1.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Fãgan sud 4 [3rd March 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on a platform in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a white angarkhu and a white khes. He had tied a white feto around His head, with its end hanging on the right side. He had also covered Himself with a thin, white pachhedi. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 1.2 Then, after the sandhyã ãrti, Shreeji Mahãrãj sat on a large, cylindrical pillow and said, “I wish to ask a question to all these senior paramhans and senior bhaktas: A person may have love for Bhagvãn, and also the determination to follow dharma. However, if he has not applied a thought process, then the extremely attractive vishays (shabda, sparsh, rup, ras, and gandh) will never be considered equivalent to the extremely repulsive vishays; nor will they be considered inferior to them. So, which thought must be applied so that the extremely attractive vishays seem equivalent to or inferior to the extremely repulsive vishays? I ask this question to all the senior bhaktas. Whoever has, through whichever thought, realised the attractive vishays to be like the repulsive vishays, or has realised them to be far more repulsive than even the repulsive vishays, please reveal your thoughts.” 1.3 Then, all the paramhans and all the bhaktas disclosed their thoughts. 1.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “Having heard your thoughts, I shall now tell you about the thought which I have maintained. Consider the following example: If someone sends a letter from a distant land, the intelligence of the writer of that letter can be revealed by reading the letter. Now, the appearance and style of speech of the five Pãndavs, Draupadi, Kuntãji, Rukmani, Satyabhãmã, Jambavati, and other queens of Bhagvãn, of Bhagvãn’s son, Sãmb, and of other bhaktas, are written in the shãstras. By hearing those shãstras, the description of their appearance allows us to visualise them as if having direct darshan. Also, their intelligence can be revealed from the words of the shãstras. In the same way, a person hears from the Purãns, the Mahãbhãrat, and other shãstras that Bhagvãn is the all-doer – is responsible for the creation, sustenance, and destruction of this universe – and that He eternally has a svarup. If He did not have a svarup, He could not be called the all-doer. Furthermore, Akshar-Brahm is the dhãm in which Bhagvãn resides. It is that Bhagvãn who has a divya murti; who is luminous and blissful; and who, at the time of creation, gives a buddhi, indriyas, a man, and prãns to the jeevs that had been merged in Mãyã along with their kãran bodies at the time of destruction. Why does He give these to the jeevs? He does so to enable them to indulge in the uttam, madhyam, and kanishth types of vishays as well as for the purpose of attaining moksh. 1.5 “Bhagvãn has created enjoyments and places of enjoyment for the sake of those jeevs; but within that, the creation of the uttam vishays are for the purpose of reducing the miseries of the inferior vishays. For example, a wealthy merchant may have had trees planted on both sides of a road to provide shade; he may have had water-houses constructed; he may have also had charity-houses and guest-homes constructed. He does all of this for the poor. Similarly, before Bhagvãn, Brahmã, Shiv, Indra, and other devs are as poor as those paupers of Samvat 1847 who boiled the fruits of pipal trees and then ate them. It is Bhagvãn who has created those uttam vishays for the happiness of Brahmã and the other devs, and for humans. Also, since the rich merchant builds facilities for the sake of the poor, it is obvious that compared to those, the luxuries in the merchant’s own home must be far greater. Similarly, Bhagvãn has created happiness for Brahmã and others; so it is obvious to an intelligent person that compared to those, the bliss of His own dhãm must be far more superior. An intelligent person can then conclude that there is an extreme amount of bliss in the dhãm of Bhagvãn. As a result, the attractive vishays become repulsive for him. 1.6 “Furthermore, all the happiness related to vishays which is apparent in this world, be it for animals, humans, devs, or ghosts, is only due to some relation with Bhagvãn, and when the happiness is coupled with dharma. However, the bliss that is in Bhagvãn Himself cannot be found anywhere else. Consider the following example: The light from this burning torch which falls a short distance away is not as intense as the light in the vicinity of the torch. Very far away, there is not light at all. In the same way, elsewhere there is only a little bliss, but absolute bliss is only available in the vicinity of Bhagvãn. The further a person is distanced from Bhagvãn, the less bliss he experiences. Therefore, a person who is a mumukshu realises, ‘The further away I am from Bhagvãn, the more miseries I will face, and ultimately I will become extremely miserable. On the other hand, even the slightest association with Bhagvãn will provide immense bliss. I shall experience the highest form of bliss’. A person who thinks in this way, keeps a desire for the bliss of Bhagvãn, and employs any means to maintain very close association with Bhagvãn, can be called intelligent. 1.7 “Moreover, the happiness of humans exceeds the happiness of animals; and the happiness of a king exceeds that; and the happiness of Indra exceeds that; then Bruhaspati’s happiness, then Brahmã’s, then Vaikunth’s. Beyond that, the happiness of Golok is superior, and finally, the bliss of Bhagvãn’s Akshardhãm is far more superior. 1.8 “In this way, realising the intensity of the bliss of Bhagvãn, a person who is intelligent realises all other pleasures related to vishays to be insignificant. Compared to the bliss of Bhagvãn, the pleasures of others are like that of a poor man who begs with a clay pot at the door of a rich grahastha. When I think of the bliss of the dhãm of that Bhagvãn, I become uninterested in all other forms of happiness, and I feel, ‘When will I leave this body to experience that bliss?’ Moreover, when I naturally indulge in the panch-vishays, I think about no particular thought; but, if I were to sense some pleasure in an object, my thoughts would immediately be diverted to the bliss of Bhagvãn, and my mind would become extremely uninterested. 1.9 “These thoughts can only be fully realised by a person who is intelligent. In fact, I have love towards a person who is intelligent. This is because I myself am intelligent, as is my thought process. Moreover, a person who is intelligent will also think similarly. In this way, it appears to me that my thought is superior to all of your thoughts; therefore, all of you should firmly remember this thought of mine in your hearts. Without applying this thought, if a person’s vrutti does become attached to appealing vishays, it will only just become detached – and only after much effort. However, for a person who has applied this thought, very little effort is involved in withdrawing his vrutti; he can easily realise how worthless the vishays are. 1.10 “This fact can only be understood by a person who has a sharp intelligence, and a craving for higher happiness. For example, a penny is worth more than a cowry-shell, and a rupee is worth more than a penny; a gold coin is more valuable than a rupee, and a chintãmani is more valuable than a gold coin. Similarly, wherever there are pleasures of the panch-vishays, the bliss of Bhagvãn in His dhãm is far more superior in comparison. Therefore, this thought only settles in the heart of a person who is intelligent and who thinks in this way. When this thought does firmly settle in the heart, even if he happens to be in a forest, he would feel, ‘I am surrounded by countless people and the wealth of the kingdom’, and he would not believe himself to be miserable. Conversely, if he were in Indra’s lok, he would feel, ‘I am sitting in a forest’, and he would not be gratified by the pleasures in the lok of Indra. In fact, he would realise those pleasures to be worthless. 1.11 “Therefore, keeping this thought in mind, all of you should decide, ‘Now we want to reach only the dhãm of Bhagvãn; we do not want to be tempted by the worthless pleasures of the panch-vishays along the way’. So, please keep this determination in your mind, as what I have told all of you is my principle; please embed it firmly in your lives.”

