1.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Vaishãkh vad 11 [1st June 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed upon a beautifully coloured, decorated cot. The bedstead rested on the high veranda outside the west-facing rooms in the courtyard of the mandir of Shree Vãsudev-Nãrãyan in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Beautiful tassels of mogrã flowers decorated the large, white pãgh that was tied around His head. Also, a garland of mogrã flowers was hanging around His neck, and a string of flowers decorated His wrists. A sabhã of munis, as well haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 1.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the paramhans, “What is the understanding of a bhakta who experiences no obstacles in his bhakti towards Bhagvãn, despite facing unpleasant circumstances?” 1.3 The paramhans replied according to their understanding, but they were unable to provide a precise answer. 1.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A person who worships Bhagvãn needs firm vairãgya, and ãtmã-nishthã. If vairãgya is lacking, then when he obtains desired objects, he will also develop love for those objects in the same way that he has love for Bhagvãn. If ãtmã-nishthã is lacking, then when the body experiences pain or pleasure, that bhakta’s vruttis become disturbed. Then, he develops love for anything he considers to be full of happiness, and hates anything he considers to be full of misery. In this way, his mind becomes polluted. Therefore, a bhakta of Bhagvãn needs extremely firm ãtmã-nishthã as well as extremely firm vairãgya. 1.5 “This is because, by vairãgya, all worldly forms except for Bhagvãn’s murti are proven false; and through ãtmã-nishthã, worldly pleasures and miseries are proven false. A person who does not have the ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya, even though he has attained nirvikalp samãdhi, experiences happiness and peace only while he remains in samãdhi. But, when he comes out of samãdhi, he becomes attached to pleasurable object upon seeing them, as Nãrãyan-Dãs did.” 1.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A bhakta of Bhagvãn either has the strength of gnãn or the strength of love towards Bhagvãn. Of these, a person who has the strength of gnãn understands the greatness of Bhagvãn and cannot stay without Bhagvãn even for a moment. For example, Jhinã-Bhãi, Dev-Rãm, and Prabhã-Shankar have the strength of gnãn. Such bhaktas who understand the greatness of Bhagvãn should be known as having the strength of gnãn. A bhakta who has love for Bhagvãn, like the gopis of Vraj, should be known as having the strength of love. 1.7 “Of these, a person who has the strength of gnãn realises Bhagvãn as being antaryãmi and believes, ‘Bhagvãn does not make judgements based on what He hears from others. Instead, Bhagvãn recognises a bhakta’s strengths and speaks to him accordingly, but He does not act based on the advice of others’. Conversely, a person who believes, ‘Bhagvãn lectures me based on someone else’s words, even though I am not at fault’, has no gnãn of Bhagvãn. 1.8 “Even in worldly life we notice that a person who has selfish motives of gaining something from another will never see the other person’s faults. This is because his love is based on self-interest. Similarly, if a person has the self-interest that Bhagvãn will free him from the fear of births and deaths, then he will never perceive faults in Bhagvãn. But, a person who perceives faults in Bhagvãn by thinking, ‘Bhagvãn changes His opinion based on the prompting of others’, has neither the strength of gnãn nor the strength of love.” 1.9 Having said this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to the senior paramhans, “Please reveal which of these two is your strength.” 1.10 All the paramhans replied, “We have the strength of gnãn.” 1.11 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj continued, “A person who has the strength of love will do anything for his loved one, even that which is not fit to be done. For example, in the world, thieves have love for their wives and children. However, when they go to steal, they kill other people and pass on the money to their own family. In reality, that thief is quite cruel, but since he has love for his own family, he is not cruel towards them. Similarly, a person who has love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas can never become angry at or jealous of Bhagvãn or His bhaktas, and in no way does he perceive faults to them. A person who has such love can be said to have the strength of love. A person with neither the strength of gnãn nor the strength of love is said to be fickle and unpredictable.” 1.12 Having delivered this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj returned to His residence. 1.13 On the evening of that same day, Shreeji Mahãrãj was seated on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow placed on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. He was also wearing a garland of mogrã flowers around His neck. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some sãdhus were singing kirtans to the accompaniment of a dukad and sarodã. 1.14 When the sãdhus had finished singing, Shreeji Mahãrãj addressed the sabhã: “The Shikshãpatri which I have written should be read daily by all of my followers – tyãgi sãdhus and brahm-chãris, as well as all male and female grahasthas. Those who do not know how to read should listen to it daily; and those who do not have the facility to listen to it should worship it daily. I have stated this in the Shikshãpatri itself. A person should do upvãs on the day he fails to do any of the three. This is my ãgnã.” 1.15 Then, everyone promised to follow this ãgnã of Shreeji Mahãrãj by saying, “O Mahãrãj, we will do as you have said.” 1.16 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj became extremely pleased. He embraced all the sãdhus and brahm-chãris and imprinted His holy footprints on the chests of all the satsangis.

2.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on the evening of Jyeshth sud 6 [11th June 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a low, wooden seat in the courtyard of the mandir or Shree Vãsudev-Nãrãyan in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white chãdar. He had also tied a black-bordered, white pãgh around His head, and tassels of mogrã flowers had been inserted in the pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 2.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj posed a question: “A person sees that the world is perishable and that the chaitanya separates from the body and leaves it; however, the predominance of the world does not diminish from his heart. Despite thoroughly believing Bhagvãn to be an ocean of bliss, his mind still does not focus on Bhagvãn. Also, satsang does not become predominant in his heart and he cannot eradicate love for wealth, women, and other pleasures of the world. What can be the reason for this?” 2.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “The person lacks vairãgya. As a result, he cannot eradicate the predominance of the world from his heart, and nor can he develop love for Bhagvãn.” 2.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then clarified, “It is true that there is a deficiency in vairãgya, but it appears to me that the strength which forms as a person practices satsang, remains as it is forever; a different strength does not develop. By practicing satsang, that strength may be nourished, but the strength itself remains unchanged. Whenever a person’s strength is being formed, his mind becomes disturbed in the process of formation. Just as the mind of an extremely lustful person is disoriented by lust, and the mind of an extremely angry person is disoriented by anger, and the mind of an extremely greedy person is disoriented by greed, similarly, a person’s mind becomes disoriented in the process of developing his strength. Then, during the disturbance, whichever strength develops is the strength that remains. Therefore, a person who is wise should realise his own strength. When a person is disturbed by the influence of vicious natures, such as lust or anger, if he thinks about his own strength, the influence of the vicious natures is lessened. 2.5 “In addition, just as a grahastha feels regretful if he experiences lustful thoughts on seeing his attractive mother, sister, or daughter, similarly, a person should feel regretful when objects other than satsang become predominant in his heart. If a person does not feel similarly regretful on entertaining thoughts for indecent objects, then satsang does not remain predominant in his heart. 2.6 “In fact, the reward of all spiritual activities is satsang. In the eleventh skandh of the Shreemad Bhãgvat, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn says to Uddhav, ‘I am not as pleased by ashtãng-yog, thoughts of sãnkhya, scriptural study, tap, tyãg, yog, yagna, and vrats, as I am pleased by satsang’. In fact, it appears to me that all sanskãrs a person has gathered from previous lives have been attained through association with a sat-purush. Even today, those who obtain sanskãrs do so through association with a sat-purush. A person who has attained the association of such a sat-purush, but is still unable to understand matters as they really are should be known to have an extremely dull intellect. 2.7 “As for me, I consider this sabhã of satsangis to be far greater than the sabhãs in Shvet-Dvip, Golok, Vaikunth, and Badrikãshram; and I see all of these bhaktas as being extremely luminous. I take oath on this sabhã of sãdhus that there is not even the slightest lie in this matter. Why do I have to take oath in this way? Well, it is because not everyone understands such divinity, nor can they see it; that is why I have to take an oath. 2.8 “Therefore, even after attaining this satsang – which is rare for even Brahmã – affection for objects other than Bhagvãn still remains. This is because the person has not developed as firm a belief for the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn as he has for the non-pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn. That is why the Shrutis state, ‘If a person develops belief in his guru – who is the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn – in the same way that he has belief in the non-pratyaksha devs, then as a result, he attains all the purushãrths (dharma, arth, kãm, and moksh) which are described as attainable’. In fact, when he attains the company of such a sant, he has attained He who was to be attained after death, while still alive; he has attained that which is called moksh or kalyãn, while being alive. 2.9 “What I have just explained to you may appear to be simple, but in reality, it is extremely subtle. A person who is currently behaving in this way will understand that this is extremely subtle; but others will not even be able to understand it. That is how subtle it is.” 2.10 After delivering this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj bid “Jay Sachidãnand” to everyone and then returned to His residence.

3.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Ashãdh vad 1 [20th July 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was at His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. On that day, Harji Thakkar invited Shreeji Mahãrãj to sanctify his house. Shreeji Mahãrãj sat on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms. Harji Thakkar then performed pujã of Shreeji Mahãrãj with sandalwood paste mixed with saffron. In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj sat facing east and was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of mogrã flowers were hanging around His neck, gajarã of mogrã flowers were tied around both arms, and tassels of mogrã flowers beautifully decorated His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 3.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the entire sãdhu-mandal, “Compassion and love reside instinctively in the heart of a bhakta of Bhagvãn. Of the two, the nature of love is like honey; it sticks everywhere. The nature of compassion is that a person feels compassion towards everything. When Bharatji felt compassion for a deer, he had to take birth from the womb of a deer in his next life. Moreover, a person who is compassionate certainly develops love towards those he has compassion for. 3.3 “There are two methods for eradicating compassion and love: ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya. Of these, ãtmã-nishthã is such that nothing else can penetrate it. The nature of vairãgya is that it shows all objects to be perishable. Therefore, through ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya, compassion and affection are destroyed. In addition, the influences of the sthul, sukshma, and kãran bodies are destroyed, and then only brahm-sattã remains. But then, does a bhakta have compassion and love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas? Or does he not? That is the question.” 3.4 Muktãnand Swãmi, Shuk Muni, Nityãnand Swãmi, and other paramhans answered according to the extent of their understanding. However, none could give a satisfactory reply to Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question. 3.5 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Allow me to answer. The answer is that by gnãn and vairãgya, the chaitanya is freed from the mãyik influences of the three bodies, the three mental states, and the three gun of Mãyã. It is then pure, and not the slightest trace of mãyik influence remains. For example, consider the analogy of an oil lamp’s flame. Only when a wick-holder, some oil, and a wick unite can the flame of an oil lamp be seen and recognised. But, when the combination of these three components is broken, the flame can no longer be seen by anyone, nor can it be recognised by anyone. Therefore, only when those components are combined is it seen and recognised. Similarly, when all the mãyik influences are overcome by gnãn and vairãgya, the jeevãtmã remains as pure brahm-sattã. 3.6 “Now, the jeevãtmã is invisible to the mind and speech, and it is not perceivable by any of the indriyas. However, with time, if it attains the knowledge of Bhagvãn by associating with a pure sampradãy, and it fully understands the greatness of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, then it is freed from all mãyik influences. Then, that jeevãtmã also becomes brahm-rup. However, compassion and love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas still remains forever. To carry the analogy of the oil lamp further, when the combination of its components is broken, its flame remains within the air, where it cannot be perceived by any of the indriyas. However, the fragrance or foul smell that had pervaded that flame is not destroyed. Even though the air is more superior to the flame, it still becomes pervaded by fragrant or foul smells. Likewise, by gnãn and vairãgya, the jeevãtmã is freed from mãyik influences, but the impression of satsang is not lost. Even though it becomes brahm-rup, like Nãrad, the Sanakãdik, and Shukji, it behaves with intense compassion and love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. The following verses illustrate this: parinishthitopi nairgunya uttama-shloka-leelãya gruheeta-cheta rãjarshe akhyanam yad-adheetavan O King (Parikshit)! Despite being perfectly poised in the nirgun state, having been attracted by the leelãs of Bhagvãn, I (Shukdevji) studied the Shreemad Bhãgvat. harer-gunãkshipta-matir-bhagavãn bãdarãyanihi adhyagãn-mahad-ãkhyãnam nityam vishnu vishnu-jana-priyaha Honourable (Shukdevji) – son of Vyãs, to whom bhaktas of Vishnu are very dear – was attracted by the gun of Bhagvãn, and therefore constantly studied the great Shreemad Bhãgvat. ãtmãrãmãsh-cha-munayo... Despite being engaged in the ãtmã and having overcome all improper natures, the munis still offer selfless bhakti to Bhagvãn because He possesses such divya qualities. prãyena Munayo rãjan... O King [Parikshit]! Although the munis had no need for the rules of moral conduct and had attained the nirgun state, they still engaged themselves in praising the glory of Bhagvãn. “The Geetã also states: brahma-bhootaha prasannãtmã na shochati na kãnkshati samaha sarveshu bhooteshu mad-bhaktim labhate parãm A person, who has become brahm-rup remains joyful, grieves nothing, desires nothing, behaves equally with all beings and attains my supreme bhakti. 3.7 “In this way, many verses promote the view that bhaktas of Bhagvãn who have shed mãyik influences and have become brahm-rup by gnãn and vairãgya, still have compassion and love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. On the other hand, a person who is not a bhakta of Bhagvãn, but has overcome mãyik influences by ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya alone and behaves as the ãtmã, has been influenced by kusang during the process of realising Bhagvãn, who has only ãtmã-nishthã and do not have upãsanã of Bhagvãn. As a result, he does not develop compassion and love for bhaktas of Bhagvãn. Just as a foul smell lingers in the air and in fire, similarly, the impressions of kusang, which cannot be overcome by any means, lingers within him. 3.8 “For example, Ashvatthãmã was brahm-rup, but he was influenced by kusang. Therefore, he did not develop compassion or love for Shree Krishna Bhagvãn or His bhaktas, the Pãndavs. Similarly, the impressions of kusang do not disappear in a person who has only knowledge of the ãtmã, even though he becomes brahm-rup; nor does he develop compassion and love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. However, for a bhakta of Bhagvãn, even though mãyik influences are overcome, intense compassion and love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas increase. But, in no way are compassion and love ever lost; they always remain.” 3.9 After delivering this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj bid “Jay Sachidãnand” to everyone and then returned to His residence.

4.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Shrãvan sud 3 [6th August 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting facing north on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on the veranda outside the medi of His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 4.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Even though a bhakta of Bhagvãn may possess gnãn and vairãgya, and even if by the force of a thought process the bhakta has overcome affection for mãyik objects that cause him bondage, until he attains nirvikalp samãdhi, bãdhitãnu vrutti still remains within. 4.3 “Until a bhakta of Bhagvãn attains nirvikalp samãdhi – even though he may possess gnãn and vairãgya, and by the force of a thought process has overcome affection for mãyik objects that cause him bondage – bãdhitãnu vrutti remains within him. Due to this, he doubts, ‘Maybe attachment for my mother, father, wife, children, wealth, relatives, body, or property still remains!’ He remains fearful in this way. For example, a brave warrior, even though he has killed all of his enemies, still occasionally becomes frightened by even those dead enemies; even if he sees them in his dreams, he becomes frightened. Similarly, due to bãdhitãnu vrutti, even a bhakta possessing gnãn is afraid of the bondage of worldly objects that he has proved false from within and from which he has severed all affection. At some time, if he remembers the money he possessed, or his wife or other objects, he becomes fearful in his mind and thinks, ‘What if they cause bondage?’ In this way, the recalling of objects that have been falsified from within is called bãdhitãnu vrutti. 4.4 “Bãdhitãnu vrutti is overcome when nirvikalp samãdhi is attained. Then, that person becomes oblivious of eating and drinking, day and night, pain and pleasure. But, when he withdraws from nirvikalp samãdhi and enters savikalp samãdhi, bãdhitãnu vrutti still remains. As a result of the influence of that bãdhitãnu vrutti, when that bhakta contracts a fever or is at the moment of death, he sometimes recalls other objects besides Bhagvãn. At that time, he may babble meaninglessly; he may even say words like, ‘Mother! Father!’ Hearing this, a person who does not understand the nature of bãdhitãnu vrutti, will perceive faults in that bhakta by thinking, ‘He was called a bhakta of Bhagvãn; so, why does he speak like this at the time of death?’ Such faults are perceived without knowing the nature of bãdhitãnu vrutti. 4.5 “In the world many sinful people die with full consciousness. Also, a soldier or a Rãjput who has injured his body may die while being fully conscious. That being so, will a vimukh who dies with full consciousness still attain kalyãn, despite being a vimukh? Of course not; he will certainly be sent to Narak. Conversely, regardless of whether a bhakta of Bhagvãn dies while engaged in the chanting of Bhagvãn’s name, or in a disturbed state due to the influence of bãdhitãnu vrutti, bhakta still reaches the holy feet of Bhagvãn.” 4.6 On the evening of that same day, Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the medi of His residence. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places had gathered before Him. 4.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj then asked the senior paramhans, “Please describe how the jeev, which resides within the body, is present in one location, and how it pervades the entire body.” 4.8 The paramhans answered according to their understanding, but none were able to satisfactorily answer Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question. 4.9 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “In the body, just as food is transformed into semen, similarly, in the heart, the five bhuts are transformed into a disc of flesh, within which the jeev resides. The jeev clings to this disc of flesh like a torch made of rags that is set alight after being immersed in oil. Also, just as fire pervades an iron nail, similarly, the jeev actually resides in the disc of flesh, and by consciousness pervades the entire body. Therefore, regardless of where pain is felt in the body, it is the jeev itself that feels the pain; so, the jeev cannot be said to be separate from the pleasures and pains of the body. 4.10 “However, some may argue, ‘The jeev is luminous, whereas the disc of flesh and the body have no light. So, how can they be said to have combined?’ The answer to this is that just as without the combination of oil, a wick-holder and a wick, a flame cannot hover in space on its own, similarly, without associating with the disc of flesh the jeev cannot remain alone. Just as fire – which is distinct from the container, the oil and the wick – cannot be destroyed by breaking just the container, in the same way, the jeev does not die with the death of the body even though it pervades the disc of flesh and the body. Although the jeev does experience pleasure and pain along with the body, it is not perishable like the body. So, the jeev is indestructible and luminous, and it also pervades the body. 4.11 “Furthermore, if an oil lamp is placed at one location in a mandir, its flame predominantly pervades the wick; and secondarily, it also pervades the entire building. In the same way, the jeev also predominantly resides in and pervades the disc of flesh that is a product of the five bhuts; and secondarily, it resides in and pervades the entire body. Moreover, Bhagvãn resides within the jeev as a witness.”

