PANCHALA-1: ONE WHO IS INTELLIGENT; APPLYING A THOUGHT PROCESS
On Fāgun sudi 4, Samvat 1877 [3 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot that had been placed on a platform in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a white angarkhu and a white khes. He had tied a white feto around His head, the end of which was hanging on the right side. He had also covered Himself with a white blanket. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Then, after the evening ārti had been performed, Shriji Mahārāj sat on a cylindrical pillow and said, "I wish to ask a question to all of these senior paramhansas and senior devotees: One may have affection for God and also firm resolution to observe dharma; however, if one has not applied a thought process then the extremely alluring vishays, i.e., alluring sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch, will never be considered equivalent to the extremely repulsive vishays; nor will they be considered inferior to them. So, which thought must be applied so that the extremely alluring vishays seem equivalent to or inferior to the extremely repulsive vishays? I ask this question to all of the senior paramhansas and to all of the senior devotees. Whoever has, through whichever thought, realised the alluring vishays to be like the repulsive vishays or has realised them to be far more repulsive than even the repulsive ones, please reveal your thoughts."
Shriji Mahārāj then said, "Having heard your thoughts, I shall now tell you about the thought which I have maintained. Consider the following example: If someone sends a letter from a distant land, the intelligence of the writer of that letter can be inferred by reading the letter. Now, the appearance and manner of speech of the five Pāndavs, Draupadi, Kuntāji, Rukmini, Satyabhāmā, Jāmbavati and other queens of God, of God's son, Sāmb, and of other devotees are written in the scriptures. By hearing those scriptures, inference of their appearance allows us to visualise them as if having firsthand darshan; also, their intelligence can be inferred from their words. In the same manner, one hears from the Purāns, the Mahābhārat and other scriptures that God is the all-doer responsible for the creation, sustenance and dissolution of this cosmos - and that He eternally has a form. If He did not have a form, He could not be called the all-doer. Furthermore, Aksharbrahma is the abode in which God resides. It is that God who has a divine form; who is luminous and blissful; and who, at the time of creation, gives a buddhi, indriyas, a man and prāns to the jivas that had been merged in māyāalong with their kāran bodies at the time of dissolution. Why does He give these to thejivas? Well, He does so to enable them to indulge in the superior, intermediate and inferior types of vishays as well as for the purpose of attaining liberation.
"God has created enjoyments and places of enjoyment for the sake of those jivas; but within that, the creation of the superior vishays are for the purpose of alleviating the miseries of the inferior vishays. For example, a wealthy merchant may have had trees planted on both sides of a road to provide shade; he may have had water fountains constructed; he may also have had alms-houses and guest-houses constructed. He does all of this for the poor. Similarly, before God, Brahmā, Shiv, Indra and other deities are as poor as those paupers of '47 who boiled the fruits of pipal trees and then ate them. It is God who has created those superior vishays for the happiness of Brahmāand the other deities, and for humans. Also, in the previous example, since the rich merchant builds amenities in the form of alms-houses, guest-houses, etc., for the sake of the poor, it is obvious that compared to those, the luxuries in the merchant's own home must be far greater. Similarly, God has created happiness for Brahmā and others; so it is obvious to an intelligent person that compared to those, the bliss of His own abode must be far more superior. An intelligent person, then, can infer that there is an extreme abundance of bliss in the abode of God. As a result, the alluring vishaysbecome repulsive for him.
"Furthermore, all of the happiness related to vishays which is apparent in this world, be it for animals, humans, deities, ghosts, etc., is only due to some relation with God, and when coupled with dharma. But the bliss that is in God Himself cannot be found anywhere else. Consider the following example: The light from this burning torch which falls a short distance away is not as intense as the light in the vicinity of the torch. Very far away, there is no light at all. In the same way, elsewhere there is only a little bliss, but absolute bliss is only available in the vicinity of God. The further one is distanced from God, the less bliss one experiences. Therefore, one who is an aspirant realises, 'The further away I am from God, the more miseries I will face, and ultimately I will become extremely miserable. On the other hand, even the slightest association with God will provide much bliss. Therefore, I wish to keep close association with God. By doing so, I shall experience the highest form of bliss.' One who thinks in this manner, keeps a desire for the bliss of God and employs any means to maintain very close association with God can be called intelligent.
"Moreover, the happiness of humans exceeds the happiness of animals; and the happiness of a king exceeds that; and the happiness of deities exceeds that; and the happiness of Indra exceeds that; then Bruhaspati's happiness, then Brahmā's, thenVaikunth's. Beyond that, the happiness of Golok is superior, and finally, the bliss of God's Akshardhām is far more superior.
"In this way, realising the intensity of the bliss of God, one who is intelligent realises all other pleasures related to vishays to be insignificant. Compared to the bliss of God, the pleasures of Brahmā and others are like that of a poor man who begs with an earthen vessel at the door of a rich householder. When I think of the bliss of the abode of that God, I become indifferent to all other forms of happiness, and I feel, 'When will I leave this body to experience that bliss?' Moreover, when I naturally indulge in thepanchvishays, I entertain no particular thought; but, if I were to sense some pleasure in an object, My thoughts would immediately be diverted to the bliss of God, and My mind would become extremely indifferent.
"These thoughts can only be fully realised by one who is intelligent. In fact, I have affection towards one who is intelligent. Why? Because, I Myself am intelligent and My thought process is such. Moreover, one who is intelligent will also think similarly. In this way, it appears to Me that My thought is superior to all of your thoughts; therefore, all of you should firmly imbibe this thought of Mine in your hearts. Without applying this thought, if one's vrutti does become attached to alluring vishays, it will barely become detached and that too, after much effort. As for one who has applied this thought, however, very little effort is involved in withdrawing one's vrutti; one can easily realise the vanity of the vishays.
"This fact can only be understood by one who has a sharp intelligence and a craving for higher happiness. For example, a paisa is worth more than a cowry, and a rupee more than that; a gold coin is more valuable than that, and a chintāmani is more valuable than that. Similarly, wherever there are pleasures of the panchvishays, the bliss of God in His abode is far more superior in comparison. Therefore, this thought only settles in the heart of a person who is intelligent and who thinks in such a manner. When this thought does firmly settle in the heart, even if he happens to be in a forest, he would feel, 'I am surrounded by countless people and the wealth of a kingdom'; he would not believe himself to be miserable. Conversely, if he were in Indra's realms, he would feel, 'I am sitting in a forest'; he would not be gratified by the pleasures in the realm of Indra; in fact, he would realise those pleasures to be vain.
