1.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Kãrtik sud 11 [21st November 1825], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a cushion with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a sinhãsan in the mango grove along the banks of Lake Gomti on the north side of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was wearing a white survãl and a white angarkhu. He had also tied a blue reto around His waist. An orange reto with edges decorated with golden threads was tied around His head, and another orange reto with a brocaded border was resting upon His shoulder. In addition to this, a garland of roses was hanging around His neck, tassels of roses had been placed upon His head, and bãjubandh and gajarã had been tied around His arms. Shreeji Mahãrãj sat in a charming way facing north, while a sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, gathered before Him. 1.2 Shobhã-Rãm Shãstri of Vadodarã asked Shreeji Mahãrãj a question: “Mahãrãj, when a mumukshu attains nirvikalp samãdhi, he becomes gunãtit and an ekãntik bhakta of Bhagvãn. Then, what becomes of a person who does not attain nirvikalp samãdhi?” 1.3 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Nirvikalp samãdhi is not only attained when the prãns are controlled. There is another way to attain nirvikalp samãdhi, which I shall explain to you; so, please listen carefully. 1.4 “The Shreemad Bhãgvat states: atra sargo visargash-cha sthãnam poshanam-utayaha manvanta-reshãnu-katha nirodho muktir-ãshrayaha The ten characteristics of topics of discussion by which Bhagvãn can be realised: sarg, visarg, sthãn, poshan, uti, manvantar-kathã, ishãnu-kathã, nirodh, mukti, ãshray. “This verse explains that when a mumukshu establishes a firm belief of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, who a person should take the refuge of and who can be realised through the nine characteristics, then he will never have a doubt. For example, once a person has firmly realised that this is a mango tree, then even if he is overcome by kãm, krodh, lobh, he will not entertain any doubts such as, ‘Is this a mango tree or not?’ In the same way, regardless of whether a person has controlled his prãns or not, if he has firm belief of the pratyaksha svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn – without any doubts whatsoever – then he has attained nirvikalp samãdhi. 1.5 “However, someone may repeatedly have doubts in his mind about Bhagvãn’s nature. For example, he may think, ‘What must Bhagvãn’s svarup be like in Akshardhãm? What must His svarup be like in Shvet-Dvip and Vaikunth? When will I have the darshan of that svarup?’ He continues to have such doubts in his mind, but he does not feel fulfilled by realising that the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn that he has attained is the cause of everything. Even if he attains samãdhi by Bhagvãn’s wish, his doubts are never eradicated. No matter what he sees in samãdhi, he always desires to see something new; the desires of his mind are never suppressed. Even if such a person experiences samãdhi, it is savikalp samãdhi; and even if he does not experience samãdhi, it is still savikalp samãdhi. Therefore, such a person cannot be called a gunãtit, ekãntik bhakta. A person who does have firm nishchay in Bhagvãn, regardless of whether he has samãdhi or not, can be said to have constant nirvikalp samãdhi.” 1.6 Then, Dinã-Nãth Bhatt asked, “What will become of a person who fails to conquer the mind, despite attempting to eradicate the desires in his mind?” 1.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “As the war between the Kauravs and the Pãndavs was set to begin, the Kauravs and the Pãndavs thought, ‘Let us engage in the battle in such a holy place that even if we are killed in the fighting, our jeev will still benefit.’ With this thought in mind, they eventually fought a battle, attained Dev-Lok, and obtained happiness greater than that of ruling over a kingdom. 1.8 “Therefore, regarding a person who takes up a fight with his mind – if he wins, then he attains nirvikalp samãdhi and becomes an ekãntik bhakta of Bhagvãn. However, if he should lose to his mind, he falls from his spiritual activities. Then, maybe after one life or two lives or even after many lives, he will become an ekãntik bhakta; but, his efforts will not have been useless. 1.9 “Therefore, a person who is wise should definitely develop hatred towards his mind for the sake of his kalyãn. Then, if he conquers his mind, he is sure to benefit; but, even if he is defeated by his mind, he will eventually return to the path of enlightenment which is also beneficial in the end. Therefore, a person who aspires for kalyãn should most certainly develop hatred towards his mind.”

