by possessing wealth, women, etc. Nor am I one who is saddened by not possessing them' - then such a person never bears contempt for the sādhu, no matter how strongly the sādhudenounces the panchvishays or the belief that one is the body. Furthermore, he would never quarrel with the sādhu over insignificant issues, nor would he hold a grudge against him."
Thereupon Nityānand Swāmi asked again. "How can one recognise someone who has an aversion for the panchvishays?"
Shriji Mahārāj answered, "A person with an aversion for the panchvishays can be recognised by the following characteristics: When he receives sumptuous food, he would eat it, but he would not enjoy it as much as he would enjoy eating simple food. In fact, he would be troubled by it. Also, he would become upset wearing fine clothes; he would not enjoy them as much as he would enjoy wearing tattered, coarse clothes. In fact, his mind becomes troubled by fine clothes. If he were to receive a luxurious bed, or if someone were to honour him, in fact, if he were to receive any sort of pleasant object, his mind would become troubled by it; in no way would he be pleased by it. On seeing such a person, one should realise, 'He has an aversion for the vishays.'"
Then Muktānand Swāmi asked another question, "Mahārāj, how can such an aversion for the panchvishays be developed?"
Shriji Mahārāj explained, "The principal means for developing such an aversion for thepanchvishays is the knowledge of God's greatness, and thereafter, ātmā-realisation andvairāgya.
"Now, what is this greatness of God? Well, it is by the fear of God that Indra rains; that the sun, the moon and flames of fire emit light; that the earth supports one and all; that the oceans do not exceed their boundaries; and that the herbs bear fruit in their appropriate seasons. Moreover, it is God who is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world, and whose powers include kāl, māyā, Purush and Akshar. What object in the world, then, can attract someone who has understood the greatness of God in this manner? Lust, anger, avarice, egotism, jealousy, cravings for taste, fine clothes, wealth, women, in fact, none of the panchvishays can bind him. This is because he has assessed everything. He knows 'God is like this, and these are the rewards of engaging in God's worship and listening to spiritual discourses. Akshar is like this, and the bliss associated with him is like this. Furthermore, the bliss of Golok, Vaikunth andShwetdwip is like this, whereas the pleasures of swarg are like this, and the happiness of a kingdom is like this.' In this manner, a person who has inferred the happiness latent within everything realises the bliss of God to be the highest and then attaches himself to Him. Then, is there any object in the world that can draw him away from the holy feet of God? There is none. Take, for example, a piece of iron. Once touched by a pārasmani; it is transformed into gold. Thereafter, it cannot be transformed back into iron even by the pārasmani itself. Similarly, one who has realised the greatness of God cannot be made to fall from the holy feet of God even by God Himself. Could he, then, be made to fall by any other object? Of course not.
"In addition to realising the greatness of God, such a person also deeply realises the greatness of the Sant who worships God. He feels, 'This Sant is truly great because he is a true devotee of the manifest form of God.' Uddhav, for example, was very learned, but because he had understood the greatness of God, he did not become conceited due to his intelligence. On the contrary, he yearned for the dust from the feet of thegopis and thus asked to be reborn as a vine. The reason for this was that he had witnessed the gopis' profound love towards God, whom even the verses of the Vedasseek. How, then, can a person who realises the greatness of the Sant of God harbour any conceit before the Sant? Why could he not bow down to him? In actual fact, he would behave as a servant of a servant before the Sant. Even if the Sant were to repeatedly physically mistreat him, he would tolerate it and would believe, 'It is my great fortune that I am bearing the contempt of such a Sant. Besides, due to my prārabdha, I would have been forced to bear the abuses of my wife and children, my parents, and the king. I may even have had to eat the leaves of dodi and mothya. At least here, in the company of the Sant, I am fortunate enough to be able to observe the vow of non-taste. Due to my prārabdha, I may have been forced to wear tattered clothes or rags. At least here with the Sant I am fortunate enough to have a blanket to cover myself with.'
"Conversely, if a person enters an assembly of sādhus and is not accordingly honoured by the Sant, and if he then bears an aversion towards the Sant, it implies that that person has not realised the greatness of the Sant; otherwise he would not bear an aversion in that manner. Consider the following as an example: If the British Governor of Mumbai were seated in an assembly, and if at that time a poor man were to enter that assembly but was not given a seat or welcomed in anyway, would the poor manbecome angry with the Governor? Would he feel like swearing at the Governor? Not at all. Why? Because the poor man has realised the eminence of the British official; that is, 'He is the ruler of the land, and I am a mere pauper.' Hence, he does not become upset. In the same manner, then, if a person has realised the greatness of the Sant, then regardless of how much the Sant scorns him, he would never become upset with theSant. In fact, if he does find a fault in anyone, he would find it in himself, but in no way would he perceive a flaw in the Sant. Thus, he who has realised the greatness of God and the Sant has a firm foundation in Satsang. Conversely, one cannot be certain about a person who has not realised such greatness."