"Therefore, keeping this thought in mind, all of you should resolve, 'Now we want to reach only the abode of God; we do not want to be tempted by the vain pleasures of thepanchvishays along the way.' So, please keep such a firm resolve. Because what I have told all of you is My principle, please imbibe it firmly in your lives."
PANCHALA-2: SĀNKHYA AND YOGA
On Fāgun sudi 7, Samvat 1877 [10 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot that had been placed on a platform in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white blanket. He had also tied a white feto around His head. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as an assembly of devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj said, "Please bring the Moksh-dharma scripture so that we can arrange for a discourse on the chapter of Sānkhya and the chapter of Yoga." Thereupon, the scripture was brought, and Nityānand Swāmi commenced the reading.
Shriji Mahārāj then said, "The followers of Yoga consider jiva and ishwar to be the 25thelement and Paramātmā to be the 26th element. On the other hand, followers ofSānkhya include jiva and ishwar with the 24 elementsEN-2, and consider Paramātmā to be the 25th element. Of the two, the followers of Yoga believe that regardless of however much one contemplates upon the ātmā and non-ātmā, or however much one endeavours, without accepting the refuge of the manifest form of God, one cannot attain liberation. On the other hand, followers of Sānkhya believe that if one understands the ultimate fate of all deities, humans, etc., and develops vairāgya for the vishays and realises one's ātmā as transcending the three bodiesEN-6, then one becomes a mukta. But since each of these two types of beliefs have their own deficiencies, one should employ certain methods of interpretation for the purpose of resolving those deficiencies.
"The drawback of the Yoga doctrine is that both the jiva and ishwar have been considered as the 25th element and both have been said to have bodies comprised of 24 elements. As a result, both the jiva and ishwar seem equal. This would suggest that the sthul body is the same as virāt, the sukshma body is the same as sutrātmā, and thekāran body is the same as avyākrut. It also suggests that the waking state is the same as that of sustenance, the dream state is the same as that of creation, and the deep sleep state is the same as that of dissolution. Moreover, vishwa, taijas and prāgnawould be considered equal to Vishnu, Brahmā and Shiv respectively. Thus, those followers would worship the 26th element with such understanding. So, to remove this deficiency of equating jiva and ishwar, one should learn the following method of interpretation from a wise person: The five bhuts residing in the body of ishwar are known as mahābhuts, and those bhuts sustain the bodies of all jivas. On the other hand, the five bhuts in the body of the jiva are minor and are incapable of sustaining others. Also, the jiva possesses limited knowledge compared to ishwar, who is all-knowing. One should learn such a method of interpretation so that the jiva and ishwarare not understood to be equal to each other. If one has not done that and some adversary were to ask a question in a debate, then one would find it difficult to reply. As a result, one's own understanding would become confused. But if one has learnt such a method, then even if someone were to raise a question, one would not allow the jivaand ishwar to be considered as being equal to each other. Therefore, one should learn such a method of interpretation so that the jiva and ishwar do not seem to be equal, and one should listen to words to that effect.
"Next, the drawback of the followers of the Sānkhya doctrine is that they considerParamātmā to be the 25th element, transcending the 24 elements. They consider the 24 elements as being false and Paramātmā as being satya. If that were so, who would attain that Paramātmā? After all, the jiva, who is the attainer, is not considered distinct from the elements. Therefore, to remove that deficiency, one should learn the following method of interpretation from a wise person: jiva and ishwar have been included with the elements because those 24 elements cannot exist without the jiva and ishwar. But in reality jiva and ishwar are distinct from those elements and do attain Paramātmā. One should learn such a method of interpretation. If one has not done so, and an opponent in a debate were to ask a question, doubts would arise; i.e., one would think, 'If the elements are truly false, then what is the purpose of prescribing the observance of dharma such as brahmacharya, etc., and spiritual endeavours such as shravan,manan, nididhyās, etc., to attain Paramātmā?' Therefore, jiva and ishwar have been included with the elements because they have attained oneness with the elements, but in reality they are totally distinct from those elements and do attain Paramātmā. In this way, followers of Sānkhya should learn such methods of interpretation from a wisesādhu.
"Moreover, the followers of Yoga propound methods such as the following: Liberation is attained by meditating on the manifest form of the avatārs of God such as Matsya, Kachchha, Varāh, Nrusinh, Vāman, Rām, Krishna, etc. But the followers of Sānkhyaaccept methods which claim that liberation is attained when one fully realises the form of God, through experience, as described by the various Shruti scriptures - for example, as stated in: 'Yato vācho nivartante aprāpya manasā saha1'. Both doctrines are good and have been accepted by the great; one who follows both of them appropriately does attain the highest state. In both of these doctrines, the same spiritual endeavours have been prescribed, but the mode of worship in each is not the same; in fact, it is extremely different."
Having spoken in this manner, Shriji Mahārāj then told the paramhansas, "Now please sing devotional songs."
Thereupon Muktānand Swāmi and some other paramhansas commenced singing devotional songs to the accompaniment of musical instruments. Following this, Shriji Mahārāj said, "Now please stop the devotional songs. While you were singing, I thought over the principles of both Sānkhya and Yoga; please listen as I explain.
"For one who follows Yoga, the luminous, divine form of God which resides inAkshardhām at the time of ātyantik-pralay is worthy of being meditated on. Moreover, God in the form of Prakruti-Purush is also worthy of being meditating on, albeit to a lesser extent. To a lesser extent than that, God in the form of the 24 elementsEN-2, which have evolved from Prakruti-Purush, is also worthy of being meditated on. To a lesser extent than that, Hiranyagarbh; and to a lesser extent than that, Virāt - who has evolved from the 24 elements - is also worthy of being meditated on. Still to a lesser extent than that, Brahmā, Vishnu, Mahesh, as well as the avatārs of God on this earth such as Matsya, Kurma, Nrusinh, Varāh, etc., as well as shaligrām and other murtis of God - are all worthy of being meditated on. This, I realised while thinking, is the essence of the doctrine of Yoga.
"Then, I thought over the Sānkhya doctrine. They have done away with all those forms, and it appears that they believe, 'The cause of all thoughts is the jiva, and since there is nothing as pure as the jiva, it is appropriate to meditate on the jiva.' In order to refute this view of Sānkhya, I again thought of Yoga. Specifically, Purushottam Bhagwān - who transcends everything - has an anvay relationship with Prakruti-Purush and all other entities. Therefore, they are all God; all possess a divine form; all are satya and worthy of being meditated on. Certain Vedic verses also support this fact : 'Sarvam khalvidam brahma2', 'Neha nānāsti kinchana3', and 'Idam hi vishvam bhagavān-ivetaro yato jagat-sthāna-nirodha-sambhavāhā |4'. Thus, an aspirant who follows that path ofYoga encounters no obstacles. Why? Because that path is easy and relies on the manifest form of God. Because of this, through that path even an ordinary person can attain liberation without any difficulty.