2.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Kãrtik sud 13 [22nd November 1825], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead under a mango tree on the banks of Lake Gomti, north of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was wearing a survãl made from yellow, silken cloth and a red dagli made from kinkhãb. He had also tied a pãgh around His head using an orange cloth with a brocaded border. An orange shelu with a brocaded border was placed upon His shoulder. In addition to this, His pãgh was decorated with garlands of champã flowers, and garlands of white flowers were hanging around His neck. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 2.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please begin a question-answer discussion.” 2.3 Then, Kãndãsji Patel of the village Buvã folded his hands and asked, “Mahãrãj, by what means does Bhagvãn become pleased?” 2.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If we do not insult Bhagvãn, then Bhagvãn becomes pleased. Then, you may ask, ‘What does it mean to criticise Bhagvãn?’ Well, Bhagvãn is the all-doer of this world. However, if a person does not understand Him to be the all-doer and instead believes that it is Kãl that is the all-doer of this world, or that it is Mãyã, or that it is karma, or that is the svabhãv that is the all-doer, then he is insulting Bhagvãn. This is because actually Bhagvãn is the all-doer. To ignore this and to claim that only Kãl, karma, Mãyã, and svabhãv are the all-doers of this world is serious against Bhagvãn. 2.5 “For example, you are the Patel (chief of a village) of your village. If someone does not acknowledge your status in the village, then he can be said to be your slanderer. Also, if someone does not accept the control of an emperor of the world, but instead accepts the control of a person who is not even a king, then that man is known as a slanderer of the emperor. If a person writes and distributes letters stating, ‘Our king has no nose and ears; he has no hands or feet’, and therefore, describes the king as being deformed even though he has a normal body, then he is also known as a slanderer of the king. Similarly, Bhagvãn is complete, with limbs, hands, and feet. There is not the slightest deformation in any of His limbs. He eternally possesses a definite svarup. So, to say that He is not the all-doer and is nirãkãr, and that Kãl, Mãyã, karma are the cause of all – not Bhagvãn – is equivalent to insulting Bhagvãn. 2.6 “A person who does not insult Bhagvãn in this way is said to have performed perfect pujã of Bhagvãn. Otherwise, without such an understanding, even if a person performs pujã by offering items like sandalwood paste and flowers, he is still a slanderer of Bhagvãn. Therefore, Bhagvãn is only pleased upon a person who realises Bhagvãn to possess a definite svarup and to be the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the universe. 2.7 “In the Veds, Bhagvãn Himself has described His nature in many ways, but no one could understand it. Then, the Sãnkhya shãstras prescribed the twenty-four tattvas and said that Bhagvãn is the twenty-fifth tattva. The ãchãrya of the Sãnkhya philosophy, Kapil Muni, thought, ‘The jeev behaves as if it is one with the three types of bodies (sthul, sukshma, and kãran) and it cannot remain separate from them. The ishvar also behaves as if it is one with its three bodies (virãt, sutrãtmã, and avyãkrut) and it too cannot remain separate from them.’ Therefore, the Sãnkhya shãstras count jeev and ishvar amongst the twenty-four tattvas and claim Paramãtmã to be the twenty-fifth tattva. 2.8 “The ãchãrya of the Yog shãstras, Hiranyagarbh Rushi, explains that there are twenty-four tattvas, and that jeev and ishvar are the twenty-fifth tattva; but, Paramãtmã is the twenty-sixth. 2.9 “This is how the Sãnkhya shãstras and the Yog shãstras described Bhagvãn’s nature; still, no one attained understanding of the nature of the Bhagvãn as He is. So, according to the Sãnkhya shãstras, it was concluded, ‘Whatever is greater than the twenty-four elements is satya’; and according to the Yog shãstras, it was concluded, ‘Paramãtmã, who is greater than jeev and ishvar, who themselves is beyond the twenty-four elements, is satya’. In this way, through these two philosophies, the nature of Bhagvãn was realised. However, is that Bhagvãn black, or yellow? Is He tall, or short? Is He sãkãr, or nirãkãr? That was not realised. 2.10 “Then, Vãsudev Bhagvãn composed the Panch-Rãtra Tãntra, in which he explained, ‘In his own Akshardhãm, Shree Krishna Purushottam Bhagvãn eternally possesses a divya sãkãr murti. This Bhagvãn gives darshan five times to the countless niranna-muktas of Shvet-Dvip. In Vaikunth, that same Bhagvãn assumes a four-armed form, holding a shankh, a chakra, a gadã, and a padma. Along with Him is Lakshmiji. He is also served by Vishvaksen and other pãrshads. It is that same Bhagvãn who is worthy of being offered pujã, worthy of worship and worthy of attainment. It is that same Bhagvãn who assumes the avatars of Ram and Krishna, and who appears in the four forms of Vãsudev, Sankarshan, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha’. In this way, Vãsudev Bhagvãn explained that Bhagvãn possesses a sãkãr murti. 2.11 “Then, Nãradji revised that same Panch-Rãtra Tãntra, after which it came to be known as the Nãrad Panch-Rãtra. In that, Bhagvãn’s svarup was explained in such a way that not even the slightest doubt remained. Also, Shivji explained the four-armed svarup and eight-armed svarup of Bhagvãn in the Pashupãt-Shãstra. 