1.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Kãrtik vad 10 [30th November, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in the residential hall of the paramhans in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white, cotton-padded survãl and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white feto around His head. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 1.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the munis, “What does ‘Shankar’ mean?” 1.3 The munis replied, “That which gives bliss is called Shankar.” 1.4 Hearing this answer, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Last night, an hour or two before sunrise, Shivji granted me his darshan in a dream. He was seated on the big, powerful Nandishvar. His body was of a large build, and he had thick, matted hair; he appeared to be approximately forty years of age. Along with Shivji was Pãrvati, who was wearing all white clothes. Shivji, like a great sãdhu, appeared tranquil, and he showed great love towards me. However, I did not feel love for him. This is because I believe, ‘Shiv is a dev that is full of tamo-gun, whereas I worship Shree Krishna-Nãrãyan who is the incarnation of tranquillity’. Therefore, I do not have much love for devs like Brahmã, Shiv, and Indra, who have rajo-gun and tamo-gun. Moreover, I have much hatred towards anger; I do not like angry men or angry devs. Nonetheless, why do I respect Shivji? I do so because he is a tyãgi, a yogi, and a great bhakta of Bhagvãn. 1.5 “What is anger like? Well, it is like a rabid dog. If the saliva of a rabid dog touches a man or an animal, then they suffer and die, just like the constantly barking rabid dog. Similarly, a person infected by saliva in the form of anger, suffers like a rabid dog, and falls from the path of a sãdhu. 1.6 “Furthermore, just like a butcher, an Arab, a cruel soldier, a tiger, a leopard, and a black snake frighten everyone and kill some, similarly, anger frightens all and takes the life of some. If such anger arises in a sãdhu, it appears very unsuitable; after all, a sãdhu should be calm. But, if anger were to arise, that sãdhu would appear cruel to others. At that time, the sãdhu’s appearance would change since anger itself is ugly. Therefore, anger makes a person appear ugly.” 1.7 Then, Shuk Muni asked, “Mahãrãj, if a slight trace of anger arises but is then suppressed, is such anger disruptive, or not?” 1.8 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a snake were to appear in this sabhã at this moment, then even if it does not bite anyone, everyone would still have to rise and scatter; there would be panic in everyone’s heart. Furthermore, if a tiger were to come and roar at the outskirts of the village, then even if it does not harm anyone, all would feel terror within, and no one would come out of their homes. Similarly, even if a trace of anger were to arise, it would still be a source of extreme misery.” 1.9 Then, Nãnã Nirmanãnand Swãmi asked, “By what means can kãm be totally uprooted?” 1.10 To this, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Kãm is uprooted if a person has extremely firmly realised himself to be the ãtmã; and he firmly follows the panch-vartmãn, including the vow of the eight types of brahm-chãrya; and he thoroughly understands the greatness of Bhagvãn. However, even after the roots of kãm have been eradicated, a person should not deviate from brahm-chãrya and other niyams in any ways. However, the method for totally uprooting even the most vicious form of kãm is to fully understand the greatness of Bhagvãn.” 1.11 Then, Bhajanãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, what are the characteristics of the three levels of vairãgya – kanishth, madhyam, and uttam?” 1.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A person with the kanishth vairãgya is pure while strictly following the niyams related to the tyãg of women as described in the Dharma-Shãstras. But, if he were to see a women’s body, then his would get attached to that body, and he would not remain stable. Such a person can be considered to be a person with the kanishth vairãgya. 1.13 “If a person with a madhyam vairãgya were to see a naked women, no disturbance would arise in his mind, just as he would not be disturbed by seeing naked animals. Moreover, his mind would not become attached to that woman. Such a person can be considered to be a person with the madhyam vairãgya. 1.14 “Now, if a person with the uttam vairãgya were to come across women and other worldly objects, even in solitude, he would not be tempted. Such a person can be considered to be a person with the uttam vairãgya.” 1.15 Then, Bhajanãnand Swãmi asked again, “What are the characteristics for the three levels of Bhagvãn’s gnãn – kanishth, madhyam, and uttam?” 1.16 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A person with the kanishth gnãn initially develops the nishchay in Bhagvãn upon seeing His powers. However, when such powers are not seen in Him, or when nothing unpleasant happens to an evil person who slanders Bhagvãn, then his nishchay would not remain. Such a person can be described to be a person with the kanishth gnãn. 1.17 “If a person with a madhyam gnãn were to see pure and impure human actions of Bhagvãn, he would be deceived by them, and his nishchay in Bhagvãn would not remain. Such a person can be described to be a person with the madhyam gnãn. 1.18 “A person with the uttam gnãn, would not be deceived even after seeing any type of pure or impure actions performed by Bhagvãn, and his nishchay would not diminish. Moreover, even if the person who initially convinced him of Bhagvãn were to say, ‘He is not Bhagvãn’, he would feel, ‘This person must be mad’. Such a person can be described to be a person with the uttam gnãn. 1.19 “Of these, the person with the kanishth gnãn becomes siddh after countless lives; the person with a madhyam gnãn becomes siddh after two or three lives; and the person with the uttam gnãn becomes siddh in the same life.” Shreeji Mahãrãj replied in this way. 1.20 Then, Motã Shivãnand Swãmi asked, “Despite having complete nishchay in Bhagvãn, why does a person not feel fulfilled within?” 1.21 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A person whose antah-karans burns due to enemies, such as of kãm, krodh, lobh, svãd, sneh, and mãn, would not believe himself to be fulfilled – even if he does have nishchay in Bhagvãn.” 1.22 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “What is the method for overcoming these enemies?” 1.23 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The enemies are overcome only if a person remains alert to harshly punish them. Just as Dharma-Rãj remains ready, day and night, to beat sinners with a stick, similarly, if the indriyas behave immorally, then the indriyas should be punished; and if the antah-karans behave immorally, then the antah-karans should be punished. The indriyas should be punished by imposing upon them the kruchhra chãndrãyan and other vrats, and the antah-karans should be punished through a thought process. As a result, those enemies, like kãm and krodh, would be defeated. Then, by having nishchay in Bhagvãn, a person would feel himself to be completely fulfilled.” 1.24 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “Who can be said to have developed complete satsang?” 1.25 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “First of all, such a person has extremely firmly realised himself to be the ãtmã. Also, he believes his ãtmã to be absolutely detached from the body, the indriyas, and the antah-karans; he does not believe the actions of the body and indriyas to be his own. Despite this, he does not permit even a slight lapse in following the panch-vartmãn. Moreover, even though he himself behaves as brahm-svarup, he does not abandon his feeling of servitude towards Purushottam Bhagvãn; he faithfully worships Bhagvãn while maintaining a master-servant relationship with Him. Furthermore, he realises the pratyaksha murti of Bhagvãn to be absolutely unaffected, like ãkãsh. 1.26 “That ãkãsh is interwoven with and pervades the other four bhuts; and the actions of the other four bhuts occur within ãkãsh. Similarly, despite performing pure and impure actions, the pratyaksha Shree Krishna-Nãrãyan remains unaffected, just like ãkãsh. Also, such a person realises the countless powers of this Bhagvãn as follows: ‘This Bhagvãn appears to be human for the kalyãn of the jeevs. But, in fact, He is the creator, preserver, and destroyer of countless brahmãnds. He is the lord of Golok, Vaikunth, Shvet-Dvip, Brahmpur, and other dhãms. He is also the lord of all the countless akshar-rup muktas’. With this understanding of Bhagvãn’s greatness, he devoutly engages in various forms of bhakti, and in listening to the talks of Bhagvãn. He also serves Bhagvãn’s bhaktas. When a person behaves in this way, his satsang can be said to be complete.” 1.27 Nãnã Shivãnand Swãmi then asked, “At times, a person understands the greatness of a bhakta of Bhagvãn extremely well, but at other times, he does not understand it so well. What is the reason for this?” 1.28 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A sant follows the path of dharma. When he sees a person treading the path of adharma, he lectures that person. As a result, a person who identifies himself with the body will not know how to accept the advice positively and, in return, will perceive avgun in the sant, and will have hatred towards the sant. Therefore, a person understands the greatness of a sant as long as he is not lectured by him. Even when that person is given beneficial advice that may pain him, he perceives avgun in the sant, and does not retain that understanding of the sant’s greatness. 1.29 “A person who perceives avgun in a sant, is unable to become pure by any form of prãyshchit. In fact, release from the sins, such as lust, is possible, but release from the sin of insulting a sant is not possible. For example, if a person contracts tuberculosis, no medicine would be able to cure the disease; he would definitely die. Similarly, a person who perceives avgun in a sant should be known as having tuberculosis; he will certainly fall from satsang sometime in the future. Furthermore, even if a person’s hands, feet, nose, eyes, fingers, and other body parts are severed, he still cannot be described as dead. However, when the head is severed from the body, he is described as dead. Similarly, a person who perceives avgun in a bhakta of Bhagvãn, has had his head severed. If he lapses in following other vartmãn, then his limbs can be said to be severed – he will still live. That is, he will survive in satsang. But, a person who has perceived avgun in a sant will certainly, at some time, fall from satsang. He should be known to have had his head severed.” 1.30 Then, Bhagvadãnand Swãmi asked, “If a person has perceived avgun in a bhakta, is there any method to apologise for it, or not?” 1.31 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “There is a solution, but it is extremely difficult; a person who has intense shraddhã can do it. When avgun are perceived in a sant, a person should think, ‘I have committed a great sin by perceiving avgun in a brahm-svarup bhakta of Bhagvãn’. From such thoughts, he will feel intense regret in his heart. As a result of such regret, while eating, he will be unable to distinguish between tasty and tasteless food, and at night he will be unable to sleep. As long as the avgun of the sant is not removed from the person’s heart, he will continue to experience extreme guilt, just like a fish will suffer without water. 1.32 “On the other hand, when he intensely perceives gun in that sant, then if that sant has been hurt in any way, he would please him with absolute humbleness. If this type of thought remains in a person’s heart, then even if he has perceived avgun in that sant, they would still be overcome, and he would not fall from satsang. Apart from that, there is no other solution; this is the only solution.”

2.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Kãrtik vad 11 [1st December, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting facing south on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a red, kinkhãb survãl and a black, kinkhãb dagli with the word ‘Nar-Nãrãyan’ imprinted upon it. Around His head, he had tied a sky-blue coloured feto with golden threads along the edges, from a town called Burãnpur. He had also tied an orange feto around His waist. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Muktãnand Swãmi and other paramhans were singing kirtans to the accompaniment of a dukad, sarodã, satãr, and manjirã. 2.2 After the singing had concluded, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “O paramhans, please listen. I wish to ask you a question.” 2.3 The munis said, “Mahãrãj, please ask.” 2.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “In this satsang, when does a bhakta become free from the fear of death and become convinced of his own kalyãn in this very life?” 2.5 Muktãnand Swãmi replied as best as he could, but was unable to give a precise answer to Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question. So, the other paramhans requested, “Mahãrãj, you will have to answer that question.” 2.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj then began, “While you were singing kirtans, I thought about this. In my mind, I feel that there are four types of bhaktas of Bhagvãn who no longer fear death and who feel completely fulfilled. These four types are: first, a person who has faith; second, a person with gnãn; third, a person with courage; and fourth, a person with love. These four types of bhaktas do not fear death, and they feel fulfilled while still alive. 2.7 “I shall now describe the characteristics of these four types of bhaktas. A bhakta who has faith, has established absolute faith in the words of Bhagvãn and His sant. Therefore, by the strength of his faith in Bhagvãn, he does not fear death. Also, he believes, ‘I have attained the pratyaksha Purushottam Bhagvãn, and therefore I am fulfilled’. 2.8 “A bhakta with gnãn, has the strength of ãtmã-gnãn, and believes, ‘I am brahm-svarup and a bhakta of Bhagvãn’. Therefore, he too does not fear death. 2.9 “All the indriyas and antah-karans tremble with fear before a bhakta who has courage. Also, he is not afraid of anyone. So, he does not disobey any of Bhagvãn’s ãgnã in any way. As a result, he believes himself to be fulfilled and does not have even the slightest fear of death. 2.10 “The fourth, who has love, has the nature of a pati-vratã wife. The vrutti of a pati-vratã wife is not drawn to anyone except her own husband, and she has love only for her husband. Similarly, this bhakta of Bhagvãn, like a pati-vratã, has love only for his master, Bhagvãn. As a result, he believes himself to be fulfilled and does not have even the slightest fear of death. 2.11 “Out of these four types of characteristics, even if only one is predominant and the other three are minor, a person still overcomes the fear of births and deaths. But if a person does not have any one of the four, then his fear of death is not overcome.” 2.12 Having said this, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked all the paramhans and other bhaktas, “Of these four, please declare which characteristic is predominant within you.” So, all the paramhans and bhaktas described whichever characteristic was predominant within them. Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj was very pleased. 2.13 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj continued, “Of these four types, all those who have the characteristic of courage may come near and bow down at my feet.” Those who had the characteristic of courage, placed Shreeji Mahãrãj’s holy feet on their chests and bowed down before Him. 2.14 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Those who wish to ask a question, please ask.” 2.15 Brahmãnand Swãmi then asked, “That which is the cause should be greater than its effect. Why, then does a large tree arise from the small seed of a banyan tree?” 2.16 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A cause may be small and subtle, yet it is still capable of producing a vast effect – that is the very greatness of the cause. For example, the entities evolved from Mul-Prakruti – the countless Pradhãns – occupy an immense region, whereas the cause – Mul-Prakruti – has the svarup of a female. In the same way, smell, which is the cause of pruthvi, is subtle, whereas the entity evolved from it, pruthvi, is large. Similarly, ãkãsh and the other four bhuts occupy a vast area, but their causes, such as sound and touch, are subtle. Therefore, the cause may be small, but it still has the ability to produce a vast effect; this is its capability. 2.17 “For example, Agni-Dev possesses a svarup like that of a man; and his size is like that of a man; but his effect (flames of fire) is large. Similarly, the svarup of Varun-Dev is the size of a man, but his effect (water) is very abundant. Also, the svarup of Surya is seated in a chariot like a man, but his effect – light – pervades the entire brahmãnd. In the same way, the cause of all, Shree Purushottam-Nãrãyan is the size of a man, yet He is the cause of countless millions of brahmãnds. But, a person who is a fool thinks, ‘If the effect is this big, then the cause must be so much bigger!’ Actually, this is the understanding of a fool. 2.18 “Bhagvãn, who is the cause of all, appears like a human being; yet by His extraordinary powers, He is able to create countless millions of brahmãnds from His body and is able to absorb them back into Himself. For example, Agni, Varun, and Surya appear vast in the form of their effects, but they withdraw their effect back within themselves, and only they remain. In the same way, within each and every hair of Bhagvãn, countless brahmãnds, each composed of the eight barriers (jad prakruti) and fourteen loks appear as mere atoms. In this way, the cause is magnificent and full of greatness. So, a person who is wise realises, ‘Bhagvãn appears like a human, but, in fact, He is the cause of all and the creator of all; He is all-powerful’.” 2.19 Having said this, Shreeji Mahãrãj returned to go to sleep.