"However, there is one drawback on that path: Prakruti-Purush, etc., are thought of as being the components of the all-transcending Purushottam Bhagwān. That is, the following belief could develop: Prakruti-Purush are components of God, and their components are Hiranyagarbh, Virāt, etc. If such an understanding develops, then that is a major drawback since one feels God is divisible and has components; however, God is, in fact, indivisible, without components, unchanging, imperishable and whole. Therefore, such a misunderstanding should not be allowed to arise.
"Also, one should understand, 'God is one and unparalleled, while others such asPrakruti-Purush, etc., are His devotees and meditate on Him.' That is why they are referred to as forms of God. Just as a great sādhu who meditates on God is known as a form of God, in the same way Prakruti-Purush, etc., are also forms of God. Moreover,Purushottam Shri Krishna - who transcends everything - Himself assumes the forms of Vāsudev, Sankarshan, Pradyumna and Aniruddha, and assumes the avatārs of Rām, Krishna, etc. Thus, He is worthy of being meditated on.' If one has such an understanding, then that path of Yoga is absolutely free of obstacles and is the best path.
"Now the drawback of the Sānkhya doctrine is that it claims, 'All that is grasped via theantahkaran and the indriyas is false, while all that is grasped through experience issatya.' Thereby, they propound all forms as being false. But along with that, they also consider the forms of God that have manifested to liberate the jivas as being false. In fact, they also view the forms of Aniruddha, Pradyumna and Sankarshan as being false. They only accept Vāsudev, who is nirgun. That is their major drawback.
"Therefore, it suits the followers of Sānkhya to believe, 'After imbibing the thoughts ofsānkhya and considering whatever has evolved from Prakruti-Purush as being perishable, one should realise one's own ātmā as being distinct from all, as being pure and brahmarup. Then, understanding the form of God that has manifested to liberate the jivas as being satya, one should meditate on Him.' In this manner, these two types of thoughts can be known if one learns from someone who is wise, like Me; otherwise, even if one studies or listens to the scriptures, one cannot understand them.
"In reality, the teachings of Yoga are actually for one who has become brahmarup by initially having practised thoughts of sānkhya. Thus, it is said:
Brahma-bhootaha prasannātmā na shochati na kānkshati | Samaha sarveshu bhooteshu mad-bhaktim labhate parām ||5
Ātmārāmāsh-cha munayo nirgranthā apyurukrame |
Kurvantyahaitukeem bhaktim-ittham-bhoota-guno harihi ||6
Parinishthito'pi nairgunya uttama-shloka-leelayā |
Gruheeta-chetā rajarshe ākhyānam yad-adheetavān ||7
"In this way, the Sānkhya doctrine is dependent on Yoga. Why? Because through thatsānkhya thought, the followers of Sānkhya realise all vishays that can be indulged in via the five indriyas and four antahkarans - which are distinct from one's own ātmā - to be totally vain. Therefore, such a person is not enticed by any objects, nor does he become attached to them. Moreover, if someone were to say to him, 'This object is extremely pleasurable,' he would think, 'It may be pleasurable, but it is perceived through the indriyas and antahkaran; and that which the indriyas and antahkaranperceive is asatya and perishable.' Such is the firm understanding of a follower ofSānkhya, who also realises his own ātmā as pure. Such a person should meditate on, worship, and offer bhakti to God according to the path of Yoga. If he does not adopt this, that would be a major flaw in him.
"In this manner, I have described the eternal principles of the Sānkhya scriptures and the Yoga scriptures having thoroughly pondered over them. The unorthodox proponents of Yoga and Sānkhya, however, have corrupted both paths. Those who are proponents of Yoga try to establish the truth of forms, and in the process they realise all people, the forms of Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiv, as well as the forms of Rām, Krishna and otheravatārs as equal to each other. Followers of Sānkhya denounce all forms, and in the process they also denounce places of pilgrimage; observances; murtis; yam and niyam; forms of dharma such as brahmacharya; as well as Brahmā, Vishnu, Shiv; and Rām, Krishna and other avatārs. Therefore, both, the unorthodox followers of Sānkhya and the unorthodox followers of Yoga, have deviated from the correct path. As a result, they will be consigned to narak."
PANCHALA-3: MUNI BĀWĀ; THAT WHICH IS INSTRUMENTAL IN ATTAINING LIBERATION IS KNOWN AS INTELLIGENCE
On Fāgun sudi 8, Samvat 1877 [11 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white blanket. He had also tied a white feto around His head. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as an assembly of devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Then Shriji Mahārāj said to the paramhansas, "Please begin a question-answer session."
Thereupon Muni Bāwā asked Brahmānand Swāmi, "We have attained this Satsangfellowship as well as the association of God. All other flaws have all been eradicated and we also have zeal to do satsang. Despite this, why do egotism and jealousy still remain?"
Brahmānand Swāmi then began to supply an answer but was unable to do so satisfactorily.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj said, "Such a person lacks intelligence. Why? Because one who is intelligent realises all of his flaws and virtues, as well as the virtues and flaws of others. On the other hand, one who is not intelligent only acknowledges his own virtues, but fails to realise his drawbacks; he feels himself to be as eminent as the Sanakādik, and he views other eminent people to be inferior to himself. One who is intelligent, though, realises his own flaws; i.e., he acknowledges the fact that I possess this many flaws. Then, maintaining an intense aversion towards those flaws, he eradicates them. Also, if a sādhu were to speak to him about eradicating those flaws, he would accept that advice as beneficial. As a result, no flaws of egotism, jealousy, etc., would remain in him. On the other hand, someone may appear to be very intelligent, but if he does not introspect over his own flaws, then his intelligence should be known to be merely worldly. Outwardly, that intelligence appears to be very sharp but he cannot be called intelligent; actually, he should be known to be an utter fool, and his intelligence is futile for attaining his own liberation. In comparison, someone else may possess only a little intelligence, but if, after realising his own flaws, he attempts to eradicate them, then even his limited intelligence is useful in attaining liberation. In fact, only he can be called intelligent. On the other hand, a person who never sees his own flaws and perceives only his own virtues should be known as a fool. However, one who acknowledges his own drawbacks should be known to be intelligent."
Thereafter, Shriji Mahārāj instructed, "Now please sing devotional songs." Theparamhansas then commenced singing 'Sakhi āj Mohan deethā re, sheriye āvatā re...1'.