2.12 “Therefore, the Shreemad Bhãgvat states: nãrãyana-parã vedã devã nãrãyan-ãngajãhã nãrãyana-parã lokã nãrãyana-parã makhãhã nãrãyana-paro yogo nãrãyana-param tapaha nãrãyana-param gnãnam nãrãyana-parã gatihi The Veds are devoted to Nãrãyan, and the essence of the Veds is Nãrãyan; the devs are all formed from the svarup of Nãrãyan; the loks are all devoted to Nãrãyan, and all the loks are pervaded by Nãrãyan; all yagnas are devoted to Nãrãyan. All yog is devoted to Nãrãyan; all tap is devoted to Nãrãyan; all gnãn is devoted to Nãrãyan; and Nãrãyan is the objective of all activities. vãsudeva-parã vedã vãsudeva-parã makhãhã vãsudeva-parã yogã vãsudeva-parãhã kriyãhã vãsudeva-param gnãnam vãsudeva-param tapaha vãsudeva-paro dharmo vãsudeva-parã gatihi The Veds are devoted to Vãsudev, and the essence of the Veds is Vãsudev; all yagnas are devoted to Vãsudev; all yog is devoted to Vãsudev; all activities are devoted to Vãsudev. All gnãn is devoted to Vãsudev; all tap is devoted to Vãsudev; all dharma is devoted to Vãsudev; and Vãsudev is the objective of all activities. 2.13 “Therefore, the five shãstras have described the nature of Shree Krishna Vãsudev only. Only a person who realises Bhagvãn through these five shãstras can be said to possess total gnãn. For example, only when a person sees with his eyes does he come to know that milk is white; only when he smells with his nose does he come to know its smell; only when he touches it with his finger does he come to know whether it is hot or cold; and only when he tastes it with his tongue does he come to know its taste. In this way, only when milk is tested through all the indriyas can a person totally know its nature; it cannot be totally known through one indriya alone. Similarly, a person realises Bhagvãn’s nature totally when he realises it through the five shãstras. To have such knowledge is called total gnãn. 2.14 “Bhagvãn is pleased only upon someone who has such understanding; there is no other means of pleasing Him. Therefore, only a person who has this understanding can be said to possess total gnãn, and Bhagvãn becomes extremely pleased only upon such a person.”

3.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Kãrtik vad 11 [6th December 1825], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a sinhãsan in the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. He was also wearing garlands of roses around His neck, and tassels decorated the pãgh upon His head. A sabhã of all the munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 3.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “In our Uddhav Sampradãy a person who has dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti towards Bhagvãn is called an ekãntik bhakta, and only he is worthy of being made renowned in our satsang. However, if these four qualities are not perfect and only one is predominant, then which of the four is the best, and incorporates the other three?” 3.3 Gopãlãnand Swãmi and Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “Mahãrãj, dharma is the best, because if there is dharma then the other three qualities will eventually develop in that person.” 3.4 To this, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Dharma may be present even in those who are vimukhs. Does that mean that we should make them renowned in satsang?” 3.5 Hearing this argument, no one could give a reply to the question. Shreeji Mahãrãj then explained, “If a person has bhakti towards Bhagvãn coupled with knowledge of His greatness, he will never fall from dharma – even if he has a lesser degree of ãtmã-nishthã, vairãgya, and dharma. This is because a person who realises Bhagvãn’s greatness, thinks, ‘If Brahmã and all the other devs follow Bhagvãn’s ãgnã, then how can I not follow His ãgnã?’ Bearing this in mind, he always abides by the niyams prescribed by Bhagvãn.” 3.6 Then, Shuk Muni asked, “If bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness alone is enough, why are all four qualities prescribed as essential, and not just bhakti alone?” 3.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person has intense bhakti for Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness, then all three are incorporated in bhakti alone. But, if his bhakti is of a medium intensity, then the other three are not incorporated within it. Therefore, it is said, ‘A person who has the type of bhakti which include all four qualities can be called an ekãntik bhakta’. 3.8 “Pruthu Rãjã had such extraordinary bhakti. When Bhagvãn awarded a vardãn upon him, he asked for ten thousand ears in order to hear kathãs related to Bhagvãn; he did not ask for anything else. Also, some gopis who were forbidden to go and play rãs discarded their bodies and went to Shree Krishna in spirit. If a person has such extraordinary bhakti, then the other three qualities are all incorporated in bhakti alone.” 3.9 Brahmãnand Swãmi then asked, “By what means can such extraordinary bhakti be attained?” 3.10 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “It is attained by serving a great sant. There are four types of great sant. One is like a small flame, the second is like a torch, the third is like lightning, and the fourth is like the vadvãnal fire. 3.11 “A person, who is like a small flame, is extinguished by the wind in the form of the vishays. A person, who is like a torch, is extinguished by stronger gusts of wind in the form of the vishays. A person, who is like lightning, is not extinguished even by rainwater in the form of mãyã. However, vadvãnal fire stays in the ocean without being extinguished by the ocean water; it drinks the sea water and excretes it in the form of sweet water; in turn, the clouds carry this water and shower it upon the world; and from this, many types of tastes are formed. Similarly, a great sant, like the vadvãnal fire, transforms even the ‘salty’ jeevs who are like the saline sea water, into ‘sweet’ jeevs. 3.12 “Of the four types of great sant just described, if a person serves someone who is like lightning or the vadvãnal fire – by thought, word, and deed, and while staying within his dharma – then bhakti coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness develops in that person. 3.13 “Also, a person should realise that the person who is like lightning is known as Bhagvãn’s ekãntik sãdhu – who is in sãdhan-dashã. The person who is like the vadvãnal fire is known as Bhagvãn’s great ekãntik sant – who has attained siddh-dashã.”