5.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Bhãdarvã sud 11 [12th September 1826], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. He was also wearing a garland of mogrã flowers around His neck. Tassels of mogrã flowers decorated His pãgh, and gajarã of mogrã flowers were tied around His arms. A sabhã of the munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 5.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Someone please ask a question.” 5.3 So, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, of the various types of bhakti offered to Bhagvãn, which type of bhakti does not encounter any obstacles, and which type does encounter obstacles?” 5.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “In the third skandh of the Shreemad Bhãgvat, within the Kapil Geetã, Devhuti says to Kapilji, yan-nãmadheya-shravanãnu-keertanãd-yat-prahvanãd-yat-smaranã-dapi kvachit shvãdopi sadyaha savanãya kalpate katham punas-te bhagavan-nu darshanãt If even a ‘shvapach’ (a vile person who eats dog-meat) becomes immediately suitable for performing yagnas (perfectly purified) by merely hearing and repeating the name of Bhagvãn, by bowing to Bhagvãn, and by remembering Bhagvãn, then what can be said of your darshan? aho bata shavpachoto gareeyãn yaj-jiha-vãgre vartate nãma tubhyam tepus-tapas-te juhuvuhu sasnur-ãryã bhramã-nuchur-nãma grunanti ye te How amazing! Even a ‘shvapach’ (a vile person who eats dog-meat) becomes great if your name is on the tip of his tongue (he chants Bhagvãn’s name). Those who chant your name are the ones who have performed all tap, performed all yagnas, bathed in the sacred waters of all the places of pilgrimage, and studied all the Veds; they indeed are the ãryãs (the noble ones). “The greatness of Bhagvãn is described in these two verses. Also, Kapilji describes his own greatness to Devhuti: mad-bhayãd-vãti vãto-yam suryas-tapati mad-bhagyãt varshateendro dahatyagnir-mrutyush-charati mad-bhayãt It is by fear of me that the Vãyu (wind) blows, Surya (sun) shines, Indra (clouds) rains, Agni (fire) burns, and Yam (death) devours the living. 5.5 “A person who has bhakti for Bhagvãn coupled with such knowledge of His greatness encounters no obstacles in any form. On the other hand, a person who offers bhakti without realising the greatness of Bhagvãn and who perceives worldly characteristics in Him, does encounter obstacles.” 5.6 Muktãnand Swãmi then asked, “By what means can such bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness be developed?” 5.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness arises in a person’s heart by serving and associating with renowned sãdhus like Shukji and the Sanakãdik.” 5.8 Then, Shuk Muni asked, “One bhakta has perfect nishchay in Bhagvãn, and disturbances such as kãm, krodh, lobh, and moh do not arise in his heart. A second bhakta has perfect nishchay in Bhagvãn, but disturbances such as kãm, krodh, lobh, and moh do arise in his heart. When these two types of bhaktas leave their bodies, do they attain the same level of bliss in the dhãm of Bhagvãn, or do they attain different levels of bliss?” 5.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a bhakta of Bhagvãn whose nishchay is perfect and who is not disturbed by inner enemies, but desires anything other than the pratyaksha svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, then even if he is a great tyãgi, and has firm vairãgya and intense ãtmã-nishthã, he will attain a lower level of bliss. As for the other bhakta, even though he also has perfect nishchay in Bhagvãn, when inner enemies cause disturbances within, he feels guilt within his heart. But, except for the pratyaksha svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, he wishes for no other object. Then, even if he has only a slight amount of ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya, such a bhakta still attains profound bliss in the dhãm of Bhagvãn after leaving his body. 5.10 “This is because the first bhakta superficially appears to be a tyãgi and nishkãm. However, he does not have wish for the murti of Bhagvãn, but instead has desires for the darshan of the ãtmã and the four types of mukti. Therefore, he is called a sakãm bhakta. In the higher loks, he will certainly attain less bliss. Conversely, the second bhakta superficially appears to be a sakãm bhakta, but inwardly, that bhakta wishes for nothing except the murti of Bhagvãn. If a desire for pleasures other than the murti of Bhagvãn arises, he feels intense guilt in his mind. Therefore, he is called a nishkãm bhakta. When such a bhakta leaves his body, he attains profound bliss, becomes a pãrshad of Bhagvãn and develops intense love for the murti of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn.”

6.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Bhãdarvã vad 5 [21st September 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 6.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj looked compassionately at all the bhaktas and said, “If a bhakta of Bhagvãn engages in delivering kathãs, singing kirtans, listening to talks of Bhagvãn, and the rest of the nine types of bhakti with jealousy towards other bhaktas, then Bhagvãn is not very pleased by that bhakti. But, if a person discards his jealousy and then offers bhakti only for his own kalyãn, and not to display to other people, then Bhagvãn is pleased by that bhakti. Therefore, a person who wants to please Bhagvãn should not offer bhakti to please other people or out of jealousy for someone, but should do so only for his own kalyãn. 6.3 “While offering bhakti to Bhagvãn, if a person commits a mistake, he should not blame someone else for that fault. It is the very nature of all people that when they are at fault, they claim, ‘I made a mistake because someone else misled me; but I am not really at fault’. A person who says this is a fool. After all, others may say, ‘Go and jump into a well?’ Then, by such words, should a person really jump into a well? Of course not. Therefore, the fault lies only in the person who makes the mistake, but he blames others. 6.4 “Similarly, to blame the indriyas and antah-karans is the foolishness of the jeev. In reality, the jeev and the mind are close mutual friends. Their friendship is like the friendship between milk and water. When milk and water are mixed and heated on a fire, water settles below the milk and it burns, but it does not allow the milk to burn. To save the water, the milk overflows and extinguishes the fire. Such is their friendship. The jeev and the mind have a similarly close friendship. So, the mind never has thoughts of things that the jeev does not like. Only when the jeev likes something does the mind attempt to persuade the jeev. How does it attempt to persuade it? Well, when the jeev is performing dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, the mind suggests, ‘You should also perform dhyãn on some female bhakta Bhagvãn’. The mind then makes the jeev think of all of her features. Then, it forms indecent thoughts about her just as it forms indecent thoughts about other women. 6.5 “But, if the bhakta’s jeev is extremely pure, he will not accept the arguments of the mind, and instead, he will feel intense sorrow. Therefore, the mind will never entertain such thoughts again. Conversely, if his jeev is polluted and sinful, it will accept the arguments of the mind. Then, by making the bhakta repeatedly think of indecent thoughts, the mind will make him fall from the path of kalyãn. For this reason, a true mumukshu develops intense hatred for the talks of adharma, which are against the path of kalyãn, regardless of whether they are suggested by his own mind or by some other person. Then, his own mind or the other person will not reappear in an attempt to persuade him. 6.6 “Furthermore, because the mind is a friend of the jeev, it will never entertain thoughts which the jeev does not like. So, when indecent thoughts are formed in the mind, if the jeev becomes extremely furious with it, such thoughts will never arise in the mind again. Therefore, when indecent thoughts repeatedly arise in the mind, the bhakta should understand it to be the fault of his own jeev, not the fault of his mind alone. 6.7 “If a person offers bhakti to Bhagvãn with this understanding, the evil influence of some vimukh or his own mind will not be able to affect him even slightly. Then, he will be able to worship Bhagvãn without any obstacles.”

7.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Bhãdarvã vad 6 [22nd September 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow at His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. He was wearing garlands of mogrã flowers around His neck, and tassels of mogrã flowers also decorated His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 7.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to all the bhaktas, “I shall now tell you my deepest principle. For a person who desires his own kalyãn, nothing in this world is more blissful than Bhagvãn and His sant. Therefore, just as a person is deeply attached to his own body, he should be similarly attached to Bhagvãn and His sant. A person should also remain absolutely loyal to the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. Even if while keeping that loyalty his reputation increases or decreases, or he is honoured or insulted, or he lives or dies, in no way should he abandon his loyalty to Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. In addition, he should not allow hatred to develop towards them. Furthermore, he should not have as much love towards his body or bodily relations as he has towards the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. For a bhakta who behaves in this way, even extremely powerful enemies, such as kãm and krodh, are unable to defeat him.” 7.3 Continuing, Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “Bhagvãn, who possesses a definite murti, is always present in His dhãm, Akshardhãm. Bhaktas of Bhagvãn, who also possess a svarup, remain in His service in that dhãm. Therefore, a person who has taken firm refuge in the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn should not have the following fear in his mind: ‘What if I become a ghost or an evil spirit, or attain the lok of Indra or the lok of Brahmã after I die?’ He should not have such doubts in his mind. After all, a bhakta of Bhagvãn who possesses the understanding mentioned earlier definitely attains the dhãm of Bhagvãn; Bhagvãn does not leave him astray anywhere in between. 7.4 “Moreover, the bhakta should firmly keep his mind at the holy feet of Bhagvãn. Just as an iron nail that is firmly affixed to an iron surface can never be separated, similarly, a person’s mind should be fixed firmly at the holy feet of Bhagvãn. When the bhakta has kept his mind at the holy feet of Bhagvãn in this way, he does not have to die to attain the dhãm of Bhagvãn – he attains it while still alive.” 7.5 Having delivered this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj bid “Jay Sachidãnand” to everyone and then instructed the sabhã to disperse.

8.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Bhãdarvã vad 9 [25th September 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of mogrã flowers were hanging around His neck, and tassels of mogrã flowers decorated His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 8.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the munis, “How can a bhakta of Bhagvãn remain eternally happy?” The senior sãdhus replied according to their understanding, but then Shreeji Mahãrãj Himself said, “The answer is that a bhakta of Bhagvãn who has firm vairãgya and has extremely firm svadharma; who has gained control over all of his indriyas by these two means; who has intense love for the Bhagvãn and His bhaktas; who has a close friendship with Bhagvãn and His bhaktas; who never becomes indifferent towards Bhagvãn and His bhaktas; and who is pleased only by the company of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, but does not like the company of a vimukh – remains eternally happy in this lok and beyond. 8.3 “A person, who has not controlled his indriyas by vairãgya and svadharma remains miserable, despite staying in the company of Bhagvãn and His bhakta. This is because a person who has not gained control over his indriyas does not experience happiness anywhere. Even while engaged in bhakti towards Bhagvãn, when the indriyas are drawn towards the vishays, that bhakta experiences extreme misery in his heart. Therefore, only a person who gains control over his indriyas remains eternally happy. Furthermore, only a person who has gained control over his indriyas should be known to have vairãgya and dharma. A person who has not controlled his indriyas should not be known to possess vairãgya and dharma. Therefore, since a person who has vairãgya and dharma has restraint over all of his indriyas, he is eternally happy.” 8.4 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi said, “Mahãrãj, for a bhakta of Bhagvãn, what is the one greatest obstacle in his bhakti towards Bhagvãn?” 8.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “For a bhakta of Bhagvãn, the greatest obstacles are that he does not realise his own faults, his mind becomes distant from Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, and he develops a lack of concern towards the bhakta of Bhagvãn. These are the greatest obstacles for a bhakta.”

9.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Ãso sud 11 [11th October 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes, and was wearing garlands around His neck, and gajarã of flowers were tied around His arms. Also, tassels of flowers were hanging from His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 9.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to all the bhaktas, “I shall now describe to all of you male and female bhaktas the sthiti and understanding of my senior paramhans as it truly is. After listening to this talk, I request all of you to narrate how you behave and to reveal your sthiti.” 9.3 Saying this, Shreeji Mahãrãj began, “The senior sãdhus in my muni-mandal behave in such a way that the awareness within their hearts is the gateway to the dhãm of Bhagvãn. It is at this gateway where all the sãdhus remain standing. Consider the following analogy: A king’s guards, while standing at the entrance of the king’s palace, do not allow any thieves or robbers to come near the king. They courageously believe, ‘If anyone comes near the king to cause problems, we will cut them to pieces, but in no way will we let them reach the king’. With such courage, they wait, armed with shields and swords. Similarly, all these sãdhus are standing at the gateway of the dhãm of Bhagvãn in the form of awareness. 9.4 “Inside that gateway of awareness (Akshardhãm) dwells Bhagvãn, of whom they do darshan. They do not allow wealth, women, or any other worldly objects to enter that murti of Bhagvãn in their heart. If any worldly object does forcefully attempt to enter the heart, they destroy that object, but in no way do they allow it to enter the location in their heart where they have secured Bhagvãn. In this way, they constantly remain alert like a brave warrior. However, they do not move from their position, regardless of whether they encounter progress or regress, happiness or misery, praises or insults, or countless other types of difficulties. 9.5 “However, someone may doubt, ‘If they do not move from their position, then how do they perform their bodily activities, such as eating and drinking?’ I shall explain this using the following example: Consider a woman who goes to a well to draw water. She places her feet on the edge of the well. On the one hand, she remains cautious of this, for fear that she will fall into the well. However, her vrutti is also fixed upon drawing water from the well. In another example, a man who has mounted a horse is aware of his feet in the horse’s stirrups and is also aware of the reins in his hands. While riding, he is also aware of the trees, ditches, and stones that come along the path. In the same way, all these sãdhus, while keeping antar-drashti, remain in the sevã of Bhagvãn and also perform their bodily activities; but they are not deflected from their sthiti.” 9.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj therefore revealed the sthiti of the senior sãdhus and then said, “All of you should keep antar-drashti and constantly remain in the sevã of Bhagvãn. Moreover, you should not allow objects other than Bhagvãn to become dearer to you than Him. All should be extremely cautious of this. 9.7 “After all, if a king’s guard is careless while guarding the king, thieves and robbers would reach the king, and the guard’s service would be rendered meaningless. Similarly, if a bhakta develops love for the objects other than Bhagvãn, then money, women, and other objects also enter his heart, in which lies the awareness of Bhagvãn. Due to this, his bhakti is rendered meaningless. 9.8 “Therefore, a person who wishes to keep his bhakti free from obstacles and to attain the holy feet of Bhagvãn, should remain constantly vigilant at the gateway of the dhãm of Bhagvãn in the form of awareness, and should not allow any objects except Bhagvãn to enter his heart.” 9.9 In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj spoke words of wisdom for all of His bhaktas.

10.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Ãso vad 12 [28th October 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar's darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 10.2 In the sabhã, an educated brãhman of the Mãdhvi Sampradãy came to Shreeji Mahãrãj. Shreeji Mahãrãj asked him, “In the shãstras of your sampradãy, Vrundãvan is called the dhãm of Bhagvãn. It is also said, ‘Even at the time of final destruction, Vrundãvan is not destroyed’. The followers of Shiv also claim, ‘At the time of final destruction, Kãshi is not destroyed’. But, I do not understand these statements. This is because during final destruction, pruthvi, jal, tej, vãyu, and ãkãsh are completely destroyed, so how can Vrundãvan and Kãshi possibly remain? If they do remain, how are they supported? Such serious doubts arise.” 10.3 Having said this, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked for the Shreemad Bhãgvat shãstras to be brought, and the narration of the four types of destruction (nitya-pralay, nimit-pralay, prãkrut-pralay, and ãtyantik-pralay) from the eleventh and twelfth skandhs. 10.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Looking from the viewpoint of the Shreemad Bhãgvat and the Geetã, during final destruction, nothing remains of anything that has evolved from Prakruti and Purush. So, if in final destruction Vrundãvan does remain intact, then please quote a verse from the shãstras of Vyãsji or a verse from the Veds to prove it. There is no greater ãchãrya than Vyãsji. Others, who have become ãchãryas and have established their sampradãys, have accepted the shãstras of Vyãsji as respected. Therefore, the words of Vyãsji, the greatest ãchãrya, are more respected than the words of all the other ãchãryas. So, using the words of Vyãsji and the verse of the Veds, verify the statement, ‘Vrundãvan is not destroyed in the final destruction’. Only then will my doubt be cleared. 10.5 “Moreover, whoever has become an ãchãrya has established his beliefs based on reference from the words of the Pãdma Purãn. Mostly, they have established these beliefs by inserting fictional verses into the Pãdma Purãn. As a result, no one besides their own followers believes them. Therefore, I will be convinced if you quote the words of the popular Shreemad Bhãgvat Purãn. This is because Vyãsji had composed the Shreemad Bhãgvat after taking the essence of all the Veds, Purãns, and the historical shãstras. Therefore, there is no Purãn as perfectly respected as the Shreemad Bhãgvat. Also, the whole of the Mahãbhãrat is not as respected as the Bhagvad Geetã. Therefore, quote the words of such powerful shãstras to convince me.” 10.6 After hearing these words of Shreeji Mahãrãj, the brãhman said, “Mahãrãj, the question you have raised is logical. There is no one on this earth capable of answering your question. In my mind, I have formed a firm belief, ‘You are the ãchãrya of all ãchãryas, and the ishvar of all ishvars’. Therefore, please have compassion on me and explain to me your principle.” 10.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “From the Veds, the Purãns, the historical shãstras, and the Smrutis, I have formed the belief that jeev, mãyã, ishvar, Brahm, and Parbrahm are all eternal. Consider it as follows: Mãyã represents the soil, the jeevs represent the seeds in the soil, and ishvar, represents the rain. By the will of Bhagvãn, an ishvar – in the form of Purush – unites with Mãyã. As a result, just as the seeds in the soil sprout by the association of rainwater, similarly, the jeevs, which are eternal, arise from within Mãyã; but new jeevs are not created. Therefore, just as ishvar is eternal, Mãyã is eternal. The jeevs residing within Mãyã are also eternal, and they are not components of Bhagvãn; they are always jeevs. 10.8 “When a jeev seeks the refuge of Bhagvãn, it overcomes Bhagvãn’s Mãyã, becomes brahm-rup like Nãrad and the Sanakãdik, attains the dhãm of Bhagvãn, and becomes His pãrshad. This is my principle.” 10.9 Hearing these words of Shreeji Mahãrãj, the brãhman abandoned his Vaishnav beliefs, accepted Shreeji Mahãrãj’s refuge, and was initiated into the Uddhav Sampradãy.

11.1 In the Samvat year 1883, on Ashãdh sud 3 [27th June 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar's darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 11.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “I wish to ask the following question: Is there one method to overcome both the indriyas and the mind? Or is the method to overcome the indriyas different from the means to overcome the mind? That is the question.” 11.3 The senior paramhans replied according to their understanding, but they were unable to give a precise answer. 11.4 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj said Himself, “The answer is that the indriyas are overcome by vairãgya, svadharma, tap, and niyams; and the mind is overcome by the nine types of bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness.” 11.5 Muktãnand Swãmi then asked, “How can the type of bliss that a bhakta of Bhagvãn enjoys in nirvikalp samãdhi be enjoyed even without samãdhi?” 11.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If the bhakta has profound attachment and deep love for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, just like the attachment and love that he has for his own body, then the type of bliss that prevails in nirvikalp samãdhi will continue to remain forever, even without that samãdhi. That is the only answer.” 11.7 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked paramhans, “What type of understanding must a bhakta have, where he will in no way recede from the path of kalyãn regardless of the unpleasant circumstances he may encounter, and where he develops such firmness that he will not be affected by any obstacles whatsoever?” 11.8 The senior sãdhus attempted to answer according to their understanding, but Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question was not completely answered. 11.9 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The answer to this is as follows: If a person is profoundly attached to Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, just as he is attached to his body, then he will not be affected by any obstacles. In fact, regardless of the extent of unpleasant circumstances he may encounter, he will not turn away from Bhagvãn and His bhaktas.” 11.10 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj addressed the paramhans again. He said, “When Sitãji was exiled to the forest by Rãmchandraji, she felt great sorrow. Lakshmanji was also very unhappy. But then Sitãji explained to Lakshmanji, ‘I am not crying because of my own grief; I am crying for the grief of Rãmchandraji. He is extremely compassionate, and since he has exiled me to the forest out of fear of public accusation, he must be thinking, “I have sent Sitã to the forest without any fault of her own.” Knowing this and being compassionate, he must be experiencing severe grief in his mind. So, please tell Rãmchandraji, “Sitã is not distressed; she will go to Vãlmiki Rushi’s ãshram and happily engage in your worship there. So, do not feel any sorrow on account of Sitã’s distress.” Please pass this message to Rãmchandraji. Sitãji sent this message with Lakshmanji, but in no way did she perceive faults in Rãmchandraji. 11.11 “Now, one bhakta is such that he does not perceive faults in Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, but his vairãgya and dharma are moderate. On the other hand, another bhakta has intense vairãgya and dharma, but does not have an understanding like that of Sitã. Of these two types of bhaktas, which type should a person lovingly keep the company of?” 11.12 Chaitanyãnand Swãmi replied, “A person should only keep the company – with intense love – of someone who has an understanding like Sitãji, even though that person’s dharma and vairãgya may be moderate. He should not keep the company of someone, who perceives faults in Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, even though that person may have intense vairãgya and dharma.” 11.13 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The answer is correct.”

12.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Ashãdh vad 8 [16th July 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the balcony of the medi of His residence in Dãdã Khãchar's darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 12.2 Then, for the benefit of His bhaktas, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A person who desires his own kalyãn should not have any form of pride, such as, ‘I have been born in an upper-class family’, or ‘I am wealthy’, or ‘I am handsome’, or ‘I am a scholar’. He should not keep any of these beliefs. In fact, even with a humble satsangi, he should behave as a dãs of a dãs. 12.3 “Furthermore, even though he may be called a satsangi, a person who has perceived avgun in Bhagvãn or His bhaktas should be known to be like a rabid dog. Just as a person who is touched by the saliva of a rabid dog also become rabid, similarly, if a person listens to the talks of or keeps affection for someone who has perceived avgun in Bhagvãn or His bhaktas, then both the person who keeps the affection and the listener become like a vimukh. Then, just as tuberculosis is never cured by any medicine, similarly, the demonic attitude of a person who has perceived avgun in Bhagvãn or His bhaktas is never eradicated from his heart. On the other hand, a person who may have killed countless brãhmans; or may have killed countless children; or may have killed countless women; or may have killed countless cows; or may have even associated many times with the wife of his guru, can be freed from these sins at some time or other. In fact, the shãstras even describe the methods to do so. However, no shãstra describes methods to be released from the sin of perceiving avgun in Bhagvãn or His bhaktas. If a person consumes poison, or falls into the ocean, or falls from a mountain, or is eaten by a demon, then he has to die only once. However, a person who insults Bhagvãn or His bhaktas has to continuously die and be reborn for countless millions of years. 12.4 “At most, a disease leads to the death of the body; or an enemy destroys the body; but, the jeev is not destroyed. However, by insulting Bhagvãn or His bhaktas, the jeev is also destroyed. Someone may ask, ‘How can the jeev be destroyed?’ Well, for example, a hermaphrodite cannot be called a man or a woman, he can only be called impotent. Similarly, the jeev of a person who insults Bhagvãn or His bhaktas also becomes impotent; the jeev is never able to make an effort for his own kalyãn. Therefore, his jeev should be known as having been destroyed. Knowing this, a person should never insult Bhagvãn or His bhaktas. 12.5 “In addition, a person should not have deep affection for his bodily relations, even if they happen to be satsangis. For example, if a snake’s venom falls into some sweetened milk, then whoever drinks it will die. In the same way, even if a person’s bodily relations are bhaktas of Bhagvãn, they are still mixed with venom (relationships). Therefore, a person who has affection for them will definitely sacrifice his kalyãn. Knowing this, a person who wishes for his own kalyãn should not maintain affection for his bodily relations. In this way, after becoming detached from worldly life and having love for the holy feet of Bhagvãn, a person should continue to engage in the worship of Bhagvãn. 12.6 “A person who retains the talk that I have just delivered within his heart, will never encounter obstacles on the path of kalyãn. In fact, this talk is like a miraculous technique.” 12.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj concluded the talk with these words.