2.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Fãgan sud 7 [10th March, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on a platform in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white pachhedi. 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. 2.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please bring the Moksh-Dharma shãstras so that we can arrange for a kathã on the chapter of Sãnkhya and the chapter of Yog.” Then, the shãstras were brought to the sabhã, and Nityãnand Swãmi commenced the reading. 2.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “The followers of Yog consider jeev and ishvar to be the twenty-fifth tattva, and Paramãtmã to be the twenty-sixth tattva. On the other hand, followers of Sãnkhya include jeev and ishvar with the twenty-four tattvas, and consider Paramãtmã to be the twenty-fifth tattva. Of the two, the followers of Yog believe that regardless of however much a person thinks of the ãtmã and non-ãtmã, or however much effort he makes, without accepting the refuge of pratyaksha Bhagvãn, he cannot attain moksh. On the other hand, followers of Sãnkhya believe that if a person understands the ultimate fate of all devs and humans, develops vairãgya for the vishays, and realises his ãtmã as greater than the three bodies (sthul, sukshma, kãran), then he becomes a mukta. However, since each of these two types of beliefs has their own deficiencies, a person should employ certain methods of understanding for the purpose of resolving those deficiencies. 2.4 “The flaw of the Yog philosophy is that both the jeev and ishvar have been considered as the twenty-fifth tattva and both have been said to have bodies comprised of twenty-four tattvas. As a result, both the jeev and ishvar seem equal. This would suggest that the sthul body is the same as virãt, the sukshma body is the same as sutrãtmã, and the kãran body is the same as avyãkrut. It also suggests that the jãgrat state is the same as that of sustenance, the svapna state is the same as that of creation, and the sushupti state is the same as that of destruction. Moreover, vishva, taijas, and prãgna, would be considered equal to Vishnu, Brahmã, and Shiv respectively. As a result, those followers would worship the twenty-sixth tattva with such understanding. 2.5 “To remove this deficiency of equating jeev and ishvar, a person should learn the following method of interpretation from a wise person: The five bhuts residing in the body of ishvar are known as mahã-bhuts, and those bhuts sustain the bodies of all jeevs. On the other hand, the five bhuts in the body of the jeev are minor and are incapable of sustaining others. Also, the jeev possesses limited knowledge compared to ishvar, who is all-knowing. A person should learn such a method of interpretation so that the jeev and ishvar are not understood to be equal to each other. If a person has not done that and some opponent were to ask a question in a debate, then he would find it difficult to reply. As a result, his own understanding would become confused. But, if he has learnt such a method, then even if someone were to raise a question, he would not allow the jeev and ishvar to be considered as being equal. Also, he should only listen to words that strengthen this belief. 2.6 “Next, the flaw of the followers of the Sãnkhya philosophy is that they consider Paramãtmã to be the twenty-fifth tattva, who is greater than the twenty-four tattvas. They consider the twenty-four tattvas as being false and Paramãtmã as being satya. If that were so, who would attain that Paramãtmã? After all, the jeev, who is the achiever, is not considered distinct from the tattvas. 2.7 “To remove that deficiency, a person should learn the following method of interpretation from a wise person: Jeev and ishvar have been included with the tattvas because those twenty-four tattvas cannot exist without the jeev and ishvar. But, in reality, jeev and ishvar are distinct from those tattvas, and do attain Paramãtmã. A person should learn such a method of interpretation. If he has not done so, and an opponent in a debate were to ask a question, doubts would arise, and he would think, ‘If the tattvas are truly false, then what is the purpose of prescribing the observance of dharma, such as brahm-chãrya, and spiritual activities such as shravan, manan, and nididhyãs, to attain Paramãtmã?’ Therefore, jeev and ishvar have been included with the tattvas because they have attained oneness with the tattvas; however, they are totally distinct from those tattvas and do attain Paramãtmã. In this way, followers of the Sãnkhya philosophy should learn such methods of interpretation from a wise sãdhu. 2.8 “Moreover, the followers of Yog propose the following methods: Moksh is attained by performing dhyãn on the pratyaksha murtis of the avatãrs of Bhagvãn such as Matsya, Kurma, Varãh, Nrusinh, Vãman, Rãm, and Krishna. However, the followers of Sãnkhya accept methods which claim that moksh is attained when a person fully realises the svarup of Bhagvãn, through experience, as described by the various Shruti shãstras: yato vãcho nivartante aprãpya manasã saha From where speech returns along with the mind without having attained Bhagvãn. “Both philosophies are good and have been accepted by the great, and a person who follows both of them appropriately does attain Akshardhãm. In both of these philosophies, the same spiritual activities have been prescribed, but the method of worship in each is not the same; in fact, it is extremely different.” 2.9 Having spoken in this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj then told the paramhans, “Now please sing kirtans.” 2.10 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi and some other paramhans began singing kirtans to the accompaniment of musical instruments. Following this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Now, please stop the kirtans. While you were singing, I thought over the philosophies of both Sãnkhya and Yog. Please listen as I explain. 