4.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Mãgshar sud 10 [19th December 1825], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 4.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please being a question-answer discussion.” 4.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “For a bhakta of Bhagvãn who has taken the path of bhakti, which one spiritual activity includes all the other activities for kalyãn?” 4.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “All the spiritual activities for attaining kalyãn are included in keeping the company – by thought, word, and deed – of a sant who possesses the thirty qualities of a sãdhu.” 4.5 After replying to the question, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Suppose there is an ekãntik bhakta yogi who realises that the philosophy of both the Sãnkhya shãstras and the Yog shãstras is based upon only Vãsudev-Nãrãyan. By what means does that yogi fix his vrutti on Bhagvãn’s murti? How does he control his mind? How does he keep his vrutti facing inwards? How does he keep his vrutti facing outwards? By which of his yogic abilities does he separate himself from the obstacles of disturbing thoughts and desires, as well as from the absorption of sleep? Please answer these questions.” 4.6 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi and Gopãlãnand Swãmi attempted to answer these questions to the best of their ability, but neither of them was able to give a satisfactory reply. So, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “When water goes into a fountain, it first revolves in a spiral and then spurts upwards; in the same way, the vrutti of the jeev revolves in a spiral in the antah-karans, which acts like the fountain, and then spurts out through the five indriyas. A yogi does this in two ways: With one vrutti, he thinks of Shree Vãsudev Bhagvãn who resides in his heart as a witness. With the second vrutti he faces outwards through his eyes, and he thinks about Bhagvãn who is outside. He thinks of the whole murti from head to toe; he does not only think of a single part of the body. Just as when a person looks at a large mandir, he sees it completely as a whole; or when a person looks at a large mountain, he sees it totally; similarly, the yogi sees Bhagvãn’s murti in the same way, but he does not see each part of Bhagvãn’s body separately. 4.7 “When he observes the murti at a distance through his eyes, if he sees some other object besides Bhagvãn, then he draws that murti of Bhagvãn closer and observes it at the tip of his nose. Even after doing this, if he still sees some object nearby, then he observes the murti of Bhagvãn between his eyebrows. While doing this, if he feels lazy or sleepy, then he would again observe the murti of Bhagvãn before his eyes. Then, in the same way that a child flies a kite, he would fly a kite (Bhagvãn’s murti) with a string (vrutti). He would make it rise upwards, then bring it down again, and then make it sweep from side to side. Using his yogic powers in this way, when he becomes alert, he would again observe the murti at the tip of his nose, and from there he would bring it between his eyebrows, and then he would draw it into his heart. Then, he would merge together both the murti of Bhagvãn that resides in his heart as a witness, and the murti of Bhagvãn that is outside. At this point, the two vruttis of the antah-karans become one. 4.8 “While doing this, if he feels lazy or sleepy again, then he would bring the murti outside again using the two types of vruttis. In the same way as with his eyes, he would use his ears, hands, tongue, and nose to perfect yog. Also, he would observe Bhagvãn’s murti with his man, buddhi, chitt, and ahankãr. Then, by using the sãnkhya thought process, he would distinguish himself from his indriyas and antah-karans and would observe only the murti of Bhagvãn in his chaitanya. While he is beholding the form, whether it be inside or outside, if some disturbance regarding worldly affairs obstructs him, then he would remove the problem while continuing to observe the murti; but, he would not abandon his yogic activities because of the disturbance. This is how a yogi with such yogic powers behaves.”