Following this, Shriji Mahārāj spoke again, "Now please stop the singing. The devotional songs that you have just sung are full of love. While you were singing, I pondered over the nature of love and realised that love is a great asset and to worship God with love is commendable. After deep thought, though, I realised, 'Love itself is the māyā of God.' Why? Because if two women are casually talking to each other, looking at each other or touching each other, then that is a different type of love. Or if two men are talking to each other, looking at each other or casually touching each other, then that is also a different type of love. But if a man is looking at a woman, embracing her, listening to her talks, enjoying her fragrance, then the love and mental attraction he develops for her is such that that type of love does not develop between two men. Also, if a woman is looking at a man, embracing him, etc., then the love she develops for him through his association - with her mind being totally attracted towards him - is such that that type of love does not develop between two women. Therefore, that which is the cause of the perpetuation of the world, and that which causes bondage and the cycle of births and deaths, the māyā of God, itself takes the form of love.
"But then I thought, 'Sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch are the panchvishays. Having regarded everything else as perishable, if those vishays are directed only towards God, realising Him to be the only source of ultimate bliss, then that is fine - that is not māyā.' But then I thought that even that is not appropriate. After all, if one perceives sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch to be better in other objects as compared to those that that are in God, one will abandon God and will develop love for other objects. For example, Shri Krishna Bhagwān's 16,100 wives, who were celestial maidens in past lives, had asked for the following boon from Brahmā: 'O Mahārāj! We have experienced the touch of deities, demons and humans, but we have not experienced the touch of God as our husband. Therefore, please grace us so that he becomes our husband.' Thereupon, Brahmā said, 'Perform austerities. God will become your husband.' Subsequently, they performed intense austerities, after which Ashtāvakra Rishi and Nārad Muni both became pleased and granted the following boon: 'God will become your husband.' In this way, by performing many austerities in other lives, they attained Shri Krishna Bhagwān. However, on perceiving more beauty in Sāmb than in God, they became infatuated by Sāmb. Therefore, it is not appropriate for one whose mind is not steady to develop love for God through the pleasures of thevishays of the five indriyas. But if one's mind does remain steady, without harbouring doubts, then it is appropriate.
"Moreover, one who is intelligent should develop love for God in the following way: One should realise one's jiva as being distinct from the 24 elementsEN-2. Then, after uprooting the vruttis of the five indriyas that are firmly embedded in the jiva, and while remaining as the jiva alone, devoid of the vruttis of the indriyas, one should develop as much love for God as possible in a nirgun manner.
"What do I mean by nirgun? Well, the ten indriyas are the products of rajogun, theantahkaran and their presiding deities are the products of sattvagun, and the five bhutsand the panchvishays are the products of tamogun. One who believes himself to be distinct from the products of those three gunas and from the three gunas themselves, remaining as the jiva alone, is known as nirgun. One should become nirgun in this manner and develop love for God. Thus, it is said:
Nairgunyasthā ramante sma gunānukathane harehe |2
and
Parinishthito'pi nairgunya uttama-shloka-leelayā | Gruheeta-chetā rājarshe ākhyānam yad-adheetavān ||3
"Having realised the nature of the kshetra and the kshetragna, those who possess gnānin this manner attain ātmā-realisation and develop love for God. What is the kshetra? Well, the three bodies - sthul, sukshma and kāran - and the three states - waking, dream and deep sleep - are the kshetra. Such a person realises that kshetra to be distinct from his own ātmā; i.e., he feels, 'Those can never be any part of me; I am the knower; I am extremely pure, formless, genderless and chetan, while the kshetra is extremely impure, jad and perishable.' Understanding this firmly, he who developsvairāgya towards everything else and offers bhakti to God while observing swadharmais known to possess ekāntik bhakti and gnān. Such a devotee possessing gnān is superior to all. In fact, God has said:
Teshām gnānee nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir-vishishyate | Priyo hi gnānino'tyartham-aham sa che mama priyaha ||4
Udārāhā sarva evaite gnānee tvātmaiva me matam |5
"Realising this, one should uproot the indriyas, the antahkaran and the vishays from thejiva and develop love for God - only that is appropriate. As long as one has not uprooted them, one should extract work from them in the form of the darshan, touch, etc., of God. Moreover, they should not be regarded as one's benefactors - instead, they should be regarded as enemies. In fact, one should never feel gratitude towards them by thinking, 'They are beneficial to me in offering bhakti to God' - i.e., one should not feel that the eyes enable one to have the darshan of God; the ears enable one to listen to the discourses of God; the skin enables one to experience the touch of God; the nose enables one to experience the fragrance of God's rosary and tulsi; the mouth enables one to engage in spiritual discourses and sing devotional songs in praise of God; and the tongue enables one to experience the taste of God's prasād, etc. One should not understand them to be instrumental in performing bhakti of God. They should not be given gratitude, nor should they be trusted; on the contrary, they should be regarded only as enemies. Why? Because, what if in the process of experiencing happiness through the darshan, touch, etc., of God, they lure one to believe that there is pleasure in the darshan, touch, etc., of women and other objects? That would be detrimental. Therefore, those enemies in the form of the five indriyas should be confined, and work in the form of bhakti to God should be extracted from them. For example, a king who has captured his enemy keeps him chained and extracts work from him; never does the king free him or trust him. If he were to free him or trust him, then the enemy would definitely kill the king. In the same way, if one trusts one's enemies in the form of theindriyas and frees them, not keeping them confined, they will definitely make one fall from the path of God. Therefore, they should never be trusted.
"Moreover, just as the British arrest a criminal and keep him standing in a witness box to question him, without freeing him or trusting him, in the same way, the indriyas and the antahkaran should be kept in a witness box and in chains in the form of the niyamsof the five religious vowsEN-4, and then they should be made to offer bhakti to God. They should not, however, be given any gratitude; they should be looked upon only as enemies. If they are regarded as benefactors, realising them to be useful in bhakti, and if they are given gratitude, then in the process of experiencing the happiness of thedarshan, touch, etc., of God, they will lure one to believe that there is some pleasure in women and other objects. As a result, all efforts one has made will become futile. For example, if one spark of fire were to fall on a large pile of gunpowder, then that gunpowder would be completely reduced to ashes. Similarly, such a person's stability is not certain.
"Therefore, it is only appropriate that one develops love for God while behaving as theātmā. That is My principle, and one who develops love for God in this way is dear to Me. Moreover, one should think, 'The beauty of God cannot be found anywhere else; the touch of God cannot be found anywhere else; the fragrance of God cannot be found anywhere else; the bliss experienced from hearing God cannot be found anywhere else; and the tastes related to God cannot be found anywhere else. In this way, one should tempt the indriyas and the antahkaran, and divert them away from other vishays. Such understanding is appropriate."