2.11 “For a person who follows Yog, the luminous, divya svarup murti of Bhagvãn which resides in Akshardhãm at the time of ãtyantik-pralay is worthy of performing dhyãn upon. Moreover, Bhagvãn in the form of Prakruti-Purush is also worthy of performing dhyãn upon, but to a lesser extent. To a lesser extent than that, Bhagvãn in the form of the twenty-four tattvas, which have evolved from Prakruti-Purush, is also worthy of performing dhyãn upon. To a lesser extent than that, Hiranyagarbh; and to a lesser extent than that, Virãt – who has evolved from the twenty-four tattvas – is also worthy of performing dhyãn upon. Still to a lesser extent than that, Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, as well as the avatãrs of Bhagvãn on this earth, such as Matsya, Kurma, Nrusinh, and Varãh, as well as shãligrãm and other murtis of Bhagvãn – are all worthy of performing dhyãn upon. While I was thinking, I realised that this is the essence of the philosophy of Yog. 2.12 “Then, I thought over the Sãnkhya philosophy. They have done away with all those svarups, and it appears that they believe, ‘The cause of all thoughts is the jeev, and since there is nothing as pure as the jeev, it is appropriate to perform dhyãn upon the jeev’. In order to disprove this view of Sãnkhya, I again thought of Yog. Specifically, Purushottam Bhagvãn, who is greater than everything, has an anvay relationship with Prakruti and Purush and all other entities. Therefore, they are all Bhagvãn; all possess a divya svarup; all are satya and worthy of performing dhyãn upon. Certain Vedic shloks also support this fact: sarvam khalvidam brahma The whole universe is brahm, the svarup of Bhagvãn. neha nãnãsti kinchana There is nothing in this universe that is not the svarup of Bhagvãn. idam hi vishvam bhagavãn-ivetaro yato jagat-sthãna-nirodha-sambhavãha This universe is as another svarup of Bhagvãn – who is the cause of the creation, sustenance, and destruction of the world. 2.13 “Therefore, a mumukshu who follows the path of Yog encounters no obstacles. This is because that path is easy and relies on the pratyaksha murti of Bhagvãn. For this reason, through that path, even an ordinary person can attain kalyãn without any difficulty. 2.14 “However, there is one flaw on that path: Entities, such as Prakruti and Purush, are thought of as being the components of Purushottam Bhagvãn. This could cause the following belief to develop: Prakruti and Purush are components of Bhagvãn, and their components are Hiranyagarbh and Virãt. If such an understanding develops, then that is a major flaw since a person feels Bhagvãn is divisible and has components. However, Bhagvãn is indivisible, without components, unchanging, imperishable, and whole. Therefore, such a misunderstanding should not be allowed to arise. 2.15 “Also, a person should understand, ‘Bhagvãn is one and unparalleled, while others, such as Prakruti and Purush, are His bhaktas and perform dhyãn upon Him. That is why they are referred to as svarups of Bhagvãn. Just as a great sãdhu who performs dhyãn upon Bhagvãn is known as a svarup of Bhagvãn, in the same way Prakruti and Purush are also svarups of Bhagvãn. Moreover, Purushottam Shree Krishna, who is greater than everything, Himself assumes the forms of Vãsudev, Sankarshan, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha, and assumes avatãrs such as Ram and Krishna. Therefore, He is worthy of performing dhyãn upon’. If a person has such an understanding, then that path of Yog is absolutely free of obstacles and is the best path. 2.16 “Now, the flaw of the Sãnkhya philosophy is that it claims, ‘All that is grasped via the antah-karans and the indriyas is false, while all that is grasped through experience is satya’. Therefore, they propose all svarups as being false. Along with that, they also consider the svarups of Bhagvãn that have incarnated for the kalyãn of the jeevs, as being false. In fact, they also view the svarups of Aniruddha, Pradyumna, and Sankarshan as being false. They only accept Vãsudev, who is nirgun. That is their major flaw. 2.17 “Therefore, it suits the followers of Sãnkhya to believe, ‘After absorbing the thoughts of Sãnkhya and considering whatever has evolved from Prakruti and Purush as being perishable, a person should realise his own ãtmã as being distinct from all, as being pure, and brahm-rup. Then, understanding the svarup of Bhagvãn that has incarnated for the kalyãn of the jeevs as being satya, he should perform dhyãn upon Him’. In this way, these two types of thoughts can be known if a person learns from someone who is wise, like myself; otherwise, even if a person studies or listens to the shãstras, he cannot understand them. 2.18 “In reality, the teachings of Yog are actually for a person who has become brahm-rup by initially having practiced thoughts of Sãnkhya. Therefore, it is said: brahma-bhutaha prasannãtmã na shochati na kãnkshati samaha sarveshu bhuteshu mad-bhaktim labhate parãm A person who has become brahm-rup remains joyful, grieves nothing, desires nothing, behaves equally with all beings, and attains my supreme bhakti. ãtmãrãmash-cha munayo nirgranthã apyurukrame kurvantya-haitukeem bhakti-mittham-bhuta-guno hariha Despite being engaged only in the ãtmã, and despite having overcome all improper natures – the munis still offer selfless bhakti to Bhagvãn, as Bhagvãn possesses such divya qualities. parinishthitopi nairgunya uttam-shloka-leelayã gruheeta-chetã rãjarshe ãkhyanam yad-adheetavãn O King (Parikshit)! Despite being perfectly poised in the nirgun state, having been attracted by the leelãs of Bhagvãn, I (Shukdevji) studied the Shreemad Bhãgvat. 2.19 “In this way, the Sãnkhya philosophy is dependent on Yog. This is because through that Sãnkhya philosophy, the followers of Sãnkhya realise all vishays that can be indulged in via the five indriyas and four antah-karans – which are distinct from a person’s own ãtmã – to be totally worthless. Therefore, such a person is not tempted by any objects, nor does he become attached to them. Moreover, if someone were to say to him, ‘This object is extremely pleasurable’, he would think, ‘It may be pleasurable, but it is perceived through the indriyas and antah-karans; and that which the indriyas and antah-karans perceive is asatya and perishable’. This is the firm understanding of a follower of Sãnkhya, who also realises his own ãtmã as pure. Such a person should perform dhyãn, upãsanã, and offer bhakti to Bhagvãn according to the path of Yog. If he does not adopt this, that would be a major flaw in him. 2.20 “In this way, I have described the eternal philosophies of the Sãnkhya shãstras and the Yog shãstras having thoroughly thought about them. However, the followers of Yog and Sãnkhya have corrupted both paths. Those who are followers of Yog try to establish the truth of svarups, and in the process they realise all people, the svarups of Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, as well as svarups of Rãm, Krishna, and other avatãrs as equal to each other. Followers of Sãnkhya criticise all svarups, and in the process they also criticise places of pilgrimage, vrat, murtis, yam and niyam, forms of dharma such as brahm-chãrya, as well as Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, and Rãm, Krishna, and other avatãrs. Therefore, both the followers of Sãnkhya and the followers of Yog have deviated from the correct path. As a result, they will be sent to Narak.”