LOYA-18: CONVICTION OF GOD
On the night of Posh sudi 1, Samvat 1877 [5 January 1821], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Surā Khāchar's darbār in Loyā. He was wearing a white khes and a warm, red dagli. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a thick, cotton cloth and a blanket. He had tied a white feto around His head and had tied a bokāni with another white feto. At that time, an assembly of paramhansasand an assembly of devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Then, after the paramhansas finished the evening ārti and prayers, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Please sing a devotional song." Thereupon, Muktānand Swāmi and some otherparamhansas sang devotional songs while playing musical instruments.
Shriji Mahārāj then said, "Now please conclude the singing as I wish to talk. If any doubts arise in what I say, please ask."
So saying, He began, "To develop the conviction of God is more difficult than anything else. Moreover, because this topic of conviction is extremely complex, I am afraid of discussing it. I feel, 'Upon discussing this topic, what if someone were to misunderstand it? What if, due to this discussion, any inclination that one may have firmly cultivated were to be destroyed, or even be uprooted?' Yet, there is no alternative but to reveal this fact. If one does not interpret it correctly, many problems can arise. Yet, until one has not understood this fact, much deficiency will remain in one's understanding. That is why I wish to deliver this discourse.
"When God assumed the form of Varāh, his form as a boar was very ugly. Assuming the avatār of Matsya, his form was exactly like that of a fish. In the Kachchha avatār, his form was exactly like that of other tortoises. In the Nrusinh avatār, his form was as frightening as a lion. In the Vāman avatār, his form as a dwarf had short hands and legs, a broad waist and a plump body. In the Vyās avatār, he appeared black, with lots of body hair and a foul body odour.
"Now, all those who attained God in whichever form He assumed meditated on that particular form. Then, as a result of that meditation, they attained a form similar to that form of God. Now, did those who attained Varāh see God exactly like a boar in his abode? Did those who attained Matsyaji see God exactly like a fish in his abode? Did those who attained Kurma see God exactly like a tortoise in his abode? Did those who attained Nrusinh see God exactly like a lion in his abode? Did those who attained Hayagriv see God exactly as a horse in his abode? Did those who worshipped Varāh as if he were their husband become a female boar? Did those who worshipped him with the love of a friend become a boar? Did those who worshipped Matsya as if he were their husband become a female fish? Did those who worshipped him with the love of a friend become a fish? Did those who worshipped Kurma as if he were their husband become a female tortoise? Did those who worshipped him with the love of a friend become a tortoise? Did those who worshipped Nrusinh as if he were their husband become a lioness? Did those who worshipped him with the love of a friend become a lion? Did those who worshipped Hayagriv as if he were their husband become a female horse? Did those who worshipped him with the love of a friend become a horse? If the original form of God was exactly like that of Varāh, Matsya, etc., then by meditating on them, the devotees of each avatār should attain that same form, and all that I have just mentioned should happen. However, this is not the case.
"Then you may ask, 'What is the form of that God like?' Well, the answer is that God is characterised by eternal existence, consciousness and bliss, and possesses a form full of divine light. In every single pore of His body, there is light equivalent to millions and millions of suns. Moreover, that God is so handsome that He puts even millions of Kāmdevs to shame. He is the lord of countless millions of brahmānds, the king of kings, the controller of all, the antaryāmi of all, and extremely blissful. Before His bliss, the pleasure of seeing countless beautiful women pales into insignificance. In fact, before the bliss of the form of that God, the pleasures of the vishays of this realm and the higher realms pale into insignificance. Such is the form of God. That form always has two arms, but by His wish, He may appear to have four arms, or sometimes to have eight arms, or He may even be seen as having a thousand arms.
"Furthermore, it is that very God who assumes the forms of Matsya, Kachchha, Varāh, etc., and the forms of Rām, Krishna, etc., for the purpose of fulfilling some task. He does not, however, abandon His original form to assume the form of these avatārs. That God Himself assumes the forms of Matsya, Kachchha, etc., possessing countless divine powers and boundless strength. Then, once the task for which He assumed a body is completed, He abandons that body. Hence, it is said in the Shrimad Bhāgwat:
Bhoo-bhāraha kshapito yena ... tām tanum vijahāvajaha | Kantakam kantakeneva dvayam chāpeeshituhu samam ||1
Through whichever physical body God relieved the burden of the earth, after removing the 'thorn' - in the form of the belief that one is the body - which had pierced thechaitanya of the beings, God also abandoned His own physical body, which was the 'thorn' used to remove the other 'thorn'.
"Also, God assumed the form of Nrusinh for the purpose of killing a demon. After completing that task, He decided to abandon that particular body. But who could kill a lion? So, by God's own will, Shiv, in the form of kāl, came assuming the form of asharabh. A fight ensued between Nrusinh and the sharabh. As a result, both left their physical bodies. That is how Shiv came to be known as Sharbheshwar Mahādev, and the location where Nrusinhji left his body became Narsinhi Shilā.
"Moreover, wherever paintings of Matsya, Kurma and other avatārs of God are portrayed, the lower portions of the paintings depict the form as a fish, a tortoise, etc. However, the upper portions of the paintings depict the murti of God with a conch, a disc, a mace, a lotus, a vaijayanti garland, silk garments, a crown, the Shrivatsa mark, as well as other such symbols. Thus, the form of God is eternally like this.