Then Swayamprakāshānand Swāmi asked, "Mahārāj, in which place should one stay and develop all of these thoughts?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "One should think: 'I am not the sthul body, the sukshma body or the kāran body; I do not have the waking, dream or deep sleep states; I am not the fivegnān-indriyas, the five karma-indriyas, the four antahkarans or their presiding deities; in fact, I am distinct from all of these. I am chaitanya; I am a devotee of God.' If theindriyas and antahkaran misbehave in some way, they should be reprimanded in the following manner: 'Do you wish to see the beauty only of God, or do you also wish to see the beauty of others? Do you wish to listen to sounds related only to God and experience smells related to Him, or do you also wish to listen to other sounds and experience other smells? If you do hanker after the vishays leaving God aside, then what is there between you and me? Who are you and who am I? I will have absolutely nothing to do with you. Whatever you do, you will have to bear the consequences.' Reprimanding the indriyas and antahkaran in this manner, one should pray to God: 'O Mahārāj! O Swāmi! You intensely love your devotees! You are an ocean of mercy! The fault lies with the indriyas and antahkaran; I am distinct from them. In fact, they are my enemies. So, please protect me from their influence.' One should constantly offer prayer in this manner, and understanding one's own kshetragna to be chaitanya, one should offer love and bhakti to God."
PANCHALA-4: PERCEIVING DIVINITY IN THE HUMAN TRAITS OF GOD
On Fāgun vadi 3, Samvat 1877 [21 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot that had been placed on a platform in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a thin, white blanket. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, He was turning a rosary made of tulsi beads in His hand. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as an assembly of devotees from various places was gathered before Him.
Then Shriji Mahārāj said to the paramhansas, "Please begin a question-answer session amongst yourselves."
Thereupon Muni Bāwā asked a question to Brahmānand Swāmi, "Initially, one may have the conviction of God and may engage in worship and remembrance; but later, on seeing the human-like actions of God, doubts arise in that conviction. What is the cause of this?"
Brahmānand Swāmi then began to answer that question but was unable to do so satisfactorily.
Then, having thought for some time, Shriji Mahārāj spoke, "I shall answer that question." Continuing, He said, "The Vedas, the Purāns, the Mahābhārat, the Smrutisand the other scriptures proclaim that the original form of God, which is eternal, without a beginning and divine, resides in His Akshardhām. They also mention what that God is like. His form is not like any form that can be seen by the eyes. His sound is not like any sound that can be heard by the ears. His touch is not like any touch that can be felt by the skin. His smell is not like any smell that can be smelt by the nose. The tongue cannot describe that God. He cannot be conceived by the man; He cannot be contemplated upon by the chitt; He cannot be comprehended by the buddhi, nor can theahamkār fully claim, 'I am God's, and God is mine'. In this manner, God remains beyond the reach of the indriyas and the antahkaran.
"Moreover, the beauty of that God is such that it cannot be compared to any other object in this brahmānd - including everything from Brahmā to the smallest blade of grass. His sound is such that it cannot be compared to any other sounds in thisbrahmānd. The smell of God is such that it cannot be compared to any other smell in this brahmānd. The touch of God is such that it cannot be compared to any other touch in this brahmānd. The tastes related to God are such that they cannot be compared to any other taste in this brahmānd. The abode of God is such that it cannot be compared to any other place in this brahmānd. Specifically, out of all of the various places in the seven dwips and the nine khands, the extremely beautiful places of Brahmā and others on Meru, the various places on Mount Lokālok, the realms of Indra, Varun, Kuber, Shiv and Brahmā, and many other places, not one can compare to the abode of God. The bliss experienced by the devotees of God residing in that abode is such that it cannot be compared to any other type of bliss in this brahmānd.
"The form of that God is such that it cannot be compared to the form of anyone in thisbrahmānd. Why? Because all of the forms in this brahmānd which evolved fromPrakruti-Purush are māyik, whereas God is divine. So, since the two are totally different, how can they possibly be compared? For example, we can compare a man to something by saying, 'This man is like a buffalo, like a snake, like a sparrow, like a donkey, like a dog, like a crow or like an elephant.' But in reality, such comparisons are not appropriate for humans. Why? Because all of those animals are of a totally different category than humans. Even between a human and a human, there is no exact similarity whereby one can claim, 'This person is exactly like that person.' If he were exactly like the other person, then how could the original person be recognised? Therefore, despite the fact that all humans belong to the same category, no two are exactly alike. Just look at Bhago and Mulo - the two are said to be identical, but if one stays with them for a few days, one can distinguish between them and say, 'This is Bhago and this is Mulo.' But if there were no difference, how could they be recognised? So, if there is no great similarity between man and man, how can there be similarity between that which is māyik and that which is not māyik? What can possibly be compared to God and the abode of God? After all, all scriptures claim, 'God is beyond the reach of the indriyas and the antahkaran.'
"When that God does not wish to give His darshan to beings, He stays in that manner in His own Akshardhām with a divine form, thus remaining beyond reach. That God is the Lord of all lords, He is surrounded by countless divine luxuries and countless divine attendants, and He is the lord of countless millions of brahmānds. For example, suppose there is a great world-emperor whose kingdom stretches from where the sun rises to where it sets. Also, suppose that that emperor, by the strength of his own austerities, has attained divine powers like those of the deities and is ruling over the realms of swarg, Mrutyulok and pātāl - just like Arjun, who remained on the throne of Indra in Swarglok for many years with his own body, and King Nahush, who also became Indra. So powerful is this world-emperor that it is not possible to count the villages in his kingdom, as they are innumerable. The chiefs of these villages also cannot be counted, as they too are innumerable. Furthermore, the countless chiefs of those villages come to his darbār to make requests. The emperor's money, property, pleasures, palaces and wealth are also countless. Similarly, God is the king of the kings of countless villages in the form of brahmānds. Moreover, the chiefs of those villages in the form of brahmānds are Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiv. Just as in one village one chief is senior and the whole population of that village bows before him and follows his command, and just as the chief in turn bows before the king, similarly, in eachbrahmānd Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiv are senior, and the others in that brahmānd, that is the deities, demons, humans, rishis and prajāpatis of that brahmānd, worship them and follow their command. But Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiv in turn worship PurushottamBhagwān and follow His command. Furthermore, all of the Brahmās, Vishnus and Maheshes of all of the brahmānds pray to God: 'Mahārāj! Please have compassion on us and visit our brahmānd' - just as the chief of a village requests the world-emperor, 'Mahārāj! I am poor. Please visit my house. I shall serve You to the best of my ability.' In the same way, Brahmā, Vishnu and Shiv pray to that God, 'Mahārāj! Please have mercy upon us and grace us with Your darshan; do visit our brahmānd.' Only then does God assume a body in that brahmānd.