3.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Kãrtik vad 13 [3rd December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint and a white, cotton-padded survãl. He had also tied a white feto around His head, and covered Himself with a white pachhedi. A sabhã of munis, as well as satsangis from various places, had gathered before Him. 3.2 Then, Bhagvadãnand Swãmi and Shivãnand Swãmi asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “What are the characteristics of a person who has nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness?” 3.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “What would a person who has nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness not do for the sake of Bhagvãn and His sant? For them, he would leave his family, give up any fear of public ridicule, give up a kingdom, give up pleasures, give up wealth, leave his wife, and in the case of a woman, she would leave her husband.” 3.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj narrated the stories of the following bhaktas: Rajput Galuji of the village Dadusar; Kushal-Kunvar-Bãi of Dharmapur; Parvat-Bhãi; Rãjbai; Jeevu-Bã; Lãdu-Bã; Motã Rãmbai; Dãdã Khãchar; Mãnchã Bhakta; Mulji Brahm-Chãri; Lãdhi-Bãi and Mãtãji of Bhuj; Muktãnand Swãmi; Sãmat Patel, an Ãhir from the Vãlãk region; Mulji and Krishnaji of the village Mankuvã; the two Kãthi bhatkas of the village Gundãli in the Vãlãk region; and other satsangis. Mahãrãj described in detail whatever they had done for the sake of Bhagvãn and His sant. 3.5 Then, He added, “A person who has nishchay in Bhagvãn coupled with knowledge of His greatness, never disobeys the words of Bhagvãn; he does as Bhagvãn says.” Having said this, He asked, “What was my nature like? Well, I was such a tyãgi that I could stay in one place as long as the time interval between the morning and evening milking of cows, not any longer. I had intense vairãgya. Moreover, I had deep love for Rãmãnand Swãmi. Therefore, when Swãmi sent a message from the city of Bhuj via Mayãram Bhatt, saying, ‘If you desire to stay in satsang, you will have to stay by embracing its pillar’. I literally embraced a pillar. Seeing this, Mayãrãm Bhatt said, ‘You should live according to Muktãnand Swãmi for nine months. So, a person who has the previously mentioned nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant can also be known by this characteristic.” Shreeji Mahãrãj then narrated the stories of Sundarji Suthãr and Dosã Vãniyã. 3.6 After mentioning that a person who has such nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant has constant enthusiasm, Shreeji Mahãrãj narrated the story of Rãnã Rãjgar. 3.7 Next, Shreeji Mahãrãj narrated the story of Prahlãd: “Prahlãd said to Nrusinhji, ‘Mahãrãj, I am not afraid of this terrifying svarup of yours. Moreover, I do not consider your protection of me as true protection. Instead, when you save me from my enemy’s army (the indriyas), I shall consider that to be true protection’. Therefore, a bhakta of Bhagvãn would not be overjoyed if Bhagvãn were to protect him physically; and he would not be disappointed if he were not protected. Instead, he would remain carefree and continue to worship Bhagvãn. 3.8 “Moreover, he would intensely understand the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant.” Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj narrated the story of the old lady from the village Kathlãl. 3.9 Continuing, He said, “Even if such a bhakta – with nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness – were to die painfully; or if a tiger were to devour him; or if a snake were to bite him; or if a weapon were to strike him; or if he were to drown in water; or if he were to die in any other horrific way; he would still believe, ‘A bhakta of Bhagvãn never suffers from an unpleasant outcome; he will certainly attain the dhãm of Bhagvãn. On the other hand, even if a vimukh were to die naturally and were to be cremated in a funeral pyre with sandalwood and the full funeral rites, he will certainly go to Yampuri’. He would understand the difference between the two extremely clearly. 310 “So, a person who develops such firm belief in his heart should be known as having nishchay in Bhagvãn and His sant coupled with the knowledge of their greatness. A person with such nishchay will definitely reach Brahm-Mahol; he would not reside in any other lower dhãm.”

4.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Kãrtik vad 14 [4th December, 1820], three hours after sunrise, Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white survãl and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white pãgh around His head. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 4.2 Then, Akhandãnand Swãmi asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “There are countless millions of brahmãnds. In those brahmãnds, does the murti of Bhagvãn appear the same as the murti in this brahmãnd at this present time, or not?” 4.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Bhagvãn always resides in His Akshardhãm. From the countless Pradhãn-Purush pairs that evolve from Mul-Mãyã, countless millions of brahmãnds evolve. Then, for the sake of His bhaktas, while still residing at one location in His Akshardhãm, and by His own wish, that Bhagvãn appears in countless svarups in the countless millions of brahmãnds.” 4.4 Again, Akhandãnand Swãmi asked, “Shree Krishna-Nãrãyan always has a human svarup, and the svarup of Bhagvãn is forever satya. However, that same Bhagvãn appears sometimes as Matsya, Kurma, Varãh, Nrusinh, and other countless svarups. How should this be understood? Furthermore, is the method of kalyãn and the murti of Bhagvãn in each brahmãnd the same, or different?” 4.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The murti of Bhagvãn is always the same. Even then, by His own wish, Bhagvãn shows His murti wherever and in whatever murti is required. He also reveals His powers to whatever extent is appropriate in various places. He always has two arms, but by His wish, at times He appears with four arms, or eight arms, or even countless arms. He also appears in svarups like Matsya and Kurma. In this way, He incarnates in whichever svarup is appropriate for the place. However, He always resides in His dhãm in one svarup. 4.6 “Furthermore, while remaining in one location, He pervades the countless millions of brahmãnds through His antaryãmi svarup. For example, Vyãsji was one, but when he called out to Shukji, he did so by residing in all the sthãvar and jangam beings. When Shukji replied, he did so in the same way. In this way, even great yogis like Shukji are capable of pervading the entire world. Such people have attained such extraordinary powers as rewards of worshipping Bhagvãn. But, Purushottam Bhagvãn, who is called Yogeshvar, is the master of all extraordinary powers. So, while still remaining in one location, what is surprising about Him incarnating, by His own wish, wherever and however is appropriate? What is so surprising about Bhagvãn possessing such abilities? People become astonished even when a magician displays simple illusions, and they cannot fully comprehend the magic. But, Bhagvãn possesses all extraordinary powers and is the greatest source of wonder. So, how can the jeev know Him? 4.7 “The Shreemad Bhãgvat mentions, ‘This many have overcome Bhagvãn’s mãyã’. However, it also mentions, ‘No one has overcome the force of Bhagvãn’s mãyã’. Here, a person should realise that if even those like Brahmã were to doubt Bhagvãn’s extraordinary powers, then they cannot be said to have overcome the power of Bhagvãn’s mãyã. What is this doubt? It is the thought, ‘Why does Bhagvãn behave like that?’ On the other hand, a person who understands ‘Bhagvãn is extremely powerful; so whatever He does is appropriate’, is said to have overcome mãyã. 4.8 “In reality, the method for kalyãn is the same; but because there are three levels in the people who worship (uttam, madhyam, kanishth), and because there are countless levels in their shraddhã, there are many differences in the path of kalyãn taken by people. However, in reality, there is only one path of kalyãn. After all, there is only one svarup of Bhagvãn. This Bhagvãn is extremely powerful and no one, including Akshar, is capable of becoming like Him. This is an established principle.” 4.9 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi said to Shreeji Mahãrãj, “Today, Jhinã-Bhãi has become very upset, and he said that since Mahãrãj did not come to my house, what is the point of me staying in that house?” 4.10 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “When a person loves by force and with unhappiness, that love does not survive for very long. Also, the bhakti and love of a person who is unhappy, is ultimately abolished. Therefore, it is a great mistake to wear a sad face due to displeasure.” 4.11 Jhinã-Bhãi then said, “When Bhagvãn and His sant come to a person’s house, his face should glow with delight; but when they do not come, his face should definitely reflect disappointment and he should feel sorrow in his heart.” 4.12 Hearing this remark, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “A person should be pleased when Bhagvãn and His sãdhus come, but he should never grieve. If his nature is to grieve, then ultimately, something misfortunate is bound to occur. Therefore, while following his own dharma, a person should happily follow Bhagvãn’s ãgnã, but he should never become upset in order to get his own way. If Bhagvãn issues an ãgnã to go somewhere and the person becomes disturbed out of grief, then the darshan and prasãd previously given by Bhagvãn, the countless types of talks relating to gnãn, and all other actions by which he had felt happiness, are all lost. Furthermore, due to the disturbance, only tamo-gun spreads throughout the mind. Therefore, he goes where he is asked to go in a state of pure misery. Then, as a result of the distress, he cannot carry out the ãgnã completely. Therefore, a bhakta of Bhagvãn should remain ever joyful and should worship Bhagvãn with a cheerful mind. Moreover, however unpleasant his circumstances may be, he should not allow even the slightest trace of depression to enter his heart.”

5.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Kãrtik vad Amãs [5th December, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white survãl and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white pãgh around His head. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 5.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked all the paramhans, “By revealing which thoughts can a person be considered to be honest, and by not revealing which thoughts can a person be considered to be deceitful?” 5.3 As the paramhans were unable to answer, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Any weakness in following the panch-vartmãn, which cannot be overcome by a thought process, should be revealed before a sant who has no such weaknesses. If a person has perceived avgun in a sant, that should also be revealed. Furthermore, any doubts in his nishchay in Bhagvãn should also be revealed. Only then can he be considered to be honest. If any of these internal thoughts have arisen, and they are not revealed before a sant, then such a person should be known to be deceitful.” 5.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “If a person is deceitful, and also cunning, how can he be recognised?” 5.5 Again, the paramhans were unable to answer. 5.6 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “His deceitfulness can be recognised by keeping his company; and while staying with him, by observing him while he eats, drinks, sits, stands, walks, and talks. Also, when separated from him, if another person is asked to secretly observe him, then his deceitfulness would be recognised.” 5.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj then posed another question: “Suppose there is a person who follows the vartmãn and keeps nishchay in Bhagvãn out of pretence. He is intelligent and arrogant, and he shows his nishchay and his observance of the vartmãn to be more superior than the genuine vartmãn and nishchay of others. So, how can a person’s false nishchay and observance of vartmãn be recognised?” 5.8 Once again, the paramhans were unable to answer the question. 5.9 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “His pretence can be recognised when his reputation is insulted. Otherwise, it cannot be recognised.” 5.10 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which thought causes a person to deflect from his nishchay in Bhagvãn and observance of vartmãn? Which type of thought would not cause a person to deflect from them? Also, if there is a time span, for what duration must these thoughts remain in order to deflect a person from his dharma and his nishchay in Bhagvãn?” 5.11 Again, the paramhans were unable to answer. 5.12 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “If a person attempts to eradicate an improper thought related to dharma, but the thought still remains; or, if such a thought does not arise for fifteen days or for a month, but arises someday suddenly – then such a thought would cause him to fall from dharma. The same applies to a person’s nishchay in Bhagvãn. However, any thought which is eradicated by applying a thought process once it arises, and which does not arise again, would not cause a person to fall from his dharma or his nishchay.” 5.13 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Whose foundation in satsang becomes solid, and whose does not?” 5.14 Once again, the paramhans could not answer. 5.15 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Dattãtrey perceived the gun of the five mahã-bhuts, the moon, various animals, a prostitute, a virgin, his own body, and many others. Similarly, if a person has the nature of perceiving the gun of a sãdhu, his foundation in satsang will become solid. If a person does not have such a nature then even though he remains in satsang, his foundation is not firm.” 5.16 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Can the indriyas and the antah-karans in a person be completely controlled by the company of the sant, by reading the shãstras, and by applying his own thought process? Or can they be controlled if only one of these three is present? If you say that all three must be present, then what methods should be learnt from a sant, what methods should be learnt from the shãstras, and how would a person apply his own thought process? Please explain this.” 5.17 Again, the paramhans were unable to answer. 5.18 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “From the shãstras, a person should realise the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant. From the sant, a person should learn methods for controlling the indriyas. For example, a person’s vision should be kept fixed on the nose in this way, and he should not listen to worldly talks. These and other methods should be learnt from a sant. By his own thought process, a person should look positively upon the methods taught by the sant, as being for his own kalyãn. Then, he should behave accordingly. In this way, the indriyas and antah-karans can be overcome by these three methods.” 5.19 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj posed another question, “Are the antah-karans controlled by controlling the indriyas, or are the indriyas controlled by controlling the antah-karans?” 5.20 Since the paramhans could not answer the question, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person controls the physical indriyas by physical tap, and then even after the physical indriyas have been controlled, if he still firmly follows the niyams of the panch-vartmãn, then the antah-karans can be controlled by controlling the physical indriyas. So, the physical indriyas cannot be controlled by controlling the antah-karans alone. However, the antah-karans can be controlled by controlling the physical indriyas. How is that? Well, if a person controls the physical indriyas and does not let them indulge in the vishays, then the antah-karans within would become frustrated and would think, ‘This type of enjoyment is not going to be possible in this life’.’’ 5.21 After this, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “By what method are the physical indriyas controlled and by what method are the antah-karans controlled?” 5.22 Again, since the paramhans could not answer, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The physical indriyas can be controlled by following the niyams specified for a tyãgi in the Dharma-Shãstras; by controlling the diet; by following vrat like tapta-kruchhra and chãndrãyan; by deliberately tolerating cold, heat, hunger, and thirst; by engaging in the kathã, talks, and kirtans of Bhagvãn; by engaging in bhajan and smaran; by controlling the posture; and by many other spiritual activities. The antah-karans of a person can be controlled by thinking of Bhagvãn’s greatness, by performing dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, and by realising himself to be the ãtmã.”