3.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Fãgan sud 8 [11th March, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white pachhedi. He had also tied a white feto around His head. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as a sabhã of haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 3.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to the paramhans, “Please begin a question-answer discussion.” 3.3 Then, Muni Bãvã asked Brahmãnand Swãmi, “We have attained this satsang, as well as the association of Bhagvãn. All other flaws have been eradicated, and we also have enthusiasm to do satsang. Despite this, why do mãn and irshyã still remain?” 3.4 Brahmãnand Swãmi then began to supply an answer, but was unable to do so satisfactorily. 3.5 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Such a person lacks intelligence. This is because a person who is intelligent realises all of his gun and avgun, as well as the gun and avgun of others. On the other hand, a person who is not intelligent only acknowledges his own gun, but fails to realise his avgun; he feels himself to be as distinguished as the Sanakãdik, and he views other renowned people to be inferior to himself. However, a person who is intelligent realises his own avgun, and thinks ‘I possess many avgun. Then, maintaining an intense hatred towards those avgun, he eradicates them. Also, if a sãdhu were to speak to him about eradicating those avgun, he would accept that advice as beneficial. As a result, avgun, such as mãn and irshyã, will not remain in him. 3.6 “On the other hand, someone may appear to be very intelligent, but if he does not recognise his own flaws, then his intelligence should be known to be merely worldly. Outwardly, that intelligence appears to be very sharp, but he cannot be called intelligent. Actually, he should be known to be an utter fool, and his intelligence is useless for attaining his own moksh. In comparison, someone else may possess only a little intelligence, but if he attempts to eradicate his avgun after recognising them, then even his limited intelligence is useful in attaining moksh. In fact, only he can be called intelligent. Therefore, a person who never perceives his own avgun and perceives only his own gun should be known as a fool; and a person who acknowledges his own avgun should be known to be intelligent.” 3.7 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj instructed, “Now, please sing kirtans.” The paramhans then commenced singing ‘Sakhi Ãj Mohan Deethã Re, Sheriye Ãvta Re…’.” 3.8 Following this, Shreeji Mahãrãj spoke again, “Now, please stop the singing. The kirtans that you have just sung are full of love. While you were singing, I thought about the nature of love, and realised that love is a great quality; and to worship Bhagvãn with love is admirable. After deep thought, I realised, ‘Love itself is the mãyã of Bhagvãn’. This is because if two women are casually talking to each other, looking at each other, or casually touching each other, then that is a different type of love. Or, if two men are talking to each other, looking at each other, or casually touching each other, then that is also a different type of love. However, if a man is looking at a woman, embracing her, listening to her talks, and enjoying her fragrance, then the love and mental attraction he develops for her is a type of love that does not develop between two men. Also, if a woman is looking at a man and embracing him, then the love she develops for him through his association, with her mind being totally attracted towards him, is a type of love that does not develop between two women. Therefore, that which is the cause of the continuance of the world, and the cause of bondage and the cycle of births and deaths, is the mãyã of Bhagvãn, which takes the form of love. 3.9 “Then, I thought, ‘Shabda, sparsh, rup, ras, and gandh are the panch-vishays. After having regarded everything else as perishable, if those vishays are directed only towards Bhagvãn, realising Him to be the only source of ultimate bliss, then that is fine – that is not mãyã’. But, then I thought that even that is not appropriate. After all, if a person perceives shabda, sparsh, rup, ras, and gandh, to be better in other objects compared to those that are in Bhagvãn, he will abandon Bhagvãn and will develop love for other objects. For example, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn’s 16,100 wives, who were apsãrãs in past lives, had asked for the following vardãn from Brahmã: ‘O Mahãrãj! We have experienced the touch of devs, demons, and humans, but we have not experienced the touch of Bhagvãn as our husband. Therefore, please grace us so that He becomes our husband’. So, Brahmã replied, ‘Perform tap and Bhagvãn will become your husband’. So, they performed intense tap, after which Ashtãvakra Rushi and Nãrad Muni both became pleased and granted the following vardãn: ‘Bhagvãn will become your husband’. In this way, by performing many tap in other lives, they attained Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. However, on perceiving more beauty in Sãmb than in Bhagvãn, they became infatuated by Sãmb. Therefore, it is not appropriate for a person whose mind is not steady to develop love for Bhagvãn through the pleasures of the vishays of the five indriyas. However, if a person’s mind does remain steady, without having any doubts, then it is appropriate. 3.10 “Moreover, a person who is intelligent should develop love for Bhagvãn in the following way: A person should realise his jeev as being distinct from the twenty-four tattvas. Then, after uprooting the vruttis of the five indriyas that are firmly embedded in the jeev, and while remaining as the jeev alone (without vruttis of the indriyas) he should remain nirgun and develop as much love for Bhagvãn as possible. 3.11 “What do I mean by nirgun? Well, the ten indriyas are the products of rajo-gun; the antah-karans and their presiding devs are the products of sattva-gun; and the five bhuts and the panch-vishays are the products of tamo-gun. A person who believes himself to be distinct from the products of those three gun and from the three gun themselves, and remains as the jeev alone, is known as nirgun. So, he should become nirgun in this way and develop love of Bhagvãn. Therefore, it is said: nairgunyasthã ramante sma gunãnu-kathane hareha Although the munis had attained the nirgun state, they still engaged themselves in praising the glory of Bhagvãn. parinishthitopi nairgunya uttam-shloka-leelayã gruheeta-chetã rãjarshe ãkhyanam yad-adheetavãn O King (Parikshit)! Despite being perfectly poised in the nirgun state, having been attracted by the leelãs of Bhagvãn, I (Shukdevji) studied the Shreemad Bhãgvat. 3.12 “Those who possess gnãn after having realised the nature of the kshetra and the kshetragna attain ãtmã-nishthã and develop love for Bhagvãn. What is the kshetra? Well, the three bodies (sthul, sukshma, and kãran) and the three mental states (jãgrat, svapna, and sushupti), are the kshetra. Such a person realises the kshetra to be distinct from his own ãtmã, and he feels, ‘Those can never be any part of me; I am the knower; I am extremely pure, formless, genderless, and chetan, while the kshetra is extremely impure, jad, and perishable’. Understanding this firmly, a person who develops vairãgya towards everything else, and offers bhakti to Bhagvãn while following svadharma, is known to possess ekãntik bhakti and gnãn. A bhakta possessing this gnãn is superior to all. In fact, Bhagvãn has said: teshãm gnãnee nitya-yukta eka-bhaktir-vishishyate priyo hi gnãnino tyartha-maham sa cha mama priyaha Of these – a person who is distressed from having fallen from the path of attaining siddh-dashã, and therefore still wishes to attain them; a person who seeks knowledge of the ãtmã; a person who desires material objects, material pleasures and powers; and a person who has gnãn – the person with gnãn is the best, as he is always engaged in me and is devoted to me alone. I am exceedingly dear to a person with gnãn, and he is dear to me. udãrãha sarva evaite gnãnee tvãtmaiva me matam They are all noble, but I consider the one with gnãn to be my very ãtmã. 