13.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Ashãdh vad 9 [17th July 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of mogrã flowers were hanging around His neck, and tassels decorated His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some of the munis were singing kirtans to the accompaniment of a dukad and sarodã. 13.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please stop singing the kirtans, and let us talk about Bhagvãn.” Shreeji Mahãrãj asked a question to the muni-mandal: “A jeev’s body is dependent upon the karmas performed in past lives. That is why it is not always so stable. For example, sometimes a person remains healthy, and sometimes he becomes ill; sometimes he functions independently, and sometimes he becomes dependent, where he may or may not be able to stay where he chooses; and sometimes he may be able to stay in the company of bhaktas, but sometimes he may even be separated from them and be forced to live alone. All of this is due to the influence of karma or kãl. In such circumstance, a person’s determination in observing niyams becomes unsteady. 13.3 “Further, if a ruler like the British detains a person; or if a person’s mind and indriyas – which are also like the British rulers – keep him under their control, then it is uncertain whether he will stay in the company of sãdhus or follow the niyams of satsang. Having said this, the shãstras have specifically stated: ‘If a person perfectly possesses all four of the qualities of dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti, then he can be called an ekãntik bhakta, and such a person attains ultimate kalyãn’. Also, it seems unlikely that the physical conditions will remain stable under the influence of Kãl and karma. Therefore, how can a bhakta of Bhagvãn maintain his ekãntik state? That is the question.” 13.4 Then, Gopãlãnand Swãmi, Chaitanyãnand Swãmi, Nityãnand Swãmi, Muktãnand Swãmi, Brahmãnand Swãmi, Shuk Muni, and other senior sãdhus answered according to whatever they felt was correct but were unable to answer the question satisfactorily. 13.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said in reply, “Please listen as I reveal to you the way in which my belief of Bhagvãn remains firms.” He then began, “Regardless of how much pain or pleasure comes my way, and regardless of whether wealth or poverty comes my way, in those circumstances, first I realise the immense greatness of Bhagvãn. On seeing the riches and royal wealth of the great kings of this world, it is this understanding that allows me to not associate even the slightest amount of significance to them in my heart. I believe that for me, there is nothing greater than Bhagvãn; and so my mind is firmly attached to His holy feet. In fact, my love for Bhagvãn is so firm that even Kãl, karma, and Mãyã are incapable of destroying that love. Even if my own mind attempts to destroy that love for Bhagvãn, it cannot be destroyed. In fact, my love is such that regardless of the extent of happiness or misery that may happen to come my way, the love is not destroyed. 13.6 “Also, the natural inclination of my mind is such that I do not at all prefer to live in cities, in mansions or in royal palaces. On the contrary, I very much prefer to stay where there are forests, mountains, rivers, trees, or in some secluded place. I feel that it would be nice to sit alone in some secluded place and perform dhyãn upon Bhagvãn. That is what I prefer at all times. In fact, before I had the darshan of Rãmãnand Swãmi, I had already decided with Muktãnand Swãmi, ‘After you arrange for me to have the darshan of Rãmãnand Swãmi, the two of us will retire to the forest and constantly engage ourselves in the dhyãn of Bhagvãn, and never shall we return to stay amongst people’. Such was the determination in my mind then; even now, I feel exactly the same. 13.7 “In addition, the profound love that I have for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas is so strong that even Kãl, karma, and Mãyã are incapable of eradicating that love. In fact, even if my own mind attempted to eradicate it, it would definitely not be eradicated from my heart. Such is the intense love I have for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. 13.8 “Many times I have become disheartened and felt like leaving this satsang, but I have remained here on seeing the bhaktas; I could in no way abandon them and leave. In fact, I would be unable to stay where I do not find such bhaktas of Bhagvãn, even if someone were to try by a million methods to keep me there. Regardless of how well a person may serve me, I simply cannot get along with someone who is not a bhakta of Bhagvãn. In this way, I have attached my mind with profound love to Bhagvãn and His bhaktas; and other than that Bhagvãn, I have no liking for anything else. If that is so, why should love for Bhagvãn not remain? When I am engaged in kathãs or kirtans related to Bhagvãn, I experience such happiness that I feel as if I shall become mad due to it. In fact, whatever calmness remains is solely for the benefit of the bhaktas; but in the mind, the very same happiness always remains; although outwardly, I behave in accordance with the customs of society. 13.9 “It is that very Bhagvãn who is the sole controller of this body. If He wishes, He may seat him on an elephant; or if He wishes, He may have it thrown in prison; or if He so wishes, He may even place some serious illness in the body. Despite this, a person should never pray before Bhagvãn in the following way: ‘Mahãrãj! Please relieve me of my misery’. This is because we want this body to behave in accordance with the wishes of Bhagvãn; after all, Bhagvãn’s wish is our wish. We do not want our preferences to differ from the preferences of Bhagvãn even in the slightest way. Moreover, since we have offered our body, mind, and wealth to Bhagvãn, then only the wish of Bhagvãn is our prãrabdha; besides that, there is no other prãrabdha for us. Therefore, regardless of whatever pain or pleasure we may encounter by the wish of Bhagvãn, we should not become disturbed in any way; we should be pleased with whatever pleases Bhagvãn. 13.10 “Therefore, Bhagvãn Himself protects the dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti of a bhakta who has such intense love for Bhagvãn. Occasionally, due to the prevalence of unpleasant circumstances, it may outwardly appear that such a bhakta is disobeying dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti, but inwardly, there is no disobedience at all.” 13.11 In this way, by quoting His own example, Shreeji Mahãrãj described the understanding of an extremely firm bhakta of Bhagvãn, and how he should develop firm love for Bhagvãn.

14.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Ashãdh vad 11 [19th July 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Tassels of flowers were hanging from the pãgh upon His head, and garlands of flowers were hanging around His neck. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some munis were singing kirtans. 14.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please stop the singing and begin a question-answer discussion.” 14.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked with folded hands “Mahãrãj, there is nothing more essential than Bhagvãn; yet why does an individual not develop deep love for Him? That is the question.” 14.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “He has no wisdom. If he did have wisdom, he would think, ‘I have accepted the vow of brahm-chãrya, yet the desire to enjoy the pleasures of women still has not disappeared from my heart. That is very improper as I have invariably enjoyed the pleasures of women when I have taken birth in the 8.4 million life forms – and those pleasures have always been much greater than those experienced in a human birth’. When this jeev was born as a goat, it must have single-handedly indulged in the pleasures of a thousand female goats. When it took birth as a horse, or a bull, or a buffalo, or a king monkey, or indeed any other animal, it must have encountered countless young, beautiful females of its own species. This was not due to prãrabdha, nor was it due to Bhagvãn’s grace – it was only natural. Moreover, if a person does not worship Bhagvãn, he will obtain countless females in whichever life-form he is born in. This would not be due to the sevã or pujã of some dev, or to the chanting of some mantra; as the opportunity of enjoying women and other pleasures is natural. 14.5 This jeev has become a dev several times, where it has enjoyed the pleasures of Dev-Lok; many times it has become an emperor of the world and enjoyed countless pleasures on this earth. Despites this, the jeev’s craving to enjoy women and other objects has still not diminished. Instead, a person feels that the pleasures of women and other objects are extremely rare and, realising their immense pleasure, develops affection for them. That affection is such that it can in no way be eradicated, however much a person tries. It is because of this sin that the jeev is unable to develop deep love for Bhagvãn. 14.5 “I have personally seen with my own eyes how the jeev has such impure, worldly desires. When I was young, I used to go to a mandir of Shiv in Ayodhyã and sleep there. One day, a Kãyasth came to offer pujã to Shiv and ask for the following vardãn: ‘O Mahãrãj! O Shivji! Never grant me a human birth again. In this human birth, I have taken so many aphrodisiacs, yet I have been unable to fully enjoy the pleasures of women to my satisfaction. Therefore, O Shivji! Please grant me the body of a donkey for many lives to come so that I can fully enjoy the pleasures of females without shame or restrictions’. He asked for this vardãn from Shivji daily. So, because of this sin of harbouring worldly desires, the jeev does not develop love for Bhagvãn in any way.” 14.6 Muktãnand Swãmi then asked further, “Mahãrãj, a person who does not have wisdom does not develop love for Bhagvãn. But, what about someone who believes that Bhagvãn is the ocean of all bliss, and that all objects other than Bhagvãn are certainly full of only misery? Despite knowing this, why does he not develop love for Bhagvãn?” 14.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “In either a past life or in this present life, that person has been influenced by extremely unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang. Due to this, he has performed very intense, sinful karmas that have left impressions on his mind. Therefore, despite being able to discriminate between good and bad, he is unable to avoid the bad and develop deep love for Bhagvãn. Moreover, just as the influence of unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang causes the impressions of sinful karmas to influence the mind, similarly, the influence of extremely pleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang causes a person to perform very intense, pure karmas. The influence of these pure karmas will destroy the very intense, sinful karmas. Only then does a person develop deep love for Bhagvãn. That is the answer to the question.” 14.8 Then, Ayodhyãprasãdji asked, “Suppose there is a person who is very intelligent, and whose knowledge of the shãstras is also exceptional. On the other hand, there is a person who is not so intelligent and who has a limited understanding of the shãstras. Nevertheless, the person who is very intelligent falls from satsang, whereas a person who is not intelligent remains firm in satsang. What is the reason for this?” 14.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “There are two types of people in this world: religious and demonic. Of these, those who are demonic will fall from satsang, despite being exceptionally intelligent; whereas those who are religious will never fall from satsang, even though they may not be intelligent. For example, if a person sows a seed of chilli or the seed of a neem tree or the seed of a shingadiyo vachhnãg plant and he waters them daily with sweet water, the chillies will still turn out to be spicy; the neem tree will still be bitter; and the shingadiyo vachhnãg plant will still be poisonous. This is because that is the nature of the seeds themselves. On the other hand, if a person sows sugarcane, the juice of the sugarcane will still be sweet despite treating it with compost from leaves of a neem tree and watering it with bitter water. In the same way, religious people will always stay on the path of Bhagvãn, and demonic people will always turn away from the path of Bhagvãn.” 14.10 Then, Shuk Muni asked, “How can a person distinguish between a religious person and a demonic person?” 14.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “In a religious person, vicious natures such as kãm, krodh, and lobh, are due to the influence of unpleasant circumstances. However, they are destroyed within a short time under the influence of pleasant circumstances. On the other hand, in a demonic person, vicious natures such as kãm, krodh, and lobh, are never destroyed. If someone were to speak some harsh words to a demonic person even once, he would not forget them for as long as he lives. Then, if that demonic person were to become a satsangi, he would initially appear to be better than all the other bhaktas. But, he would be like silt that has gathered in the region of Bhãl – where there was previously sea – has made the soil fertile. As long as the silt remains, sweet water can be obtained by digging below; but, if a person were to dig much deeper, then extremely saline water would emerge. In the same way, even if a demonic person has become a bhakta of Bhagvãn, the moment his wishes are not fulfilled and he is even slightly disturbed, then compared to the sevã of the sãdhus he had previously performed, he would insult them thousands of times more. Even then, his mind would not be happy.” 14.12 Muktãnand Swãmi then asked, “Mahãrãj, you said that a demonic person who becomes a bhakta will remain in satsang as long as his wishes are fulfilled; and if they are not fulfilled, he falls from satsang. But, what if he happens to die before falling from satsang? Will he remain demonic, or will he become religious?” 14.13 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “As long as the demonic person is good when he encounters death, and he offers bhakti to Bhagvãn, he will become religious and will attain Akshardhãm.” 14.14 Then, Nrusinhãnand Swãmi asked, “Of the nine types of bhakti, which is the best?” 14.15 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Of the nine types of bhakti, whichever type helps a person in developing firm attachment to Bhagvãn is the best type of bhakti for that particular person.” 14.16 Then, Gopãlãnand Swãmi asked, “During childhood or during youth, what type of company should a person seek?” 14.17 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “Both should lovingly keep the company of a person who is senior in age, is firm in dharma, gnãn, and vairãgya; and has deep love for Bhagvãn.” 14.18 Then Nãjã Jogiyã asked, “Which is the best of the three: a person whose mind is attached to Bhagvãn out of anger, a person whose mind is attached to Bhagvãn out of fear, or a person whose mind is attached to Bhagvãn out of love?” 14.19 Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A person whose mind is attached to Bhagvãn out of love is the best.” 14.20 Then, Shivãnand Swãmi asked, “How can a bhakta of Bhagvãn who does not possess wisdom of what is good and bad as described by Shreeji Mahãrãj, and who also lacks vairãgya, develop such wisdom, and also develop vairãgya towards all objects other than Bhagvãn?” 14.21 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person develops firm love for Bhagvãn from the initial stages, then due to that love, wisdom and vairãgya will automatically develop. Now, consider the following: When a person is attached to an object, it is called affection or desire. Then, if someone were to obstruct the gaining of any object for which he has affection, he would become angry on that person. This applies not only to humans; even animals express such anger. For example, due to lust, a buffalo that is attached to a female buffalo will kill another buffalo that approaches the female; this behaviour is widely observed in all types of animals. In the same way, a person with deep love for Bhagvãn immediately becomes angry on any object that acts as an obstruction in that love and he immediately abandons that object. Therefore, a person who has deep love for Bhagvãn automatically develops vairãgya as well as wisdom.” 14.22 Again, Shivãnand Swãmi asked, “Suppose there are two types of people, both of whom are intelligent. Of these, one possesses faith and accepts whatever Bhagvãn says; whereas the other accepts only those words of Bhagvãn that he feels are appropriate. Of the two, who is better?” 14.23 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Only the person who possesses faith is better. Rãmchandraji has said in the Rãmãyan, ‘I protect a person who has firm faith in me – just as a mother protects her child’. Therefore, only the person with faith is better.” 14.24 Then, Ãtmãnand Swãmi asked, “In a person’s mind, he is determined to behave according to the wishes of Bhagvãn for the rest of his life. However, he still feels, ‘What can a person do for Bhagvãn and His sant to earn their trust?’” 14.25 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “Firstly, a person earns the trust of Bhagvãn and His sant when he does not have hatred towards anyone and does not feel disheartened, even if he falls severely ill and is not cared for very well during that illness. Secondly, even if he is harshly insulted by Bhagvãn and His sant without any fault of his own, he still does not have hatred towards anyone. Thirdly, if he were to even slightly disobey his observance of the niyams of this satsang, he would feel extremely apologetic and would immediately perform prãyshchit. Also, even if he were to entertain an evil thought in his mind, he would feel just as apologetic and distressed as someone who had happened to physically disobey the observance of the niyams. A person with these characteristics earns the complete trust of Bhagvãn and His sant, and they feel, ‘This person will never fall back from satsang’.” 14.26 Then, Bhagvadãnand Swãmi asked, “How can others recognise a bhakta who continuously understands the greatness of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas in his mind?” 14.27 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “A person who continuously understands the greatness of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas in his mind serves them sincerely and lovingly. He physically bows and touches the feet of all the sãdhus. If a sãdhu were to fall ill, he would massage his head and feet and also take care of his dietary needs. If he were to receive some object that he liked, he would first offer it to the sãdhus before using it for himself. A person, who behaves in this way by thought, word, and deed, should be known to have fully understood the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant within his heart.” 14.28 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the sãdhus a question: “A person may possess intense dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti. However sometimes, there may be some relaxation in his observance of dharma; there may be some attachment despite having vairãgya; there may be some reduction in his bhakti; and attachment to his body may still remain despite having gnãn. What can be the reason for this?” 14.29 Gopãlãnand Swãmi and Brahmãnand Swãmi replied, “If there appears to be a flaw in a person who possesses intense dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti – a person who can be thought of as being as powerful as Bhagvãn Himself – it remains purely out of compassion; it is not a flaw. In fact, when such a great person behaves with bãhya-drashti, he transforms many jeevs to the ranks of Jadbharat and Shukji. Therefore, such an extremely great person behaves in a worldly way purely out of compassion for the jeevs.” 14.30 Hearing their reply, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “That is precisely the correct answer to the question.”

15.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Ashãdh vad 13 [21st July 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the balcony of the medi of His residence in Dãdã Khãchar's darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes and was also wearing garlands of mogrã flowers around His neck. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 15.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to Muktãnand Swãmi, “Today, I had a long talk with the bhaktas (Jeevu-Bã and Lãdu-Bã) who cook for me.” 15.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, what did you talk about?” 15.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “The talk was that when a bhakta of Bhagvãn sits to perform the mãnsi pujã of Bhagvãn or sits to perform dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, he remembers the times in the past when his jeev has surrendered to the panch-vishays due to the influence of unpleasant circumstances or the influence of vicious natures. For example, a warrior who returns injured from the battlefield rests on a bedstead due to his wound. However, until his wounds are not dressed with bandages, the pain of the wounds does not decrease and he is not able to sleep. Only when bandages are applied to his wounds is he relieved of his pain and only then is he able to sleep. In the same way, the jeev has been ‘wounded’ by the panch-vishays due to the influence of unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang. Whichever of the nine types of bhakti relieves the pain of these ‘wounds’ caused by the vishays and makes a person unaware of the vishays themselves, should be thought of as the application of a bandage to the ‘wounds’. Also, that particular type of bhakti should be known to be his strength in worshipping Bhagvãn. 15.5 “Then, abiding by that particular strength, a person should engage in mãnsi pujã or the mental chanting of Bhagvãn’s name. In fact, whatever he may do, he should do so within his own particular strength. He will benefit tremendously as a result of this. 15.6 “However, just as a wounded warrior experiences no peace until his wounds are bandaged, similarly, if a person fails to recognise his own particular strength, he will not experience any happiness at all during bhajan and smaran, and the pain due to the ‘wounds’ caused by the vishays will not be relieved. Therefore, after recognising which of the nine types of bhakti cause his mind to be fixed on Bhagvãn and prevents him from indulging in any thoughts other than those of Bhagvãn, that bhakta should realise, ‘This is my particular strength’. Then, he should keep that type of bhakti predominant. This method is a universal principle.”