6.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar sud 1 [6th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white khes and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white feto around His head and had tied a bokãni with another feto. The chhoglu of the white feto was hanging from His head. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a chãdar. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 6.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the paramhans, “After joining satsang, what do you consider to be the most difficult achievement?” 6.3 The paramhans could not answer the question, so Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “For a person to become ekãntik is extremely difficult. What is this state of being ekãntik? Well, it is to do bhakti of Bhagvãn along with dharma, gnãn, and vairãgya. That is the state of being ekãntik.” 6.4 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which one activity related to dharma is such that if it is practiced, all aspects of dharma remain? Moreover, out of bhajan, smaran, singing or listening to kirtans, listening to talks, and other spiritual activities, which one activity, if it is kept even when all others are abandoned in difficult times, helps maintain all of the others?” 6.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “Of the activities related to dharma, if a person maintains the vow of nishkãm, all other activities will develop. Of the spiritual activities, if a person keeps nishchay in Bhagvãn, then all of the others will develop.” 6.6 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of thinking, if maintained constantly, is beneficial; and if altered, is destructive? Also, which type of thinking is beneficial if repeatedly altered, and destructive if not altered?” 6.7 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “Thoughts regarding a person’s nishchay in Bhagvãn should never be altered. It is beneficial if they are repeatedly reinforced by listening to the greatness of Bhagvãn. Conversely, repeatedly altering them would be destructive. However, if a person has firmly decided in his own mind, ‘I want to do this’, then that type of thinking should be repeatedly altered on the advice of a sãdhu. If the sãdhu suggests, ‘You should not sit here and should not do this’, then a person should not sit there and should not do that. If his own decision is altered, it would be beneficial; if it is not altered and he does as he pleases, then that would be destructive.” 6.8 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “By sitting with and listening to which type of satsangi or paramhans would make him subject to developing faults, despite the fact that he follows dharma?” 6.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person has nishchay in Bhagvãn and follows dharma, but also believes himself to be the body and has pride as well as desires for worldly activities, then if Bhagvãn and His sant criticise these, he will definitely perceive avgun in Bhagvãn and His sant. Then, he will talk about the perceived avgun of Bhagvãn and His sant to others, and cause them to become like a vimukh. A bhakta should not associate with such a person in any way; doing so is harmful.” 6.10 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of sãdhu, even though he follows dharma and has nishchay in Bhagvãn, should a person not accompany to bathe, sleep near, or hear talks from?” 6.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “A sãdhu who discouragingly says, ‘Can the vow of nishkãm and other qualities really be attained in one life? They are attained only by the grace of Bhagvãn; otherwise kalyãn is attained after countless lives. So, can kalyãn truly be attained in this very life?’ A person should shun the company of anyone who speaks such discouraging words. Conversely, someone else claims, ‘We are fulfilled in this very life. The force of kãm, krodh, mad, matsar, mãn, and other vicious natures is small. By the grace of Bhagvãn and His sant, we will destroy them all’. A person should, by all means, seek the company of a sãdhu who speaks in this way and is eagerly engaged in methods to destroy the vicious natures.” 6.12 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of sãdhu, even if he speaks encouragingly, should be shunned?” 6.13 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “If a sãdhu emphasises his own efforts only and believes himself to be fulfilled by his own efforts, but does not acknowledge the strength of Bhagvãn and does not feel, ‘By acting in this way, I want to please Bhagvãn’, then such a sãdhu should be shunned.” 6.14 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of sãdhu should a person keep the company of, and which type should a person not keep the company of?” 6.15 Shreeji Mahãrãj then replied, “If we are staying with a sãdhu who follows the vartmãn strictly and has firm nishchay in Bhagvãn, but instead of lecturing us, he pampers us and lets us have our way, then even if he is considered great in public opinion, like Muktãnand Swãmi, his company should not be kept. On the other hand, if a sãdhu repeatedly lectures a person, and maintains constant awareness on any svabhãv he sees within him; and if he does not stop criticising that svabhãv until it is overcome, and does not compliment him, then even if he is not considered great in public view, a person should still keep his company.” 6.16 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “Suppose a sãdhu possesses all the glorious qualities like bhakti and gnãn. However, due to which one vicious flaw, should a person avoid his company?” 6.17 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If he is very lazy, sleeps too much, and when told by others to bathe, perform dhyãn, or to follow other niyams, says, ‘I’ll do it later, what’s the hurry? I’ll do them slowly’, then even though he may appear to be good, a person should avoid his company.” 6.18 Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “A sãdhu may speak well; but, due to which fault in his speech should his talks not be heard?” 6.19 Shreeji Mahãrãj then replied, “Out of arrogance, if he talks about the bhakti, gnãn, vairãgya, and dharma within himself to be superior; and shows the gun of bhakti, gnãn, vairãgya, and dharma in other sãdhus to be inferior, then a person should not listen to his talks.” 6.20 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of speech should be viewed as amrut even though it is harsh?” 6.21 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The words of a sãdhu who in his speech criticises his own parents, sister, brother, and varna, and ãshram with harsh words, should be known to be good. This is because a person who hears those words realises the qualities of that sãdhu, and thinks: ‘In no way does this sãdhu have attachment to his bodily relations’. Therefore, those words should be enjoyed like amrut.” 6.22 Shreeji Mahãrãj posed another question, “When should a person maintain pride, and when should a person not maintain pride?” 6.23 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered once again: “A person should not maintain pride before a devoted follower of Bhagvãn, even though he may be a simple and humble haribhakta. On the other hand, a person should certainly maintain pride before a person who has fallen back from satsang. In fact, a person should not become suppressed by him; and in any question-answer exchange, his words should be answered with harsh words.” 6.24 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “When should a person have a desire for the darshan of Bhagvãn and His sant? When should he not have such a desire?” 6.25 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Suppose I were to ask all the sãdhus, ‘Who will go to Burãnpur and Kãshi?’ Then, when no one speaks, someone should rise in the sabhã and say to me, ‘Mahãrãj, if you say so, I shall go’. So saying, he should follow my ãgnã and go there. In those situations, to gain my happiness, a person should not keep any desire for keeping the company of sant or my darshan. 6.26 “Moreover, when a person – who a sãdhu or I have criticised, lectured, insulted, or expelled, and who is crying out of shock – is approached by an ekadmal vimukh who starts to talk about the avgun of the sãdhu or me, then before him, the person should reveal tremendous love towards the sãdhu and Bhagvãn. He should say, ‘I am his servant, and even if he were to cut me to pieces, I still would never perceive avgun in him. He will grant me kalyãn’. In that situation, he should reveal great love.” 6.27 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “What should not be done, even if Bhagvãn is pleased by it? What should be done, even if Bhagvãn is displeased by it?” 6.28 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own questions: “If I were to give an order which seems to be full of adharma, then a person should be hesitant in following it; he should take some time and not accept it immediately. For example, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn ordered Arjun, ‘Cut off Ashvatthãmã’s head’. But, Arjun did not follow that ãgnã. Likewise, even if I am pleased by it, that type of instruction should not be followed. Also, an instruction by which the prescribed niyams of the panch-vartmãn are disobeyed should not be followed. If by not obeying these two types of ãgnã, Bhagvãn is displeased, then a person should definitely let Him be displeased; in those cases, a person should not attempt to please Him.” 6.29 Shreeji Mahãrãj asked again, “While performing dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, countless different waves of vicious thoughts arises in the mind, just as large waves arise in the ocean. When such thoughts do arise, how can they be suppressed?” 6.30 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “When such vicious thoughts arise, a person should stop the dhyãn, and should clap and chant ‘Swãminarayan, Swãminarayan’ loudly, without shame. He should pray to Bhagvãn, ‘O lord! You are a friend of the humble! You are an ocean of mercy!’ Also, he should remember a great sãdhu of Bhagvãn, like Muktãnand Swãmi, and pray to him too. As a result of this, all disturbing thoughts will be eradicated, and peace will prevail. Apart from this, there is no other method to eradicate such thoughts.” 6.31 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj posed another question: “Which quality should be abandoned, even if it is believed to be a great quality in this satsang and is being praised by all? Which fault, even though it is a fault, is suitable to be absorbed?” 6.32 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj supplied the answer Himself: “A person may be like Muktãnand Swãmi and may be following the vartmãn strictly than all. However, as a result of this, if another sãdhu feels inferior because he cannot behave on the same level, then that quality, even though it may be great, should be abandoned. Instead, he should behave on the same level as all the other sãdhus. Even though behaving on the same level as others is a drawback, it should be done.” 6.33 Again Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “In these sãdhus, which is the one flaw which, when abandoned, would cause all flaws to be abandoned? Which is the one quality which, if developed, would cause all qualities to be developed?” 6.34 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “All flaws in a person reside in the flaw of perceiving himself with the body. If that is abandoned, all flaws are abandoned. Furthermore, if the sole quality of ãtmã-nishthã (realising himself as the ãtmã, and distinct from the body) is developed, then all qualities will develop.” 6.35 Shreeji Mahãrãj again asked, “Which types of panch-vishays, when indulged in, enlighten the mind, and which types of vishays, when indulged in, cause ignorance to prevail in the mind?” 6.36 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “By indulging in vishays related to Bhagvãn, the mind is enlightened; and by indulging in worldly vishays, ignorance prevails in the mind.” 6.37 Next, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which desh, which kãl, which sang, and which kriyã should a person not associate with, even if it is Bhagvãn’s ãgnã?” 6.38 Shreeji Mahãrãj again supplied the answer Himself: “Even if it is Bhagvãn’s ãgnã, a sãdhu should not stay in a place where he has frequent contact with his bodily relations. Also, if I seat him where women can also be seen while having darshan, and if I were to say, ‘Do my darshan’, then he should not sit in that place. Instead, he should make an excuse and leave. In addition, if unpleasant kãl is prevailing and riots are taking place, then even if it is Bhagvãn’s ãgnã to stay, a person should leave that place; but he should not stay there and suffer beatings.” 6.39 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “Which shãstras should be heard and studied, and which shãstras should not be heard or studied?” 6.40 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj answered Himself, “Shãstras which do not promote Bhagvãn possessing a svarup and do not describe Bhagvãn’s avatãrs, but instead discuss pure Vedãnt and propose a single, formless entity, should never be studied or heard; even if they have been written by someone very intelligent. On the other hand, simple kirtans, like those composed by Ranchhod Bhakta, should be sung and heard if they describe Bhagvãn’s murti. Such shãstras should only be studied and heard.”

7.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Mãgshar sud 3 [7th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white pãgh, with the chhoglu hanging on one side. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint and a white, cotton-padded survãl. He had also covered Himself with a white pachhedi. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 7.2 In the sabhã, Nityãnand Swãmi brought the Vachanãmrut manuscript and presented it to Shreeji Mahãrãj. Shreeji Mahãrãj examined the manuscript and was extremely pleased by it. He then said to the paramhans, “Today, please ask complex questions so that we may have a discussion.” 7.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “The Shrutis state: rute gnãna-na muktihi There is no kalyãn without gnãn. tameva viditvãti-mrutyumeti nãnyaha panthã vidyate-yanãya Only by knowing Him does a person go beyond death; there is no other path for attaining kalyãn. “These shloks state that the jeev attains kalyãn only when it realises the true gnãn of Bhagvãn. If kalyãn can only be attained by gnãn, why do the shãstras also prescribe other spiritual activities for attaining kalyãn?” 7.4 Hearing this question, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Gnãn means ‘to know’.” 7.5 At this point, Nityãnand Swãmi raised a doubt. He said, “If gnãn means merely ‘to know’, then the whole world knows Bhagvãn through the shãstras. However, not everyone attains kalyãn.” 7.6 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj raised a question, “Just as a person does not attain kalyãn by knowing the previous avatãrs of Bhagvãn through the shãstras, do you think all those who actually had the darshan of Rãm, Krishna, and other avatãrs of Bhagvãn with their own eyes attained kalyãn?” 7.7 Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “Those who merely see the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn only attain kalyãn after several lives.” 7.8 Shreeji Mahãrãj added, “Those who know Bhagvãn through the shãstras also receive kalyãn after several lives. This is because the Bhagvãn that these people know through the shãstras is the same Bhagvãn other people see with their eyes; and the Bhagvãn that other people see with their eyes is the same Bhagvãn that people know through the shãstras. Therefore, the resulting rewards of both are equal, and both attain kalyãn after several lives. 7.9 “After all, is not hearing Bhagvãn with the ears, gnãn? It is, but that can be said to be merely hearing Bhagvãn. Is not touching Bhagvãn with the skin, also gnãn? It is, but that can be said to be merely touching Bhagvãn. Is not seeing Bhagvãn with the eyes, gnãn? It is, but that can be said to be merely seeing Bhagvãn. Is not smelling Bhagvãn with the nose, gnãn? It is, but that is merely smelling Bhagvãn. Does not describing Bhagvãn with the tongue also constitute gnãn? It does, but that is merely having described Bhagvãn. In this way, gnãn can be attained through the physical indriyas. It can also be attained through the antah-karans, as well as directly from the experienced gnãn of the jeev, which is greater than both the indriyas and the antah-karans. Of these, which gnãn are you speaking of? 7.10 “In order to create the universe, Bhagvãn assumed the svarup of Aniruddha; and within Aniruddha dwells the sthãvar and jangam world, along with ãkãsh. In the svarup of Sankarshan, Bhagvãn destroys the universe. In the svarup of Pradyumna, He sustains the universe. He also assumes various avatãrs, such as Matsya and Kurma. He assumes these svarup according to whichever task needs to be accomplished in whichever place. Some of these tasks are invisible to the indriyas and antah-karans, and can only be known by experience. For the successful completion of these tasks, Bhagvãn assumes a suitable svarup. On the other hand, some of these tasks are visible to the indriyas and antah-karans. For the successful completion of these tasks, again Bhagvãn assumes an appropriate svarup. Therefore, the gnãn of which of Bhagvãn’s svarup is instrumental in attaining kalyãn? Is that your question?” 7.11 Nityãnand Swãmi confirmed, “We are saying that kalyãn is attained by the gnãn of Bhagvãn whose svarup can be realised by the indriyas, the antah-karans, and experience.” 7.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj then explained, “That Bhagvãn is Shree Krishna. He has said of himself: yasmãt-ksharama-teetohama-kshãradapi chottamaha I am greater than all this is perishable, and I am greater than the imperishable. vishtabhyãham-idam krutsnam-ekãnshena sthito jagat I sustain the entire universe with a single fragment of myself. mattaha parataram nãnyat-kinchid-asti dhanamjaya mayi sarvam-idam protam sutre maniganã iva O conqueror of wealth (Arjun). There is nothing at all that is greater than me. All this creation is strung upon me – like a series of gems on a thread. pashya me pãrth rupãni shatasho-tha sahasra-shaha nãnã-vidhyãni divyãni nãnã-varna-kruteeni cha O Son of Prutha (Arjun)! Behold my hundreds and thousands of divya svarups that are of various types and of assorted colours and shapes. 7.13 “In these and many other shloks, He describes Himself as invisible to the indriyas and the antah-karans. Therefore, knowing Bhagvãn perfectly means knowing pratyaksha Bhagvãn through the indriyas, the antah-karans, and experience. Only then can a person be said to possess perfect gnãn. However, if any one of these three types of gnãn is lacking, a person cannot be said to have realised ãtyantik gnãn, nor can he overcome the cycle of births and deaths. In fact, even though someone may have attained the brahm-svarup state through his personal activities, if he does not realise pratyaksha Bhagvãn in this way, he cannot be said to possess perfect gnãn. That is why it is said in the Shreemad Bhãgvat: naishkarmyama-pyachuta-bhãva-varjitam na shobhate gnãn-malam niranjanam Even pure gnãn, in which all karmas have been rejected, is not elegant if it does not have bhakti towards Bhagvãn. 7.14 “The Geetã also states: karmano haypi boddhavyam boddhavyam cha vikarmanaha akarmanash-cha boddhavyam gahana karmano gatihi The nature of karma should be understood, the nature of prohibited karmas should be understood, and the nature of non-karma should also be understood. Indeed, the way of karma is very complex. “Even in the state of non-karma (gnãn), there is still something left to be realised. That is to say, even after a person has become brahm-rup, he still has to realise Parbrahm Purushottam. Only a person who is brahm-rup has the right to offer bhakti to Purushottam. 7.15 “Now, what constitutes bhakti? It is when a person becomes brahm-rup and performs the bhakti of pratyaksha Bhagvãn with sandalwood paste, flowers, shravan, and manan – just as the niranna-muktas of Shvet¬-Dvip, having become brahm-rup, perform pujã of Parbrahm Nãrãyan by offering various types of offerings, such as sandalwood paste and flowers. Therefore, Bhagvãn has mentioned in the Geetã: brahma-bhootaha prasannãtmã na shochati na kankshati samaha sarveshu bhooteshu mad-bhaktim labhate param A person who has become brahm-rup remains joyful, grieves nothing, desires nothing, behaves equally with all beings, and attains my supreme bhakti. 7.16 “Therefore, a person who does not offer bhakti to Parbrahm after becoming brahm-rup, cannot be said to have attained ãtyantik kalyãn. bhoomir-aponalo vãyuhu kham mano buddhir-eva cha ahankãra iteeyam me bhinnã prakruti-rashtadhã These are my eight forms of prakruti – pruthvi, jal, tej, vãyu, ãkãsh, man, buddhi, and ahankãr. “This describes the all-pervaded jad prakruti. 7.17 “Furthermore, apareyam-itas-tvanyam prakrutim viddhi me parãm jeeva-bhootam mahãbaho yayedam dharyate jagat But O mighty-armed Arjun! Also, know my other prakruti, the very element of life (chaitanya), by which this world is upheld. Such is the all-pervasive chaitanya prakruti. “This describes the all-pervasive chaitanya prakruti. 7.18 “That pratyaksha Bhagvãn is such that He is the supporter of both the eight forms of jad prakruti and also of the chaitanya prakruti that pervades within. For example, ãkãsh is the supporter of the other four elements – pruthvi, jal, vãyu, and tej. Whenever pruthvi contracts, ãkãsh contracts along with it. When the pruthvi expands, ãkãsh also expands along with it. Similarly, ãkãsh also contracts and expands along with the contraction and expansion of jal, tej, and vãyu. However, pruthvi and the other tattvas all contract and expand within ãkãsh. In the same way, Bhagvãn expands and contracts along with the expansion and contraction of the two prakrutis, while they themselves contract and expand within Bhagvãn Himself. That Bhagvãn is the ãtmã of all. This fact is stated in the Shrutis: antah-pravishtaha shãstã janãnam sarvãtmã Bhagvãn, who enters within all, is the controller and ãtmã of all beings yasyãksharam shareeram… esha sarva-bhootãntarãtmã-pahata-pãpmã divyo, deva eko nãrãyanaha He, whose sharir is the imperishable, is the indwelling ãtmã of all beings, is without all evil, and is the one divya Bhagvãn Nãrãyan yasyãtmã shareeram ya ãtmãnam-antaro yamayati sa ta ãtmãntaryam-yamrutaha He, whose sharir is the ãtmãs, and who governs all ãtmãs from within, is your ãtmã, the antaryãmi, and immortal yasya pruthivi shareeram yaha pruthiveem-antaro yamayati sa ta ãtmãntaryãm-yamrutaha He, whose sharir is pruthvi and who governs it from within, is your ãtmã, the antaryãmi, and is immortal. 7.19 “Furthermore, even food, the mind, knowledge, and bliss have been described as brahm; various such types of brahm-vidyã have been mentioned. What is the significance of this? Well, those things have been called brahm because Bhagvãn is the cause of all and the supporter of all. However, they are all the sharir, and their shariri is pratyaksha Shree Krishna Purushottam. Both the jad and chaitanya prakrutis, along with their entities that have evolved in their expanded and contracted states, dwell easily within Bhagvãn. Moreover, Bhagvãn dwells within them all as their antaryãmi and as their cause. It is that very Bhagvãn who is pratyaksha. To know and see Bhagvãn with such an understanding of greatness is called perfect gnãn.” 7.20 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “If a person cannot experience the greatness of Bhagvãn in this way, but does have a firm belief of it in his antah-karans, then can that be said to be perfect gnãn, or not?” 7.21 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “In a dark house, a person can faintly see the grain-store and the pillars; but due to the darkness, they cannot be said to have been seen totally. In the same way, both the jad and chaitanya prakrutis reside within Purushottam Bhagvãn, and He dwells within them as well. But, if a person experiences this only by assumption and does not actually see it, then he cannot be said to possess perfect gnãn. Nevertheless, because he has such a firm nishchay, he surely must have experienced some sort of alokik powers of Bhagvãn in the past; if not, he will experience them in the future. 7.22 “Despite having such a doubtless nishchay, if he does not experience the alokik powers, he should think, ‘Bhagvãn possesses all those powers, but He does not reveal them to me because that is His wish’. If a person offers bhakti to Bhagvãn with such understanding and remains fulfilled, then he can also be said to possess perfect gnãn. 7.23 “Therefore, a bhakta with gnãn is a person who thoroughly knows Bhagvãn through the indriyas, the antah-karans, and experience. Such a bhakta has been praised in the Geetã as the best of all bhaktas: ãrto jignãsur-arthãrthee gnãnee cha bharatar-shabha teshãm gnãnee nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir-vishishyate O supreme among the descendants of Bharat (Arjun). Four types of people worship me: a person who is distressed, a person who seeks knowledge of the ãtmã, a person who desires material objects, and a person who has gnãn. Of these, the one with gnãn is the best because he is always engaged in me and is devoted to me alone. 7.24 “A bhakta with gnãn, faithfully serves pratyaksha Bhagvãn – who eternally has a svarup – realising Him as greater than Prakruti, Purush and Akshar, and as being the cause and supporter of all. This understanding constitutes gnãn; and such gnãn leads to ãtyantik moksh. Those who do not understand this, merely claim ‘aham-brahmãsmi’ – I am brahm – from the shãstras. They proclaim, ‘I am the svarup of brahm, and Ram and Krishna are merely avatãrs originating from me’. Such blasphemous and unorthodox vedãntis of today are extremely evil and great sinners. At death, they are sent to Narak, and they will never be released from there.”