"Moreover, He assumes a body based on the task to be performed there, and He also behaves accordingly. If He assumes the body of a deity, then He behaves exactly like a deity. If He assumes the body of an animal, then He behaves exactly like an animal. For example, when God assumed the form of Varāh, He found the earth by smelling it. When He became Hayagriv, He started to neigh like a horse. When He assumed the bodies of water creatures such as Matsya and Kachchha, He moved only in water, but not on land. When He became the form of Nrusinh, He behaved exactly like a lion, not like a human.
"When that God assumes the form of a human being, He behaves exactly like a human. During Satya-yug, the lifespan of humans is 100,000 years, and thus God also lives for 100,000 years. Moreover, just as the people in Satya-yug can indulge in any object their mind desires, God also indulges in objects in the same manner, but He does not behave in any extraordinary way. Also, as the lifespan of humans in Tretā-yug is 10,000 years, when God is born in Tretā-yug, He also lives for that many years. The lifespan inDwāpar-yug is 1,000 years, and humans possess the strength of 10,000 elephants; thus, God also possesses the same strength and has the same lifespan. When God is born in Kali-yug, He assumes the lifespan and strength of humans according to the norms of Kali-yug. Moreover, just as a child is conceived, then develops in the womb, then is born, then undergoes the phases of childhood, youth and old age, and eventually dies, God also undergoes the same process, exactly like a human.
"Further, just as humans possess swabhāvs such as lust, anger, avarice, cravings for taste, egotism, affection, arrogance, matsar, jealousy, enmity, attachment, infatuation, happiness, misery, fear, fearlessness, bravery, cowardice, hunger, thirst, desires, cravings, sleep, prejudice, a feeling that this belongs to others, a feeling that this belongs to me, renunciation, detachment, etc., in the same way, all of those swabhāvsare apparent in God as well when He assumes a human body. All of the scriptures have also described that human form of God along with His original, divine form. One who has developed a firm conviction of both of those forms through intense shravan andmanan, never harbours doubts in any way; whereas one who lacks this type of understanding does harbour doubts in God.
"When that God - who possesses a divine form - assumes a human body, He behaves with swabhāvs similar to humans. However, one who is intelligent realises, 'He possesses lust, but it is not like that of other humans. In fact, anger, avarice, cravings for taste, egotism and other human swabhāvs are also present in God, but they certainly are not like those possessed by other humans.' An intelligent person realises that there is something divine about that God, and with this understanding, he develops the conviction of Him being God. For example, Shankarāchārya entered the body of a king in order to gain knowledge of certain amorous details. Thus, at that time, his bodily gestures and his emotions were all amorous like those of the king. The queen, however, was intelligent and realised, 'My husband did not possess such powers; therefore, some other jiva has entered his body.' In the same manner, divinity is apparent in God in human form. As a result, one develops the conviction of Him being God.
"Then you may say, 'If someone develops the conviction of God on noticing something divine, then if He were to display much divinity, many people would develop such conviction.' But the fact of the matter is as follows: All of the scriptures refer to the sun by saying, 'It is God.' Moreover, that sun is visible to everyone, and people do itsdarshan daily. Despite this, no person has ever been convinced of his or her own liberation as a result of its darshan; i.e., they do not believe, 'I have attained liberation.' On the other hand, after having the darshan of Rām, Krishna, and the other avatārs in human form; and of Nārad, Shuk and other sādhus, people do attain the conviction that my liberation is certainly guaranteed, and I am fulfilled. Even though there is no divine light in that God and those sādhus - in fact, only after lighting an oil lamp can one have their darshan - still, one becomes convinced of one's own liberation.
"Consider another example: Fire is also a visible form of God, as God has said,
Aham vaishvānaro bhootvā prāninām deham-āshritaha | Prānāpāna-samāyuktaha pachāmyannam chaturvidham ||1
The darshan of that fire is available to all, but that does not grant people conviction of their own liberation, whereas with the darshan of God and His sādhu, they do gain conviction of their own liberation. The reason for this is that there is a disparity between humans, and the sun and fire; as a result, one is not convinced of one's liberation upon having the darshan of the sun or fire. On the contrary, if someone touches fire, he will be burnt. Furthermore, when Kuntāji invoked Surya using the mantra given by Durvāsā, Surya came to Kuntāji in a human form just like Kuntāji's own form. As a result, she was able to enjoy his intimacy and thus conceived Karna. In actuality, Surya is extremely luminous; if he had come with all of his light, Kuntāji would have been burnt to death, and she would not have been able to enjoy his intimacy. Also, when Surya used to come to Satrājit Yādav, he came as a human. But when he came to Kuntāji and came to Satrājit, did he leave his place in the sky? In reality, he did remain in the sky; but assuming another form, that very same Surya came to Kuntāji and Satrājit. Moreover, there was just as much luminosity in that form as there is in the sun, but he suppressed that luminosity and came as a human. In the same way, if God were to give darshan to beings with all of His divinity, then humans would not find it suitable, and they would wonder, 'Is this a ghost, or what?' Therefore, God suppresses His own divine powers and gives darshan exactly like a human. But at the same time, He still remains present in His own abode. Only when God comes as a human are people able to do Hisdarshan, touch Him, and offer the nine types of bhakti.
"If God does not become like a human and instead behaves with complete divinity, then people would not be able to develop affection or feelings of affinity for Him. Why? Because a human develops affection and affinity for another human, animals develop mutual affection and affinity for other animals, but humans and animals do not develop the same affection and affinity for each other. Why? Because those belonging to the same category develop affection towards each other, but not towards those belonging to different categories. Similarly, God suppresses His divinity and becomes exactly like a human so that His devotees can develop affection for Him. He does not exhibit His divinity. His exhibiting divinity would place Him in a different category, and as a result, devotees would not be able to develop affection and affinity towards Him. It is for this reason that when God appears in human form, He remains extremely wary to ensure the concealment of His own divinity. If, in the process, He were to become a little impatient in some task, His divinity would become apparent. Occasionally, though, by His own wish, He may reveal His divinity to some devotee. For example, when Shri Krishna Bhagwān became impatient to kill Bhishma, he forgot his human-like nature and reverted to his divine powers. As a result, the earth was incapable of bearing the burden. When he revealed his divinity to Arjun, it was revealed as a result of his own wish. However, Arjun did not experience bliss due to that divinity; in fact, he became very uneasy. Then, when Shri Krishna Bhagwān gave darshan to Arjun in his human form, Arjun experienced bliss and said:
Drushtvedam mānusham roopam tava saumyam janārdana | Idāneem-asmi samvruttaha sachetāhā prakrutim gataha ||2
"Therefore, only when God behaves like a human does a person find it suitable; otherwise he would not. Yet, when God behaves as a human, one who does not have such understanding would find it difficult to accept His human-like nature. Moreover, if He were to behave with only divinity, one would be unable to comprehend that which is beyond the reach of the mind and speech. Hence, the scriptures have described God in both ways. One who has fully realised Him in this manner would not develop any doubts; but, doubts would certainly arise in one who does not understand in this manner.