3.13 “Realising this, a person should uproot the indriyas, the antah-karans, and the vishays from the jeev, and develop love for Bhagvãn – only that is appropriate. As long as a person has not uprooted them, he should extract work from them in the form of the darshan or touch of Bhagvãn. Moreover, they should not be regarded as supporters; instead, they should be regarded as enemies. In fact, a person should never feel gratitude towards them by thinking, ‘They are beneficial to me in offering bhakti to Bhagvãn’. He should not feel that the eyes enable a person to listen to the kathã of Bhagvãn; the skin enables a person to experience the touch of Bhagvãn; the nose enables a person to experience the fragrance of Bhagvãn’s mãlã and tulsi; the mouth enables a person to engage in kathãs and sing kirtans in praise of Bhagvãn; and the tongue enables a person to experience the taste of Bhagvãn’s prasãd. A person should not understand them to be helpful in performing bhakti of Bhagvãn. They should not be given gratitude, nor should they be trusted. Instead, they should be regarded only as enemies. This is because what if in the process of experiencing happiness through the darshan or touch of Bhagvãn, they lure a person to believe that there is pleasure in the darshan or touch of women and other objects? That would be very damaging. Therefore, those enemies (the five indriyas) should be confined, and work in the form of bhakti to Bhagvãn should be extracted from them. For example, a king who has captured his enemy keeps him chained and extracts work from him; never does the king free him or trust him. If he were to free him or trust him, then the enemy would definitely kill the king. In the same way, if a person trusts his enemies (the indriyas), and frees them and does not keep them confined, they will definitely make him fall from the path of Bhagvãn. Therefore, they should never be trusted. 3.14 “Also, just as the British arrest a criminal and keep him standing in a witness box to question him, without freeing him or trusting him, in the same way, the indriyas and the antah-karans should be kept in a witness box and in chains (the niyams of the panch-vartmãn), and then they should be made to offer bhakti to Bhagvãn. However, they should not be given any gratitude; they should be looked upon only as enemies. If the indriyas and the antah-karans are regarded as supporters, given gratitude, and seen to be useful in bhakti, then in the process of experiencing the happiness of the darshan or touch of Bhagvãn, they will lure a person to believe that there is some pleasure in women and other objects. As a result, all efforts he has made will become useless. For example, if one spark of fire were to fall on a large pile of gunpowder, then that gunpowder would be completely reduced to ashes. In this way, the stability of a person’s indriyas is not certain. 3.15 “Therefore, it is only appropriate that a person develops love for Bhagvãn while behaving as the ãtmã. That is my principle, and a person who develops love for Bhagvãn in this way is dear to me. Moreover, he should think, ‘The beauty of Bhagvãn cannot be found anywhere else; the touch of Bhagvãn cannot be found anywhere else; the bliss experienced from hearing Bhagvãn cannot be found anywhere else; and the tastes related to Bhagvãn cannot be found anywhere else’. In this way, a person should tempt the indriyas and the antah-karans, and divert them away from other vishays. This understanding is appropriate.” 3.16 Then, Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi said, “Mahãrãj, in which place should a person stay and develop all these thoughts?” 3.17 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A person should think: ‘I am not the sthul body, the sukshma body, or the kãran body; I do not have the jãgrat, svapna, or sushupti states; I am not the five gnãn-indriyas, the five karma-indriyas, the four antah-karans or their presiding devs; in fact, I am distinct from all these. I am chaitanya; I am a bhakta of Bhagvãn’. If the indriyas and antah-karans misbehave in some way, they should be disciplined in the following way: ‘Do you wish to see the beauty only of Bhagvãn, or do you also wish to see the beauty of others? Do you wish to listen to sounds related only to Bhagvãn and experience smells related to Him, or do you also wish to listen to other sounds and experience other smells? If you do crave after the vishays leaving Bhagvãn aside, then what is there between you and me? Who are you and who am I? I will have absolutely nothing to do with you. Whatever you do, you will have to bear the consequences’. 3.18 “Lecturing the indriyas and antah-karans in this way, a person should pray to Bhagvãn: ‘O Mahãrãj! O Swãmi! You intensely love your bhaktas! You are an ocean of mercy! The fault lies with the indriyas and antah-karans. I am distinct from them. In fact, they are my enemies. So, please protect me from their influence’. A person should constantly offer prayers in this way; and understanding his own kshetragna to be composed of chaitanya, he should offer love and bhakti to Bhagvãn.”

4.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Fãgan vad 3 [21st March, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on a platform in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white pachhedi. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, He was turning a mãlã of tulsi beads in His hand. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, was gathered before Him. 4.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said to the paramhans, “Please begin a question-answer discussion amongst yourselves.” 4.3 Then, Muni Bãvã asked a question to Brahmãnand Swãmi, “Initially, a person may have the belief of Bhagvãn and may engage in bhajan and smaran; but later, on seeing the human-like actions of Bhagvãn, doubts arise in that belief. What is the cause of this?” 4.4 Brahmãnand Swãmi then began to answer that question but was unable to do so satisfactorily. 4.5 Then, having thought for some time, Shreeji Mahãrãj spoke, “I shall answer that question.” Continuing, He said, “The Veds, the Purãns, the Mahãbhãrat, the Smrutis, and the other shãstras state that the original svarup of Bhagvãn, which is eternal, without a beginning, and divya, resides in His Akshardhãm. They also mention what that Bhagvãn is like. His svarup is not like any svarup that can be seen by the eyes; His sound is not like any sound that can be heard by the ears; His touch is not like any touch that can be felt by the skin; His smell is not like any smell that can be smelt by the nose; and the tongue cannot describe that Bhagvãn. He cannot be imagined by the man; He cannot be thought of by the chitt; He cannot be understood by the buddhi; nor can the ahankãr fully claim, ‘I am Bhagvãn’s and Bhagvãn is mine’. In this way, Bhagvãn remains beyond the reach of the indriyas and the antah-karans. 4.6 “Moreover, the beauty of Bhagvãn is such that it cannot be compared to any other object in this brahmãnd – including everything from Brahmã to the smallest blade of grass; His sound is such that it cannot be compared to any other sounds in this brahmãnd; The smell of Bhagvãn is such that it cannot be compared to any other smell in this brahmãnd; The touch of Bhagvãn is such that it cannot be compared to any other touch in this brahmãnd; The tastes related to Bhagvãn are such that they cannot be compared to any other taste in the brahmãnd; and the dhãm of Bhagvãn is such that it cannot be compared to any other place in this brahmãnd. Specifically, out of all the various places in the seven dvips and the nine khands, the extremely beautiful places of Brahmã and others on Mount Meru, the various places on Mount Lokã-Lok, the loks of Indra, Varun, Kuber, Shiv, and Brahmã, and many other places, not one of them can compare to the dhãm of Bhagvãn. The bliss experienced by the bhaktas of Bhagvãn residing in that dhãm is such that it cannot be compared to any other type of bliss in this brahmãnd. 