8.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar sud 5 [10th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white khes and had tied a white feto around His head. He was also wearing a white dagli made of chhint. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 8.2 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “On seeing some inappropriate svabhãv of a sãdhu, a person who is thoughtless may perceive avgun in the sãdhu. But, why does a person who is wise perceive avgun in the sãdhu?” 8.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person is wise and has noticed an inappropriate svabhãv within himself, has a hatred towards it, and is continually acting to overcome that svabhãv, then when he sees that very same svabhãv in another sãdhu, he develops a dislike towards that sãdhu. On the other hand, a fool does not overcome his own svabhãvs, and when he sees that same svabhãv in another sãdhu, he perceives avgun in that sãdhu. Such a person should be considered a fool.” 8.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj gathered the junior paramhans, and He Himself asked and answered questions. 8.5 First, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “The intensity and mildness of the force of kãm, krodh, lobh, and other enemies is due to the phases of childhood, youth, and old age. In childhood the force is weak; in youth, the force in intense; then in old age the force becomes weak again. Therefore, the intensity and mildness of the inner enemies can be noticed; but can they be weakened by any thought process?” 8.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj Himself replied, “The force of the enemies can be weakened by a thought process, which is as follows: The mildness of those svabhãvs in childhood, their greater intensity in youth, the mildness once again in old age, is due to food. Specifically, in childhood, since the dietary intake is small, the force of kãm is mild. Similarly, in old age, a person dietary intake is small, so again the force of kãm is mild. But in youth, as the dietary intake increases, kãm also increases. Therefore, in youth, if a person’s food intake is decreased, and if he deliberately tolerates cold, heat, rain, and hunger, then by maintaining such a thought process, and by maintaining profound association with a great sant, the force of kãm is weakened – even in the period of youth.” 8.7 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “People become addicted to many different types of substances, like bhãng, cannabis, opium, and alcohol. Are these addictions due to a person’s kriyamãn or prãrabdha karmas?” 8.8 Replying, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “These addictions are developed not by prãrabdha, but by habit. Therefore, if a person maintains courage, keeps shraddhã, and is determined to defeat the addiction, then it can be overcome. But, if he has no shraddhã and is cowardly, then that addiction cannot be overcome.” 8.9 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Some children have a mature nature like elder people, whereas some have an extremely fidgety nature. Is that nature due to company, or is it inherent within the jeev?” 8.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “For the most part, a good or bad nature is due to the company kept by a person; but in some cases, it is due to past karmas.” 8.11 Then, Kapileshvarãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, how can a person recognise a svabhãv which has formed in a past life, and how can he recognise a svabhãv which has formed in this life?” 8.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A recently formed svabhãv is overcome by staying in the company of a devout sãdhu and by making a little effort to eradicate it. Just as grass growing on a wall dries up when there is no rain for five days, similarly, a recently formed svabhãv can be overcome in a few days. However, a svabhãv that has remained for a long time is difficult to overcome, even after great effort is made to eradicate it. For example, if there are strong weeds or a bordi tree in the soil, then even if they are set on fire and burnt by a farmer, they will still grow. However, if a person uses a hoe to uproot them from their roots, they can be removed. Similarly, if a person remains in the company of a devout sãdhu and persists with great effort, even an established svabhãv can be overcome; but only with great effort.” 8.13 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “For a person whose indriyas are hyperactive, what are the individual methods by which that hyperactivity can be overcome?” 8.14 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “To overcome the hyperactivity of the eyes, a person should fix his gaze on the tip of his and nose and not look elsewhere. While studying, he should also engage in bhajan and smaran. While doing this, if he continues to keep his eyes open without blinking for half an hour or so – until his eyes begin to burn intensely and tears flow – and he does not hold a improper thought even if he happens to notice a woman or other objects, then even if his eyes are hyperactive, they will become controlled. 8.15 “The nose does not like the odours coming from someone’s body, mouth, or clothes. At that time, a person should think, ‘My own body appears attractive superficially, but it is filled with blood, flesh, and bones; and in the abdomen there are faeces, urine, and the intestines’. If he thinks in this way, the hyperactivity of the nose is eradicated. 8.16 “The hyperactivity of the ears can be eradicated as follows: When a person hears some humorous talks or gossip, he develops a keen interest to listen to them; whereas, while listening to the kathãs and kirtans related to Bhagvãn, he falls asleep. In that situation, a person should rise and suppress sleep and laziness. He should also keep faith in and maintain a keen interest in listening to the kathãs of Bhagvãn. The ears can be controlled in this way. 8.17 “The sense of touch can be controlled by deliberately tolerating the cold, heat, and rain; by lying down anywhere; by keeping a blanket as a pillow and using it for covering the body only when it is very cold. Therefore, the skin becomes numb, and the hyperactivity of the sense of touch is eradicated. 8.18 “To overcome the hyperactivity of the hands, a person should keep a mãlã in his hand whenever the hands are idle, and turn it while chanting the name of Bhagvãn in rhythm with the inhaling and exhaling of his breath. However, he should not turn the mãlã hurriedly. Some say, ‘A person can chant the name of Bhagvãn more quickly mentally’. That principle is wrong, as the mind can only chant the name of Bhagvãn as many times as the tongue can chant the name of Bhagvãn. So, by applying this method, the hyperactivity of the hands is eradicated. 8.19 “If the legs are hyperactive, they can be controlled by controlling the sitting posture. 8.20 “Hyperactive genitals can be controlled as follows: When a person gets scabies or ringworm, and he scratches himself, the itching is not relieved until bleeding occurs. However, if he does not scratch the affected area, then the itching decreases by itself. Therefore, even if an itching sensation arises on the genitals, it should not be scratched. Moreover, in the case of it becoming frequently excited, if a person decreases his diet, does upvãs, and physically weakens the body, then the genitals can be controlled. 8.21 “To conquer the tongue, it should not be given items that it likes, and the diet should be restricted. In this way, the hyperactivity of the tongue is eradicated. 8.22 “Finally, the hyperactivity of a person’s speech can be eradicated by not interrupting with wise remarks when people like Muktãnand Swãmi are speaking or narrating from the shãstras. Moreover, if a person does happen to interrupt, he should turn a mãlã twenty-five times. By this method, the hyperactivity of speech can be eradicated.” 8.23 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Of all these indriyas, which one, if fully controlled, leads to control over all the other indriyas?” 8.24 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question, “If the tongue is fully suppressed, then all the other indriyas can be suppressed.” 8.25 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “If kãm pervades a person’s heart, and even though his genitals are covered by his clothes, how can a person realise that he has been pervaded by kãm?” 8.26 Shreeji Mahãrãj Himself replied, “When kãm pervades a person, his eyes, and all of his other indriyas become hyperactive. In this way, a person can realise that he has become overwhelmed by kãm.” 8.27 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “A person who has a hyperactive nature should become calm, and a person who has a calm nature should become active. By which thought process can this be achieved?” 8.28 Shreeji Mahãrãj Himself replied, “If a person who is hyperactive thinks, ‘I am the ãtmã, brahm, genderless, and stable like ãkãsh’, and he attains the upsham state through such thoughts, then he becomes calm. If a person who is calm wishes to become more active, then he should realise the greatness of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. When he realises the greatness of Bhagvãn, he engages in the nine forms of bhakti, and performs basic service of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. As a result of this, his nature becomes more active.” 8.29 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Is there anything in the eight shãstras, such as the Shreemad Bhãgvat, which should be ignored, or should everything be remembered?” 8.30 Replying to His own question, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “In all of those shãstras there are countless charitras, and through all of those charitras, the strengths of the bhaktas who have attained Bhagvãn are described. Therefore, they are all suitable to be remembered. However, among all these charitras, only those charitras that match a person’s own strengths should be remembered. The others may be ignored with the following understanding: ‘These talks are true, but they are for the benefit of other bhaktas; they are not for me’.’’ 8.31 Once more, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “All of you youngsters are seated here; and from amongst you, all the sãdhus praise some and do not praise others. Now, all of you are of a similar age and all have the same company. In fact, you all have the same food, clothing, upãsanã, shãstras, and mantra, and all listen to the same talks. So, what is the reason for the difference in levels amongst you? Moreover, he who is a sãdhu, follows dharma completely, is unbiased, and views all equally; therefore, he would describe everyone as they truly are. So, please answer the question.” 8.32 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj provided the answer, “Only he who has shraddhã is praised by a sãdhu; and that is also why he follows dharma more strictly. Also, he has shraddhã in serving a sant, and in listening to the talks of Bhagvãn. He also has faith in the sant. Therefore, he has progressed. On the other hand, he who has not progressed, despite staying in such company, should be known to lack shraddhã.”

9.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Mãgshar sud 6 [11th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint, and a white survãl. He had also tied a white feto around His head. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 9.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj requested, “May all the paramhans please engage in a question-answer discussion amongst themselves.” 9.3 Ãtmãnand Swãmi then asked Akhandãnand Swãmi, “What are the factors that lead to the development of vairãgya, gnãn, bhakti, and dharma?” 9.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “Vairãgya is developed when a person comes to understand the nature of Kãl. What is this nature of Kãl? Well, it is to know the process of nitya-pralay, nimit-pralay, prãkrut-pralay, and ãtyantik-pralay, as well as the lifespan of all beings from Brahmã to the smallest blade of grass. After knowing this, if a person understands the body, the brahmãnd, and all other objects to be subject to the force of Kãl, then vairãgya would arise. 9.5 “Gnãn arises if a person listens to the Upanishads, such as the Bruhadãranya Upanishad, Chhãndogya Upanishad, and Kathvalli Upanishad, the Bhagvad Geetã, the Vãsudev Mahãtmya, the Vyãs Sutras, and other shãstras from a sat-purush. 9.6 “Dharma arises if a person listens to the Yãgnavalkya Smruti, Manu Smruti, Parãshar Smruti, Shankh-Likhit Smruti, and other Smrutis. By doing so, dharma will arise, and a person will develop belief in those shãstras. 9.7 “Bhakti arises if a person understands the avatãrs of Bhagvãn. How should he understand them? Well, when he hears about the murti of Bhagvãn that are in each khand; and when he hears about the dhãms of Bhagvãn – Golok, Vaikunth, Brahmpur, Shvet-Dvip; and when he listens with a sense of admiration to the talks of the leelãs of Bhagvãn describing the creation, sustenance, and destruction of the universe; and when he listens with keen interest to the narration of the leelãs of Rãm, Krishna, and the other avatãrs of Bhagvãn, then bhakti towards Bhagvãn would develop. 9.8 “Now, even though a person in his initial stages has an immature mind, if he listens to the ceremonial Smrutis, dharma would develop. Later, after becoming firm in his observance of dharma, if he listens to shãstras that explain upãsanã, then all three (gnãn, bhakti, and vairãgya) would develop. These are the factors which lead to the development of the four qualities.”