5.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Mãgshar vad 4, [29th December 1825], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting facing north on a decorated seat under a mango tree along the banks of Lake Gomti, north of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in extremely fine, white clothes, and He had several garlands of roses hanging around His neck. Bunches of two large roses had been placed upon His ears, and tassels of roses decorated His pãgh. A sabhã of all the munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 5.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please ask complex questions in order to relieve everyone’s tiredness.” Having said that, Mahãrãj put a pillow facing west and lay down. 5.3 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “Shree Krishna Bhagvãn has said: daivee hyeshã guna-mayee mama mãyã duratyayã mãm-eva ye prapadyante mãyãm-etãm taranti te “This verse means, ‘A person who attains me will break through my Mãyã, which is composed of the three gun, and which cannot otherwise be broken through even by suffering hardships’. However, even after a person has attained Bhagvãn, he is still disturbed by thoughts and desires in his heart during the worship of Bhagvãn. What else, besides Mãyã, could be causing this? That is the question.” 5.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj sat upright from His lying posture, and with great compassion said, “Of the three gun of Mãyã, tamo-gun is predominant in the five bhuts, and the five tan-mãtras; rajo-gun is predominant in the ten indriyas, the buddhi, and the prãns; and sattva-gun is predominant in the man and the presiding devs of the indriyas and antah-karans. In the past, all those who have become bhaktas have possessed the products of the three gun – the bhuts, the indriyas, the antah-karans, and their presiding devs. Therefore, the answer to the question is as follows: A person who has the firm belief of Bhagvãn – who has realised Bhagvãn completely by believing that there are no mãyik qualities in His svarup, and that Bhagvãn is greater than Mãyã and the products of Mãyã (the three gun) – has gone beyond Bhagvãn’s Mãyã. Even though he has the products of the gun of mãyã within him (the bhuts, the indriyas, the antah-karans, and their presiding devs, each of which carries out its respective activities) he is still said to have gone beyond Mãyã. This is because even though the products of Mãyã are within him, he still realises that the pratyaksha svarup of Shree Vãsudev Bhagvãn, who is worthy to be worshipped by him, is beyond the gun of Mãyã; therefore, he himself should also be known to have gone beyond Mãyã. 5.5 “Even the shãstras acknowledge that the gun seem to have influenced all, including the devs and the rushis. Does that imply that they cannot be called muktas? Also, does that imply that they cannot be said to have gone beyond Mãyã? In fact, they are all muktas, and they have all gone beyond Mãyã. If we do not answer in this way then there is no other possible solution to that question. Therefore, this is the only answer.” 5.6 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, people go to seek the refuge of Bhagvãn. Then, what are the characteristics of having the refuge of Bhagvãn?” 5.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Bhagvãn has said in the Geetã, sarva-dharmãn-parityajya mãm-ekam sharanam vraja aham tvã sarva-pãpebhyo mokshayishyãmi mã shuchaha “In this verse he says, ‘Abandon all other forms of dharma and surrender only to me. I shall deliver you from all sins, so do not grieve’. A person who has such a firm refuge of Bhagvãn, even if he were to experience pain equivalent to that of final destruction, he would not believe anyone else to be his guardian against such misery, except Bhagvãn. Moreover, whatever happiness he wishes for, he seeks to attain only from Bhagvãn. He does not consider anyone but Bhagvãn to be the source of happiness. Moreover, he behaves only according to the wishes of Bhagvãn. Such a person can be known to have taken refuge in Bhagvãn. It is he who can be called a firm bhakta of Bhagvãn.” 5.8 Then, Nãjã Bhakta asked, “How can a person recognise someone who, when he speaks, shows that he has nishchay in Bhagvãn like that of a bhakta, but does not truly have the total refuge of Bhagvãn?” 5.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Only after staying together and working together can a person recognise the strength or weakness of the nishchay of a bhakta of Bhagvãn. A person who has little nishchay would become distressed and find a path out of satsang. He would seek privacy where he could engage in worship to his capacity, but he would not be able to tolerate the pressures of living in the company of bhaktas. Therefore, refuge of Bhagvãn is of three levels: uttam, madhyam, and kanishth. Due to this, there are three levels of bhaktas.” 5.10 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Can a bhakta who is of the kanishth level eradicate his deficiency and become a bhakta of the uttam level in this very life, or not?” 5.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Just as a bhakta performs the mãnsi pujã of Bhagvãn, a person should also performs the mãnsi pujã of the uttam bhakta along with Bhagvãn, by offering him the prasãd of Bhagvãn; and just as a bhakta prepares a thãl for Bhagvãn, a person should also prepare a thãl for Bhagvãn’s uttam bhakta and serve it to him; and just as a bhakta donates five rupees to Bhagvãn, a person should also donates money to the great sant. Then, by performing sevã of Bhagvãn and His sant, who possesses the highest qualities, with extreme love – even if he is a bhakta of the kanishth type and was destined to become a bhakta of the highest type after two lives, or after four lives, or after ten lives, or after a hundred lives – he will become a bhakta of the uttam level in this very life. These are the rewards of the sevã of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas.”