4.7 “The svarup of that Bhagvãn is such that it cannot be compared to the svarup of anyone in this brahmãnd. This is because all the svarups in this brahmãnd which evolved from Prakruti and Purush are mãyik, whereas Bhagvãn is divya. So, since the two are totally different, how can they possibly be compared? For example, we can compare a person to something by saying, ‘This man is like a buffalo, like a snake, like a sparrow, like a donkey, like a dog, like a crow, or like an elephant’. But in reality, such comparisons are not appropriate for humans. This is because all of those animals are in a completely different group compared to humans. Even between a human and a human, there is no exact similarity where a person can claim, ‘This person is exactly like that person’. If he were exactly like the other person, then how could the original person be recognised? 4.8 “Therefore, despite the fact that all humans belong to the same group, no two are exactly alike. Just look at Bhago and Mulo – the two are said to be identical; but, if a person stays with them for a few days, he can distinguish between them and say, ‘This is Bhago and this is Mulo’. But, if there were no difference, how could they be recognised? So, if there is no great similarity between that which is mãyik and that which is not mãyik, what can possibly be compared to Bhagvãn and the dhãm of Bhagvãn? After all, all shãstras claim, ‘Bhagvãn is beyond the reach of the indriyas and the antah-karans’. 4.9 “When that Bhagvãn does not wish to give His darshan to beings, He stays in this way in His own Akshardhãm with a divya svarup, and as a result He remains beyond reach. That Bhagvãn is the lord of all lords, He is surrounded by countless divya luxuries and countless divya pãrshads, and He is the lord of countless millions of brahmãnds. 4.10 “Take the example of a great world-emperor whose kingdom stretches from where the sun rises to where it sets. This emperor, by the strength of his own tap, has attained divine powers like those of the devs, and is ruling over the loks of Svarg, Mrutyu-Lok, and Pãtãl – just like Arjun, who remained on the throne of Indra in Svarg-Lok for many years with his own body, and Nahush Rãjã, who also became Indra. The emperor is so powerful, that it is not possible to count the villages in his kingdom, as they are innumerable. The chiefs of these villages also cannot be counted, as they are also innumerable. Furthermore, the countless chiefs of those villages come to his darbãr to make requests. The emperor’s money, property, pleasures, palaces, and wealth are also countless. 4.11 “Just like the emperor, Bhagvãn is the king of the kings of countless villages (brahmãnds). Moreover, the chiefs of those villages (brahmãnds) are Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv. Just as in one village one chief is senior and the whole population of that village bows before him and follows his ãgnã, and just as the chief in turn bows before the king, similarly, in each brahmãnd, Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv are senior, and the others in that brahmãnd, that are the devs, demons, humans, rushis, and prajãpatis of that brahmãnd, worship them and follow their ãgnã. But, Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv in turn worship Purushottam Bhagvãn and follow His ãgnã. Furthermore, all the Brahmãs, Vishnus, and Shivs of all the brahmãnds pray to Bhagvãn, ‘Mahãrãj! Please have compassion on us and visit our brahmãnd’ – just as the chief of a village requests the world-emperor, ‘Mahãrãj! I am poor. Please visit my house. I shall serve you to the best of my ability’. In the same way, Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv pray to Bhagvãn, ‘Mahãrãj! Please have mercy upon us and grace us with your darshan; visit our brahmãnd’. Only then does Bhagvãn assume a body in that brahmãnd. 4.12 “Moreover, He assumes a body based on the task to be performed there, and He also behaves accordingly. If He assumes the body of a dev, then He behaves exactly like a dev. If He assumes the body of an animal, then He behaves exactly like an animal. For example, when Bhagvãn assumed the svarup of Varãh, He found the earth by smelling it. When He became Hayagriv, He started to neigh like a horse. When He assumed the bodies of water creatures, such as Matsya and Kurma, He moved only in water, but not on land. When He became the svarup of Nrusinh, He behaved exactly like a lion, not like a human. 4.13 “When that Bhagvãn assumes the svarup of a human being, He behaves exactly like a human. During Satya-Yug, the lifespan of humans is one hundred thousand years, so Bhagvãn also lives for one hundred thousand years. Also, just as people in Satya-Yug can indulge in any object their mind desires, Bhagvãn also indulges in objects in the same way; He does not behave in any extraordinary way. In Tretã-Yug, the lifespan of humans is ten thousand years. So, when Bhagvãn is born in Tretã-Yug, He also lives for ten thousand years. In Dvãpar-Yug, the lifespan of humans is one thousand years, and humans possess the strength of ten thousand elephants. So, Bhagvãn also possesses the same strength and has the same lifespan. Finally, when Bhagvãn is born in Kali-Yug, He assumes the lifespan and strength of humans according to the humans of Kali-Yug. 4.14 “Just as a child is conceived, then develops in the womb, then is born, then undergoes the phases of childhood, youth, and old age, and eventually dies, Bhagvãn also undergoes the same process, exactly like a human. Also, just as humans possess svabhãvs – such as kãm, krodh, lobh, svãd, mãn, sneh, mad, matsar, irshyã, moh, ãshã, trushnã, hatred, attachment, infatuation, happiness, misery, fear, fearlessness, bravery, cowardice, hunger, thirst, sleep, prejudice, a feeling that this belongs to others, a feeling that this belongs to me, tyãg, vairãgya – in the same way, all of those svabhãvs are apparent in Bhagvãn when He assumes a human body. All the shãstras have also described that human svarup of Bhagvãn along with His original, divya svarup. A person, who has developed a firm nishchay of both of those svarups through intense shravan and manan, never has any doubts; whereas a person who lacks this type of understanding does have doubts about Bhagvãn. 4.15 “When that Bhagvãn – who possesses a divya svarup – assumes a human body, He behaves with svabhãvs similar to humans. However, an intelligent person realises, ‘He possesses kãm, but it is not like that of other humans. In fact, krodh, lobh, svãd, mãn, and other human svabhãvs are also present in Bhagvãn, but they are certainly not like those possessed by other humans’. An intelligent person also realises that there is something divya about that Bhagvãn, and with this understanding, he develops the belief of Him being Bhagvãn. For example, Shankar-Ãchãrya entered the body of a king in order to gain knowledge of certain affectionate details. Therefore, at that time, his bodily gestures and his emotions were all affectionate like those of the king. However, the queen was intelligent and realised, ‘My husband did not possess such powers; therefore, some other jeev has entered his body’. In the same way, divya qualities are apparent in Bhagvãn in human svarup. As a result, a person develops the nishchay in Him being Bhagvãn. 4.16 “Then you may say, ‘If someone develops the nishchay in Bhagvãn on noticing something divya, then if He were to display divya qualities, many people would develop the same belief’. However, the fact of the matter is as follows: All the shãstras refer to the sun by saying, ‘It is Bhagvãn’. Moreover, that sun is visible to everyone, and people do its darshan daily. Despite this, no person has ever been convinced of his or her own kalyãn as a result of its darshan, and they do not believe, ‘I have attained kalyãn’. On the other hand, after having the darshan of Rãm, Krishna, and the other avatãrs in human svarup, and of Nãrad, Shukji, and other sãdhus, people do attain the belief that my kalyãn is certainly guaranteed, and I am fulfilled. Even though there is no divine light in that Bhagvãn and those sãdhus, and a person can only have their darshan after lighting an oil lamp, he still becomes convinced of his own kalyãn. 