10.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the morning of Mãgshar sud 8 [13th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint and white survãl. He had also tied a white feto around His head. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 10.2 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi said, “In this world, there are some men who have such love for women and other objects, that if they were to be separated, they would not be able to live. There are others who have love for women and other objects, but it is not as intense. So, if they were to be separated, they would survive. In this way, there are two types of people. Now, if the first type of person, who involves himself in worldly life with love, were to meet Bhagvãn, he would become attached to Bhagvãn in the same way; if he were to be separated from Bhagvãn, he would not be able to survive. Moreover, if the second person, with less love for worldly life, were to meet Bhagvãn, he would have less love for Bhagvãn as well. Is the difference between these two types of people due to karmas, or is it eternal?” 10.3 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Those differences are not inherently present in the jeev; instead, they arise as a result of karmas. How does this happen? Well, when a jeev performs a karma, the force of its vruttis can be of three levels: mild, medium, and intense. The force with which the vruttis attach themselves to the object, determines the effect of the karma upon the jeev. As a result, three levels of love arise due to these karmas.” 10.4 Again, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Do the three levels in the force of the vruttis occur as a result of the gun, or is there some other reason?” 10.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The three types of differences are not due to the gun; to be more precise, when only the indriyas indulge in an object, then a mild force results. When the indriyas indulge in an object along with the mind, a medium force develops. When all three – the indriyas, the mind, and the jeev – combine and indulge in an object, the vruttis develop an intense force. Even if that intense force affects only the eyes, the other indriyas would follow, and the force would affect them as well. In this way, whichever indriya is primarily affected by the intense force, the other indriyas follow. Moreover, that intense force affects all three types of people – rãjasi, sãttvik, and tãmasi. In fact, such intense force is present in each of the indriyas; therefore, love for objects arises.” 10.6 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Why does he not develop love for Bhagvãn with such an intense force?” 10.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Good and bad behaviour is determined by the factors of desh, kãl, kriyã, dhyãn, shãstras, dikshã, mantra, and sang. So, if a person attains pleasant factors, then he develops love for Bhagvãn quickly. But, if he encounters unpleasant factors, then he would develop love for objects other than Bhagvãn.” 10.8 Then, Chaitanyãnand Swãmi asked, “What should a person do in difficult times?” 10.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Whenever and wherever times are difficult, a person should abandon that place for another location; he should not stay where the factor of kãl is unpleasant. In actual fact, kãl, in the form of Satya-Yug, Tretã-Yug, Dvãpar-Yug, and Kali-Yug, exists both externally and internally. So, when Kali-Yug is prevalent within a person’s heart, he should not visualise the murti of Bhagvãn within his heart; instead, it should be seen externally, before his eyes.” 10.10 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “How can a person distinguish whether a mild, a medium, or an intense force prevails within someone’s heart?” 10.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “When the force is mild, a person would have the same feelings on seeing a young girl, a young woman, or an old woman. This is because only the vruttis of the indriyas have become involved. As a result, a mild force has developed. When the mind unites with the indriyas and they see the three types of women, then no improper thoughts arise towards the young girl or the old woman; but indecent thoughts certainly do arise towards the young woman, and a disturbance is experienced. This should be known as a medium level force. When both the mind and the jeev combine with the indriyas and look at the three types of women, then improper thoughts arise towards all three types of women, and a disturbance is experienced. In fact, a person would experience such improper thoughts even on seeing his own mother or sister. This should be known as an intense force.” 10.12 Then, Brahmãnand Swãmi asked, “Suppose a person notices the distinction between the three types of women, and notices their beauty and ugliness, yet he does not experience any improper thoughts. Which type of force is that?” 10.13 Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Having realised an object to be the cause of intense misery and having reflected upon that fact, a person assigns serious flaws to that object. The reflection of those disadvantages in the mind then leads to those flaws being acknowledged by the jeev. The witness (Bhagvãn), who is greater than the jeev, also confirms those flaws, and so an extremely firm belief in those flaws is developed. Therefore, when the vruttis of the indriyas enter the object, the mind and jeev also go along with the vruttis; but since the jeev’s deep belief of the flaw in the object pierces the mind and indriyas, even though the object is seen and fully recognised, an intense hatred still arises for it. For example, if a snake’s venom is dropped into a bowl of sweet milk, and a person sees the venom being added, then even though the milk appears exactly as before, an intense hatred for it prevails in his heart. This is because he has realised, ‘If I drink the milk, I will die’. Similarly, such a person has realised, ‘This beautiful woman is an obstacle on the path of kalyãn; and she is the cause of extreme misery in this lok and in the higher loks. In fact, I have attained the company of women countless times in past lives in various life-forms, and if I still do not worship Bhagvãn, I will attain the company of countless more females. Therefore, this attainment is not rare. However, the company of Bhagvãn and His sant is extremely rare, and this woman is a major obstacle in the attainment of that’. A person who has realised this and has intensely realised the flaws in the object, will never be infatuated on seeing a woman, regardless of how beautiful she may be. 10.14 “Furthermore, there is another way to remain free of infatuation: Janak the Videhi, who was a great king and a bhakta of Bhagvãn, stayed in his kingdom and, due to his firmness in gnãn, remained free of infatuation even while indulging in attractive vishays. Similarly, a bhakta with gnãn like Janak, has the thought, ‘I am the ãtmã – pure, chaitanya, unchanging, blissful, and imperishable. However, vishays like women and other objects, are full of misery; they are worthless, perishable, and jad’. With this thought, he believes only his own self, the ãtmã, as being blissful. Also, he believes, ‘The pleasure and charm which are apparent in the vishays are only experienced due to the ãtmã. But, when the ãtmã leaves the body, that which was once pleasurable becomes miserable’. He reflects upon his ãtmã in this way. 10.15 “He also reflects upon Paramãtmã, who is greater than the ãtmã, as follows: ‘I have attained this gnãn of the pure ãtmã, which is greater than mãyã, by the grace of the sant. That sant is a bhakta of Bhagvãn. Moreover, that Bhagvãn is the ãtmã of even brahm, who is ãtmã of all. He is the ãtmã of Akshar, and is also the ãtmã of the countless millions of muktas. I am the brahm-rup dãs of that Parbrahm Purushottam Nãrãyan’. 10.16 “Also, he understands the greatness of Bhagvãn by realising: 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. “Such shloks have greatly explained the greatness of Bhagvãn. 10.17 “When a person, who has gnãn of his own self and of Bhagvãn, attains a vishay, his mind would not even be slightly affected by it, regardless of how appealing it may be. He indulges in the essential vishays without becoming dependent upon them. Instead, he indulges in them independently of his own accord. Just as a spider spreads its own web and then it independently retracts it when necessary, in the same way, a bhakta possessing gnãn engages the vruttis of his indriyas in the vishays and retracts them on his own accord. Such a person feels as if he is in the forest, even if he is amongst people; and though he may be in the forest, he experiences more happiness there than a person does from ruling a kingdom. 10.18 “The bhakta may reside in a kingdom, thousands of people may be under his command, and he may be wealthy; but he himself does not feel, ‘I have become very great’. Furthermore, if the kingdom is destroyed and he begs for food from house to house with a clay bowl, he does not feel, ‘Now I have become poor’. This is because he remains absolutely carefree in his own bliss, and he knows the greatness of his own self and that of Bhagvãn. Therefore, he views gold, dirt, iron, and stones as equal; he also feels calmness in praise and insult. Since his vision has become broad, and he knows all worldly objects to be worthless, no objects are capable of binding a person with gnãn. For example, when a man who was initially poor receives a kingdom, his vision becomes broad. At first, he may have been selling bundles of wood or doing various other insignificant jobs, but he forgets them all and he begins to do important tasks related to his kingdom. Similarly, to a person with gnãn, all objects become worthless; and due to that gnãn, his vision becomes broad. A person with such an understanding becomes happy. 10.19 “Also, if a person has faith, and he believes, ‘Whatever such a great sant and Bhagvãn say is the truth; there is no doubt in it’, and with this belief he does as Bhagvãn and His sant instruct him to do, then that person remains happy. These are the two types of people who are happy; apart from them, everyone is unhappy. This is also described in the following shlok: yash-cha mudhatamo loke yash-cha buddheha param gataha tãvubho sukham-edhete klishya-tyantarito janaha In this world, there are two types of people who experience the bliss of Bhagvãn: those who are utterly ignorant and have blind faith in Bhagvãn, and those who are perfectly enlightened and have realised Bhagvãn. Those who are in between, are troubled. 10.20 “Also, in the Bhagvad Geetã, it is said: vishayã vinivar-tante nirãhãrasya dehinaha rasa-varjam rasopyasya param drushtva nivartate The sense objects recede for a person who refrains from indulging in them. However, the longing for them does not subside. The longing subsides only when his vision reaches Bhagvãn. “This means that all objects, except Bhagvãn, become worthless to a person whose vision becomes alokik in this way. Moreover, the meaning of these two shloks is the same.” 10.21 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi said, “Mahãrãj, now please ask the question you were going to ask.” 10.22 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Is there only misery in mãyã, or is there also some happiness in it? That is the question.” 10.23 Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “Mãyã causes only misery.” 10.24 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Of the three gun – sattva-gun, rajo-gun, and tamo-gun – which arise from Mãyã, sattva-gun is said to give happiness. Furthermore, in the Shreemad Bhãgvat it is said: sattvam yad-brahma-darshanam Sattva-gun leads to the vision of Bhagvãn. “It is also said that the products of sattva-gun are gnãn, vairãgya, wisdom, tranquillity, and discipline. How is mãyã in this form a cause of misery? Furthermore, it is stated in the eleventh skandh: vidyavidye mama tanu viddhyud-dhava shareerinam; bandha-mokshakari ãdye mãyayã me vinir-mite O Uddhav! Realise my two forms – both of which have been created from my mãyã: the ancient vidya and avidya, which free and bind people respectively. “So, how is mãyã in the form of knowledge, which leads to moksh, a cause of misery?” 10.25 Hearing the question, Muktãnand Swãmi and all the other paramhans said, “Mahãrãj, we are unable to answer, so please have mercy, and give the answer yourself.” 10.26 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “To a sinful person, the svarup of Yam-Rãj appears frightful and terrible, with large teeth and a large, frightening mouth; he appears black like soot, huge like a mountain, and horrific like death. In this way, his svarup appears dreadful. However, to a good person, the svarup of Yam-Rãj appears very pleasant, like Vishnu. Similarly, to those who are vimukhs, mãyã causes attachment and intense misery, while to a bhakta of Bhagvãn that same mãyã is the cause of intense happiness. Also, the entities that have evolved out of Mãyã – the antah-karans, the indriyas, and their presiding devs – all support the bhakti of Bhagvãn. Therefore, for a bhakta of Bhagvãn, mãyã is not a cause of misery; it is a source of great happiness.” 10.27 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “If mãyã is a cause of happiness, why is it that when a bhakta of Bhagvãn visualises the murti of Bhagvãn and engages in worship, mãyã, in the form of the antah-karans, causes misery by generating many disturbing thoughts?” 10.28 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Mãyã, in the form of the antah-karans, does not cause misery to a person who thoroughly understands the greatness of Bhagvãn and has an absolutely firm refuge of Bhagvãn; but it does cause misery to a person who does not have this refuge. For example, a kusangi would attempt to dislodge only a weak satsangi; but no one would dare to dislodge a firm satsangi. In fact, no one would be able to speak unkindly of satsang in his presence. Similarly, mãyã, in the form of the antah-karans, would never entertain a desire to intimidate a person who has a firm refuge in Bhagvãn. Instead, it would help his bhakti to flourish. However, mãyã does deflect a person who has a slight deficiency in his refuge in Bhagvãn, and does cause him misery. However, when that person develops a complete refuge in Bhagvãn, mãyã is not able to disturb him or cause him pain. Therefore, the answer is that if a person has complete nishchay in Bhagvãn, mãyã is not capable of causing him misery.”

11.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the morning of Mãgshar vad 8 [27th December, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 11.2 Then, Shuk Muni asked Shreeji Mahãrãj, “What understanding does an asat-purush adopt from the Shreemad Bhãgvat, the Bhagvad Geetã, and other sacred shãstras?” 11.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The answer is as follows: An asat-purush person believes that all the sthãvar and jangam male and female svarups in this world have been created through Mãyã and the Purush, Virãt, and svarup of Bhagvãn. This implies that all these svarups are manifestations of Bhagvãn Himself. For this reason, a person aspiring for kalyãn should initially conquer his mind; and then, if his mind is attracted towards a higher or lower svarup of either a male or female, he should perform dhyãn upon that very svarup in order to attain instantaneous samãdhi. If the mind perceives any flaws in that svarup, then he should believe that svarup to be brahm by thinking, ‘The whole world is brahm’. Thinking in this way, he should disprove the perception of those flaws. In this way, to accept only the words regarding experiences from the shãstras is the understanding of an asat-purush. Such a misunderstanding reflects the wicked nature of his mind, and at the end of his life, he is sent to the deep regions of Narak and the cycle of births and deaths.” 11.4 Then, Shuk Muni requested, “Now, please explain what understanding a sat-purush person adopts from the sacred shãstras.” 11.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “The answer to this question is given in the sacred shãstras themselves. Specifically, those desiring kalyãn should not perform dhyãn upon – with the exception of Purushottam Nãrãyan – any devs, such as Shiv and Brahmã. Instead, among all humans and devs, they should perform dhyãn only upon murtis, such as Rãm and Krishna, which are avatãrs of Purushottam Nãrãyan. Furthermore, the wise bhaktas consider all the places where Bhagvãn’s murti of Rãm and Krishna reside to be Vaikunth, Golok, Shvet-Dvip, and Brahmpur. They consider the pãrshads that dwell in those loks to be the pãrshads of Rãm and Krishna, such as Hanumãn and Uddhav. 11.6 “They also regard the divya murtis of Bhagvãn in those loks, which are radiant with the light of countless millions of suns, moons, and flames of fire, to be murtis of avatars such as Rãm and Krishna in their dhãms. Therefore, a person who adopts such an understanding from the sacred shãstras, and performs dhyãn on the human svarup of Bhagvãn with a sense of divinity, never equates the svarups of Bhagvãn’s avatãrs and other svarups. In reality, all murtis of Bhagvãn’s avatãrs have only two arms. However, for the sole reason of dismissing any similarity that a person lacking wisdom may perceive between Bhagvãn’s svarup and other svarups, they are often described as having four arms or eight arms. 11.7 “Moreover, a person should only perform dhyãn on the murti of Bhagvãn that he has attained, not on the murtis of the previous avatãrs. Therefore, like a woman who keeps the vow of fidelity, a person should remain totally faithful to the murti of Bhagvãn that he has attained. Pãrvati has also said, koti janma-laga ragad hamãri; varu Shambhu, ke rahu kumãri For a million lives I have done so; I’ll marry Shambhu, or remain unwed. “Such a vow of fidelity has also been mentioned in order to dismiss the similarity that a person lacking wisdom perceives between the svarup of Bhagvãn and other beings. This is because if someone strays from the murti of Bhagvãn which he has attained, and instead performs dhyãn on the previous avatãrs of that very Bhagvãn, then he may later even abandon Bhagvãn and perform dhyãn upon other devs of other human svarups. That is why the vow of fidelity has been mentioned, not because there is any difference between the murtis of Bhagvãn themselves. This is the understanding of a sat-purush. Therefore, a person should only hear the sacred shãstras from a sat-purush person, but never from an asat-purush.”