6.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Mãgshar vad 11 [4th January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a platform in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of flowers had been placed around His neck, and tassels of flowers were also hanging from His pãgh. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 6.2 Then, Chiman-Rãvji asked, “Mahãrãj, initially, at the time of destruction, the jeevs with their kãran bodies were absorbed within Mãyã. Then, at the time of creation, the jeevs attained their sthul and sukshma bodies. Also, a variety of life (devs, humans, animals, and plants) was created. Was this due to karmas? Or was it due to Bhagvãn’s wish? If we say that it was due to karmas, then that would prove the Jain philosophy to be true. On the other hand, if we say that it was due to Bhagvãn’s wish, then it would suggest that Bhagvãn is biased and not compassionate. Therefore, please grace us by telling us how things really are.” 6.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “You have not been able to ask the question properly. The sthul and sukshma bodies are both closely associated with the kãran body in the same way that a tree is closely associated with its seed. That is why it is called the kãran body. This kãran body is a form of avidyã; it is without a beginning; and it retains its sanchit karmas. Just as a seed and its shell have an eternal relationship, and just as pruthvi and smell have an eternal relationship, similarly, the jeev and the kãran body have an eternal relationship. Just as when planted seeds sprout upwards after coming into contact with rainwater, similarly, during the period of creation, the jeevs, which had resided within Mãyã together with their kãran bodies, attain various types of bodies according to their individual karmas by the will of Bhagvãn, the giver of the rewards of karmas. 6.4 “However, the Jains, who are nãstiks, claim that only karmas are the cause of this, but they do not describe Bhagvãn as the giver of the fruits of karmas. However, in reality, this belief of those nãstiks is wrong. Therefore, if someone claims that kãl is the only influencing force, then he is not correct; or, if someone claims that karma is the only influencing force, then he is not correct; or, if someone claims that Bhagvãn’s wish is the only influencing force, then even he is not correct. The shãstras would describe the predominance of whichever influence is predominant at that time; but that same influence should not be accepted for all situations. 6.5 “This is because after the world was created, in the first Satya-Yug, everyone’s wishes came true, all were brãhmans, and a child would be born merely by mentally wishing for one. There was a kalpa-vruksh in every home, and all people worshipped only Bhagvãn. Then, with the arrival of Tretã-Yug, people’s wishes were no longer fulfilled; only when a person went and stood under a kalpa-vruksh did his wishes become fulfilled; and only after touching a woman would a child be conceived. Then, when Dvãpar-Yug arrived, children were born only after physical association with a woman. However, the ways of Satya-Yug and Tretã-Yug are not to be found in all Satya-Yugs and Tretã-Yugs; they were found only in the first Satya-Yug and the first Tretã-Yug. 6.6 “Therefore, when there is the predominance of pleasant kãl, it diminishes the power of the impure karmas of the jeevs. However, when a terrible famine strikes, everyone suffers; or when there is a horrendous war, hundreds of thousands of people are killed at once. In these cases were everyone’s pleasant karmas suddenly used up at the same time? Instead, it is the intense power of unpleasant kãl that overcomes the force of the pleasant karmas of the jeevs. So, when the influence of intense kãl prevails, karmas have no influence; due to the influence of kãl, karmas that should have resulted in happiness lead to misery, and karmas that should have resulted in long life lead to death. In this way, when the influence of a strong kãl is prevalent, everything occurs due to kãl. This is mentioned in the shãstras. 6.7 “However, when many people become ekãntik bhaktas of Bhagvãn, then Satya-Yug prevails even in Kali-Yug. In these circumstances, the shãstras describe the strength of the pleasant karmas that result from the ekãntik bhaktas performing bhakti of Bhagvãn, but the strength of kãl is not mentioned. 6.8 “Without understanding this principle, those who believe in the nãstik philosophy describes that only karmas are the cause of everything; but, they do not realise that the principle is in reference to the strength of the karmas of ekãntik bhaktas of Bhagvãn. However, karmas of vimukhs are not said to have such strength. When Bhagvãn takes birth with the wish, ‘During this lifespan, I wish to grant kalyãn to all jeevs, both worthy and unworthy, who come into contact with my murti’, then kãl and karma have no influence whatsoever. At that time, only Bhagvãn’s influence prevails. When Bhagvãn assumed the avatar of Krishna, the evil Putnã tried to poison Bhagvãn; still, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn gave her the same fate as His mother Yashodã. There were other evil demons that came to kill Bhagvãn; but, even they were granted Akshardhãm by Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. Others were also granted kalyãn according to the feelings by which they were associated with Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. Therefore, in those instances, only Bhagvãn’s influence is said to be prevalent, but neither kãl nor karma is said to have any influences. Therefore, a person should interpret situations according to the circumstances in which they occur.”