4.17 “Consider another example: Fire is also a visible svarup of Bhagvãn, as Bhagvãn has said: aham vaishvãnaro bhootvã prãninãm deha-mãshritaha prãnãpãna-samãyuktaha pachãmyanam chaturvirdham Remaining in the bodies of all being as Vaishvanar (the fire of digestion), I digest the four types of food (chewable, drinkable, lickable, and suckable) with the help of prãn vãyu (inhaled air) and apãn vãyu (air that pushes food downwards). 4.18 “The darshan of that fire is available to all, but that does not grant people belief of their own kalyãn, whereas with the darshan of Bhagvãn and His sãdhu, they do gain belief of their own kalyãn. The reason for this is that there is a difference between humans, and the sun and fire; as a result, a person is not convinced of his kalyãn upon having the darshan of the sun or fire. Instead, if someone touches fire, he will be burnt. Furthermore, when Kuntãji called upon Surya using the mantra given by Durvãsã, Surya came to Kuntãji in a human svarup just like Kuntãji’s own svarup. As a result, she was able to enjoy his intimacy, and therefore conceived Karna. In actuality, Surya is extremely luminous; and if he had come with all of his light, Kuntãji would have been burnt to death, and she would not have been able to enjoy his intimacy. Also, when Surya used to come to Satrãjit Yãdav, he came as a human. However, when he came to Kuntãji and came to Satrãjit, did he leave his place in the sky? He remained in the sky; but assuming another svarup, that very same Surya came to Kuntãji and Satrãjit. Moreover, there was just as much luminosity in that svarup as there is in the sun, but he suppressed that luminosity and came as a human. 4.19 “In the same way, if Bhagvãn were to give darshan to beings with all of His divya qualities, then humans would not find it suitable, and they would wonder, ‘Is this a ghost, or what?’ Therefore, Bhagvãn suppresses His own divya powers and gives darshan exactly like a human. But, at the same time, He still remains present in His own dhãm. Only when Bhagvãn comes as a human are people able to do His darshan, touch Him, and offer the nine types of bhakti. 4.20 “If Bhagvãn does not become like a human and instead behaves with complete divya qualities, then people would not be able to develop love or feelings of friendship for Him. This is because a human develops love and friendship for another human, and animals develop mutual love and friendship for other animals; but humans and animals do not develop the same love and friendship for each other. Therefore, those belonging to the same group develop love towards each other, but not towards those belonging to a different group. 4.21 “Similarly, Bhagvãn suppresses His divya qualities and becomes exactly like a human so that His bhaktas can develop love for Him. He does not exhibit His divya qualities. Exhibiting His divya qualities would place Him in a different group, and as a result, bhaktas would not be able to develop love and friendship towards Him. It is for this reason that when Bhagvãn appears in human svarup, He remains extremely cautious to ensure that His divya qualities remain hidden. However, if He were to become a little impatient in some task, His divya qualities would become apparent. Occasionally, by His own wish, He may reveal His divya qualities to some bhakta. For example, as Shree Krishna Bhagvãn became impatient to kill Bhishma, He forgot his human-like nature and reverted to His divya powers. As a result, the earth was incapable of bearing the burden. When He revealed His divya qualities to Arjun, it was revealed as a result of His own wish. However, Arjun did not experience bliss due to that divya qualities, and he become very uneasy. Then, when Shree Krishna Bhagvãn gave darshan to Arjun in His human svarup, Arjun experienced bliss and said: drusht-vedam mãnusham rupam tava saumyam janãrdana idaneem-asmi samvruttaha sachetãha prakrutim gataha Vanquisher of the evil (Krishna)! Having seen your gentle human svarup, I am now calm and have been restored to my original nature. 4.22 “Therefore, a person only finds it suitable when Bhagvãn behaves like a human; otherwise he would not. Yet, when Bhagvãn behaves as a human, a person who does not have this understanding would find it difficult to accept His human-like nature. Moreover, if Bhagvãn were to behave with only divya qualities, a person would be unable to understand all that is beyond the reach of the mind and speech. For this reason, the shãstras have described Bhagvãn in both ways. A person who has fully realised Him in this way would not develop any doubts; but, doubts would certainly arise in a person who does not understand in this way. 4.23 “Someone may claim, ‘I have realised Bhagvãn, and I have nishchay in Bhagvãn’. But, if he has not understood this talk, then his nishchay is still imperfect. For example, a person may have learnt a shlok or a kirtan. If he were asked, ‘Have you learnt this shlok or kirtan?’ he would reply that he has, and he would also be able to recite it. But, if he were to forget that shlok or kirtan after a few days, then it can be said that when he originally learnt the shlok, he had not learnt it properly. This is because that shlok or kirtan was not fully imprinted in his jeev through intense practice, and through shravan and manan. However, if something is learnt in childhood thoroughly, then it can be recalled when required, even during youth or old age. In the same way, when that person attempted to develop the nishchay in Bhagvãn, some deficiencies remained. If no deficiencies had remained, and if he had done shravan, manan, and intense repetition in his jeev, then he would never have had any doubts at all.”

5.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Fãgan vad 8 [27th March, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on a platform in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a white khes and a warm, red dagli. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a white chãdar. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, has gathered before Him. 5.2 Then, Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi asked a question: “When is pride appropriate, and when is it not appropriate? When is humbleness appropriate, and when is it not appropriate?” 5.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “It is appropriate to have pride before a person who spites satsang, or speaks offensively of Bhagvãn or His great sant. If someone does speak offensively, a person should retaliate with words as sharp as an arrow; but in no way should he become humble before a vimukh. In such a situation, that is appropriate. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to have pride before Bhagvãn or His sant. Before them, putting pride aside, behaving as a dãs of a dãs, and becoming humble, is the only appropriate behaviour.”

7.1 In the Samvat year 1877, about two-and-a-half hours after sunrise on Fãgan vad 11 [29th March, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on a platform in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a warm, red dagli and a white khes. He had also tied a white feto around His head. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a white pachhedi. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 7.2 In the sabhã, Shreeji Mahãrãj had Nityãnand Swãmi read a passage from the first skandh of the Shreemad Bhãgvat. The first shlok he read was: janmãdyasya yatah-nvayad-itaratash-chãrtheshvabhignaha svarãt tene brahma hrudã ya ãdikavaye muhyanti yat-soorayaha tejo-vãri-mrudãm yathã vinimayo yatra trisargo mrushã dhãmnã svena sadã nirasta-kuhakam satyam param dheemahi 7.3 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj Himself began to explain the meaning of the third line of that shlok: “A person should realise that the entities evolved out of the three gun of Mãyã, which are the five bhuts, the indriyas, the antah-karans, and their presiding devs, are never present in Bhagvãn at any time – past, present, or future. Also, a person should interpret the last line as the shlok, as follows: Bhagvãn, via His own svarup (dhãm), destroyed the deception (the products of mãyã). This is the supremely satya svarup of Bhagvãn. Moreover, just as the svarup of Bhagvãn in Akshardhãm is magnificent with countless divine powers and divine light at the end of ãtyantik-pralay, a person should realise exactly the same regarding pratyaksha Bhagvãn in human svarup. A person who realises this is said to have known Bhagvãn perfectly. 