16.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Ashãdh vad Amãs [23rd July 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. He was wearing garlands of mogrã flowers around His neck, and extremely beautiful tassels were hanging from His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 16.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “I ask a question to the entire muni-mandal and to all the grahastha bhaktas; whoever can reply may do so. The question is as follows: It does not take very long for a bhakta of Bhagvãn to avoid the company of a person who is full of avgun. But, how is it possible to avoid the company of a person with extremely noble gun? After all, a person naturally develops affection for a person with gun, regardless of whether he is a relative or not. Moreover, affection that is formed, due to the influence of those gun, cannot be eradicated, however much a person tries. Therefore, how does a bhakta of Bhagvãn prevent the development of affection for anyone other than Bhagvãn, regardless of the gun of that person? That is the question.” 16.3 The senior sãdhus replied according to their understanding, but were unable to answer Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question. 16.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “Allow me to answer. The answer is as follows: A pati vratã is not even slightly impressed in her mind on seeing other rich, handsome, or young men, even if her husband is poor, ugly, ill, or old. If she does happen to affectionately look at or laugh with other men, then she breaks her pati vratã vow. If some guests were to come to the house of that pati vratã, she would offer them food and water. If she offers food and water to some male relative of her husband, she does so knowing him to be related to her husband, but the affection she has for all other men does not even come close to the love she has for her husband; nor does she see gun in other men as she sees in her own husband. Moreover, she acts according to the wishes of her own husband. Such is the firm fidelity that a pati vratã wife has towards her husband. 16.5 “In the same way, a bhakta should have firm loyalty to Bhagvãn. Specifically, like a woman who is a pati vratã, he would never develop the same love towards even other mukta sãdhus – however great they may be – as he has developed towards whichever murti of Bhagvãn he has had the darshan of. He does not develop love for other avatãrs of his ishta-dev. He keeps love only for the murti that he has attained, and he acts according to His wishes only. If he does happen to respect others, it is only because of their association with his Bhagvãn. A person who has such faithful bhakti towards his own ishta-dev, never develops affection on seeing others, even though he may have many gun. 16.6 “For example, Hanumãnji is a bhakta of Shree Rãmchandraji. Following the avatãr of Rãm, there have been many other avatãrs of Bhagvãn, but Hanumãnji’s bhakti has been like that of a woman who observes the vow of fidelity, as he has remained faithful to only Rãmchandraji. This is why Hanumãnji’s bhakti is considered to be like that of a pati vratã. The bhakti of a bhakta of Bhagvãn who has such fidelity can be said to be like that of a pati vratã. Conversely, if a person does not have fidelity, his bhakti can be said to be like that of a prostitute. Therefore, a person should not knowingly engage in bhakti that would cause him to be disgraced. Instead, a bhakta of Bhagvãn should thoughtfully engage in faithful bhakti – like that of a pati vratã.”

17.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Shrãvan sud 6 [30th July 1827], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes and was wearing garlands of flowers around His neck. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 17.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “There is no story in the Shreemad Bhãgvat as incredible as the story of Bharatji. This is because Bharatji was the son of Rushabh-Dev Bhagvãn, and for the specific purpose of realising Bhagvãn, he gave up his kingdom, which consisted of the whole world, and retired to the forest. Then, while engaged in the worship of Bhagvãn, he developed affection for a young deer. As a result, his mind’s vrutti took the form of that deer. As a result, despite his greatness, Bharatji was reborn as a deer due to the sin of that attachment. 17.3 “As a matter of fact, there are countless types of sins; but for a bhakta of Bhagvãn, of all those sins, having affection for anything except Bhagvãn is an extremely great sin. Therefore, if a wise person thinks over this story of Bharatji, he becomes extremely fearful in his heart with the thought, ‘What if I develop affection for anything other than Bhagvãn?’ In this way, he becomes extremely afraid. 17.4 “Then, when Bharatji gave up the body of the deer, he was born in a brãhman family. Then, out of fear of developing affection for anything other than Bhagvãn, he paid no attention at all to worldly affairs and deliberately behaved as a madman. He lived in a way where he could maintain his vrutti constantly on Bhagvãn.” 17.5 After delivering this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj left to attend the ãrti.

18.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Shrãvan vad 10 [17th August 1827], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of flowers were hanging around His neck, and tassels of flowers were hanging from His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 18.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj’s nephew, Raghuvirji, asked a question: “Why does the jeev’s condition during the svapna state not remain the same as it is during the jãgrat state?” 18.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The jeev behaves in the svapna state exactly as it does in the jãgrat state. After all, the same types of worldly desire, which appear while awake, spring forth in dreams as well.” 18.4 Then, Nirlobhãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, many times, objects that have never been seen or heard in the jãgrat state, spring forth in dreams. What may be the reason for this?” 18.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “If objects that have never been previously seen or heard appear in the svapna state, it is due to embedded desires created by karmas performed in past lives.” 18.6 Then, Akhandãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, for a person who becomes a bhakta of Bhagvãn, how long does the force of karmas performed in past lives remain?” 18.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “When that person comes into contact with a sat-purush, the embedded desires created by his past karmas gradually wear away as he consistently associates with him. Eventually, he reaches a stage where the desires that give rise to births and deaths no longer remain. For example, grains of rice that are three to four years old can be eaten; but if they are sown, they would not grow. In the same way, when the embedded desires generated by the previously performed karmas degenerate, they do not lead to further births and deaths. 18.8 “However, a person may ask, ‘How does a person recognise whether those embedded desires have degenerated or not?’ Well, consider the analogy of a contest between two men armed with shields and swords. As long as both can withstand each other, the strength of both appears to be equal. But, the moment a person draws back, he is said to have been defeated. Similarly, for a bhakta of Bhagvãn, as long as thoughts related to Bhagvãn and the thoughts related to the vishays appear to be equal, he should realise his worldly desires to be more powerful. However, when thoughts related to Bhagvãn displace those related to the vishays, he should realise that his worldly desires have reduced.” 18.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj then asked the paramhans a question: “How can a bhakta, who no longer identifies himself with the body and who has developed hatred for the panch-vishays, be recognised by other bhaktas?” 18.10 Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “Mahãrãj, we are incapable of answering your question. Please be compassionate and answer it yourself.” 18.11 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “Whether he is a grahastha or a tyãgi, a bhakta of Bhagvãn who no longer believes himself to be the body and whose attachment for the panch-vishays has been eradicated, may be required to behave as if he is the body depending on Bhagvãn’s instructions to him; he may also have to indulge in the panch-vishays if necessary. For example, a frail bull can be made to stand with the support of a stick and by people holding it by its horn and tail. But, it will remain standing only as long as someone holds it up; the moment it is released, it will fall to the ground. Similarly, a person who is free of worldly desires engages in activities only to the extent of the instructions given by Bhagvãn. 18.12 In another example, take a person with a bow and arrow in hand. The bow bends as the person pulls back the string; when he releases the arrow, the bow becomes slack again. In the same way, a person free of worldly desires engages himself in activities only to the extent of Bhagvãn’s wish, but never does he do anything which disobeys that. On the other hand, when a person with worldly desires engages in activities, he is unable to detach himself from those activities of his own accord; he is unable to do so even when Bhagvãn instructs him. These are the characteristics of a person free of worldly desires and a person with worldly desires.”

19.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Shrãvan vad 13 [20th August 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Also, garlands of mogrã and karnikãr were hanging around His neck. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 19.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A bhakta who has abandoned worldly life may possess two negative traits which are not appropriate for him in this satsang; the first is lust and the second is affection for his relatives. In my eyes, a person who possesses these two negative traits is like an animal. Of these two, I have an extreme repulsion for a person who has excessive affection for his relatives. 19.3 “For this reason, a person who has abandoned worldly life should not keep even the slightest amount of affection for his relatives. This is because having affection for bodily relatives is a greater sin than the five great sins. Therefore, a tyãgi bhakta of Bhagvãn should realise his own chaitanya to be distinct from both the body and the relatives of the body. He should believe, ‘I am the ãtmã; I have no relations at all with anyone’. In fact, the relatives of this body should be considered together with the relatives of the 8.4 million types of previous life forms. If a person does try to understand the greatness of his relatives, knowing them to be satsangis, then since there is already some affection due to the fact that they are related, he develops more affection for them than he has for Bhagvãn and the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. Therefore, if a person does keep affection for his relatives knowing them to be bhaktas of Bhagvãn, towards whom affection is natural, then his life becomes useless. 19.4 “Moreover, it is also natural for a person to develop affection for those who perform his sevã, even though they may not be his relatives. So, a person who is wise should not keep affection towards a person who is serving him, even if that person happens to be a bhakta of Bhagvãn. For example, if a snake has released venom into sweetened milk, the mixture also becomes poisonous. Similarly, out of self-interest, a person should not keep affection towards someone who performs his sevã, even if the person serving happens to be a bhakta. This is because his jeev becomes attached due to that sevã. Then, just as he thinks about Bhagvãn, he also begins to think about the person who serves his needs. For that person, this in itself is an obstacle in his worship of Bhagvãn – just as the young deer itself becomes avidyã (mãyã) for Bharatji. In this way, a bhakta of Bhagvãn should totally avoid all those who obstruct his worship of Bhagvãn, knowing them to be avidyã.” 19.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj then concluded by adding, “The paramhans and all the sãnkhya-yogi bhaktas should daily say and listen to this talk which I have just delivered. Specifically, the senior member of a mandal should daily narrate this talk, and others should listen. If the senior person fails to do so, he should do upvãs on that day. Those who do not come to listen to that talk of Bhagvãn with shraddhã should also do upvãs. Please remember these words firmly in your lives.”

20.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on the night of Shrãvan vad Amãs [22nd August 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 20.2 Then, Dinã-Nãth Bhatt asked a question: “Mahãrãj, Kãl is the power of Bhagvãn, and karma refers to the actions performed by the jeev. But, what exactly is svabhãv?” 20.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The karmas that the jeev has performed during past lives have fully developed and have become absorbed within the jeev. Just as fire ‘enters’ iron, similarly, those karmas have developed and have become one with the jeev. It is those karmas that are known as svabhãv, or vãsnã, or prakruti.” 20.4 Muktãnand Swãmi then asked, “Mahãrãj, the karmas which have become absorbed within the jeev, are called svabhãv or vãsnã. But, how does a person eradicate vãsnã?” 20.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “It appears that the only means to do so is by performing the bhakti of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, coupled with the ãtmã-nishthã. If a person offers bhakti to Shree Krishna Bhagvãn without ãtmã-nishthã, then just as he has love for Bhagvãn, he will also develop love for other material objects. Therefore, bhakti accompanied by ãtmã-nishthã is the only means to eradicate vãsnã. However, even a person who has ãtmã-nishthã may be disturbed by unpleasant circumstances, just like an ignorant person. However, such disturbances do not last long.”

21.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Bhãdarvã sud 9 [31st August 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a decorated bedstead outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes, and garlands of chameli flowers were hanging around His neck. A sabhã of the entire muni-mandal, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 21.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj requested Gopãlãnand Swãmi and Shuk Muni to begin a question-answer discussion. 21.3 Then, Shuk Muni asked Gopãlãnand Swãmi, “It is through offering bhakti to Bhagvãn that the jeev crosses Bhagvãn’s Mãyã and attains Akshardhãm. Through dharma, it attains Dev-Lok; but once the rewards it has accumulated are exhausted, the jeev falls from Dev-Lok. Now, whenever there is a decline in dharma, Bhagvãn assumes an avatãr for the purpose of restoring bhakti. However, it appears that whatever can be attained through bhakti cannot be attained through dharma. Therefore, how can the level of dharma be elevated to the status of bhakti? That is the question.” 21.4 Gopãlãnand Swãmi began to answer that question. In whatever he said, dharma became a component of bhakti, but in no way could he elevate the level of dharma to the status of bhakti. 21.5 On hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj laughed a great deal, and commented, “To answer that question is difficult indeed. Therefore, allow me to answer it.” He then explained, “Dharma is of two types: One is nivrutti dharma and the other is pravrutti dharma. In turn, these two types of dharma can either be related to Bhagvãn or not to Bhagvãn. Of these two, the type of dharma that is related to Bhagvãn is the one that was adopted by Nãrad, the Sanakãdik, Shukji, Dhruv, Prahlãd, and Ambrish. It is this dharma that is known as bhãgvat dharma or ekãntik dharma. In fact, this type of dharma is not different from bhakti; they are both one. The type of dharma that avatãrs of Bhagvãn come to establish is this very same dharma. On the other hand, the dharma of a person’s varna and ãshram alone is extremely inferior compared to bhãgvat dharma, because it is through bhãgvat dharma that the jeev crosses Bhagvãn’s Mãyã and attains the dhãm of Purushottam. Therefore, the status of bhãgvat dharma and bhakti is the same, and the rewards of both are exactly the same as well; so, the greatness of bhakti and dharma are the same. In comparison, the dharma of a person’s varna and ãshram on its own is extremely weak, and its rewards are temporary.” 21.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj then continued, “In my opinion, even if I try to develop affection for anyone other than Bhagvãn and His ekãntik bhaktas, I cannot do so. I also feel that my strength is similar to that of Jadbharat, Shukdevji, Dattãtrey, and Rushabh-Dev Bhagvãn. As a result, I also prefer to stay only in forests, mountains, and jungles; I do not like to stay in large towns or cities. This is my inherent nature. Despite this, I stay in the midst of thousands of people for the sake of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. However, I remain just as detached here as I would if I were living in the forests. I do not stay amidst thousands of people out of any self-interest; it is for the sake of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas that I stay in the midst of people. No matter how much pravrutti I may have to engage myself in for the sake of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn, I still consider it to be nivrutti. 21.7 “Moreover, I do not see the flaws of a bhakta of Bhagvãn, however much at fault he may be. I believe that even if there are some intrinsic, minor flaws in a bhakta of Bhagvãn, a person should overlook them. However, if those flaws are in himself, then he should make an effort to eradicate them. Also, if that type of flaw appears in a bhakta of Bhagvãn, he should not take note of that flaw. A person should perceive flaws in a bhakta only if he were to lapse in his observance of some major vartmãn, but not on account of some other minor flaw. 21.8 “A person should also not be pleased by defeating a bhakta of Bhagvãn in arguments. Instead, he should derive pleasure in deliberately losing to him. A person who does engage in an argument and defeats a bhakta of Bhagvãn is a sinner worse than someone who has committed the five great sins. 21.9 “In addition, I do not like even the sight of a person who speaks unkindly of a bhakta of Bhagvãn before me. In fact, I do not enjoy food or water offered by a person who perceives flaws in a bhakta of Bhagvãn. If he does do so, then even if he happens to be my relative, I still develop an intense dislike for him. This is because in reality, we are the ãtmã; so, why should we keep affection for our body and the relatives of the body? We have developed affection for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas believing ourselves to be an ãtmã, not out of the belief that we are the body. 21.10 “The inner enemies, such as kãm, krodh, lobh, moh, will certainly distress a person who is unable to behave as the ãtmã. Therefore, if a person offers bhakti without attaining ãtmã-nishthã, his true nature is sure to be exposed in this satsang. This is because this satsang is alokik, and all these satsangis are exactly like Bhagvãn’s pãrshads residing in Shvet-Dvip, Vaikunth, and Golok. I take oath on Bhagvãn and His bhaktas that I realise these satsangis to be the same as the pãrshads of Bhagvãn residing in the divya Akshardhãm. 21.11 “However, a person whose gnãn, vairãgya, dharma, and bhakti are not extremely firm will most certainly fall back in satsang. For example, a thread dipped in wax remains stiff in winter and monsoon, but when summer comes, it becomes loose. In the same way, monsoon and winter represent the period when the bhaktas here are happy in every way and are also honoured in satsang. During that period, gnãn, vairãgya, dharma, and bhakti appear to be very intense. However, with the arrival of summer – the period when a bhakta is insulted in satsang or when he becomes physically distressed – his gnãn, vairãgya, dharma, and bhakti become loose like the thread dipped in wax. Even then, I do not abandon such a person. However, he becomes obliged to leave satsang of his own accord. Then, even if he is supposedly a satsangi, he does not experience the bliss of satsang within. 21.12 “For this reason, a person should practise satsang with intense firmness after attaining ãtmã-nishthã; he should not practise satsang in such a way that affection for his body and his relatives persists. To continue the analogy, a thread of gold remains the same in all six seasons; it does not become loose even during the heat of summer. Similarly, when a person’s satsang is firm, regardless of the amount of misery that he may encounter, and however many times he is insulted in satsang, his mind never turns away from satsang. Only such loyal satsangi Vaishnavs are my relatives; and I wish to stay in Krishna Bhagvãn’s dhãm. This is my decision, and all of you should also make the same decision. 21.13 “I say this because as you have all become my ãshrit, I should tell you that which is beneficial to you. After all, a true friend is a person who tells us that which benefits us, even if it may appear to be hurtful. Please realise this as the characteristic of a true friend.”

22.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Bhãdarvã vad 4 [9th September 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Tassels of white flowers were hanging from his pãgh, and garlands of white flowers were hanging around His neck. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some paramhans were singing a vishnupad to the accompaniment of a dukad and sarodã. Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in the sabhã with antar-drashti. 22.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The strength of profound, loving bhakti in a bhakta of Bhagvãn, as described in this kirtan, is the strength of Jhinã-Bhãi, and it was the strength of Parvat-Bhãi and Mulji Brahm-Chãri as well. While keeping antar-drashti, I was thinking that there must also be others in this satsang with the same strength. A person who develops this strength of profound, loving bhakti loses all attachment to the panch-vishays and is able to maintain ãtmã-nishthã without even having to try.” 22.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “Narsinh Mehtã worshipped Shree Krishna Bhagvãn with a sense of friendship, whereas many bhaktas of Bhagvãn, such as Nãrad, worshipped Bhagvãn with sevã. Of these two types of bhaktas, whose bhakti should be regarded as being better?” 22.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The type of bhakti offered by Narsinh Mehtã, the gopis, Nãrad, and the Sanakãdik is not of two types; in reality, it is of one type. After all, the body – be it male or female – is worldly and perishable. However, the jeevãtmã, the worshipper, is neither male nor female, but is chetan. When the jeevãtmã leaves its body and travels to the dhãm of Bhagvãn, it assumes a svarup according to the wish of Bhagvãn; or, depending upon the opportunity for sevã that arises there, that bhakta assumes an appropriate svarup and performs the sevã of Bhagvãn accordingly. 22.5 “However, if a bhakta of Bhagvãn develops the same attachment to wealth, women and other objects as he has towards Bhagvãn, then he cannot be called a loyal bhakta of Bhagvãn. Having become a bhakta of Bhagvãn, if a person commits sins and accumulates harmful desires in satsang itself while offering bhakti, then those sins become embedded in him – as if etched in iron. Moreover, a greater sin than associating with the wife of another man due to the influence of evil company is to look at a bhakta of Bhagvãn lustfully while in satsang. Therefore, a person who wishes to develop deep attachment to Bhagvãn should not allow any type of sin to remain in his mind. This is because female satsangi bhaktas are to be viewed as a person’s own mother, sister, or daughter. Those who look at women of their own family lustfully are the extremely evil sinners in this world. So, a person who looks at bhaktas lustfully is an evil sinner and will never be released from that sin. That is why a person who wishes to become a rasik bhakta should become a rasik bhakta after avoiding this kind of sin. 22.6 “Having said this, the greatest of all sins is perceiving faults in Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, because due to that fault-finding attitude, hatred is created towards them. Even if a person has killed millions of cows, consumed alcohol and meat, and committed adultery with the wife of his guru countless times, he can still be released from such sins at some time or other. However, a person who insults Bhagvãn and His bhaktas will never be released from his sin. Then, if the person insulting Bhagvãn and His bhaktas is a male, he will become a male demon; or if female, she will become a female demon. Then, even after countless lives, that person will never stop being a demon and will never become a bhakta of Bhagvãn. 22.7 “Furthermore, a person who has already insulted a bhakta of Bhagvãn and whose insulting attitude has become established will under no circumstances be able to eradicate that attitude. On the other hand, another person who is in the process of insulting, realises, ‘I have committed a great sin by insulting Bhagvãn and His bhaktas; therefore I am extremely evil, and Bhagvãn and His bhaktas are extremely great’. When a person sees the qualities of others and sees faults within himself in this way, then any sins he may have committed will be eradicated, however great they may be. 22.8 “No other sin displeases and hurts Bhagvãn more than the sin of insulting His bhaktas. When Jay and Vijay insulted the Sanakãdik in Vaikunth, Bhagvãn immediately rushed to the Sanakãdik and told them, ‘Whoever insults sãdhus like you is my enemy. Therefore, you have done well in giving a curse to Jay and Vijay. In fact, if my own hand were to harm brãhmans like you, then even I would cut off my hand; so what can I say to others?’ This is what Vishnu Bhagvãn said to the Sanakãdik. As a result, Jay and Vijay became demons due to the sin of insulting the devout bhaktas of Bhagvãn. Others who have also insulted bhaktas of Bhagvãn have all fallen from their high position – a fact that is well noted in the shãstras. Therefore, a person who desires the best for himself should not insult the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. If a person does happen to knowingly or unknowingly insult someone, then he should bow at that person’s feet, pray to him, and act in a way that pleases him.”