12.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar vad 9 [28th December, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes, and was also wearing a red, woollen dagli. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 12.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj raised a question: “Nishchay in Bhagvãn is of two types: savikalp nishchay and nirvikalp nishchay. In each type of nishchay there are three sub-categories: uttam, madhyam, and kanishth. Please describe the distinguishing characteristics of each of these six sub-categories.” 12.3 The paramhans were unable to answer, so Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The characteristics of a person with the kanishth savikalp nishchay are as follows: As long as Bhagvãn exhibits kãm, krodh, lobh, mãn, and svãd, to the same extent as other humans, the person’s nishchay in Bhagvãn remains. However, if Bhagvãn were to display these svabhãvs more so than others, his nishchay would be shattered. 12.4 “The nishchay of someone with the madhyam savikalp nishchay remains firm even if Bhagvãn exhibits kãm and krodh to a double degree than that of humans. 12.5 “Finally, a person with the uttam savikalp nishchay would never doubt any action of Bhagvãn, even if Bhagvãn were to behave crudely like a person of a low varna and ãshram; or exhibit anger or violence; or indulge in drinking alcohol, meat-eating, or adultery. This is because he understands Bhagvãn to be the all-doer, the supreme lord, and the experience of everything. Such a person realises that whatever actions take place in the world are the result of Bhagvãn, who is anvay within all beings as their controller. If He were to indulge in some shameful deed, it would not affect Him at all since He Himself is the all-doer. In this way, a person who has realised Bhagvãn as the lord of all, is known as a bhakta of Bhagvãn with the uttam savikalp nishchay. 12.6 “As for a bhakta with the kanishth nirvikalp nishchay, no matter what good or bad deeds he witnesses being performed by Bhagvãn, he understands that in all actions Bhagvãn performs, He is still a non-doer, since He is brahm. That brahm is like ãkãsh; everything resides in ãkãsh and all actions take place within it. The bhakta realises such qualities of brahm of Bhagvãn. For example, during the narration of the rãs-leelã, Parikshit Rãjã asked Shukji, ‘Bhagvãn assumes an avatãr to uphold dharma. Then, why did He associate with the gopis?’ Shukji replied, ‘Shree Krishna is radiant like fire; whatever actions He performs, good or bad, are burnt to ashes’. In this way, a person who understands Bhagvãn as brahm, and unaffected by the actions He performs, is said to have the kanishth nirvikalp nishchay. 12.7 “A person who becomes like the niranna-muktas of Shvet-Dvip – who are free from the shad-urmi (six physical and emotional feelings) – and worships Vãsudev, is said to possess a madhyam nirvikalp nishchay. 12.8 “Finally, a person possessing the uttam nirvikalp nishchay realises that countless millions of brahmãnds, each encircled by the eight barriers (jad prakruti), appear like mere atoms before Akshar. Such is the greatness of Akshar, the dhãm of Purushottam Nãrãyan. A person who worships Purushottam realising himself to be akshar-rup, can be said to possess the uttam nirvikalp nishchay.” 12.9 Then, Chaitanyãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, how have these distinctions in nishchay arisen?” 12.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “When a mumukshu initially approaches a guru, several factors cause distinctions in his nishchay: the pleasantness and unpleasantness of desh, kãl, sang, dikshã, kriyã, mantra, and shãstras, with regards to the guru; as well as the intensity of his own shraddhã. Therefore, a person should always associate with pleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang. Moreover, a person should acquire wisdom from a speaker who is calm and faultless.” 12.11 Chaitanyãnand Swãmi asked further, “If under such circumstances a person develops the kanishth nishchay, can it later develop into the uttam nishchay?” 12.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If the listener possesses extreme shraddhã; and if he encounters pleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang; and if he encounters a guru with the uttam gnãn, then the highest nishchay will develop. Otherwise, such nishchay would develop after many lives.”

13.1 In the early morning of Mãgshar vad 10 [30th December, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a red, woollen dagli and a white khes. He had tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a white chofãl. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 13.2 Shreeji Mahãrãj then told the senior paramhans to ask questions amongst themselves. So, Gopãlãnand Swãmi asked Brahmãnand Swãmi, “What type of person is overcome by unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang; and what type of person is not overcome? After all, it is said that even Brahmã was infatuated upon seeing Sarasvati, as was Shivji when he saw Mohini. So, please answer carefully, because even such great devs have been overcome by unpleasant circumstances.” 13.3 Brahmãnand Swãmi attempted to answer, but could not give an adequate reply. 13.4 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “A person who has withdrawn his nãdis and prãns, and by way of his nirvikalp state remains at the holy feet of Bhagvãn, would not be overcome by unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang, even if he was an insignificant being. In fact, if Brahmã and other devs behave in this way; they would also not be overcome. However, if he has not developed such a state, and instead, behaves as if he is the body, then average beings, as well as great devs, would be overcome. If this were not so, then the meaning of the following shlok would not be true: tat-shrushta-shrushta-shrushteshu konvakhandita-dheehee pumãn rushim nãrayanam-rute yoshin-mãyyeha mãyayã 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? 13.5 “Therefore, Bhagvãn alone is not overcome by those influences. While all others, no matter how great they may be, if they are not engrossed in the holy feet of Bhagvãn, would be overcome; those who do remain engrossed are not overcome. This is a universal principle that I have firmly established within myself. 13.6 “Moreover, it is mentioned in the Shreemad Bhãgvat: etad-eeshanam-eehasya prakrutisthopi tad-gunahee na yujyate sadãtmasthair-yathã buddhis-tad-ãshrayã Just as a person’s buddhi (knowledge of Bhagvãn) is not affected by the characteristics of the body (such as birth, death, age, illness), similarly, Bhagvãn, who pervades Prakruti, is forever unaffected by their influences and the influences of ãtmãs. This is the ability of Bhagvãn. 13.7 “Krishna Bhagvãn has also said: daivee hyeshã guna-mayee mama mãyã duratyayã mãm-eva ye prapadyante mãyãm-etam taranti te My mãyã, which I have created and is composed of the three gun, is indeed difficult to rise above. However, those who take refuge in me alone can rise above that mãyã. 13.8 “Therefore, only Bhagvãn remains unaffected by mãyã; and a person who has realised Bhagvãn through a nirvikalp state is also not overcome by mãyã. On the other hand, someone who has realised Bhagvãn through a savikalp state would still be overcome, no matter how great he may be.” 13.9 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, as long as a mukta is associated with the three gun (sattva-gun, rajo-gun, tamo-gun), he is affected by desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang. However, it is accepted that Bhagvãn is not influenced by desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang – even while He remains with the gun. However, when all the muktas are free from the association of the gun, and have become nirgun, they dwell in Akshardhãm along with Bhagvãn – who dwells there in the same way; and all the muktas are nirgun, and composed of chaitanya. Also, as explained by ‘mama sãdharmya-mãgatãha’, they have attained qualities similar to those of Bhagvãn. Then, how should we understand the distinction between the muktas and Bhagvãn?” 13.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “Look at the moon and the stars. Is there not a difference between the two? They are not similar in terms of brightness, and there is a vast difference between the intensity of their rays. All the herbs are nourished by the moon, but not by the stars. Also, it is the moon that dispels the darkness of the night, not the stars. Bhagvãn and the muktas differ in the same way. 13.11 “Also, a king and his servant are both the same, as they both are humans; yet the authority, power, beauty, and charm of the king are far more superior. His servant, regardless of how great he may be, cannot achieve what the king can achieve. In the same way, Purushottam Nãrãyan is the all-doer, the cause of all, the controller of all; He is extremely attractive, extremely radiant, and extremely powerful; also, He possesses kartum, akartum, and anyathã-kartum powers. If He wishes, He can conceal all the muktas of Akshardhãm by His own divine light and prevail alone. Also, if He wishes, He can accept the bhakti of the muktas and reside with them. He can conceal even Akshar, in the svarup of Akshardhãm, in which He dwells, and preside alone. If He so chooses, He is capable of supporting the countless muktas by His own power, without even needing Akshardhãm. For example, Pruthu Bhagvãn told Pruthvi, ‘I can kill you with the arrow from my bow and still be able to support the whole world by my powers’. Likewise, through His powers, Bhagvãn reigns as the supreme lord. A person who equates Bhagvãn with Akshar and the other muktas should be regarded as evil-minded and as a great sinner. A person should avoid even looking at him. In fact, merely looking at such a person is as sinful as committing the five great sins. 13.12 “Of course, by considering their association with Bhagvãn, it is acceptable to grant greatness upon anyone. Brahmã, Shiv, Nãrad, the Sanakãdik, and Uddhav can all be called Bhagvãn because of their association with Bhagvãn. At present, even a sãdhu like Muktãnand Swãmi can be considered to be like Bhagvãn because of his association with Bhagvãn. However, without Bhagvãn, even Akshar cannot be called Bhagvãn – let alone anyone else. 13.13 “This Vedic shlok reflects the same truth: aparimitã dhurvãs-tanubhruto yadi sarvagatãs-tarhi na shãsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathã O loyal Bhagvãn! If the embodied jeevs, which are innumerable and eternal, are believed to be all-pervasive, then they would not be governable. Not believing them as all-pervasive would not cause any discrepancies. “If this were not so, then why would we – despite regarding ourselves to be brahm-rup, and distinct from the body, and possessing gnãn and vairãgya – try to please Bhagvãn by staying up day and night, clapping, singing kirtans, and chanting His holy name tirelessly? Why would we engage in kathãs and talks day and night, and encourage others to do so as well? Why would we make so much effort if we could become like Bhagvãn? Therefore, only Bhagvãn is like Bhagvãn; no one can become like Him. The Vedic shlok ‘ekam-evãdviteeyam brahm’ also explains that Bhagvãn alone is like Bhagvãn. This is the principle of all the shãstras.” 13.14 In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj addressed the bhaktas for their benefit, when in reality He Himself is Purushottam Nãrãyan.

14.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Mãgshar vad 11 [31st December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white khes, and had tied a white feto around His head. He had covered Himself with a white chãdar. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 14.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to the paramhans, “All the ãchãryas of the past have had differing beliefs. Of them, Shankar Swãmi seems to have leaned predominately towards the Advait principle. Rãmanuj’s principle is that jeevs, Mãyã, and Purushottam are eternal; Purushottam is the controller of the jeevs and Mãyã; He is the ultimate cause of all; He forever dwells in His Akshardhãm in a divya svarup; all avatãrs originate from Him; and it is this Purushottam Nãrãyan that should be worshiped. This seems to be the understanding of Rãmanuj. Vallabh-Ãchãrya seems to have intense faith only in bhakti. All these ãchãryas have occasionally referred to other principles in their own shãstras, but ultimately, in one way or another, they have leaned towards their own personal preference. Their views can be accurately understood from the statements in their shãstras. 14.3 “In the same way, having listened to my talks, what have all of you realised my personal preference to be? Just as a thread passes through the eye of a needle, or a thread runs through each and every bead of a mãlã, which principle is consistently interwoven in all of my talks? Please state your beliefs.” 14.4 All the senior paramhans spoke according to their understanding. 14.5 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Here, allow me to reveal my own principles and preferences. 14.6 “First of all, I like the fact that although Rushabh-Dev Bhagvãn had attained oneness with Vãsudev, and despite being Bhagvãn Himself, when siddhi appeared before Him, He did not accept them because He wished to set an example for all tyãgis. Also, the Shreemad Bhãgvat states: ‘Even an accomplished yogi should never trust his mind – even though he may appear to have conquered it’. 14.7 “There are also these shloks: na kuryat-karhichit-sakhyam manasi hyanavasthite yadvistram-bhãchirãch-cheernam chaskanda tapa aishvaram Never befriend the mind because it is very unstable; it has even destroyed the tap of the devs that were accumulated after extensive activities over a great period of time. nityam dadãti kãmasya-chhidram tam-anu yerayaha yoginaha kruta-maitrasya patyur-jãyeva punshchalee The minds of those yogis who have befriended their minds continuously allow kãm to enter. Other enemies, such as krodh, lobh, and moh, follow the kãm into the mind. In this way, the mind brings about the downfall of the yogis, just as an unfaithful wife brings about the downfall of her trusting husband. “In this way, I like a tyãgi who does not trust his mind. 14.8 “Also, in my mind I do not like other loks as much as I like Shvet-Dvip and Badrikãshram. In fact, I feel that it would be very good to go there to perform tap without any food. I would prefer not to indulge in the various types of pleasures of the other loks. 14.9 “Furthermore, I realise that the many avatãrs are all ultimately of Bhagvãn; yet, among these avatãrs, I like Rushabh-Dev greatly. I also like Kapil-Dev and Dattãtrey equally, but to a lesser extent than Rushabh-Dev. But, more than these three, I have a million-fold more love for the avatãr of Shree Krishna. I feel, ‘This avatãr is greater and more powerful than all the others. Also, in him, a person cannot make the distinction of the avatãr and the source of the avatãr’. On the other hand, I do not have a great liking for the other avatãrs of Bhagvãn, such as Matsya and Kurma. 14.10 “In addition to this, my understanding is as follows: There is a great mass of divine light, which cannot be measured from above, below, or in any of the four directions; it is endless. Amidst this mass of light lies a large sinhãsan, upon which presides the divya murti of Shree Nãrãyan Purushottam Bhagvãn. Countless millions of muktas are seated around that sinhãsan, enjoying the darshan of Bhagvãn. I constantly see Him accompanied by the muktas. Moreover, that Bhagvãn is extremely luminous. At times, when I cannot see Bhagvãn with the sabhã of muktas due to this luminosity, I feel deeply hurt. Despite being able to constantly see this mass of divine light, I am not fascinated by it; I experience profound bliss only from the darshan of Bhagvãn’s murti. This is my upãsanã. 14.11 “Moreover, I like the bhakti that the gopis had towards Bhagvãn. For this reason, I continuously observe people, and having seen the love a lustful woman has for a man, or a lustful man has for a woman, I feel, ‘It would be good to have such love for Bhagvãn’. Also, whenever I see someone having great love for their son, or their money, I again feel, ‘It would be good to have such love for Bhagvãn’. That is why whenever I hear someone singing, I would either send someone to that person, or I would personally go there, and I would feel, ‘What he is doing, is very good’. 14.12 “Also, I only get along with a person who has no svabhãvs, such as kãm, krodh, lobh, mãn, irshyã, kapat, svãd, sneh, dambh; a person who follows dharma as prescribed in the Dharma-Shãstras; and a person who has bhakti towards Bhagvãn. I enjoy the company of only such a person. If a person is not like that, then I do not get along with him, even if he is staying close to me. In fact, I feel a dislike towards them. 14.13 “Initially, I had a strong dislike for anyone with kãm. However, now I have a strong dislike for those who have krodh, mãn, or irshyã. The reason is that a person with kãm passes his days in satsang by being humble – like a grahastha bhakta; but as for those who have krodh, mãn, or irshyã, they can be seen to definitely regress in satsang. For this reason, I am deeply saddened by these types of people. 14.14 “What is mãn like? Well, a person with mãn remains arrogant even before those who are superior to him; he cannot become humble and serve them. 14.15 “Now, allow me to summarise my preferences in brief. I do not agree with Shankar Swãmi’s belief of Advait principle. Rãmãnuj Swãmi describes Purushottam Bhagvãn as greater than the perishable and the imperishable; I worship that Purushottam Bhagvãn. My bhakti towards that Purushottam Bhagvãn is like that of the gopis, and the qualities of vairãgya and ãtmã-nishthã within me are like Shukji’s and Jadbharat’s. These are my principles and preferences. Intelligent bhaktas can realise this if they analyse my talks as well as the shãstras of our sampradãy which have been accepted by me as trustworthy.” 14.16 Therefore, Shreeji Mahãrãj spoke for the sake of His bhaktas, while He Himself is Purushottam Nãrãyan.