"Initially, at the time of his birth, Shri Krishna Bhagwān gave darshan in a four-armed form to Vasudev and Devki. He also gave darshan to Akrur in water in a four-armed form. When Rukmini fainted, he again gave darshan in a four-armed form. Arjun has also said: 'Tenaiva roopena chaturbhujen sahasra-bāho bhava vishvamurte ||2'. So Arjun also saw him as having a four-armed form. When Shri Krishna Bhagwān was seated under a pipal tree after the Yādavs had slaughtered themselves, Uddhavji and Maitreya Rishi saw the form of God having four-arms, along with a conch, a disc, a mace, a lotus and silk garments. Moreover, Shri Krishna Bhagwān was dark in complexion, yet his beauty is described as being capable of putting millions of Kāmdevs to shame.
"Therefore, although God appears to be like a human, the aforementioned luminosity and bliss are all inherent within Him. One who has the inclination of dhyān, dhārnā andsamādhi sees that very form as having the light of millions and millions of suns; such a person does not need to resort to using a torch or an oil lamp. Moreover, even though God is so luminous, the fact that this divine light cannot be seen is due to God's wish. If that God willed, 'May the devotees see Me as full of divine light,' then that same form would be seen as luminous. So, one who has a conviction of God realises, 'The divine powers, opulence and attendants of the abodes of Golok, Vaikunth, Shwetdwip andBrahmapur all accompany God. Furthermore, those who serve Him are Rādhikā, Lakshmi, etc.' He sees God in such a transcendent manner. But those who are fools see Him as a human. Shri Krishna Bhagwān has also mentioned in the Gitā:
Avajānanti mām moodhā mānusheem tanum-āshritam | Param bhāvam-ajānanto mama bhoote-maheshvaram ||3
Therefore, those who are fools fail to realise such transcendence of God and instead perceive human traits in God, seeing Him as a human like themselves.
"What is meant by perceiving human traits? Well, it is when all of the feelings of theantahkaran - i.e., lust, anger, avarice, infatuation, arrogance, matsar, desires, cravings, etc.; and all of the characteristics of the physical body - i.e., bones, skin, faeces, urine, etc., as well as birth, childhood, youth, old age, death, etc.; and all other human characteristics are perceived in God. A person who perceives such characteristics may appear to have a conviction of God, but his conviction is flawed. As a result, he will surely fall from the Satsang fellowship.
"That God's form is supremely divine - there is not even the slightest trace of human traits in God. Therefore, one should not perceive human traits in God, and one should instead initially view Him as a deity; then one should view Him as Brahmā, etc.; then one should view Him as Pradhān-Purush; then as Prakruti-Purush; then as Akshar; and finally as Purushottam - who transcends Akshar. For example, upon seeing the incredible, divine actions of Shri Krishna Bhagwān, the gopas of Vraj initially viewed him as a deity. Then, after listening to the words of Gargāchārya, they viewed him as God. Then they said, 'You are God. Therefore, show us your abode.' Thereafter, they were shown Akshardhām. One who believes God to be divine in this way should be known to have complete conviction.
"Sometimes people say, 'Initially, this person did not have the conviction of God, but now he does.' Does that mean that he did not see God initially? Well, he certainly did see Him, but he perceived human traits in Him. Later, after he develops conviction, he does darshan believing God to be completely divine; that is known as having developed the conviction of God. Moreover, if a person does not believe God to be completely divine, then he repeatedly becomes upset and constantly perceives virtues and flaws; i.e., he thinks, 'God is favouring that person, but not me,' or 'He often calls that person, but not me,' or 'He has more affection for that person, and less for me.' In this way, he continues perceiving virtues and flaws. As a result, his heart becomes more and more despondent day by day, and ultimately he falls from Satsang. Therefore, one should certainly not perceive human traits in God.
"Further, one should not perceive flaws even in the devotees of God. Why? Because physically a devotee may be blind, disabled, deaf, old, unattractive, or he may have leukoderma; but when he dies, does he still remain blind or disabled in the abode of God? Certainly not. Those are all features of humans. After leaving these features behind, he assumes a divine form and becomes brahmarup. Therefore, if one should not perceive flaws in the devotees of God, then how can one possibly perceive them in God?
"Regardless of whether you realise this fact today or you realise it after a hundred years, it must be realised. In fact, there is no alternative but to realise it and imbibe it firmly. Therefore, all devotees should remember this principle of Mine and discuss it amongst each other. Furthermore, whenever someone suffers a setback due to some misunderstanding, he should be alerted by mentioning this. In fact, one should discuss this principle of Mine routinely, at least once a day - this is My command. So please do not forget it; please, please, do not forget it!"
Saying this, Shriji Mahārāj bid 'Jai Swāminārāyan' to all of the devotees and returned to His residence smiling. After listening to Shriji Mahārāj's discourse, all of the sādhus and devotees realised Shriji Mahārāj as the cause of all avatārs, the 'avatāri', and greatly consolidated their belief of Him as being completely divine."
I see you like to steal from other websites. This is copied from Anirdesh.com. What a shame!
ReplyDelete