7.4 “However, when a foolish person looks at pratyaksha Bhagvãn with a mãyik vision, he sees a human like himself. Also, just as he himself is born, becomes a child, becomes a youth, becomes old and dies, in the same way, he believes Bhagvãn to undergo the same process. But, when he worships Bhagvãn with the sincerity, having faith in the words of the ekãntik sant of Bhagvãn, his mãyik vision disappears. Then, a person realises that same svarup of Bhagvãn as being the supreme chaitanya, which is sachidãnand. The Shreemad Bhãgvat also mentions: sa veda dhãtuha padaveem parasya duranta-veeryasya rathãnga-panehe yo-mãyayã santa-tayãnu-vruttya bhajeta tat-pãda-saroja-gandhama He who, having become free from mãyã, serves the holy feet of Bhagvãn, will constantly follow His wishes, and attain the state of Bhagvãn – who holds a chakra in His hand, has infinite powers, and is the supporter of the universe. 7.5 “The phases of childhood, youth, and old age apparent in Bhagvãn, as well as His birth and death, are all seen due to His extraordinary powers of creating an illusion. In reality, Bhagvãn remains absolutely unchanged. For example, a skilled magician arms himself with weapons and ascends to the sky to fight against the warriors of the demons – the enemies of Indra. Then, having been cut to pieces, he falls to the ground. Then, the magician’s wife gathers those pieces together and burns herself on his funeral pyre. After a short while, the magician appears out of the sky, armed with weapons, exactly as he appeared before. He then asks the king for a reward and requests, ‘Please return my wife’. Having seen such an astonishing performance, if a person is unable to comprehend the ‘mãyã’ of even a magician, how then can the extraordinary powers of Bhagvãn possibly be comprehended? A person who does comprehend that ‘mãyã’ of the magician, realises: ‘That magician has not died, nor has he been burnt. In reality, he is exactly the same as he was before’. In a similar way, a person who is said to have realised the svarup of Bhagvãn perfectly, understands Bhagvãn to be eternal and imperishable, and absolutely unchanging. For example, when Shree Krishna Bhagvãn left His body, Rukmani and the other wives of Bhagvãn took His body and burnt themselves along with Him. At that time, the ignorant people thought, ‘Now He is dead’. On the other hand, those who possessed gnãn, thought, ‘He has disappeared from here and has gone elsewhere’. They understood Bhagvãn as being eternal. As a result, Shree Krishna Himself has said: avajananti mãm moodha mãnusheem tanum-ãshritam param bhãvam-ajãnanto mama bhoota-maheshvaram Fools mock me as having a human svarup, but they do not realise my divya svarup as the great lord of all beings. 7.6 “So, if a fool understands Bhagvãn as being sãkãr, then he understands Him as being merely like a human; or he understands Bhagvãn as being nirãkãr so that He is not considered mãyik like other mãyik svarups. In this way, a fool misunderstands on both accounts. 7.7 “But, if Bhagvãn did not have a svarup, then what about the fact that Shrutis have said that during ãtyantik-pralay, ‘sa ikshata’, meaning, ‘That Bhagvãn saw…’. If Bhagvãn ‘saw’, then He had to have a svarup, possessing eyes, ears and other organs. Moreover, it is said: purushenãtam-bhootena veeryamã-dhatta veeryavãnã Purushottam became the svarup of Purush and impregnated Mãyã. “Therefore, Bhagvãn has always had a svarup. 7.8 “Moreover, when that Purushottam Nãrãyan takes the svarup of Purush for some task, that Purush is hidden by the divine light of Purushottam, and only Purushottam remains. In the same way, when Purushottam takes the form of Mãyã, that Mãyã is also hidden by the divine light of Purushottam, and only Bhagvãn remains in that svarup. Then, Bhagvãn takes the svarup of maha-tattva, then the svarups of others evolved from maha-tattva, then the svarup of Virãt, then the svarup of Brahmã and others created from that Virãt-Purush, and then the svarup of Nãrad and the Sanakãdik. In this way, in whomever that Purushottam Bhagvãn ‘enters’ for the purpose of fulfilling many types of tasks, He hides that entity by His own divine light, and He Himself reigns supreme through that entity. Moreover, in whomever He resides, He suppresses their own light and displays His own divine light – just as when fire enters iron, it suppresses the quality of coldness and the black colour of that iron, and exhibits its own quality. 7.9 “Also, when the sun rises, the light from all the stars and the moon, merges into its own light, and only the sun’s light remains. In the same way, Bhagvãn overpowers the light of whoever He ‘enters’ and exhibits His own divine light to a greater degree. Then, after completing that task for which He had ‘entered’ that entity, He separates from the entity; and the entity remains as it was before. Therefore, the additional powers that the entity appeared to have should be known to actually be the power of Purushottam Bhagvãn. 7.10 “In this way, the pratyaksha Purushottam Nãrãyan is the cause of all; He is forever divya and is sãkãr. A person should not perceive any type of imperfections in that murti – it is like a murti made of sãkar. Also, he should perform dhyãn, bhajan, and offer bhakti only to the murti that he has seen. Furthermore, whichever human traits seem apparent in that Bhagvãn should be understood to be like the ‘mãyã’ of a magician. A person who has such an understanding does not develop delusion for that Bhagvãn in any way. 7.11 “These talks can be understood by a person with the following firm belief: ‘Even at the time of ãtyantik-pralay, Bhagvãn and His bhaktas remain in Akshardhãm, where the bhaktas enjoy divya bliss, having attained a divya murti. Moreover, the murti of that Bhagvãn and the svarups of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn possess divine light that is equivalent to the light of countless suns and moons’. Only a person with such firm understanding is able to understand these talks. 7.12 “Also, that Bhagvãn – who has a luminous and divya murti – becomes like a human out of compassion, to give kalyãn to the jeevs and to allow those jeevs to offer the nine types of bhakti to Him; and He always does so with all of His strength, divine powers, and pãrshads. Even then, those who realise this complex truth understand the human svarup of Bhagvãn on this earth as being exactly the same as the svarup of Bhagvãn residing in Akshardhãm – they do not feel that there is even a slight difference between that svarup and this svarup. A person who has known Bhagvãn in this way can be said to have known Bhagvãn perfectly. For him, mãyã can be said to have been eradicated. A person who realises this is called a bhakta with gnãn and an ekãntik bhakta. Moreover, if by chance a person possessing such firm upãsanã of pratyaksha Bhagvãn were to behave inappropriately due to the influence of kusang or due to the influence of his own prãrabdha karmas, even then he would attain kalyãn. On the other hand, a person who has doubts in realising Bhagvãn in this way, even if he is a strict urdhvaretã naishtik brahm-chãri and a great tyãgi, attaining kalyãn would still be extremely difficult for him. 7.13 “If a person has, from the beginning, developed a firm belief that Bhagvãn is sãkãr even at the end of ãtyantik-pralay, and if he were to listen to shãstras describing Bhagvãn as being merely full of divine light and nirãkãr, or if he were to hear such talks from someone, even then he would not have doubts. This is because he has realised, ‘Bhagvãn is eternally sãkãr and is never nirãkãr. Furthermore, that very Bhagvãn assumes different murtis, such as Rãm and Krishna’. A person with such firm understanding should be known to have perfect nishchay.” 7.14 In this way, for the purpose of enlightening His bhaktas, Shreeji Mahãrãj talked about the unparalleled nishchay of His own svarup. On hearing this, all the paramhans and bhaktas strengthened their nishchay in Shreeji Mahãrãj’s svarup as described.

Translation not available.