23.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on the night of Ãso sud Punam [22nd October 1828], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed in the yard of His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 23.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj, out of compassion, addressed all the bhaktas and said, “A person who is a bhakta of Bhagvãn daily performs the mãnsi pujã of Bhagvãn. A person should perform that mãnsi pujã in different ways, depending on the three seasons: summer, winter, and monsoon. 23.3 “During the four months of summer, a person should perform pujã by first bathing Bhagvãn with cool, fragrant, pure water. He should then offer Him a beautiful, washed, thin, white khes to wear. After seating Bhagvãn on a beautiful seat, His whole body should be smeared with fragrant sandalwood from the Malay mountains, which has been collected in a bowl after forming it into a paste. Firstly, the sandalwood paste should be smeared on His forehead and closely observed; then the paste should be smeared on His chest, stomach, thighs, calves, and other parts of His body. Those parts should also be observed. Then, beautiful kum-kum should be applied on His holy feet as well as on the soles of His feet, and they too should then be observed. Then, garlands of fragrant flowers, such as mogrã, chameli, champã, and roses, as well as various jewellery, and bãjubandh and berkhã made of flowers should be offered. A fine cloth that is not too heavy and is as white as a mogrã flower should be tied around His head; and a beautiful, white cloth which is fine and light, should be wrapped around His body. Then, he should embrace Bhagvãn – once, or twice, or according to the degree of his love. Then, he should touch Bhagvãn’s holy feet to his own chest and head. During the embrace, the sandalwood paste on Bhagvãn’s body, as well as parts of the garlands of flowers, may stick to his own body; and kum-kum may also stick as a result of touching Bhagvãn’s holy feet to his own chest and head. All this should be visualised, and he should feel, ‘Sandalwood paste, kum-kum, and garlands blessed by Bhagvãn have touched my body!’ 23.4 “During the four months of winter, a person should perform pujã by first bathing Bhagvãn with warm water, and then offering Him a white khes to wear. He should then seat Bhagvãn on a decorated bedstead with a velvet mattress that has been covered with a white sheet. He should offer a survãl, offer a dagli, tie a rich orange reto of golden threads around His head, tie a rich reto around His waist, and place a rich reto over His shoulders. Then, he should place various types of jewellery made of diamonds, pearls, gold, and rubies on various parts of His body, and also a pearl necklace. After offering these clothes and jewellery, the various parts of Bhagvãn’s body should be closely observed. A kum-kum chãndlo should also be applied to Bhagvãn’s forehead. 23.5 “During the four months of monsoon, a person should perform pujã imagining that Bhagvãn has returned from some village, and His white clothes have become completely drenched; or that He had gone to bathe with the paramhans in a river and has returned from there completely drenched. After removing His wet clothes, He should be offered deep orange garments to wear, and His forehead should be smeared with yellow sandalwood paste mixed with saffron. 23.6 “During summer, a person should visualise Bhagvãn to be sitting either in an open place or in a flower garden. During winter and monsoon, he should visualise Bhagvãn to be seated in a medi, or inside a house. In particular, when offering Bhagvãn something to eat, only those foods – that are chewed, drunk, licked, or sucked – which he likes to eat should be visualised for offering to Bhagvãn. Even if Bhagvãn does not like these foods, when offering items to Him, a person should still visualise only those items that he enjoys himself. Also, incense, oil lamps, flowers, and ãrti should be offered to Bhagvãn as appropriate. 23.7 “In this way, a bhakta who offers pujã in different ways according to the three different seasons increases his love for Bhagvãn, and his jeev benefits tremendously. Therefore, whoever has heard this talk should remember it and daily perform the mãnsi pujã of Bhagvãn in the way described. As a matter of fact, I have never talked about this before.” 23.8 Shreeji Mahãrãj then spoke on another topic. He said, “When Bhagvãn and His bhaktas are pleased on a bhakta, he should feel, ‘It is my great fortune that Bhagvãn and His bhaktas are pleased with me’. Also, when they lecture him, for the purpose of teaching a lesson, he should feel, ‘It is my great fortune that they lecture me; after all, it will help in removing my flaws’. In this way, a person should be pleased even if lectured; he should not feel any grief in his mind, nor get upset, nor even regard himself as being very sinful. He should always remain pleased. This attitude should always be remembered.”

24.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Ãso vad 12 [4th November 1828], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 24.2 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “The bhaktas remain in Bhagvãn’s sevã in Akshardhãm. What are the spiritual activities needed to earn such sevã?” 24.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “An ekãntik bhakta easily earns Bhagvãn’s sevã in Akshardhãm through sixteen spiritual activities: shraddhã; svadharma; vairãgya; total control over the indriyas; ahinsã; brahm-chãrya; keeping the company of sãdhus; ãtmã-nishthã; unwavering bhakti to Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness; happiness; honesty; compassion; penance; treating senior bhaktas with greater qualities as gurus and also maintaining deep respect for them; maintaining a feeling of friendship towards those bhaktas who are his equal; and treating those bhaktas who are junior to him as a shishya and acting for their benefit.” 24.4 Shuk Muni then asked, “All of our sãdhus observe vartmãns. But, what characteristic in a sãdhu would enable us to be sure that the sãdhu would never deviate from his dharma even in times of difficulty?” 24.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “A sãdhu whose attention is constantly focused on all of those ãgnãs given by Bhagvãn, whether they are major or minor; and who finds it extremely difficult to disobey any ãgnã; and who acts neither excessively nor in a careless way regarding those ãgnãs, should be known as a person who would not fall from his dharma despite difficult circumstances.” 24.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj then spoke out of compassion: “It is very difficult for a person to eradicate his svabhãv. Regardless of this, if he has realised that satsang fulfils his self-interest, then it is not difficult to do so. For example, the members of Dãdã Khãchar’s family have an interest in keeping me here, so they do not retain any svabhãv that I do not like. In this way, a person’s svabhãv can be eradicated due to self-interest. It can also be eradicated out of fear, although not totally. This is because a person may fear someone in his presence, but when that person is not present, he may no longer be fearful – just as a thief abandons his corrupt nature due to fear of the king. 24.7 “Furthermore, despite the fact that I have repeatedly fired harsh words and upset a person who possesses some svabhãv or another, if he is not disheartened in any way at all, then I have such love for that person that the love remains effortlessly as it is, in the jãgrat state and svapna state. Regardless of whatever happens, that love does not diminish. 24.8 “Moreover, of the various gun possessed by bhaktas, I shall now narrate one admirable gun in each bhakta. Dãdã Khãchar – gun of faith; Rãj-Bãi – gun of tyãg; Jeevu-Bã – gun of shraddhã, Lãdu-Bã – gun of desiring to please me; Nityãnand Swãmi – gun of desiring to please me; Brahmãnand Swãmi – gun of insisting that there should be no lapse at all in observing the niyams of satsang; Muktãnand Swãmi – gun of desiring to please me and having faith in me; Somlã Khãchar – gun of always behaving consistently; Chaitanyãnand Swãmi – gun of wishing to behave in such a way that pleases Mahãrãj in any way; Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi – gun of nishchay in Bhagvãn and realising His greatness; Jhinã-Bhãi Thãkor – gun of having awareness, for fear that he becomes attached to any object other than Bhagvãn; and Motã Ãtmãnand Swãmi – gun of ensuring that none of my ãgnãs are disobeyed.” In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj narrated the gun of many senior paramhans and other bhaktas. 24.9 He then continued, “The three senior ladies of this place (Rãj-Bãi, Jeevu-Bã, and Lãdu-Bã), and Gopãlãnand Swãmi, Brahmãnand Swãmi, Muktãnand Swãmi, Nityãnand Swãmi, Shuk Muni, Somlã Khãchar, and Dãdã Khãchar – all of you presently behave very well. However, if the four factors of desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang were to become unpleasant, then there is no doubt at all that your enthusiasm would not remain as it is now. However, if a person who has a great degree of gnãn were to be caught in the vishays, he would break free from that attachment. This gnãn is the understanding, ‘I, the jeev, am like this; the body is like this; the relations of the body are like this; the nature of Prakruti, Purush, virãt, sutrãtmã, and avyãkrut is like this; Bhagvãn is like this; and the dhãm of Bhagvãn is like this’, and so on. If a person has firm belief of this gnãn in his heart, then the vairãgya that results is true vairãgya. Apart from that, any other form of vairãgya only superficially appears to be vairãgya; in fact, there is no strength in it. For example, the flame of an oil lamp is extinguished by the wind, whereas the vadvãnal fire and fire of lightning in the clouds is not extinguished by water; despite remaining in water itself, it continues to burn. In the same way, vairãgya without gnãn does not last when it encounters the vishays. On the other hand, vairãgya produced from gnãn does not diminish despite encountering the vishays; it continues to burn like the vadvãnal fire. 24.10 “It is precisely for the purpose of somehow instilling this gnãn in your minds that I continuously deliver talks. If a talk eventually does truly inspire you, then this gnãn will become instilled in you. On the other hand, if a person does not understand this and instead has a sense of ‘I-ness’ and ‘my-ness’ by believing, ‘This is my varna, this is my mother, this is my father, these are my relatives’, then he should be known to be an extremely ignorant person with a worldly perception.” 24.11 Having said this, Shreeji Mahãrãj again spoke out of compassion: “What is the reason behind a mumukshu attaining noble qualities? Well, a person develops hatred for the world in proportion to the attachment he has for listening to the talks and kathãs of Bhagvãn. Also, vicious natures, such as kãm, krodh, lobh, and moh, are also destroyed to that extent. Conversely, if a person is lazy in listening to those talks and kathãs, then he should assume that he will not remember noble shãstras. In fact, out of the nine types of bhakti mentioned in the shãstras, the bhakti of listening to kathãs is considered to be the best. Therefore, a person who possesses that form of bhakti will attain all the various forms of bhakti up to the including profound, loving bhakti.” Shreeji Mahãrãj delivered the talk in this way. 24.12 At noon on that same day, when all the paramhans were seated for their meals in a line on the veranda outside the north-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr, Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed under the neem tree. 24.13 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to the paramhans, “A person should not understand the greatness of female bhaktas in excess. This is because under the excuse of realising their greatness, he may constantly think of them, leading to them appearing in his dreams. So, if a person does understand their greatness, he should understand it collectively, by thinking, ‘All of them are bhaktas of Bhagvãn’. However, he should not attempt to understand a particular bhakta as being greater and another bhakta being lesser. If he attempts to understand their greatness to a greater or lesser degree than this, then there is a great danger in that. Similarly, female bhaktas should also understand the greatness of male bhaktas collectively. If they do not realise this, then it is also a great danger for those females.”

25.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Kãrtik sud 10 [16th November 1828], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 25.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj spoke out of compassion: “Bhakti, upãsanã, sevã, shraddhã, firmness in observing dharma, and other spiritual activities related to Bhagvãn should all be performed without having desires for any rewards. This fact is mentioned in the sacred shãstras, and it is true; but, a person should certainly have the following desire: ‘May Bhagvãn become pleased with me through these activities’. That desire should be kept. On the other hand, if a person does not keep such a desire and acts without any specific purpose, then he should be known to possess tamo-gun. Therefore, a person should develop the qualities of bhakti, upãsanã, sevã, shraddhã, and dharma with the desire for rewards in the form of the happiness of Bhagvãn. If a person has any desire other than that, he will attain only rewards such as the four types of mukti. 25.3 “Furthermore, it is not the case that Bhagvãn’s happiness is bestowed only on those who offer bhakti with various items and not upon the poor. Someone may be poor, but if he offers water, leaves, fruits, and flowers to Bhagvãn with shraddhã, that is enough to please Him. This is because Bhagvãn is extremely great. Just as a king rewards someone who composes even a verse in his praise with a village, similarly, Bhagvãn also becomes pleased instantly.” 25.4 Continuing, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Who can be called a true bhakta of Bhagvãn? If some prolonged illness were to overtake a person’s body; or if he receives neither food to eat nor any clothes to wear; or regardless of the extent of pain or pleasure that come his way, if he still does not fall back even slightly from the worship of bhakti of Bhagvãn, niyams, dharma, or shraddhã, but progresses with time, then he is called a true bhakta.” 25.5 Then, Rãj-Bãi had a question asked to Shreeji Mahãrãj, “Which gun pleases you, and which avgun displeases you?” 25.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The following are the avgun of speech: If someone wishes to behave in some special way, then he should notify me only once by saying: ‘Mahãrãj, if you agree, then I shall behave like this’. I do not like it when a person repeatedly asks, ‘Mahãrãj, why are you not telling me whether I should behave like this or behave like that?’ I do not like a person who, despite knowing me as his ishta-dev, repeatedly questions my words. I do not like a person who interrupts me while I am speaking to someone. Regarding the performance of religious actions, such as performing dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, observance of dharma, offering bhakti, I do not like a person who throws the burden of such actions on Bhagvãn by thinking, ‘Only if Bhagvãn wishes are these possible’. Also, I do not like a person who thinks, ‘I shall do this; and I shall do that’, and then relies only on his own strength and not on the strength of Bhagvãn. I extremely dislike a person who speaks inconsistently and rudely. I do not like a person who feels a sense of shame or laziness when it comes to talking of Bhagvãn, listening to kathãs, or singing kirtans, and yet feels no shame or laziness in performing worldly activities. Also, I do not like a person who boasts of his tyãg or bhakti, or of anything else. I do not like a person who sits behind everyone else during a sabhã instead of sitting as suits his own status. Moreover, when seniors are seated in a sabhã, I do not like a person who forcibly pushes them aside to take his own place at the front of the sabhã. 25.7 “In addition, I am pleased with female bhaktas who behave morally by covering their own bodies and who keep their gaze cast downwards when they walk, instead of keeping a wandering gaze. Many times, instead of doing my darshan with a fixed gaze, someone may abandon that darshan and look repeatedly in the direction of an approaching man or woman, or a dog walking by, or cattle walking by, or in the direction of some noise. On such a person, I feel so much disgust that I feel, ‘What can I do? If I had not become a sãdhu, I would beat him in some way!’ But, that is not possible since beating someone is extremely inappropriate for a sãdhu. I also do not like a person who conceals the truth – who does not reveal the disturbing thoughts that arise in his mind to an appropriate person. Also, these three things are extremely harmful: mãn, krodh, and being so suppressed by others that what is in the mind cannot be revealed. Also, if bhaktas become disrespectful because they view each other as equals and do not maintain respect for one another, that is also extremely inappropriate.”

26.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Kãrtik sud 11 [17th November 1828], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 26.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “What are the characteristics of a sant who is worthy of sevã equally to Bhagvãn? Well, such a sant suppresses the actions of Mãyã’s gun (sattva-gun, rajo-gun, and tamo-gun), such as the indriyas and the antah-karans; but, he himself does not get suppressed by their actions. In addition to this, he only performs activities related to Bhagvãn; he is loyal in his observance of the panch-vartmãn; and believing himself to be brahm-rup, he worships Purushottam Bhagvãn. Such a sant should not be thought of as a human being, nor should he be thought of as a dev, because such behaviour is not possible for either humans or devs. In reality, even though that sant appears to be human, he is still worthy of sevã equally to Bhagvãn. Therefore, whoever desires to attain kalyãn should perform the sevã of such sant. Also, females should perform sevã of females possessing such qualities.” 26.3 Then, Ãtmãnand Swãmi asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “Regardless of how ordinary a person may be, as long as he stays within the limits of the vartmãns of this satsang, he will not become bound by the panch-vishays. Please narrate the characteristics of a person who cannot become bound by the panch-vishays, even though he may happen to leave satsang due to unpleasant circumstances.” 26.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then explained, “If a person has dharma predominant in his mind; and if he has the qualities of an ãstik where he firmly believes, ‘A person who performs moral and immoral karmas in this lok will undoubtedly receive the rewards of those karmas in the lok beyond’; and if he has such firm beliefs, and is concerned about his own reputation by thinking, ‘If I do something immoral, what will people think of me?’, then he will not become bound by any object wherever he goes. For example, those like Mayã-Rãm Bhatt, Mulji Brahm-Chãri, and Nishkulãnand Swãmi will never falter even if they encounter women or wealth. 26.5 “However, a person who is like this may have the characteristics of false ãtmã-nishthã in thinking, ‘I am the ãtmã; I am brahm; so, I am not affected by good or bad actions, and I am absolutely detached from everything’. Also, he may falsely understand the greatness of Bhagvãn, and he may talk a great deal about that greatness, by saying, ‘The greatness of Bhagvãn is so intense! So, what harm is there in deviating from dharma?’ In such a person, these two types of flaws could become major obstacles in the observance of dharma. Therefore, it is better if he has genuine ãtmã-nishthã, if he thoroughly understands the greatness of Bhagvãn, and if he firmly observes the various types of dharma with understanding, and becomes nishkãmi, nirlobhi, nisvãdi, nisnehi, and nirmãni in order to please Bhagvãn. Such a person believes, ‘If I follow dharma, Bhagvãn will be extremely pleased with me; and if I deviate from dharma in any way, then Bhagvãn will be extremely displeased with me’. If he has this firm belief, then that bhakta will never falter from dharma in any way. On the other hand, if a person does not have this kind of understanding, then regardless of how much gnãn he may have, or how much bhakti he may offer, he may still deviate from dharma or become bound by mãyik objects. This is a fundamental truth.” 26.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj again addressed the sabhã out of compassion: “I do not like ahankãr. That ahankãr may be of a person’s qualities of bhakti, tyãg, or vairãgya; of a person’s attainment of the qualities of brahm; of a person’s understanding; or of a person’s observance of the panch-vartmãn. I do not like these or any other forms of ahankãr. Also, I do not like dambh. What is dambh? Well, although a person may not have much nishchay, bhakti, or dharma, to outwardly pretend to possess them to a great extent in order to look good in front of others is dambh. I do not like that; and nor do I like a person who eliminates the difference between himself and Bhagvãn. I also do not like a person who behaves freely liberally – after taking a vow, he adheres to it occasionally and relaxes from it occasionally. In addition, I do not like a person who considers himself to be extremely insignificant after having extensively understood the intense glory of Bhagvãn, and who does not believe his true svarup to be the ãtmã, which is distinct from the body. 26.7 “Now, I shall describe the type of person I do like. Such a person thoroughly understands the greatness of Bhagvãn. He understands his ãtmã – which is vyatirek from the body – to be brahm-rup. He firmly observes dharma and also engages in the bhakti of Bhagvãn. Despite having such qualities, if there is some bhakta in satsang who does not understand anything, but has nishchay in Bhagvãn, then he would consider that bhakta to be great, and himself to be insignificant in comparison to that bhakta. When speaking, such a person never reveals even the slightest pride of his wisdom. I am extremely pleased with a person who behaves in this way.” 26.8 Having delivered this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj returned to His residence.