15.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar vad 13 [2nd January, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a warm, red dagli and a white khes. He had tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a chofãl and a pachhedi. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 15.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said out of compassion, “The jeev pervades the entire body from head to toe through its three powers of adhyãtma, adhibhut, and adhidev. Through the indriyas, and their presiding devs, it experiences the vishays, but it cannot experience anything by being distinct from the presiding devs and the indriyas.” 15.3 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi raised a doubt: “Mahãrãj, it is said that the jeev pervades the whole body in general, but resides specifically within the heart. So, how should a person understand the fact that awareness is not present everywhere equally?” 15.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “The sun pervades each and every object equally by its rays, but its light is seen according to the object it shines upon. For example, pure sunlight is not experienced as intensely on stone or sand or in dirty water as it is on a floor made of glass or in clean water. Therefore, just as a person experiences a greater and lesser intensity in the sun’s light, in the same way, even though the jeev resides equally in the indriyas, the antah-karans, and the organs of the indriyas, a person experiences its power more intensely in the indriyas because of their purity. For example, does a person experience as much sensation in his nose and ears as he does in his eyes? Certainly not. Furthermore, the four antah-karans are even purer than the indriyas, and so the jeev’s power can be experienced there even more intensely. In comparison, it is experienced to a lesser degree in the indriyas. Nevertheless, the jeev does pervade the entire body equally.” 15.5 Then, Brahmãnand Swãmi asked, “Many see the jeev to be like a star, or like the flame of an oil lamp, or like the flash from a firecracker. How should a person understand these differences in experiences?” 15.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “Just as a person who has mastered akshi-vidyã can see the jeev and the murti of Bhagvãn within with his eyes, a person who has realised the ãtmã through the indriyas sees the ãtmã in a similar way. For example, if there was a glass-statue shaped in the svarup of a human – with all of its limbs, hair, and vessels made of glass – and if it were filled with light, then the light would be seen only according to the size and shape of the tubes within; it would not be seen everywhere. In the very same way, people describe the nature of the jeev according to however they have seen it. However, because they have not attained nirãvaran drashti, they do not see the ãtmã as it is. However, when a person who has not attained nirãvaran drashti and is one with his ãtmã, he no longer perceives the divisions of the different organs of the indriyas; instead, he realises the ãtmã as it truly is. 15.7 “Just as a person who has attained the viewpoint of ãkãsh does not perceive the other four bhuts, similarly, a person with nirãvaran drashti does not perceive differences in the jeev’s light arising from its indriyas, their organs and presiding devs, and the antah-karans; instead, he realises the jeev precisely as it is. On the other hand, a person who perceives distinctions does not realise the jeev as it is. For example, from a group of people, one person saw the tail of a cow, one person saw its mouth, one person saw its hoof, one person saw its belly, and one person saw its udder. Whichever part of the cow was seen, belonged to the cow, yet no one saw the cow completely. However, because at least one part was seen, it can be said that the cow was actually seen. In the same way, a person can be said to have had the darshan of the ãtmã to the extent to which he has seen the light of the ãtmã through his indriyas or antah-karans. However, this cannot be said to be perfect darshan of the ãtmã. Therefore, I have explained the general and the specific experiences of the jeev in this way.” 15.8 At that point, Nityãnand Swãmi questioned, “Mahãrãj, you have described the jeev as being nirãkãr. Therefore, when Bhagvãn dwells within the jeev, does He reside without a svarup, or does He possess a svarup?” 15.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj clarified, “Bhagvãn dwells as the refuge of the indriyas, the antah-karans, their presiding devs, and the jeev. For example, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn made Uddhavji explain to the gopis, ‘I am near to you by being the refuge of your indriyas, antah-karans, their presiding devs, and the jeev. Just as the very same five mahã-bhuts which reside in the brahmãnds are also within everyone’s body, similarly, I reside in Mathurã like the mahã-bhuts reside predominantly in the brahmãnds; but just like those mahã-bhuts reside subtly in the bodies of the jeevs, I also reside within all of you. The fact that I cannot be seen is to keep the vrutti of your mind confined within me; that is why I cannot be seen. Nevertheless, I reside within you, and I possess a definite murti’.” 15.10 Hearing this, Nityãnand Swãmi questioned further, “Mahãrãj, does Bhagvãn, who resides as the refuge of the indriyas, antah-karans, their presiding devs, and the jeev, reside in the svarup of Purush, Akshar, or as Purushottam Himself?” 15.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The light of the jeev, Purush, Akshar, and Purushottam is very similar in terms of luminosity. So much so, that no one is capable of distinguishing between their light. However, they are absolutely distinct from each other, but no one is capable of seeing these distinctions. Only a person who receives a divine body composed of divine light by the grace of Bhagvãn realises, ‘This is my own self, this is Purush, this is Akshar, and this is Purushottam – who is distinct from all’. In this way, a person can see them separately, and their light distinctly. However, no one else is capable of distinguishing between them. Therefore, Bhagvãn may reside in whichever svarup He chooses, but it is He Himself who resides within the jeev – no one else.” 15.12 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj continued, “There are three sets of shãstras which are eternal and which describe only the svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. They are Yog, Sãnkhya, and Vedãnt (the Upanishads). I shall now explain the principles of each, so please listen. 15.13 “Those belonging to the Sãnkhya philosophy propose the existence of twenty-four tattvas and believe that Bhagvãn is greater than them; that is, Bhagvãn is the twenty-fifth tattva. However, they do not accept jeev and ishvar as being distinct from the twenty-four tattvas. Their reasoning is that the tattvas cannot be sustained without the jeev; so the jeev is imagined only as a form of the tattvas because of its close co-existence with them. As a result, they do not consider the jeev to be distinct. Also, just as they regard the jeev as a form of the tattvas, they regard the ishvars as a form of the twenty-four tattvas. In this way, they imagine both jeev and ishvar among the twenty-four tattvas, and therefore count them together with the twenty-four tattvas; they do not consider them as being distinct from the tattvas. This, along with believing Bhagvãn to be the twenty-fifth tattva, is the philosophy of Sãnkhya. 15.14 “Despite this, a person should not conclude that there is no jeev at all, because the proposers of Sãnkhya have prescribed the six spiritual activities (shat-sampatti – sham, dam, uparati, titikshã, samãdhãn, and shraddhã) as well as shravan, manan, and nididhyãs, for the jeev. By behaving in this way, the jeev attains a thought that eventually leads to the realisation of its distinction from the tattvas. Then, a person engages in the worship of Bhagvãn, realising himself to be brahm-rup. This is the Sãnkhya philosophy. It is also mentioned in the Moksh-Dharma, where Nãradji explains to Shukdevji: tyaja dharmam-adharma cha ubhe satyanrute tyaja ubhe satyanrute tyaktvã yena tyajasi tat-tyaja “The meaning of this shlok is that when a mumukshu prepares to think about his ãtmã, he should abandon all thoughts of dharma and adharma, satya and asatya, which disturb him. In fact, he should also abandon the thought by which he abandons these other thoughts. In this way, he should behave as brahm-rup. However, the shlok does not suggest that a person should physically abandon the niyams in the form of dharma. This is the correct interpretation of the shlok. 15.15 “Next, proposers of the Yog philosophy promote the twenty-four tattvas distinctly from the jeev and ishvar, whom they regard as the twenty-fifth tattva, and Bhagvãn as the twenty-sixth. With the power of discrimination they distinguish the twenty-fifth tattva (jeev) from the other tattvas, and after firmly resolving that to be their form, they gather the vruttis of the twenty-four tattvas and forcefully attach them to the twenty-sixth tattva (Bhagvãn); they do not allow them to be drawn towards the vishays. They believe, ‘If my vruttis abandon Bhagvãn and wander elsewhere, I will have to pass through the cycle of births and deaths’. Therefore, they forcibly keep the vruttis of their indriyas and antah-karans on Bhagvãn. 15.16 “In comparison, the proposers of Sãnkhya believe, ‘I have no indriyas or antah-karans, so where shall the vruttis go?’ Therefore, they consider themselves to be brahm-rup and remain fearless. Those belonging to the Yog philosophy remain constantly fearful. For example, if a person had to carry a pot filled to the brim with oil up some stairs without spilling any oil at all, and if two swordsmen with drawn swords were on both sides trying to frighten him, that person would be extremely afraid. Followers of Yog remain just as afraid of the vishays and strive to keep their vrutti fixed on Bhagvãn. This is the philosophy of Yog. 15.17 “Vedãnt (the Upanishads) explains only Bhagvãn, who is the ultimate cause of all, as being the truth; they claim all else to be false. Just as when a person attains the viewpoint of ãkãsh, he does not perceive the other tattvas, in the same way, a person who sees only brahm, perceives nothing else. That is the philosophy of Vedãnt.”

16.1 In the Samvat year 1877, after the sandhyã ãrti on Mãgshar vad 14 [3rd January, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white khes and a warm, red dagli. He has also tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 16.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “May the paramhans please engage in a question-answer discussion.” 16.3 Then, Mahãrãj Himself asked a question: “What are the characteristics of a person whose worldly desires have not become blunt, whose worldly desires have become blunt, and whose worldly desires have been completely uprooted?” 16.4 Muktãnand Swãmi began to answer the question, but could not reply adequately. 16.5 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The vruttis of the indriyas of a person whose worldly desires have not become blunt, cling to the vishays. In fact, they cannot be dislodged even by a thought process. In comparison, the vruttis of a person whose worldly desires have become blunt do not enter the vishays immediately. If the vruttis were to enter the vishays, and he attempts to withdraw them, they would withdraw instantly; they would not remain attached to the vishays. However, a person whose worldly desires have become completely uprooted is unaware of the vishays during the jãgrat state, just as he is during the sushupti state. He would regard all pleasant and unpleasant vishays as equal and would behave as a person who is gunãtit.” 16.6 Then, Gopãlãnand Swãmi asked, “A person’s worldly desires may have become blunt, but what is the reason for them not being removed from their roots?” 16.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The answer is that if a person has perfectly absorbed the following four qualities, then his worldly desires will become uprooted: gnãn in the form of knowledge of that ãtmã; vairãgya in the form of detachment from all things that have evolved out of Prakruti; dharma in the form of brahm-chãrya; and bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness. Any deficiency in these four qualities leads to a deficiency in uprooting a person’s worldly desires.” 16.8 Having given the reply, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Now, allow me to ask a question. Countless spiritual activities have been prescribed for a mumukshu to perform in order to attain Bhagvãn. Out of all of them, by which one powerful activity can all flaws be eradicated and all gun be acquired?” 16.9 The paramhans could not answer the question. 16.10 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj revealed, “If a person has bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s countless powers as described by Kapil-Dev to Devhuti, then all of his flaws would be eradicated: mad-bhayãd-vãti vãto-yam suryas-tapati mad-bhayãt It is by fear of me that Vãyu (wind) blows, Surya (sun) shines, Indra (clouds) rains, Agni (fire) burns, and Yam (death) devours the living “Moreover, even if a person does not possess gnãn, vairãgya, and dharma, he still attains them. Therefore, this spiritual activity is the best of all.” 16.11 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “A person with kapat, who is also clever, cunningly conceals his kapat. Please explain how such a person’s kapat can be recognised?” 16.12 Brahmãnand Swãmi answered, “Such a person can be recognised by the fact that he keeps the company of someone who is an enemy of satsang and who speaks unkindly of Bhagvãn and His sant. Such a person cannot be known by any other means.” 16.13 Shreeji Mahãrãj accepted the answer, but questioned further, “Yes, but how can such a person be recognised if he does not keep the company of such people?” 16.14 Brahmãnand Swãmi then added, “His kapat would be exposed in times of difficult circumstances.” 16.15 Shreeji Mahãrãj confirmed, “That is the correct answer to the question.” 16.16 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “Which single avgun transforms all of a person’s gun to avgun?” 16.17 Shreepãt Devãnand Swãmi replied, “If someone criticises a bhakta of Bhagvãn, then all of his gun become as good as avgun.” 16.18 Shreeji Mahãrãj clarified, “That is true, but I had another answer in mind. A person may well be endowed with each and every gun, but if he believes Bhagvãn to be nirãkãr, then that is a great flaw. So much so, that because of this avgun, all of his gun become avgun.” 16.19 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Why does a person perceive avgun in a sãdhu?” 16.20 The paramhans attempted to answer the question, but were unable to give a precise answer. 16.21 So, Shreeji Mahãrãj answered the question Himself: “A person with mãn perceives avgun in a sãdhu. This is because it is the very nature of someone who has mãn, that if someone praises him, even though that person may have a hundred avgun, he would overlook them and would instead greatly highlight a single gun. Conversely, if a person does not praise him, then even though that person may have a hundred gun, he would overlook all of them and highlight an utterly insignificant avgun. Consequently, he would initially spite the person mentally, then verbally, and ultimately physically as well. Therefore, mãn is a great flaw. However, do not think that only the wise have mãn and the naïve do not. In actual fact, the naïve have more mãn than the wise.” 16.22 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, how can mãn be eradicated?” 16.23 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “A person who thoroughly realises the greatness of Bhagvãn does not have mãn. Look at Uddhavji, and how wise he was! He was skilled in the Niti-Shãstra, and had physical characteristics like that of a king. However, as he had understood the greatness of Bhagvãn, he put aside his mãn upon seeing the love of the gopis for Bhagvãn, and prayed, ‘May I become a tree, a vine, a blade grass, or maybe a shrub – anything that has been touched by the dust from the feet of the gopis’. 16.24 “Tulsidãs has also said: tulsee jyake mukhanse bhoole nikase rãm tãke pag kee paheniyãm mere tan kee chãm “This means that even if someone utters the name of Bhagvãn unintentionally, a person who realises Bhagvãn’s greatness would make shoes from his own skin and offer them to that person. If that is so, would he have any mãn before a bhakta of Bhagvãn who constantly engages himself in worship and in chanting the name of Bhagvãn, who bows down to Bhagvãn, and who realises the greatness of Bhagvãn? Certainly not. Therefore, mãn is eradicated when a person realises the greatness of Bhagvãn, but without understanding the greatness of Bhagvãn, mãn simply cannot be eradicated. Therefore, whoever wishes to eradicate mãn should realise the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant.”