"Now someone may claim, 'I have realised God, and I have the conviction of God.' But if he has not understood this discourse, then his conviction is still imperfect. For example, a person may have learnt a verse or a devotional song. If he were asked, 'Have you learnt this verse or this devotional song?' he would reply that he has, and he would also be able to recite it. But if he were to forget that verse or devotional song after a few days, then it can be said that when he originally learnt the verse, he had not learnt it properly. Why? Because that verse or devotional song was not fully imprinted in his jivathrough intense practice, and through shravan and manan. However, if something is learnt in childhood thoroughly, then it can be recalled when required even during youth or old age. In the same way, when that person attempted to develop the conviction of God, some deficiencies remained. If no deficiencies had remained, and if he had doneshravan, manan and intense reiteration in his jiva, then he would never have had any doubts at all."
PANCHALA-5: WHERE IS CONCEIT APPROPRIATE, AND WHERE IS HUMILITY APPROPRIATE?
On Fāgun vadi 8, Samvat 1877 [27 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot that had been placed on a platform in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a white khes and a warm, red dagli. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, 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.
Thereupon Swayamprakāshānand Swāmi asked a question: "When is conceit appropriate, and when is it not appropriate? When is humility appropriate, and when is it not appropriate?"
Shriji Mahārāj replied, "It is appropriate to be conceited before one who spites Satsang, or speaks derogatorily of God or His great Sant. If a person does speak derogatorily, one should retaliate with words as sharp as an arrow, but in no way should one become humble before a non-believer. In such situations, that is appropriate. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to be conceited before God or His Sant. Before them, putting conceit aside, behaving as a servant of servants and becoming humble is the only appropriate behaviour."
PANCHALA-6: THOSE WITH FIRM UPĀSANĀ ATTAIN LIBERATION
On the night of Fāgun vadi 9, Samvat 1877 [28 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot that had been placed on a platform in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a warm, red dagli along with a white angarkhu. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white blanket. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj said, "I thought for quite some time and having mentally skimmed through all of the scriptures, it became apparent that there has not been anyavatār as powerful as Shri Krishna. Why? Because Shri Krishna has, within himself, exhibited in various ways the characteristics of all of the other countless forms of himself. How? Firstly, after Devki gave birth to him, he gave darshan in a four-armed form holding a conch, a disc, a mace and a lotus, thereby revealing in himself the characteristics of the husband of Lakshmi, Vaikunthnāth. To his mother Yashodā, he showed the Vishwarup form in his own mouth, thereby revealing the characteristics of Aniruddha in himself through his thousand-headed form. He gave darshan to Akrur in the river Yamunā, thereby revealing the characteristics of Shesh-shāyi. He showed theVishwarup form to Arjun on the battlefield: 'Pashya me pārth roopāni shatasho'tha sahasrashaha |1'. There, he showed countless brahmānds and revealed the characteristics of Purushottam. Moreover, Shri Krishna himself has said:
Yasmāt-ksharam-ateeto'ham-aksharād-api chottamaha | Ato'smi loke vede cha prathitaha purushottamaha ||2
Thereby, he revealed himself as Purushottam. Also, he himself was the Shri Krishna who resides in Golok with Rādhikā. When he went to retrieve the Brāhmin's son, he gave darshan to Arjun as Bhumā-Purush. It was Vāsudev - who resides in Shwetdwip - who himself assumed that avatār. Moreover, throughout the Mahābhārat and theShrimad Bhāgwat, Narnārāyan has been referred to as that Shri Krishna himself. Therefore, the forms, strength and divine powers of that same God residing in thatavatār of Shri Krishna in various ways are complete. Thus, that avatār was very great. After all, other forms possessed a few divine powers, whereas he was replete with all divine powers. Therefore, there is no avatār like the avatār of Krishna; that avatār reigns as supreme. Only some powers have been revealed through the other avatārs. ThisAvatār, however, has revealed all divine powers and strength. Therefore, this Avatār is the greatest of all.
"If one has a firm conviction of the manifest form of Shri Krishna in this manner, and if that realisation never changes in any way, then even if one happens to commit a slip of conduct due to the influence of bad company, one would not fall from the path of liberation; one would certainly attain liberation. Therefore, if all of you paramhansas and devotees also cultivate such firmness of the upāsanā of God in this way, then if you happen to commit a slight slip of conduct, you will still ultimately attain liberation."
Hearing this discourse, all of the sādhus and devotees realised Shriji Mahārāj as the cause of all, thus strengthening their upāsanā.
PANCHALA-7: THE 'MĀYĀ' OF A MAGICIAN
About an hour-and-a-half after sunrise on Fāgun vadi 11, Samvat 1877 [29 March 1821], Shriji Mahārāj was sitting on a large, decorated cot that had been placed on a platform in Jhinābhāi's darbār in Panchālā. He was wearing a warm, red dagli and a white khes. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a thin, white blanket. At that time, an assembly of paramhansas as well as an assembly of devotees from various places had gathered before Him.
In the assembly, Shriji Mahārāj had Nityānand Swāmi read a passage from the first canto of the Shrimad Bhāgwat. In the beginning, Nityānand Swāmi explained the verse 'Janmādyasya yato... ||1'.
Thereupon Shriji Mahārāj Himself began to explain the meaning of one of the other parts of that verse, 'Yatra trisargo mrushā1': "One should realise that the entities evolved out of the three gunas of māyā, namely the five bhuts, the indriyas, theantahkaran and their presiding deities are never present in God at any time - past, present or future. Also, one should interpret the other part of that verse, 'Dhāmnā svena sadā nirastakuhakam1' as follows: God, via his own form - 'dhām2' - destroyed the deception in the form of the products of māyā; such is the supremely satya form of God. Moreover, just as the form of God in Akshardhām is resplendent with countless divine powers and divine light at the end of ātyantik-pralay, one should realise exactly the same regarding the manifest God in human form. One who realises this is said to have known God perfectly.