27.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Kãrtik sud Punam [21st November 1828], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 27.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The pleasures associated with shabda, sparsh, rup, ras, and gandh, are all found to exist together in one place – in the blissful and divya murti of Purushottam Bhagvãn. When we have the darshan of that murti of Bhagvãn, we can enjoy the bliss of that beauty, as well as the bliss of the other four types of vishays, all at the same time. However, with worldly vishays, when a person indulges in one vishay, he receives the pleasure of only that vishay, but not of the others. Therefore, the pleasures of worldly vishays are found separately. Moreover, those pleasures are useless, perishable, and the cause of extreme misery. However, in Bhagvãn, a person enjoys the bliss of all the vishays at the same time. That bliss is extremely divya; it is eternal and imperishable. Therefore, a mumukshu should develop vairãgya towards the worldly vishays and become totally attached to the divya and blissful murti of Bhagvãn.” 27.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj then continued, “If a bhakta has an intense desire to engage in the bhakti of Bhagvãn and to associate with His sant, then regardless of any svabhãv that he may possess, he eradicates it and behaves according to the sant’s wishes. Even if that svabhãv is such that it has become bound to the chaitanya, a person who has an intense desire to do satsang will eradicate it.” With that, He narrated His own story: “Initially, my nature was like that of a tyãgi, but because I had an intense desire for the darshan of Rãmãnand Swãmi, I lived according to Muktãnand Swãmi’s instructions, and not according to my personal preferences.” 27.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The details of the kind of determination a bhakta should and should not keep are as follows: The first type of determination is observing the vows, such as nishkãmi and nirlobhi; the second type of determination is behaving with the feeling that he will be able to sleep only if his place is here and not if it is elsewhere. The second type and other innumerable forms of determination that are the result of insignificant svabhãvs should not be considered the same as the first type of determination. The determination of observing vartmãns is an essential as a person’s own life; it is extremely beneficial. That type of determination should be kept with an understanding of its importance. But, if the second type of determination is formed, which is due to svabhãvs, it should be thought of as worthless; and if a sant asks a person to abandon it, then it should be abandoned. However, the first type of determination should not be abandoned. 27.5 “To consider these two forms of determination as equivalent is foolishness. For example, if a child has almonds in his fist, and if someone attempts to make him give them up, he will not. Furthermore, if he has a fist full of rupees or a fist full of gold coins, and if someone attempts to make him give them up, he will not give them up. Therefore, it can be said that the child considers the almonds, and rupees, and the gold coins to be of equal value. Therefore, the child can be considered to be ignorant. 27.6 “If someone has almonds in his hand, and a thief comes and threatens him by saying, ‘Put them down, or I will cut off your head with this sword’, then a person who is wise will give them away, but a person who is foolish will not. Similarly, between the two types of determination, a person should realise which is significant and which is insignificant. If someone does not understand this and considers both to be equivalent, then he should be known to have a svabhãv of stubbornness and arrogance. If such a person does observe the vartmãns due to that determination, and if he remains in satsang in this way till the end, then it is all well and good; but a person cannot have complete faith in him. This is because if he is offended by some remarks, or if his self-importance is not maintained, then he will not remain as he is. On the other hand, a person who offers bhakti to Bhagvãn and observes vartmãns with determination is called a rãjarshi; and a person who offers bhakti to Bhagvãn while observing vartmãns with the intention of pleasing Bhagvãn is called a brahmarshi and a sãdhu. There is a similar difference in the rewards of the two as well.” 27.7 Continuing, Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The flaws of mãn, irshyã, and krodh are much more harmful than even kãm. This is because a sant may have compassion on a person with kãm, but he will not have compassion on person with mãn. In addition, irshyã and krodh evolve from mãn. Therefore, mãn is a major flaw. Furthermore, a person does not fall from satsang due to kãm as he does due to mãn. For example, there are many grahastha bhaktas in our satsang, and they continue to remain in satsang. So, I always have an intense dislike for mãn, irshyã, and krodh. You will find this verified in my spoken words which have been written down. Also, if you reflect upon them, then you will realise this to be true as well. Therefore, a person should eradicate mãn by realising the greatness of Bhagvãn.” 27.8 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “What is nishchay in Bhagvãn? Well, consider how it is in worldly life. Since childhood, a person has the belief of his parents, varna, and ãshram, and gender, as well as the belief that this is an animal, this is a man, this is water, this is fire, this is the earth, this is the wind, this is the sky, and so on. All this is due to the shãstras. Even if a person has not heard the shãstras, he has been convinced by principles prevalent in society, which themselves were derived from the shãstras. Similarly, the characteristics of a sant, who is free of vicious natures like kãm, lobh, mãn, svãd, and moh, are also described in the shãstras. A sant who possesses these characteristics has direct relationship with Bhagvãn. Therefore, a person should develop nishchay in Bhagvãn based on His words. In fact, to have firm faith in the words of the sant is itself nishchay in Bhagvãn.” 27.9 Then, Nãth Bhakta of Vadodarã asked Shreeji Mahãrãj a question: “Do the relatives of a bhakta of Bhagvãn, who has firm nishchay in Bhagvãn, attain kalyãn due to their relationship with that bhakta?” 27.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If the relatives or ancestors of a bhakta of Bhagvãn have affection for him, then yes, they will attain kalyãn; otherwise, they will not. In fact, even if a person who is not related to that bhakta has affection for him, then he will also benefit. This is because at the time of death, a person may remember that bhakta whose vrutti is constantly fixed on Bhagvãn. Therefore, by remembering that bhakta, he attains kalyãn.” 27.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “I talk about the nature of the ãtmã and about the nature of Bhagvãn. However, by merely talking about them a person does not experience their bliss as it really is. Their true bliss can only be experienced in samãdhi, or after a person leaves his body; but it cannot be experienced by merely talking about it. For example, the pleasure of looking at an attractive object can only be enjoyed by the eyes. If someone were to praise that pleasure with his mouth by saying, ‘I saw a very beautiful object’, then the pleasure experienced by the mouth is not the same as that experienced by the eyes. Similarly, a person may attempt to praise with words the pleasure of sounds heard by the ears, fragrances smelt by the nose, sensations felt by the skin, and flavours tasted by the tongue, by saying, ‘It was an extremely pleasant smell; it had a delicious taste; it felt very good; it sounded nice’. However, he does not experience pleasure through words as he experiences pleasure through the indriyas. 27.12 Similarly, the bliss and the happiness of Bhagvãn that he experiences, as well as the bliss and the happiness of the ãtmã that he experiences through samãdhi or after leaving the body, cannot be experienced by merely talking about them. However, if a person performs shravan, manan, and nididhyãs on these two topics, then he attains sãkshãtkãr. Then, after attaining sãkshãtkãr, he enjoys the same experience and bliss as he does from these two in samãdhi. Therefore, after listening to talks concerning these two, a person should perform manan and nididhyãs on those talks.”

28.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Kãrtik vad 1 [22nd November 1828], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 28.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “There are two ways in which a person falls from the bhakti of Bhagvãn. One way is by listening to shushka-vedãnti shãstras, where he may consider the svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn and other svarups to be false, just as he considers all other svarups to be false. Such a shushka-vedãnti should be considered to be extremely ignorant. The other way of falling is by believing, ‘If I worship Bhagvãn, then I will enjoy women, food, drink, and other pleasures of the panch-vishays in Golok and Vaikunth’. Then, due to the desires of those pleasures, he forgets even Bhagvãn. The fool, with his distorted mind, believes, ‘If that enjoyment was not true, then Bhagvãn would not associate with women like Rãdhã and Lakshmi, in that dhãm. So, that pleasure is also true’. However, he does not realise Bhagvãn to be absolutely satisfied and happy within His own ãtmã. In actual fact, such activities of Bhagvãn are for the purpose of giving bliss to His own bhaktas. Therefore, a person should engage in bhakti together with gnãn and vairãgya. 28.3 “A person who has understood the greatness of Bhagvãn realises that only Bhagvãn is all-blissful, whereas the pleasures derived from the panch-vishays have only a slight fraction of the bliss of Bhagvãn. Therefore, he would never become attached to any object. The Moksh-Dharma also mentions: ‘Compared to the bliss of the dhãm of Bhagvãn, the pleasures of the other loks are like Narak’. This is the understanding that a bhakta of Bhagvãn should have. If he does not have this understanding, he will fall away from Bhagvãn in the two ways mentioned.” 28.4 Then, Surã Khãchar asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “Even after forming firm nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant as they truly are, what is the reason for someone to suffer a setback?” 28.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “There was some deficiency in that person’s nishchay from the moment that he first established it. What was that deficiency? Well, if someone wishes to indulge in savoury food due to a desire for tasting delicious food, and if Bhagvãn or His sant criticise it, then he will suffer a setback. Or, if disturbing thoughts of kãm still remain, and they speak against it; or if lobh remains, and if they have him criticise his lobh by telling him, ‘Give away your wealth, property, land, and farm to someone’, then he will be unable to follow this ãgnã. As a result, he suffers a setback. Or, if a person has mãn and a sant criticises it and insults him, then he suffers a setback due to that as well. Therefore, a person suffers a setback due to the avgun that still remain in him, even though he has nishchay in Bhagvãn. However, if a person eradicates his avgun at the beginning, when he establishes his nishchay, then he will not suffer a setback. At present, if those who possess these avgun thoughtfully keep antar-drashti, they will be able to realise, ‘I am weak in this aspect. So, if I am asked to follow such an ãgnã I will fall back from satsang and become a vimukh’. In this way, they can understand themselves completely.” 28.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked Brahmãnand Swãmi, Shuk Muni, and Surã Khãchar a question: “What avgun do you possess which would cause you to suffer a setback?” 28.7 The three of them answered, “Mahãrãj, we have the avgun of mãn. As a result, if a sãdhu of an equal status to us insults us, we become somewhat disturbed.” 28.8 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj commented, “A person may have realised Bhagvãn with the knowledge of His greatness as mentioned in the shlok: dyupataya eva ten a yayur-antam anantatayã tvamapi yad-antarãnda-nichayã nanu sãvaranãhã Even the masters of the higher loks cannot understand your greatness, because it is endless. Neither can you yourself understand your own greatness. In your each and every hair, countless brahmãnds and their barriers (jad prakruti) fly simultaneously at immense speed – like specks of dust flying in the air. Even the Shrutis, ultimately perish in you, and fail to praise your glory. “If a person has realised Bhagvãn in this way, then how can he keep mãn, irshyã, or krodh towards a sãdhu of such a Bhagvãn? If he still does, then there is a flaw in his understanding. For example, if a person understands the authority of a governor – that he is the ruler of the whole world and that he is extremely powerful – then even if one of his pauper-like servants were to come, even a great king would obey his orders and act according to what he is told. This is because the king has understood, ‘He is the servant of the powerful governor’. After all, a person’s mãn does not continue in front of someone who is more powerful than himself. Similarly, if a person has understood Bhagvãn to be the master of all divine powers and wealth, then how can he retain mãn before a sant?” 28.9 Brahmãnand Swãmi agreed, “Mahãrãj, what you are saying is correct. If a person has realised Bhagvãn and the knowledge of His greatness, then he will never develop mãn, irshyã, or krodh towards a sant.” 28.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj continued, “Uddhavji was so great and so intelligent. However, because he had understood the greatness of Bhagvãn, he asked to be reborn as a vine so that he could be touched by the dust from the feet of the gopis who were greatly attached to Bhagvãn. Therefore, it is stated: ãsãm-ahe charana-renu-jushãm-aham syãm vrundãvane kimapi gulma-latausha-dheenãm yã dustyajam svajanam-ãrya-patham cha hitvã bhejur-mukunda-padaveem shruti-bhir-vimru-gyãm Those gopis – having abandoned the bond of their bodily relations and the path of dharma as prescribed for the nobles – attained the state of Bhagvãn, which even the Shrutis seek. May I also become any of the shrubs, vines, or herbs in Vrundãvan that are touched by the dust of their feet. “Even Brahmã has said, aho bhãgyam-aho bhãgyam nanda-gopa-vrajaukasãm yan-mitram paramã-nandam purnam brahma sanãtanam How fortunate is Nand, the cowherds, and the residents of Vraj – whose friend was the alokik, eternal, perfect, and blissful Bhagvãn. 8.11 “As he had understood the greatness of Bhagvãn, even Brahmã spoke in this way. Therefore, if a person realises the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant in this way, mãn, irshyã, or krodh can no longer persist. Moreover, he would behave as a dãs of dãs before them; and no matter however much they insult him, he would never think of leaving their company and going away. Also, he would never feel in his mind, ‘How long should I tolerate this? I will just stay at home and engage in worship there’. Therefore, if a person understands Bhagvãn’s greatness in such a way, mãn is eradicated.” 28.12 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “If a bhakta of Bhagvãn were placed on a shuli due to some karma of his, and if at that time I were standing next to him, the bhakta would still not think, ‘It would be good if Bhagvãn would free me from the pain of this shuli’. In this way, he is not concerned about his own physical comforts. Instead, he endures the difficulties that fall upon him. As a result, Bhagvãn becomes extremely pleased with such a bhakta who is free of all expectations.” 28.13 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “I shall now describe who attains the bliss related to Bhagvãn. First, consider the following analogy: Water is the very life of a fish. As long as it remains in water, it is able to move, swim, and perform all its activities; but the moment it leaves the water, it loses its life and dies. Similarly, if a person believes the panch-vishays to be his lifeline and believes them to be a source of happiness, then when he is separated from them, he becomes almost like a dead person. Such a person can never attain the bliss of Bhagvãn. In fact, only a person who does not believe the panch-vishays to be his lifeline experiences Bhagvãn’s bliss; only he is able to indulge in the bliss; and only he attains that bliss.”

29.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on the night of Posh sud 2 [7th January 1829], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on the platform in front of the medi in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 29.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked Shuk Muni a question: “Suppose there are two satsangis. Both are twenty years of age, and both possess nishchay, sneh, bhakti, vairãgya, and dharma to an equal extent. However, due to prãrabdha, one of them married, whereas the other did not find anyone and so remained a sãnkhya-yogi. He also had a desire to marry, but he could not find someone. Since neither of them had intense vairãgya from the beginning, both have an intense desire for indulging in the vishays. Then, the question is whose desire will be calmed: the grahastha or the sãnkhya-yogi? When replying, keep in mind that the Veds state: ‘Only a person who has intense vairãgya should become a tyãgi from the brahm-chãrya ãshram; whereas a person whose vairãgya is feeble should become a grahastha for the purpose of diminishing his intense desire to indulge in the vishays. Only then should he accept the vãnprasth ãshram, and then the sannyãs ashram’. Therefore, answer carefully.” 29.3 Shuk Muni attempted to answer the question but was unable to do so satisfactorily. 29.4 Answering the question Himself, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The grahastha is good, and the other who is a sãnkhya-yogi is bad. This is because he lacks intense vairãgya. As a result, he does not realise that the vishays are worthless and false. Also, for the same reason, he has no firmness in his ãtmã-nishthã. For this reason, if he happens to leave satsang and encounter vishays, he will become attached to them. However, if he does not come across vishays, he will be compelled to come back into satsang. On the other hand, the grahastha will progress even if he has the darshan of a sãdhu once every six months. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a person who is deficient in vairãgya to become a tyãgi; it is only appropriate for someone who has intense vairãgya. If someone who is deficient in vairãgya does become a tyãgi, then his tyãg will not continue throughout his life. After one year, two years, or after even ten years, difficulties will definitely arise in his tyãg.” 29.5 Then, Shuk Muni raised a doubt. He questioned, “Mahãrãj, if the person whose vairãgya is weak listens to the greatness of Bhagvãn from a sãdhu and thinks over it in his mind, then will he not develop intense vairãgya? In fact, only very few people, due to their prãrabdha, have intense vairãgya from the beginning. Generally, we see that a person develops vairãgya even though he did not possess it initially. How should this be understood?” 29.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The answer to that is that a person can never develop intense vairãgya merely by thinking by himself, or by any other means for that matter. However, if a person develops love for a great sant who possesses the four qualities of dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti, then all the actions he performs (seeing, listening, talking) will be performed according to the wishes of that great sant; he will not do anything which is against the sant’s wish. In his mind, he constantly fears behaving against the wishes of that sant, and feels, ‘If I do not behave according to his wish, then he will not maintain love for me’. That is why such a person will constantly behave according to the sant’s wishes. Therefore, if someone has developed such attachment for a sant, then even if he does not have vairãgya, his tyãg will remain till the end. 29.7 “In our satsang, all the males, females, and paramhans, are attached to me. Also, all the females observe vartmãns to the same extent as the three senior females (Lãdu-Bã, Jeevu-Bã, and Rãj-Bãi). This is because in their mind, they realise, ‘If we do not remain alert and observe the vartmãns, the love which Mahãrãj has for us will not remain, and He will become unhappy’. The paramhans also behave in the same way. In fact, it is the same for all the other satsangis, brahm-chãris and pãrshads. All the male and female bhaktas living far and wide are also alert in observing the vartmãns; they too feel, ‘If we do not behave properly, Mahãrãj will become displeased.’ Therefore, all of them strictly observe dharma out of love for me, even though they may possess vairãgya to a greater or lesser degree. 29.8 “However, when I recently fell ill in Panchãlã, if something serious had happened to me, then everyone’s firmness would not have remained as it is now. At such a time, a person who has intense vairãgya can remain within dharma; or a person who has lovingly attached his jeev to a person who has intense vairãgya can remain within dharma; or a person who keeps contact with satsang and, realising Bhagvãn to be antaryãmi, behaves according to the niyams that have been prescribed for him, can remain within dharma. Except for these, others cannot remain within dharma. Therefore, what I have just explained is the only answer to the question I had asked.”

30.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Posh sud Punam [19th January 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 30.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Two beliefs which I like, and by which my mind becomes calm, are as follows: First, I like a person who is firmly convinced that there is a mass of divine light which is chaitanya, and that the murti of Shree Purushottam Bhagvãn forever resides at the centre of that mass of light; and with that belief, he worships and offers bhakti to that Bhagvãn. On the other hand, I do not like a person who believes in and worships only the chaitanya divine light; nor do I like a person who does not believe Bhagvãn to forever possess a svarup; nor do I like a person who does not worship Bhagvãn. Secondly, I like a person who performs in tap, and yog, has vairãgya and hatred towards the panch-vishays, in order to please Bhagvãn – without any form of pretence. Seeing such a person, my mind becomes pleased, and I feel, ‘He should be congratulated for behaving in that way’. 30.3 “In addition, I have constant awareness of these five thoughts: First, I am certainly going to die and leave this body. In fact, I firmly feel, ‘I am going to die at this second, at this very moment’. Such awareness remains in times of happiness and distress, pleasure and displeasure, and amidst all activities. That is the type of vairãgya I possess. The second thought is the constant awareness that even though death is certain, this much work is left, which I would like to complete. The third is thought of whether or not desires for the panch-vishays have been eradicated from my mind. I feel, ‘If they have been eradicated, then why does activity regarding that vishay still occur? What if maybe they have not been eradicated?’ In this way, I am constantly suspicious of the mind. The fourth thought is the concern of whether or not Muktãnand Swãmi and the other senior sãdhus and senior bhaktas have eradicated their desires for the panch-vishays. In fact, I am constantly aware of looking into everyone’s hearts to observe, ‘This person’s worldly desires have been removed, but this person’s have not’. Finally, the fifth thought is that if I become unhappy, then who knows where I would run away to! I would probably leave my body. Therefore, I believe I should not become unhappy. This is because it is good that by my association all these men, women, and paramhans happily sit to engage in the bhakti of Bhagvãn. Seeing them engaged in such bhakti, I become extremely pleased in my mind. I feel, ‘Everyone must die someday, but to perform bhakti in this way is the only great benefit of living’. I am constantly aware of this.” 30.4 In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj described His own behaviour as an example for the benefit of His bhaktas, while in actual fact, He Himself is the pratyaksha svarup of Shree Purushottam Nãrãyan.

31.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on the evening of Mahã sud 4 [7th February 1829], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He had tied a white feto around His head and was wearing a white khes. He had also covered Himself with a red-bordered, white, English cloth. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some of the paramhans were singing kirtans to the accompaniment of musical instruments. 31.2 After the paramhans sang the kirtan ‘Hari Mere Hãralaki Lakari...’, Shreeji Mahãrãj requested, “Please sing ‘Jamunã Ke Teer Thãdo...’.” The paramhans then began singing that kirtan. In the meantime, Shreeji Mahãrãj sat thinking. 31.3 Then, He interrupted, “Please stop singing, and allow me to talk to you. What I am about to reveal to you is not much, but it can be very beneficial for those who practice dhyãn. In fact, I have never revealed this matter before.” Then, closing His gentle eyes, He began thinking, and then said, “There is a mass of divine light that is like countless millions of moons, suns, and flames of fire. That mass of light appears to be like an ocean. The svarup of Purushottam Bhagvãn resides within that luminous, brahm-rup dhãm of Bhagvãn, and He Himself assumes an avatãr from that murti. 31.4 “What is that Bhagvãn like? Well, He is greater than both the perishable and the imperishable; He is the cause of all causes; and countless millions of akshar-rup muktas worship His holy feet. Out of compassion, that very same Bhagvãn is pratyaksha and present before your eyes in an incarnated murti for the purpose of granting ultimate kalyãn of jeevs. Therefore, there is a great similarity between the murti residing in the dhãm of Bhagvãn and this pratyaksha murti of Shree Krishna. 31.5 “The vision of a person who performs dhyãn on this human murti of Shree Krishna develops extreme vairãgya for all charming sights other than Bhagvãn and remains engrossed only in the charm of Bhagvãn. Then, he does not notice even the slightest difference between the pratyaksha murti of Bhagvãn and the murti in His dhãm. The appearance and age of that murti, and the appearance and age of this murti will appear similar. In addition, the height and build of that murti will appear to be exactly the same as that of this murti; not even the slightest difference can be perceived between that murti and this murti. Also, there appears to be a total oneness between them. In this way, there is not even the slightest difference between that murti and this murti. In fact, both are one. 31.6 “When a person performs dhyãn on that pratyaksha murti outwardly, in front of the eyes, there is not the slightest difference between that murti and this murti. However, if he looks at that same murti inwardly, within his eyes, then that same murti does not appear to be the same as before. In this case, it becomes the same size as the pupil of the eye. Then, when he performs dhyãn and looks inward at the point of his throat and below, he does not see that same murti as the two murtis he saw before. He sees that same murti as being extremely large, extremely tall, extremely fat, and extremely frightening. For example, the shadow of a man formed by the sun at noon would be almost the same length as the man’s body. But when that same sun sets, the shadow becomes very elongated – it does not remain the same length as the man’s body. Similarly, the murti of Bhagvãn also becomes as large as mentioned previously. Then, when the person sees that murti within the buddhi, which resides in the heart, and when he sees that murti within his own jeev within the buddhi, he sees the murti as being the size of a thumb. It appears to have two arms or four arms, but he does not see it in the three ways that he saw before. Then, while performing dhyãn, he sees the murti to be greater than his jeev and sees it in the midst of a mass of divine light which is like that of countless millions of suns, moons, and flames of fire. Also, he sees that murti to be just like the murti that he saw before his eyes; he does not perceive even the slightest difference between the two. 31.7 “Therefore, the same murti that is in Akshardhãm – which is gunãtit – is pratyaksha. There is no difference between the two. Just as the murti in the dhãm is gunãtit, the human murti is also gunãtit. The difference which was noticed earlier was due to the gun of the different locations within the body – in the eyes there is sattva-gun; in the throat there is rajo-gun; even the jeev, which resides within the buddhi, is full of gun.” 31.8 After delivering this talk, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please continue singing the kirtan which you were singing earlier.” 31.9 In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj revealed Himself as Purushottam using the non-pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn as an example.