17.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar vad Amãs [4th January 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He had tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. He was also wearing a warm, red dagli with a white angarkhu inside. He was also wearing a white khes. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a chofãl, over which He had wrapped a yellow rajãi. Shreeji Mahãrãj was in a pleasant mood. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 17.2 Then, of His own will, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “See how powerful the force of Bhagvãn’s mãyã is! It can cause great wickedness. Someone who previously seemed very good, can suddenly become extremely evil.” 17.3 So saying, Shreeji Mahãrãj urged the paramhans, “Ask questions today, so that we can talk.” 17.4 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, the very same person who was previously good and who prays to Bhagvãn, later begins to criticise Him. How can a good person remain good and never let his understanding become impaired, amidst even the most unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang?” 17.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “If a person is indifferent to his body, has firm ãtmã-nishthã, maintains vairãgya towards the panch-vishays, and has absolute nishchay in Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness, then his mind will never become distorted – even amidst the most unpleasant circumstances imaginable. On the other hand, a person who believes himself to be the body, and does not have an intense hatred for the panch-vishays, would spite a sãdhu if he were to criticise the vishays, even though the sãdhu may be senior. Such a person would ultimately spite Bhagvãn as well. Furthermore, if someone has firm nishchay in Bhagvãn, but lacks an extreme hatred towards the vishays and is still attracted to them, then even if a person like Muktãnand Swãmi were to criticise those objects, he would go as far as to cut off the person’s head with a sword in order to harm that person.” 17.6 “Nityãnand Swãmi then asked, “Someone may identify himself with the body and may be attracted to the panch-vishays; yet he seems to survive in satsang. How can this be explained?” 17.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “He survives in satsang only as long as he is not confronted by an unpleasant situation. If a great sãdhu or Bhagvãn were to criticise his mãn, svãd, lobh, kãm, krodh, or his belief that he is the body, then he would surely develop a dislike for the sãdhu. Then, he would certainly insult the sãdhu, and therefore fall from satsang. For example, whoever has drank sweetened milk that has been poisoned by the venom of a snake, even though he may be living at present, is sure to die – within half an hour, in the morning or in the evening, today or tomorrow; eventually, he will die. In the same way, he who identifies himself with the body, will definitely dislike the sãdhu, and will eventually fall from satsang – either after one month or after two months; after one year or after two years or even after ten years; or maybe at the time of death or even after death – but he will certainly fall. 17.8 “In comparison, there is a person who does not identify himself with the body and believes, ‘I am the ãtmã, due to which this body functions; I am sachidãnand; I enlighten the indriyas and antah-karans. I am not a person who becomes happy by possessing wealth and women; nor am I a person who is saddened by not possessing them’. Such a person never dislikes a sãdhu, no matter how strongly the sãdhu criticises the panch-vishays or the belief that he is the body. Furthermore, he would never quarrel with the sãdhu over insignificant issues, and nor would he hold a grudge against him.” 17.9 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked again, “How can a person recognise someone who has a hatred for the panch-vishays?” 17.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “A person with a hatred for the panch-vishays can be recognised by the following characteristics: When he receives luxurious food, he would eat it, but he would not enjoy it as much as he would enjoy eating simple food. In fact, he would be troubled by it. Also, he would become upset wearing fine clothes; he would not enjoy them as much as he would enjoy wearing tattered, coarse clothes. In fact, his mind becomes troubled by fine clothes. If he were to receive a luxurious bed, or if someone were to honour him, or if he were to receive any sort of pleasant object, his mind would become troubled by it; in no way would he be pleased by it. On seeing such a person, a person should realise, ‘He has a hatred for the vishays’.” 17.11 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked another question, “Mahãrãj, how can a hatred for the panch-vishays be developed?” 17.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The most important method for developing such a hatred for the panch-vishays, is the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness, followed by ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya. 17.13 “Now, what is this greatness of Bhagvãn? Well, it is due to the fear of Bhagvãn that Indra rains; that the sun, the moon, and flames of fire emit light; that the earth supports one and all; that the oceans do not exceed their boundaries; and that the herbs produce fruit in their appropriate seasons. Also, it is Bhagvãn who is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the world, and whose powers include Kãl, Mãyã, Purush, and Akshar. Then, what object in the world can attract someone who has understood the greatness of Bhagvãn in this way? Well, not even kãm, krodh, lobh, mãn, irshyã, svãd, fine clothes, wealth, women, and none of the panch-vishays can bind him. This is because he has assessed everything. He knows, ‘Bhagvãn is like this, and these are the rewards of engaging in Bhagvãn’s worship and listening to kathãs and talks. Akshar is like this, and the bliss associated with him is like this. Furthermore, the pleasures of Golok, Vaikunth, and Shvet-Dvip are like this, the pleasures of Prakruti and Purush are like this, the pleasures of Brahm-Lok are like this, the pleasures of Svarg are like this, and the happiness of a kingdom is like this’. 17.14 “In this way, a person who has understood the happiness hidden within everything, realises the bliss of Bhagvãn to be the highest and then attaches himself to Him. Is there any object in the world that can draw him away from the holy feet of Bhagvãn? There is none. For example, take a piece of iron. Once touched by a pãrasmani, it is transformed into gold. It cannot be transformed back into iron; not even by the pãrasmani itself. Similarly, a person who has realised the greatness of Bhagvãn cannot be made to fall from the holy feet of Bhagvãn, not even by Bhagvãn Himself. Then, how could he be made to fall by any other object? Of course he cannot. 17.15 “In addition to realising the greatness of Bhagvãn, such a person also deeply realises the greatness of a sant who worships Bhagvãn. He feels, ‘This sant is truly great because he is a true bhakta of Bhagvãn’. For example, Uddhav was very educated, but as he had understood the greatness of Bhagvãn, he did not become arrogant due to his intelligence. In fact, he yearned for the dust from the feet of the gopis, and therefore asked to be reborn as a vine. The reason for this was that he had witnessed the profound love the gopis had towards Bhagvãn, whom even the shloks of the Veds seek. So, how can a person who realises the greatness of a sant of Bhagvãn hold any arrogance before a sant? Why could he not bow down to him? In actual fact, he would behave as a dãs of a dãs before a sant. Even if a sant were to repeatedly physically mistreat him, he would tolerate it and would believe, ‘It is my great fortune that I am bearing the hatred of such a sant. Due to my prãrabdha, I would have been forced to endure the abuses of my wife and children, my parents, and the king. I may even have had to eat the leaves of spinach and moss. At least here, in the company of the sant, I am fortunate enough to be able to keep the vow of nisvãd. Due to my prãrabdha, I may have been forced to wear tattered clothes or rags; but at least here with the sant I am fortunate enough to have a blanket to cover myself with’. 17.16 “Conversely, if a person enters a sabhã of sãdhus and is not appropriately honoured by a sant, and if he then has a dislike towards that sant, it implies that he has not realised the greatness of the sant; otherwise he would not have a dislike towards the sant in that way. Consider the following as an example: If the British Governor of Mumbai were seated in an assembly, and if at that time a poor man were to enter that assembly, but was not given a seat or welcomed in anyway, would the poor man become angry with the Governor? Would he feel like swearing at the Governor? Not at all. This is because the poor man has realised the importance of the British official, and thinks, ‘He is the ruler of the land, and I am a mere pauper’. For this reason, he does not become upset. In the same way, if a person has realised the greatness of a sant, then regardless of how much the sant hates him, he would never become upset with that sant. If fact, if he does find an avgun in anyone, he would find it in himself, but in no way would he perceive an avgun in the sant. Therefore, a person who has realised the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant has a firm foundation in satsang. Conversely, a person cannot be certain about someone who has not realised such greatness.”

18.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Posh sud 1 [5th January, 1821], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white khes and a warm, red dagli. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a chofãl and a rajãi. He had tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 18.2 Then, after the paramhans had finished the sandhyã ãrti and prayers, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please sing a kirtan.” Then, Muktãnand Swãmi and some other paramhans sang kirtans while playing musical instruments. 18.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “Please conclude the singing as I wish to talk. If any doubts arise in what I say, please ask.” 18.4 So saying, He began, “To develop nishchay in Bhagvãn is more difficult than anything else. Also, as this topic of nishchay is extremely complex, I am afraid of discussing it. I feel, ‘Upon discussing this topic, what if someone was to misunderstand it? What if, due to this discussion, any characteristic that a person may have firmly developed were to be destroyed or uprooted?’ However, there is no alternative but to reveal this fact. If a person does not interpret it correctly, many problems can arise. But, until a person has not understood this fact, a great deficiency will remain in his understanding. That is why I wish to deliver this talk. 18.5 “When Bhagvãn assumed the svarup of Varãh, His svarup as a boar was very ugly. During the avatãr of Matsya, His svarup was exactly like that of a fish. During the Kurma avatãr, His svarup was exactly like that of other turtles. In the Nrusinh avatãr, His svarup was as frightening as a lion. During the Vãman avatãr, His svarup was like a dwarf, with short hands and legs, a board waist and a plump body. During the Vyãs avatãr, He appeared black, with lots of body hair and a foul body odour. 18.6 “All those who attained Bhagvãn in whichever svarup He had taken, performed dhyãn on that particular svarup. As a result of that meditation, they attained a svarup similar to that svarup of Bhagvãn. Now, did those who attained Varãh, see Bhagvãn exactly like a boar in His dhãm? Did those who attained Matsya, see Bhagvãn exactly like a fish in His dhãm? Did those who attained Kurma, see Bhagvãn exactly like a turtle in His dhãm? Did those who attained Nrusinh see Bhagvãn exactly like a lion in His dhãm? Did those who attained Hayagriv see Bhagvãn exactly as a horse in His dhãm? Did those who worshipped Varãh as if He were their husband become a female boar? Did those who worshipped Him with the love of a friend become a boar? Did those who worshipped Matsya as if He were their husband become a female fish? Did those who worshipped Him with the love of a friend become a fish? Did those who worshipped Kurma as if He were their husband become a female turtle? Did those who worshipped Him with the love of a friend become a turtle? Did those who worshipped Nrusinh as if He were their husband become a lioness? Did those who worshipped Him with the love of a friend become a lion? Did those who worshipped Hayagriv as if He were their husband become a female horse? Did those who worshipped Him with the love of a friend become a horse? If the original svarup of Bhagvãn was exactly like that of the avatãr, then by meditating on them, the bhaktas of each avatãr should attain that same svarup, and all that I have just mentioned should happen. However, this is not the case. 18.7 “Then, you may ask, ‘What is the svarup of that Bhagvãn like?’ Well, the answer is that Bhagvãn is sachidãnand, and possesses a murti full of divine light. In every single pore of His body, there is light equivalent to millions and millions of suns. Moreover, that Bhagvãn is so handsome that He puts even millions of Kãm-Devs to shame. He is the lord of countless millions of brahmãnds, the king of kings, the controller of all, the antaryãmi of all, and extremely blissful. In comparison to His bliss, the pleasure of seeing countless beautiful women fades into insignificance. In fact, before the bliss of the murti of the Bhagvãn, the pleasures of the vishays of this lok and the higher loks fade into insignificance. Such is the svarup of Bhagvãn. That svarup always has two arms, but by His wish, He may appear to have four arms, or sometimes may appear to have eight arms, or He may even be seen as having a thousand arms. 18.8 “Furthermore, it is that very Bhagvãn who assumes the svarup such as Matsya, Kurma, Varãh, and the svarup of Rãm and Krishna, for the purpose of fulfilling some task. However, he does not abandon His original svarup to assume the svarup of these avatãrs. That Bhagvãn Himself assumes the svarups like Matsya and Kurma, possessing countless divine powers and great strength. Then, once the task for which He assumed a body is completed, He abandons that body. For this reason, it is said in the Shreemad Bhãgvat: bhu-bhãraha kshapito yena tãm tanum vijahãvajah kantakam kantakeneva dvayam chãpeeshituhu samama “This shlok explains that through whichever physical body Bhagvãn relieved the burden of the earth, after removing the ‘thorn’ (the belief that a person is the body) which has pierced the chaitanya of the beings, Bhagvãn also abandoned His own physical body, which was the ‘thorn’ used to remove the other ‘thorn’. 18.9 “Also, Bhagvãn assumed the svarup of Nrusinh for the purpose of killing a demon. After completing that task, He decided to abandon that particular body. But, who could kill a lion? So, by Bhagvãn’s own will, Shiv (in the form of Kãl), came assuming the svarup of a sharabh. Nrusinh then fought the sharabh. As a result, both left their physical bodies. That is how Shiv came to be known as Sharbheshvar Mahãdev, and the location where Nrusinhji left his body became Nãrsinhi Shilã. 18.10 “Moreover, wherever paintings of Matsya, Kurma, and other avatãrs of Bhagvãn are portrayed, the lower portions of the paintings depict the svarup as the avatãr, like a fish or a turtle. However, the upper portions of the paintings depict the murti of Bhagvãn with a shankh, a chakra, a gadã, a padma, a vaijayanti garland, silk garments, a crown, and the shrivatsa mark, as well as other symbols. Therefore, the murti of Bhagvãn is eternally like this. 18.11 “Initially, at the time of His birth, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn gave darshan in a four-armed svarup to Vasudev and Devki. He also gave darshan to Akrur in water in a four-armed svarup. When Rukmani fainted, He again gave darshan in a four-armed svarup. Arjun has also said: tenaiva rupena chatur-bhujen sahasra-bãho bhava vishvamurte O one whose form is the svarup! O thousand-armed! Please return to your original four-armed svarup! “So, Arjun also saw Him as having a four-armed svarup. When Shree Krishna Bhagvãn was seated under a pipal tree after the Yadavs had slaughtered themselves, Uddhavji and Maitreya Rushi saw the svarup of Bhagvãn having four-arms, along with a shankh, a chakra, a gadã, a padma, and silk garments. Moreover, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn was dark in complexion, yet His beauty is described as being capable of putting millions of Kãm-Devs to shame. 18.12 “Therefore, although Bhagvãn appears to be like a human, the previously mentioned luminosity and bliss are all inherent within Him. A person who has the strengths of dhyãn, dhãrnã, and samãdhi, sees that very svarup of having the light of millions and millions of suns; such a person does not need to resort to using a torch or an oil lamp. Moreover, even though Bhagvãn is so luminous, the fact that this divine light cannot be seen is due to Bhagvãn’s wish. If Bhagvãn wished, ‘May the bhaktas see me full of divine light’, then that same svarup would be seen as luminous. So, a person who has the nishchay in Bhagvãn realises, ‘The divya powers, riches, and pãrshads of the dhãms of Golok, Vaikunth, Shvet-Dvip, and Brahmpur, all accompany Bhagvãn. Also, the bhaktas who serve Him include Rãdhikã and Lakshmi’. He sees Bhagvãn in such a glorious way. However, those who are fools see Him as a human. Shree Krishna Bhagvãn has also mentioned in the Geetã: avajãnanti mãm moodhã mãnusheem tanum-ãshritam param bhãvam-ajãnanto mama bhoota-maheshvaram Fools describe me as having a human svarup, but they do not realise my magnificent svarup as the great lord of all beings. “Therefore, those who are fools fail to realise such greatness of Bhagvãn; instead, they perceive human traits in Bhagvãn, seeing Him as a human like themselves. 18.13 “What is meant by perceiving human characteristics? Well, it is when all the feelings of the antah-karans, like kãm, krodh, lobh, moh, mad, matsar, ãshã, trushnã; and all the characteristics of the physical body, like bones, skin, faeces, and urine; as well as birth, childhood, youth, old age, and death; and all other human characteristics may appear to have a nishchay in Bhagvãn, but his nishchay is flawed. As a result, he will surely fall from satsang. 18.14 “That Bhagvãn’s svarup is supremely divya – there is not even the slightest trace of human characteristics in Bhagvãn, and a person should instead not perceive human traits in Bhagvãn, and he should instead initially view Him as a dev; then he should view Him as Brahmã; then as Pradhãn-Purush; then as Prakruti-Purush; then as Akshar; and finally as Purushottam. For example, upon seeing the incredible charitras of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, the cow-herds of Vraj initially viewed Him as a dev. Then, after listening to the words of Garg-Ãchãrya, they viewed Him as Bhagvãn. Then, they said, ‘You are Bhagvãn. So, show us your dhãm’. They were then shown Akshardhãm. A person who believes Bhagvãn to be divya in this way should be known to have to complete nishchay. 18.15 “Sometimes people say, ‘Initially, this person did not have the nishchay in Bhagvãn, but now he does’. Does that mean that he did not see Bhagvãn initially? Well, he certainly did see Him, but he perceived human characteristics in Him. Later, after he develops nishchay, he does darshan believing Bhagvãn to be completely divya; that is known as having developed the nishchay in Bhagvãn. Moreover, if a person does not believe Bhagvãn to be completely divya, then he repeatedly becomes upset and constantly perceives gun and avgun. He thinks, ‘Bhagvãn is favouring that person, but not me’, or ‘He often calls that person, but not me’, or ‘He has more love for that person, and less for me’. In this way, he continues perceiving gun and avgun. As a result, his heart becomes more and more miserable day by day, and ultimately he falls from satsang. Therefore, a person should certainly not perceive human characteristics in Bhagvãn. 18.16 “A person should not perceive avgun even in the bhaktas of Bhagvãn. This is because physically a bhakta may be blind, disabled, deaf, old, unattractive, or he may have leukoderma; but when he dies, does he still remain blind or disabled in the dhãm of Bhagvãn? Certainly not. Those are all features of humans. After leaving these features behind, he assumes a divya svarup and becomes brahm-rup. Therefore, if a person should not perceive avgun in the bhaktas of Bhagvãn, then how can he possibly perceive them in Bhagvãn? 18.17 “Regardless of whether you understand this fact today or you understand it after a hundred years, it must be understood. In actual fact, there is no alternative but to understand it and remember it firmly. Therefore, all bhaktas should remember this principle of mine and discuss it amongst each other. Furthermore, whenever someone suffers a setback due to some misunderstanding, he should be alerted by mentioning this. A person should discuss this principle of mine regularly, at least once a day – this is my ãgnã. So, please do not forget it; please, please, do not forget it!” 18.18 Saying this, Shreeji Mahãrãj bid “Jay Swãminarayan” to all the bhaktas and returned to His residence smiling. After listening to Shreeji Mahãrãj’s talk, all the sãdhus and bhaktas realised Shreeji Mahãrãj is the cause of all avatãrs, the ‘avatãri’, and greatly strengthened their nishchay in Him as being completely divya.