7.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Mãgshar vad 14 [7th January 1826], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a platform in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 7.2 In the sabhã, the bhaktas were talking about Bhagvãn amongst themselves, when the topic arose that there are two types of people: religious and demonic. Of these, religious people always become bhaktas of Bhagvãn, whereas the demonic will always remain opposed to Bhagvãn. 7.3 Then, Chiman-Rãvji asked a question: “Mahãrãj is there any possibility of a demonic person becoming religious?” 7.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A demonic person most certainly does not become religious. This is because he has a demonic nature from birth. If such a person somehow enters satsang, he still does not lose his demonic nature. Then, when he leaves his physical body after staying in satsang, he is absorbed into brahm and then emerges out again. Only after he does so countless times is his demonic nature destroyed; otherwise, it is not destroyed.” 7.5 Then, Shobhã-Rãm Shãstri asked, “Mahãrãj, what is Bhagvãn’s anvay nature, and what is His vyatirek nature?” 7.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The principle of anvay-vyatirek is not that Bhagvãn has become half anvay within Mãyã and half vyatirek svarup His dhãm. Instead, Bhagvãn’s svarup is such that He is anvay within Mãyã, and at the same time, He is vyatirek. Bhagvãn is not afraid, ‘What if I enter Mãyã and then become impure?’ Instead, when Bhagvãn associates with Mãyã, even Mãyã becomes like Akshardhãm; and if He associates with the twenty-four tattvas, then they also become brahm-rup. Therefore, the Shreemad Bhãgvat states: dhãmnã svena sadã nirasta-kuhakam satyam param dheemahi We perform dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, who destroyed the deception via His own svarup, in the form of the products of Mãyã. This is the supremely satya svarup of Bhagvãn. “In this way, there are countless such statements which describe Bhagvãn’s svarup. 7.7 “For example, there is ãkãsh in the seed of a tree; and when a tree grows from that seed, ãkãsh will still remain within all of its branches, leaves, flowers, and fruits in its anvay form. However, when the tree is cut, ãkãsh is not cut along with it; and when the tree is burnt, ãkãsh is not burnt. In the same way, Bhagvãn is anvay within Mãyã and the entities that have evolved from it; but, He is also vyatirek from it just like ãkãsh. This is the anvay-vyatirek nature of Bhagvãn’s svarup.”

8.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh sud 4 [12th January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a platform in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 8.2 In the sabhã, Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in a meditative posture and thinking. Some of the munis were singing kirtans to the accompaniment of a dukad and sarodã. He gave darshan in this way for a short while. Then, He opened His eyes and said, “Everyone please listen as I wish to speak to you. The vrutti of these eyes is formless; but, if some solid object comes in its way, that vrutti is obstructed. Therefore, that vrutti is actually physical and is composed predominantly of the tattva of pruthvi. When a bhakta of Bhagvãn fixes that vrutti on Bhagvãn’s murti, the vrutti initially appears like a thin yellow rope. Just as a spider stretches its web from one pillar to another, and then sometimes goes to one pillar, then to the other pillar, or sometimes sits between the two pillars, similarly, the jeev is like the spider; Bhagvãn’s murti is one of the pillars, the antah-karans are the other pillar, and the vrutti is the web. Through that vrutti, a meditating yogi sometimes becomes absorbed in Bhagvãn’s murti; at times, he stays within his own antah-karans; and at other times, he stays between his antah-karans and Bhagvãn. 8.3 “While doing this, when the yellow vrutti, which is composed predominantly of the tattva of pruthvi, becomes predominantly jal, it appears to be white; when it becomes predominantly tej, it appears to be red; when it becomes predominantly vãyu, it appears to be green; and when it becomes predominantly ãkãsh, it appears to be dark. Finally, when the vrutti sheds the predominance of the five bhuts and becomes nirgun, it appears to be extremely radiant and assumes the svarup of Bhagvãn. 8.4 “Therefore, a person who tries to maintain his vrutti on Bhagvãn’s svarup in this way should remain perfectly pure. For example, when a person wishes to offer pujã to a dev, the dev accepts the pujã only after the person becomes as pure as the dev. Similarly, a person who keeps his vrutti on Bhagvãn’s svarup should realise his own self to be distinct from the three bodies (sthul, sukshma, and kãran), in accordance with the method prescribed in the Sãnkhya shãstras; and only after attaining ãtmã-nishthã, should he fix his vrutti on Bhagvãn’s svarup. While repeatedly fixing his vrutti in this way, when his vrutti is eventually absorbed into Bhagvãn’s svarup, that state has been defined as sleep for a yogi performing dhyãn; but, a yogi’s sleep is never like the state sushupti.”