32.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Mahã sud 5 [8th February 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some of the paramhans were singing kirtans related to the spring season. 32.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked Muktãnand Swãmi and the other sãdhus, “Please explain the meaning of the shlok: vishayã vinivartante nirãhãrasya dehinaha The sense objects recede for a person who refrains from indulging in them. However, the longing for them does not subside. The longing subsides when his vision reaches Bhagvãn’s. 32.3 The sãdhus then explained the shlok according to the commentary written by Rãmãnuj Ãchãrya. 32.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then added, “With reference to that shlok, I have formed the belief that a person who is in his youth should reduce his diet and should eat and behave moderately. When a person’s diet is reduced, physical strength also diminishes. Only then can the indriyas be overcome; otherwise they cannot. Having done that, if a person enthusiastically engages his mind in the nine types of bhakti of Bhagvãn, and himself lovingly engages in bhakti, then he will remain in satsang till the end. But, if he does not behave in this way, he will surely surrender to his indriyas and, sooner or later, he will fall from satsang. Even a person who has mastered samãdhi, like Sheth Govardhan, is afraid of this; so what can be said for others? 32.5 ”However, a person’s diet cannot be controlled by merely observing several upvãs consecutively. This only leads to his desires and diet increasing, because when he breaks an upvãs, he tends to eat twice as much. However, if a person begins to reduce his diet gradually, it can be controlled. For example, even though the clouds cause rain to fall in tiny drops, water still collects in a large quantity. Similarly, a person should control his diet gradually. As a result, his indriyas will also be controlled. Then, if he lovingly engages in bhakti, he will remain in satsang till the end. This is a fact.” 32.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “How does a true bhakta of Bhagvãn understand Bhagvãn’s greatness? Well, he believes, ‘Bhagvãn, who possesses a definite murti, forever resides in His luminous Akshardhãm. He is the cause and controller of everything, the antaryãmi within all and the supreme lord of countless millions of brahmãnds. Moreover, His murti is divine, blissful, and free from the gun of Mãyã’. Understanding the pratyaksha Bhagvãn in this way, he believes that with the exception of Bhagvãn, all other worldly objects are absolutely worthless and perishable. In addition, he has love only for Bhagvãn, and he engages in the nine types of bhakti. He also believes, ‘Kãl, Mãyã, Brahmã, Shiv, Surya, and Chandra, are powerful, yet even they act according to the niyams of that extremely great Bhagvãn’. Understanding this, he always behaves within the niyams of dharma established by Bhagvãn in order to please Him; he never disobeys those niyams. 32.7 “On the other hand, a person who has a corrupted mind believes, ‘Such a great Bhagvãn is patit-pãvan and adham-udhãran. So, why worry about slightly disobeying the niyam of dharma? After all, Bhagvãn is capable of granting kalyãn’. In this way, he does not hesitate in committing sins under the pretext of knowing Bhagvãn’s greatness. Such a person should be considered wicked and sinful. Also, even though he may superficially appear to be a bhakta, he should not be considered a bhakta, and a person should not remain in his company. Only a person who has the understanding described previously should be considered to be a bhakta, and only his company should be kept.”

33.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Fãgan sud 11 [16th March 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 33.2 Then, addressing all the paramhans, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “In satsang, there are only a few bhaktas whose mind would not be affected by wealth, property, women, and children, and who would not develop faith in those who fulfil the desires related to those things. In fact, there cannot be many bhaktas who are like this.” Saying this, Shreeji Mahãrãj continued, “This Muktãnand Swãmi and Gopãlãnand Swãmi are like that, because in no way would they become impressed by anyone, no matter how great he may be, and not even if he were to perform miracles. 33.3 “What are the characteristics of a person who will not be influenced by anyone? Well, such a person believes, ‘I am the ãtmã, which is distinct from the body; I am luminous and eternal. Moreover, the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn constantly resides within my own self. Except for the svarup of Bhagvãn, all worldly svarups are asatya and full of countless flaws’. A person who has such vairãgya and who thoroughly understands the greatness of Bhagvãn will never have any kind of doubts in his mind. But having said that, this understanding is very difficult to develop. 33.4 “Even though these two sãdhus are so great, if they were to receive a great amount of honour, or if heaps of rupees and gold coins were to be placed before them, or if they were to come across attractive women, then even though they are tyãgis, they would not be able to maintain their dharma. In fact, if they do encounter those objects, then it is doubtful whether they would remain equal with even the lowest of our tyãgis. This is because that is effect of the association of those objects. For example, see how religious all of us sitting here are. However, if we were to drink bottles of liquor, we would not remain so composed. Similarly, the association of those objects certainly has an effect on a person. Therefore, a person can only be saved from those objects if he does not associate with them. He should be cautious from the beginning, in case he comes across them. Moreover, it is a well-known fact of the shãstras that only Bhagvãn is unaffected by their association. That is why it has been stated: rushim nãrãyanam-rute... Of the progeny of Brahmã (Marichi), and their progeny (Kashyap), and their progeny (humans and devs) – whose mind in this world, besides that of Nãrãyan Rushi, can be distinguished as being unaffected by the mãyã and attractive charm of women? ... ye-nye svataha parihrutãd-api bibhyati sma O Master of the indriyas (Bhagvãn)! You are indeed the lord of the whole mobile and immobile world, because even though you indulge in the various sense objects created by the imbalance in the gun of Mãyã, you remain unaffected by them. Apart from you, others still fear the association of the sense objects – even though they have renounced them. 33.5 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Who can be called an ekãntik bhakta of Bhagvãn? Well, a person who possesses the qualities of svadharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and unparalleled bhakti towards Bhagvãn coupled with knowledge of his greatness, can be called an ekãntik bhakta. 33.6 “Furthermore, regarding the ultimate fate of an ekãntik bhakta, it is said the he ‘enters’ Bhagvãn. But what is meant by ‘entering’? Well, that bhakta has love for the divya murti of Bhagvãn, who dwells within a mass of divine light. Due to that love, he has constant awareness of the murti of Bhagvãn in his mind, and he behaves as if he is infatuated by that murti. Remaining in that state, he also engages in the service of Bhagvãn outwardly. For example, even though Lakshmiji remains in the heart of Bhagvãn symbolically and through her profound love, she also outwardly serves him in the svarup of a female. The ‘entering’ of an ekãntik bhakta into Bhagvãn should be understood in a similar way. 33.7 “Even at present, the attachment a bhakta has for the ten types of bhakti as well as the attachment he has for svadharma, vairãgya, ãtmã-nishthã, keeping the company of a sant and realising the greatness of Bhagvãn is such that he can in no way do without it. Even though opium is extremely bitter, a person who is addicted to it cannot live without it. Or, if a person is addicted to alcohol, then even though his throat burns whenever he drinks alcohol, he cannot live without it. Even if someone were to offer him many rupees he would not accept them, because his addiction is dearer to him. This is because that addiction has become ingrained in his jeev. Similarly, if a person was addicted to the bhakti of Bhagvãn and other such activities, then even if he remains under the influence of any type of kusang, he would not be able to live without engaging in bhakti. Moreover, his mind would not be pleased in engaging in any other activities. Such a bhakta of Bhagvãn, whose jeev has become engrossed in Bhagvãn’s bhakti and other such activities, and who is extremely eager to perform only those activities, can also be said to have ‘entered’ Bhagvãn. 33.8 “So, what are the characteristics of such a bhakta of Bhagvãn? Well, except for the sevã of Bhagvãn, if he does not wish for even the four types of mukti, how can he desire anything else? Such a person should be known as an ekãntik bhakta because he has no desire for anything. A person who is not like this sometimes enjoys engaging in the bhakti of Bhagvãn’s; but if he encounters evil company, he will forget bhakti and begin to behave immorally. Such a person should be known to be a fake bhakta and a person who believes himself to be the body. He is not a true bhakta and cannot be trusted.” 33.9 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj continued, “If a bhakta of Bhagvãn is vulnerable to women, wealth, svabhãvs, and the belief that he is the body, then even if he is engaged in the bhakti of Bhagvãn, his bhakti cannot be trusted; he will surely encounter obstacles in it. This is because if at some time he happens to come across women or wealth, then there will be no stability in his bhakti, and he will become engrossed in them. Also, if a person believes himself to be the body, then when he suffers due to some illness, or if he is unable to obtain food and clothing, or if a ãgnã to observe a difficult vartmãn is given, then again, his bhakti will be disturbed. In fact, he will become frustrated and will not be able to think; he will begin to behave immorally. Also, if he has a certain svabhãv, and if a sant lectures him instead of allowing him to behave according to his svabhãv, and makes him behave opposite to it, then also he will become disturbed. Then, if he cannot remain in the company of a sant, how will he be able to maintain bhakti? Therefore, a person who wishes to develop firm bhakti should not be vulnerable in these four aspects. If there is a flaw in these four, it should be slowly eradicated with understanding. Only then can a person perform constant bhakti of Bhagvãn. What I have just said is absolutely true; there is no doubt in it whatsoever.”

34.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Chaitra sud 3 [6th April 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 34.2 Then, Shuk Muni asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “There appear to be two means by which desires for only Bhagvãn remain, and desires for any worldly object do not remain. One is love for Bhagvãn, and other is vairãgya coupled with gnãn. These are the two means. For a person who does not practise these two means firmly, but who does have nishchay in Bhagvãn and the belief of Bhagvãn, is there a third means by which he can maintain desires only for Bhagvãn and not for anything else?” 34.3 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said in reply, “That is a good question because it is true that only by those two means do desires only for Bhagvãn remain, and desires for any worldly object do not remain. If a person does not practice those two means, then his desires for objects other than Bhagvãn will not be eradicated. As a result, he remains unhappy in life. But, since he has nishchay in Bhagvãn, he will be granted kalyãn by Bhagvãn after death. 34.4 “However, just like those two means, there is also a third means for eradicating desires for objects other than Bhagvãn. What is it? Well, it is to vigilantly observe the prescribed niyams. What are those niyams? Some are svadharma niyams, that are related to the duties of a person’s varna and ashram. Just as there are niyams for an ãtmã-nivedi sãdhu and a brahm-chãri, similarly, even though a person is not an ãtmã-nivedi, he should still follow the niyams of not seeing women and not listening to talks about them. In this way, he should strictly and attentively observe the niyams related to abandoning the panch-vishays. Also, he should physically serve Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, and he should listen to kathãs related to Bhagvãn. In this way, if he observes niyams in the form of engaging in the nine types of bhakti, then his mind will also begin to think about good thoughts. So, if a person behaves according to these two niyams, then as a result, even if he does not have vairãgya or love for Bhagvãn, they will develop; he will become extremely powerful; impure desires for objects will be eradicated; and only desires for Bhagvãn will flourish day by day.” 34.5 Again, Shuk Muni asked, “Mahãrãj, it seems krodh arises when a person’s desire for a certain object or his sense of ‘my-ness’ for something is violated by someone. When a desire, such as a craving, is not satisfied, then that desire results in krodh. So, it can be said that such a person has developed a svabhãv in which krodh can arise. Is it possible that krodh will not arise even in such situations?” 34.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A great sant, due to Bhagvãn’s ãgnã or by his own wish after understanding Bhagvãn’s greatness according to the shãstras, may have made a firm decision to keep countless people within the niyams of dharma, and to lead them onto the path of Bhagvãn. This sant may express anger on a person who disobeys the niyam of dharma and follows adharma. If the sant does not express anger and does not lecture that person in order to teach him to remain within the niyams of dharma, then that person will continue to disobey those niyams and will not progress. Therefore, anger expressed for this reason is beneficial; there is nothing unsuitable about it. This is because thousands of people have taken refuge of the great sant who has chosen to take this path. So, how can they possibly not be slightly lectured? 34.7 “However, anger will not arise if a person avoids the very cause of that anger. Obviously, anger will not arise, if a person is travelling alone in the jungle; but how can a great sant do that? After all, he has understood from the shãstras the great rewards involved in guiding countless people towards Bhagvãn by talks, in order that they attain kalyãn. Similarly, he has also understood the importance of observing Bhagvãn’s ãgnã. Therefore, even though he may express anger, he still does not abandon his decision to lead people to kalyãn. 34.8 A person who has developed attachment with a great sant, has understood that his personal interest of attaining kalyãn can be fulfilled by the sant. Also, he believes, ‘I can only attain kalyãn through this sant’. Then, even though he may have the svabhãv of krodh, he will never express that krodh on that great sant. In fact, he will surely abandon his svabhãv. So, krodh can also be eradicated in this way. 34.9 “On the other hand, a person who becomes angry on a sant over the exchange of some worthless objects has simply not understood the greatness of the sant, or the true path of a sant. If he had understood it, then he would not become angry over such worthless objects. Even if such a person is intelligent and understanding, if he does become angry on a sant for worthless objects, then his intellect should be considered to be like that of a king’s minister – skilled only in worldly affairs. He does not possess the intellect of sant.”

35.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Chaitra sud 9 [12th April 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 35.2 Then, Shuk Muni asked, “Mahãrãj, how can we recognise that a person has such a firm refuge of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas that it will not falter in any way – regardless of the extent of suffering he may have to face; regardless of any physical happiness or distress; and regardless of whether he faces honour or insult, or even unpleasant circumstances? Please also describe what type of thoughts such a person has in mind, as well as how he behaves physically?” 35.3 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said in reply, “If a bhakta realises that only Bhagvãn is great, but he does not believe anything else to be greater than Bhagvãn; and if he also believes that everything except Bhagvãn is worthless; and if he does not become disturbed or annoyed when Bhagvãn or His sant attempts to forcefully alter his svabhãv or when they do not allow him to behave according to his svabhãv; and if he can abandon his svabhãv, no matter how embedded it may be, and follow the ãgnã of Bhagvãn and His sant in a simple way – then that bhakta’s acceptance of the refuge of Bhagvãn will not falter, regardless of how difficult the circumstances may be.” 35.4 Shuk Muni then queried, “Such a person must become disturbed, because when someone’s svabhãv is forcefully altered, he naturally becomes disturbed. So, are there differences in the types of disturbances that are experienced or not?” 35.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “If a person is disturbed when his nature is forcefully altered, and if he then finds avgun within himself rather than with Bhagvãn or His sant, then he is good. However, instead of finding faults with himself, if a person perceives avgun in Bhagvãn and His sant, then his future is uncertain, and there is no stability in his refuge of Bhagvãn.” 35.6 Again, Shuk Muni asked, “If Bhagvãn or His sant have never attempted to twist a person’s nature, how can he realise in his own mind, ‘If they do attempt to do so at some time in the future, I will become disturbed’. After all, how can a person be sure of something that he has not experienced?” 35.7 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “A person should think about the thoughts that occur in his mind. For example, ‘In the mind, besides the thoughts of Bhagvãn, there are also thoughts related to the panch-vishays. Of these, for which objects do I have powerful desires and for which do I have strong cravings?’ If a person thinks in this way, he can realise himself as he truly is; otherwise, he cannot. During the thinking of those thoughts, he should also realise, ‘I have very strong desires for this object, and I am striving to attain it. However, when a sant attempts to have me abandon it, I will become disturbed’. In this way, he becomes clear about his own self. If his svabhãv is stubborn, and Bhagvãn or His sant do not attempt to alter it, then he will survive in satsang. However, if they do attempt to alter it, then he will definitely fall. Ultimately, he will become extremely disturbed and will fall from satsang.” 35.8 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The shãstras claim that to insult a sant is the greatest of all sins. What is the reason for this? Well, it is because Shree Krishna Bhagvãn Himself resides in the heart of that sant. Therefore, when a person insults a sant, he insults Bhagvãn as well. After all, when a person insults a sant, Bhagvãn, who resides within his heart, is hurt. In such a case, the sin of insulting Bhagvãn is an even greater sin. Therefore, it is said that to insult the sant is the greatest of all sins. 35.9 “Having said that though, Kans, Shishupãl, Putnã, and other demons insulted Bhagvãn, yet Bhagvãn still granted them kalyãn like that of a bhakta. This is because even though it was out of hatred, those demons did think about Bhagvãn. So, Bhagvãn felt, ‘Those demons thought of me, and therefore associated with me, even though it was out of hatred. So, I should grant them kalyãn’. These cases should be taken as examples of Bhagvãn’s compassion. A person should also realise, ‘If Bhagvãn granted them kalyãn even though they sought the refuge of Bhagvãn through hatred, why would Bhagvãn not grant kalyãn to a bhakta who seeks His refuge by offering bhakti and who pleases Him by that bhakti? Of course, He will’. 35.10 “The intention of those who have written the shãstras is to inspire people towards the bhakti of Bhagvãn by showing Bhagvãn’s great compassion; their intention was not to allow people to behave against Bhagvãn’s wishes like the demons. Therefore, a person who spites Bhagvãn by keeping hatred towards Him and who behaves against His wishes should definitely be considered to be a demon – because that is the way of demons. However, a person should behave only in a way that will please Bhagvãn; he should engage in bhakti and please Him and His bhaktas. That is the way of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn.” 35.11 Shuk Muni then asked further, “Mahãrãj, what are the characteristics of a sant who is such that by insulting him, Bhagvãn residing within his heart is also insulted, and by performing his sevã, Bhagvãn’s sevã is also performed?” 35.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj thought for a while and then answered out of compassion: “First of all, the most important characteristic is that he never believes Bhagvãn to be nirãkãr. He understands Bhagvãn to eternally sãkãr. No matter how many of the Purãns, Upanishads, Veds, or other shãstras he may hear – if ever he comes across the idea of Bhagvãn being nirãkãr, he thinks, ‘Either I have not understood the true meaning of the shãstras, or there may be other purpose behind such words; but Bhagvãn is always sãkãr’. If he does not understand Bhagvãn be sãkãr, then his upãsanã cannot be considered to be firm. Also, if Bhagvãn is nirãkãr, then He could not be called the all-doer – just as ãkãsh cannot be called the doer; and nor could He be said to reside in one location. Therefore, Bhagvãn is eternally sãkãr. In addition, He is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of countless brahmãnds; He is forever present in His Akshardhãm; He is the lord of all; and He is pratyaksha here before your eyes. The sant mentioned above always has this understanding; but this understanding of his is never shaken in any way or under any circumstances. 35.13 “Secondly, he engages himself in the ekãntik bhakti of Bhagvãn. Moreover, when he sees someone else engaged in kathãs, singing kirtans, and chanting the holy name of Bhagvãn, he becomes extremely pleased in his mind. 35.14 “Thirdly, when he stays amongst bhaktas, he does not allow any of his svabhãvs to interfere. In fact, he will abandon his svabhãvs, but he will not leave the company of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. If a sant happens to criticise his svabhãvs, he does not have hatred towards the sant. Instead, he finds faults with his own svabhãvs, but he never becomes upset or even thinks of departing from the company of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. In this way, he remains within the company of bhaktas. 35.15 “Fourthly, when he comes across any precious item, such as an expensive piece of clothing, some delicious food, or clean water, ‘It would be nice to give this to a bhakta of Bhagvãn’. He would give away the items to him and be happy. 35.16 “Fifth, the bhaktas in whose company he is staying do not feel, ‘He has beeen staying with us for so many years, yet we have not been able to truly understand him; and who knows what he is really like? It is difficult to judge him’. He would not be like that. Instead, he would be such that everyone would know him outwardly and inwardly, and they would feel, ‘He is definitely like this’. He would be of such an honest nature. 35.17 “Sixth, even if he is of a quiet nature, he would not like the company of kusangis; and if he does happen to come across them, he would become angry. In this way, he has a natural dislike for the company of those who are vimukhs. 35.18 “Therefore, it should be known that Bhagvãn Himself resides in the heart of a sant who possesses these six qualities. By insulting such a sant, a person commits a sin equivalent to insulting Bhagvãn; and if he performs sevã of such a sant, he earns rewards equivalent to performing sevã of Bhagvãn.”