"However, when a foolish person looks at that manifest form of God with a māyik vision, he perceives a human like himself. Also, just as he himself is born, becomes a child, becomes a youth, becomes old and dies, in the same way, he believes God to undergo the same process. But when one worships God with sincerity, having faith in the words of the Ekāntik Sant of God, one's māyik vision disappears. Thereafter, one realises that same form of God as being the supreme chaitanya, characterised by eternal existence, consciousness and bliss. The Shrimad Bhāgwat also mentions:
Sa veda dhātuhu padaveem parasya duranta-veeryasya rathānga-pānehe | Yo'māyayā santatayānuvruttyā bhajeta tat-pāda-saroja-gandham ||3
"The phases of childhood, youth and old age apparent in God, as well as His birth and death are all perceived due to His yogic powers of creating an illusion. In reality, God remains absolutely unchanged. For example, an adept magician arms himself with weapons and ascends to the sky to fight against the warriors of the demons - the enemies of Indra. Then, having been cut to pieces, he falls to the ground. Thereafter, the magician's wife gathers those pieces together and burns herself on his funeral pyre. After a short while, the magician appears out of the sky, armed with weapons, exactly as he appeared before. He then asks the king for a reward and requests, 'Please return my wife.' Having seen such an astonishing performance, if one is unable to comprehend the 'māyā' of even a magician, how then can the yogic powers of God possibly be comprehended? One who does comprehend the 'māyā' of the magician realises: 'That magician has not died, nor has he been burnt; in reality, he is exactly the same as he was before.' In a similar manner, one who is said to have realised the form of God perfectly understands God to be eternal and imperishable - absolutely unchanging. For example, when Shri Krishna Bhagwān left his body, Rukmini and the other wives of God took his body and burnt themselves along with him. At that time, the ignorant thought, 'Now he is dead.' On the other hand, those who possessed gnān thought, 'He has disappeared from here and has manifested elsewhere.' They understood God as being eternal. Thus, Shri Krishna himself has said:
Avajānanti mām moodhā mānusheem tanum-āshitam | Param bhāvam-ajānanto mama bhoota-maheshvaram ||4
"So, if a fool understands God as having a form, then he understands Him as being merely like a human; or he understands God as being formless so that He is not considered māyik like other māyik forms. In this manner, a fool misunderstands on both accounts.
"But if God did not have a form then what about the fact that the Shrutis have said that during ātyantik-pralay, 'Sa aikshata5' meaning, 'That God saw...'. If God 'saw', then He had to have a form, possessing eyes, ears, and other organs. Moreover, it is said: 'Purushenātma-bhootena veeryam-ādhatta veeryavān ||6' i.e., that Purushottam became the form of Purush and impregnated māyā with virility. Therefore, God has always had a form.
"Moreover, when that Purushottam Nārāyan takes the form of Purush for some task, that Purush is eclipsed by the divine light of Purushottam, and only Purushottamremains. In the same way, when Purushottam takes the form of māyā, māyā is also eclipsed by the divine light of Purushottam, and only God remains in that form. Then God takes the form of mahattattva, then the forms of others evolved from mahattattva, then the form of Virāt - the entity evolved from those elements - then the form ofBrahmā and others created from that Virāt-Purush, and then the form of Nārad and the Sanakādik. In this manner, in whomever that Purushottam Bhagwān 'enters' for the purpose of fulfilling many types of tasks, He eclipses that entity by His own divine light and He Himself reigns supreme through that entity. Moreover, in whomever He resides, He suppresses their own light and manifests His own divine light - just as when fire enters iron, it suppresses the quality of coldness and the black colour of the iron and exhibits its own quality. Also, when the sun rises, the light from all of the stars, the moon, etc., merges into its own light, and only the sun's light remains. In the same way, in whomever God 'enters', He overpowers their light and exhibits His own divine light to a greater degree. Then, after completing the task for which He had 'entered' that entity, He separates from it. Thereafter, the other entity remains as he was before. Thus, the additional powers that that entity appeared to have should be known to actually bePurushottam Bhagwān's powers.
"In this way, the manifest form of Purushottam Nārāyan is the cause of all; He is forever divine and has a form. One should not perceive any type of imperfections in that form - it is like a murti made of sākar. Furthermore, one should meditate on, worship, and offerbhakti only to the form that one has seen. Furthermore, whichever human traits seem apparent in that God should be understood to be like the 'māyā' of a magician. One who has such an understanding does not develop any form of delusion for that God in any way.
"These facts can be understood by one with the following firm conviction: 'Even at the time of ātyantik-pralay, God and His devotees remain in Akshardhām, where the devotees enjoy divine bliss, having attained a divine and definite form. Moreover, the form of that God and the forms of the devotees of God possess divine light that is equivalent to the light of countless suns and moons.' Only one with such firm understanding is able to understand this fact.
"Also, it is to liberate the jivas and to allow those jivas to offer the nine types of bhakti to Him that that God - who has a luminous and divine form - becomes like a human out of compassion, always doing so with all of His strength, divine powers and attendants. Even then, those who realise this esoteric truth understand the human form of God on this earth as being exactly the same as the form of God residing in Akshardhām - they do not feel that there is even a slight difference between that form and this form. One who has known God in this way can be said to have known God perfectly. For him,māyā can be said to have been eradicated. One who realises this is called a devotee with gnān and an ekāntik bhakta. Moreover, if, by chance, a person possessing such firm upāsanā of the manifest form of God - never harbouring any doubts of māyā being present in the form of God - were to behave unbecomingly due to the influence of bad company or due to the influence of his own prārabdha karmas, even then he would attain liberation. On the other hand, one who has doubts in realising God in this way, even if he is a staunch, urdhvaretā brahmachāri and a great renunciant, attaining liberation would still be extremely difficult for him.
"If a person has, from the beginning, developed a firm conviction that God possesses a form even at the end of ātyantik-pralay, and if he were to listen to scriptures describing God as being merely full of divine light and formless, or if he were to hear such talks from someone, even then he would not harbour doubts. Why? Because he has realised, 'God eternally possesses a form and is never formless. Furthermore, that very God assumes the forms of Rām, Krishna, etc.' One with such firm understanding should be known to have perfect conviction."
In this manner, for the purpose of enlightening His devotees, Shriji Mahārāj talked about the unparalleled conviction of His own form. On hearing this, all of the paramhansasand devotees strengthened their faith in Shriji Mahārāj's form as described.
How about that. This guy knows how to copy and paste from anirdesh.com!!!
ReplyDelete