36.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Vaishãkh sud 1 [4th May 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj rode on horseback from Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã and arrived at Lakshmi-Vãdi. He sat on a platform within the grounds. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places had gathered before Him. 36.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked all the paramhans and bhaktas, “What is the most extraordinary spiritual activity for the kalyãn of the jeev, which will surely guarantee kalyãn and prevent all other obstacles from hindering that kalyãn? Also, what is the great obstacle in that activity for kalyãn, on account of which a person would certainly fall from the path of kalyãn? Please answer both of these questions.” 36.3 Everyone answered according to their understanding, but the question was not answered satisfactorily. 36.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said in reply, “The most extraordinary spiritual activity is to understand Purushottam Bhagvãn, who is seated amidst the mass of light of Brahm, as eternally having a svarup. Furthermore, after understanding that all avatãrs originate from Him, a person should accept the refuge of the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn by any means possible. He should also offer bhakti to that Bhagvãn while observing dharma, as well as associate with a sant possessing such bhakti. That is the most extraordinary spiritual activity for kalyãn. A person encounters no obstacles along that path. 36.5 “A major obstacle in practising that spiritual activity is keeping the company of shushka-vedãntis. Which obstacles arise when a person keeps their company? Initially, he develops affection for them. That affection develops due to the kindness of the vedãntis. For example, if a person has saved someone’s life by giving him some food during a famine, then that person would naturally develop affection for him. In this way, a person develops affection for a person who has helped him. Also, those shushka-vedãntis would point out advantages, such as, ‘The ãtmã does not undergo births and deaths, and it is formless. In fact, regardless of the number of sins a person may commit, the ãtmã remains immune to those flaws’. Pointing out such advantages, they criticise the svarup of Bhagvãn. That is a major obstacle since it leads to the rejection of Bhagvãn’s svarup. Therefore, a person should never keep the company of shushka-vedãntis – they are absolutely ignorant. In fact, there is no greater obstacle on the path of bhakti than this.” 36.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj returned to Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr. There, He sat on a large decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms and said, “I have heard all the shãstras and have formed a principle. I have also travelled throughout this land and seen many yogis.” Shreeji Mahãrãj then narrated the stories of Gopãldãsji and other sãdhus. He then continued by saying, “I believe that it is impossible to see the ãtmã and brahm without the upãsanã and dhyãn of Bhagvãn’s murti. Only through upãsanã can the ãtmã and brahm be seen; without it, they cannot be seen. In fact, wishing to see the ãtmã and brahm without upãsanã is like attempting to lick the sky with the tongue; even if a person tries for a hundred years, he will never be able to taste it as sour or salty. Similarly, the ãtmã and brahm simply cannot be seen without the upãsanã of the murti of Bhagvãn – regardless of the efforts a person may resort to. Furthermore, the fact that the shãstras mention the possibility of ãtmã-nishthã through nirbij Sãnkhya and Yog is irrelevant – I have not seen anyone do so, nor is the claim in agreement with my experience. Therefore, the claim is false.”

37.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Vaishãkh sud 3 [6th May 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a square cushion on the veranda outside the north-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 37.2 Then, addressing all the sãdhus and bhaktas, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Once a person has thoroughly attained the gnãn of Bhagvãn, then even if the factors of desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang become unpleasant for him, his gnãn does not diminish in the least. For example, take the analogy of a great king or a millionaire. If he happens to lose his status due to his prãrabdha and becomes poor, and because of that if he has only cheap food to eat, such as low-quality grains, or spinach, or moss, or berries, or boiled pipal fruit, then he would certainly eat it; but he would also recall the expensive foods that he formerly obtained and ate. In his mind he would think, ‘I used to eat all those delicious foods in the past, whereas now I eat such common food’. In this way, whenever he eats, he would recall this. However, if a person has been eating such common food from the beginning, and if he becomes even poorer, then he continues to eat the same type of food as before. So, what does he have to recall? Nothing. 37.3 “So, once a person has thoroughly known the bliss of Bhagvãn and the bliss of worshipping Bhagvãn in his own mind, then even if he can no longer remain within satsang and has to leave, he will experience happiness and misery according to his prãrabdha while remembering that bliss; he will not forget it. But, what is there to recall for someone who has not known that bliss of Bhagvãn and who has not experienced it? Nothing. Such a person is like an animal.” 37.4 Continuing, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Now, I shall narrate to you the gnãn of the murti of Bhagvãn. No dev, human or anything created from Prakruti, possesses a murti like Bhagvãn. In addition, Kãl devours everything except Bhagvãn; Kãl’s powers are incapable of affecting Bhagvãn. This is what Bhagvãn is like. In fact, only Bhagvãn is like Bhagvãn; no one else can even compare to Him. Also, a bhakta in the dhãm of Bhagvãn who has attained characteristics similar to Bhagvãn also possesses a svarup similar to that of Bhagvãn. Nevertheless, that bhakta is still a mukta, and Bhagvãn is Purushottam. Bhagvãn is supreme amongst everyone and is worthy to be worshipped by everyone. He is also their master. However, no one can understand the greatness of that Bhagvãn. He has a divya murti, is nirgun, and is worthy of performing dhyãn upon. In fact, that murti of Bhagvãn is such that a person who performs dhyãn upon Him becomes nirgun himself. 37.5 “Moreover, while staying in one place, in His dhãm, Bhagvãn resides by way of His anvay form as the antaryãmi and the giver of the deserved rewards of karmas to all the jeevs in countless brahmãnds. He is the very life of all jeevs; and without Him, those jeevs are not capable of doing anything or indulging in anything. 37.6 “In addition, that Bhagvãn is the master of all yogic powers. Just as a person who has attained yogic powers can obtain any object with his own hands, even in Brahm-Lok, while sitting here, similarly, Bhagvãn performs all activities while staying in one place only using His yogic powers. Also, for example, the fire that is latent within wood and stone is different from the wood and stone themselves. Similarly, Bhagvãn dwells within all jeevs, but His svarup is different from the svarup of the jeevs. 37.7 “That Bhagvãn Himself, possessing countless divya powers, becomes like a human for the purpose of granting kalyãn to the jeevs. If a person develops the gnãn of that svarup of Bhagvãn in this way, then if he has offered bhakti to that Bhagvãn and has fully experienced the bliss of that gnãn and bhakti as it really is at least once in his jeev, he will never forget it. In fact, regardless of whatever happiness or distress comes his way, he does not forget the experience of that bliss of Bhagvãn’s svarup, just as the king in a state of poverty does not forget the happiness of his past. 37.8 “I tell you this because currently all of you are present in satsang; but, due to unpleasant circumstances or unpleasant prãrabdha, if a person no longer remains in satsang, then if he has understood this fact, his jeev can still attain kalyãn. Also, if a person has such a belief, he will never feel, ‘I will not attain kalyãn’. After all, to continuously remain in satsang is indeed extremely difficult. In fact, to physically behave as described is also rare. However, if a person someday happens to leave satsang, then even if he cannot physically behave like this at that time, his jeev will still benefit greatly if he has understood this fact. That is why I have delivered this talk.”

38.1 In the Samvat year 1885, on Vaishãkh sud 14 [17th May 1829], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Gopinãthji in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 38.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Having thought about the Sãnkhya shãstras as well as other shãstras, I have formed the belief that all svarups that are the result of the entities evolved from Mãyã are false. This is because all of those svarups will be destroyed by Kãl. On the other hand, the svarup of Bhagvãn in Akshardhãm and the svarup of the muktas – the pãrshads of Bhagvãn – are all satya, divya, and extremely luminous. Also, the svarup of that Bhagvãn and those muktas is two-armed like that of a human being, and it is sachidãnand. That Bhagvãn, residing in Akshardhãm, is served by those muktas with various types of divya items, and He is always present there to bestow supreme bliss upon the muktas. 38.3 “It is that same supreme Purushottam Bhagvãn who takes birth on this earth out of compassion – for the purpose of granting kalyãn to the jeevs. He is presently visible before everyone; He is your ishta-dev; and He accepts your sevã. In fact, there is absolutely no difference between the pratyaksha svarup of Purushottam Bhagvãn visible before you and the svarup of Bhagvãn residing in Akshardhãm; both are one. Also, this pratyaksha svarup of Purushottam Bhagvãn is the controller of all, including Akshar. He is the lord (sarvopari) of all the ishvars and the cause of all the avatãrs (avatãri). Moreover, He is worthy of being worshipped by all of you. The many previous avatãrs of this Bhagvãn are worthy of being bowed down to and worthy of respect.” 38.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then explained, “A person who possesses the following six characteristics will never become happy, either in this life or even after death: greed for wealth and other things; desires to associate with women; attachment of the tongue to various tastes; the belief that a person is the body; affection for kusangis; and attachment to relatives. Therefore, a person who desires to be happy should eradicate these svabhãvs, maintain nivrutti, and not keep the company of those equal himself. A person should also attach his jeev to the bhaktas of Bhagvãn – the great sant – who does not identify his self with the body, who possesses vairãgya, and who feels that he has disobeyed a major ãgnã of Bhagvãn even if he has disobeyed a minor ãgnã. A person should act according to his ãgnã by thought, word, and deed. Also, he should certainly avoid the vishays, and in no way should he allow them to come near by abandoning his niyams. If a person does begin to associate with the vishays, he will certainly fall. This should be accepted as a universal principle.”

39.1 In the Samvat year 1886, on Ashãdh vad 10 [25th July 1829], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on the veranda outside the east-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 39.2 Addressing all the paramhans and satsangis, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “What is Bhagvãn’s mãyã? Well, mãyã is nothing but the sense of ‘I-ness’ towards the body and ‘my-ness’ towards anything related to the body. These should be eradicated. Anyone who eradicates mãyã can be said to have gone beyond mãyã. In fact, it is the principle of all the shãstras that a person should eradicate mãyã and develop love for Bhagvãn. This principle must be understood – either today or at some time in the future. Great bhaktas, such as Hanumãn, Nãrad, and Prahlãd, have also asked from Bhagvãn, ‘Protect us from mãyã in the form of ‘I-ness’ and ‘my-ness’, and may we develop love for you. May we also have the company of a sant who has gone beyond mãyã and has love for you; and may we develop affection and a sense of ‘my-ness’ towards him as well’. Therefore, we too should do the same and ask for the same, as well as do shravan, manan, and nididhyãs on this principle.” 39.3 Then continuing, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A bhakta of Bhagvãn requires the strength of two things: ãtmã-nishthã and the greatness of Bhagvãn. What is ãtmã-nishthã? It is to realise the ãtmã as being distinct from the body. If while staying among the sãdhus there happens to be a quarrel from some reason, or if the feelings of ‘I-ness’ and ‘my-ness’, or vicious natures such as mãn, krodh, svãd, lobh, kãm, matsar, and irshyã, prevail, then a person who does not regard himself as the ãtmã perceives avgun in the sãdhus. This would be extremely harmful for him. That is why a person should realise his true self as being the ãtmã, distinct from the body. 39.4 “That ãtmã is neither a brãhman, nor a kshatriya, nor a kanbi. It is no one’s son and no one’s father. It belongs to no varna. It is radiant like the sun and fire; but it is also full of chaitanya. The flames of fire and the rays of the sun are jad because they do not move when touched by a finger. However, when an ant is touched by a finger, it moves and turns back. This implies that the ãtmã is full of consciousness. It is said to be similar to the sun or to fire, but that is merely because its form is similar in radiance. 39.5 “The ãtmã has passed through countless life forms. In fact, it is said that a person has drank as much milk from his mothers as there is water in the ocean. In those lives, the ãtmã has experienced death in countless ways, yet it has not perished. It has remained as it is. So, if it did not perish in that state of ignorance when it regarded itself as the body, how shall it perish now that we have its gnãn? Therefore, we should realise that ãtmã as our true self. 39.6 “Furthermore, how should the greatness of Bhagvãn be understood? Well, Bhagvãn is the lord of the lords of countless brahmãnds. However, the brahmãnds of which He is the lord are insignificant compared to Him. Therefore, it is said: dyupataya eva ten a yayur-antam anantatayã tvamapi yad-antarãnda-nichayã nanu sãvaranãhã Even the masters of the higher loks cannot understand your greatness, because it is endless. Neither can you yourself understand your own greatness. In your each and every hair, countless brahmãnds and their barriers (jad prakruti) fly simultaneously at immense speed – like specks of dust flying in the air. Even the Shrutis, ultimately perish in you, and fail to praise your glory. 39.7 “Within each brahmãnd there are Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, as well as the pruthvi with its seven dvips, seven oceans, Meru, and Lokã-Lok, and other mountains. The brahmãnds also contain the fourteen loks, the eight barriers, and many other things. Bhagvãn is the lord of countless such brahmãnds. For example, person can realise the reputation of an emperor of the world, even though his villages can be counted. But, the reputation of Bhagvãn is much greater because even those countless brahmãnds are insignificant to Him. So then, of what significance can the beings of those brahmãnds be before Bhagvãn’s? They are of no significance at all; they are utterly insignificant. 39.8 “Furthermore, in those brahmãnds, what are the pleasures of the panch-vishays that Bhagvãn has given to the jeevs like? Well, those pleasures seem extremely rare; so much so, that many have given their heads for them. However, the bliss of Bhagvãn’s own murti and of His dhãm are indeed outstanding. The pleasures of the worldly vishays are dependent on other factors and must be experienced distinctly. In comparison, Bhagvãn is the reservoir of all forms of bliss. Moreover, the bliss of Bhagvãn is imperishable and extremely alokik. For this, consider the following analogy: An extremely wealthy man enjoys a great variety of food at home. Then, after finishing the meal, he throws a leftover piece of rotlo to a dog. In this case, the leftover piece of rotlo can be considered utterly inferior, and the various delicious foods that the wealthy man enjoys can be considered to be full of pleasure. In the same way, Bhagvãn has given the countless jeevs of the brahmãnds the pleasures of the panch-vishays; but they are inferior like the piece of rotlo thrown to the dog, whereas the bliss of Bhagvãn Himself is far greater. 39.9 “Even so, Bhagvãn grants a great deal of happiness to the jeev during the state of sushupti. During sushupti, a person is relieved of even severe pain, and instead, he experiences profound peace. 39.10 “Even the great bhaktas such as Brahmã, Shiv, Lakshmiji, Rãdhãji, Nãrad, Shukji, the Sanakãdik, and the nine Yogeshvars apply the dust of Bhagvãn’s holy feet upon their heads. They put aside all their self-importance and constantly offer bhakti to Him. 39.11 “Moreover, just look at the diverse creation created by Bhagvãn! What creativity He has used! Just see, a human is born of a human, and an animal from an animal; a tree from a tree, and an ant from an ant. Also, no matter how intelligent someone may be, no one is capable of replacing a destroyed part of someone’s body exactly as it was before. Bhagvãn possesses innumerable such skills. Therefore, by realising the greatness of Bhagvãn and realising Him to be blissful, a person develops vairãgya for all things, and develops love for Bhagvãn alone. 39.12 “If a person attains the gnãn of his jeevãtmã and the gnãn of Bhagvãn’s greatness as mentioned earlier, then even if he has somehow become attached to any sort of pleasures of the panch-vishays, he would not remain bound by them, but would break that bondage and withdraw from them. Then, how can a person who abandons the pleasures of the panch-vishays become attached? Therefore, having listened to these two types of gnãn, a person should apply them within his mind with great enthusiasm. For example, a brave and fierce man would be extremely angered if an enemy killed his father. If the enemy harassed him further by killing his son and brother, kidnapping his wife, passing on his mother to a Muslim, as well as stealing all his belongings, the man would become increasingly angered as he is harassed more and more. At all times then – while awake as well as in his dreams – he would be obsessed by only this. In the same way, only when a person is constantly obsessed by these two topics can that gnãn be realised. Then, that gnãn would assist him against any sort of difficulty that may occur. For example, when Hanumãnji brought the vishalya-karani herbal medicine for Rãmchandraji and gave it to Him to drink, all the arrows from Rãmchandraji’s body fell out by themselves. Similarly, all the ‘arrows’ in the form of the desires of the indriyas to indulge in the vishays are removed when these two points have been embedded in a person’s mind. The vruttis of his indriyas withdraw from the pleasures of the vishays and become rooted only in Bhagvãn. Only he is a satsangi, because only he who associates with his own satya ãtmã and satya Bhagvãn can be called a satsangi. 39.13 “If a religious person were to hear the talks of these two points, they would stir his heart and pervade every pore of his body. Conversely, if a demonic person were to hear them, they would not touch his heart at all; instead, they would exit from his ears, just as khir would not remain in a dog’s stomach because the dog would vomit it out. In actual fact, nothing can be said to be as delicious as khir, yet it does not remain in a dog’s stomach, let alone pervade its body. On the other hand, if a man were to eat khir, it would indeed pervade every pore of his body, and it would be extremely enjoyable. Likewise, these talks do not enter into the hearts of dog-like, demonic people; these talks enter and pervade totally only in the hearts of religious people.” 39.14 Shreeji Mahãrãj then added, “Only Bhagvãn is like Bhagvãn. Many have attained qualities similar to His by worshipping Him, yet they certainly do not become like Bhagvãn. If they did become like Bhagvãn, this would suggest the existence of several Bhagvãns. As a result, the control of the world would not remain organised. One Bhagvãn would say, ‘I will create the world’, while another Bhagvãn would say, ‘I will destroy the world’. One Bhagvãn would say, ‘I will make it rain’, while another would say, ‘I will not’. One Bhagvãn would say, ‘I will instil human instincts in animals’, while another would say, ‘I will instil animal instincts in humans’. A stable state would not be possible in this situation. But, see how organised everything functions in the world! There is not even the slightest irregularity. Therefore, the ruler of all activities and the lord of all is one Bhagvãn. Not only that, it seems that no one can ever challenge Him. Therefore, Bhagvãn is definitely one, and no one can become like Him. 39.15 “All these facts that I have revealed may be simple, but they include everything. However, only the wise can grasp their essence, but not others. Whoever understands these facts and thoroughly strengthens them has accomplished everything; he has nothing more to achieve. Having listened to these talks delivered by me, a person should keep the company of those bhaktas of Bhagvãn who have thoroughly absorbed them. This will lead to the day-by-day strengthening of those talks.” 39.16 In conclusion, Shreeji Mahãrãj revealed, “I deliver these talks to you not from any imagination of my mind, nor to display any sort of skill. I have experienced all that I have spoken about. In fact, I speak in accordance to what I practise. Outwardly, I may have a great deal of contact with women, wealth, and the panch-vishays. In fact, wherever I go – Surat, Amdãvãd, Vadodarã, Vadtãl – thousands of people gather; they obey me, honour me, and welcome me with great festivity; and I stay in luxurious places and receive rich clothes and vehicles. Despites all this, whenever I look towards my ãtmã and towards the greatness of Bhagvãn, it all seems absolutely worthless. I cannot become attached to any of it, and I become unaware of it all, just as a person is unaware of his past lives. The reason I can behave in such way is that I have thoroughly realised the two topics mentioned before. In fact, whoever realises them would also behave accordingly if ever he were somehow put in similar circumstances. Therefore, these two topics should be understood by all means.” 39.17 In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj, out of great compassion, addressed others on the basis of His own behaviour. However, He is Shree Purushottam Nãrãyan.