9.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh sud 8 [16th January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a platform in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 9.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the munis, “Just as a person can experience the three kinds of mãyik pleasures – rãjas, tãmasi, and sãttvik – in the three mental states, how can he experience the nirgun bliss of Bhagvãn?” 9.3 All the munis conferred amongst themselves in order to answer the question, but they were unable to do so satisfactorily. 9.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Suppose there is ãkãsh alone, without the other four bhuts. Also, suppose that in that ãkãsh there are many moons as there are stars. Then, the intensity of that light would be equal to the intensity of the divine light of Chidãkãsh. The murti of Bhagvãn is always seated at the centre of that Chidãkãsh. 9.5 “When a person attains samãdhi of that form, then even if he experiences it for only a moment, the person who is engaged in worship feels, ‘I have enjoyed the bliss of Bhagvãn in samãdhi for thousands of years’. This is how a person experiences the nirgun bliss of Bhagvãn’s svarup. On the other hand, even if a person indulges in mãyik pleasures for a long time, he feels as if it was just for a moment. Therefore, the nirgun bliss of Bhagvãn is eternal and imperishable, whereas the mãyik pleasures are perishable.”

10.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh sud 11 [19th January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow which had been placed on a wooden bedstead under the neem tree outside the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 10.2 Then, Bhagu-Bhãi Pãtidãr of the village Bhãdran arrived in the sabhã and asked, “Mahãrãj, how can the jeev attain kalyãn?” 10.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Bhagvãn assumes an avatãr on this earth in one of two svarups: the svarup of the king, or in the svarup of a sãdhu. When He assumes an avatãr upon the earth in the svarup of a king, He possesses the thirty-nine characteristics of a king; and when He assumes an avatãr upon the earth in the svarup of a sãdhu, He possesses the thirty characteristics of a sãdhu. 10.4 “When Bhagvãn appears in the svarup a king, He is educated in the sixty-four sciences, arts, and skills of a royal household; the four methods of ruling (reconciling with enemies, suppressing enemies, instigating divisions within enemies, and punishing enemies); as well as the nine types of sentiments and emotions, such as affection, humour, sadness, courage, and tranquillity. However, when Bhagvãn appears in the svarup of a sãdhu, he does not have these characteristics. When Bhagvãn is in the svarup of a king, He may even take to hunting to survive in times of disaster. He may punish thieves by strangling them, and He may also keep many women in His household. However, in the svarup of a sãdhu, Bhagvãn strictly follows a non-violent lifestyle; He would not even pluck a blade of green grass. Also, He would not touch even wooden statues of women or paintings of women. Therefore, the behaviour of Bhagvãn in the svarup of a sãdhu is not the same as that of Bhagvãn in the svarup of a king. 10.5 “The thirty-nine characteristics of Bhagvãn’s avatãrs in the svarup of a king (Shree Krishna and Shree Rãm) are listed in the first skandh of the Shreemad Bhãgvat through the discussion between Pruthvi and Dharma. The thirty characteristics of Bhagvãn’s avatãrs in the svarup of a sãdhu (Dattãtrey and Kapil-Dev) are listed in the eleventh skandh through the discussion between Shree Krishna Bhagvãn and Uddhav. 10.6 “Therefore, a person who desires kalyãn should recognise Bhagvãn through these characteristics and seek refuge of that Bhagvãn. He should have complete faith in Him, and He should perform His bhakti while following His ãgnã. This is the only means of attaining kalyãn. 10.7 “However, when Bhagvãn is not pratyaksha on this earth, a person should seek the refuge of a sant who has the realisation of Bhagvãn – because the jeev can also attain kalyãn through him. When such a sant is not present, He should keep firm faith in Bhagvãn’s murti and perform bhakti while observing svadharma, as this can also grant kalyãn to the jeev.”

11.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh sud Punam [23rd January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a wooden bedstead under the neem tree outside the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. He was also wearing garlands of white flowers around His neck. In addition to this, bunches of flowers were placed above His ears, and tassels of flowers were also hanging from His pãgh. A sabhã of all the munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 11.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “My nature is such that I feel extremely afraid of harming any of the following: Bhagvãn, a bhakta of Bhagvãn, a brãhman, and a person who is humble. Other than these four, I am afraid of no one. This is because even if a person were to harm anyone else, his body would be destroyed; the jeev would not be destroyed. However, if a person harms one of these four, then his jeev is also destroyed.” 11.3 Hearing his, Muktãnand Swãmi questioned, “Mahãrãj, the jeev is said to be indestructible. Then, what should one understand by its ‘destruction’?” 11.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A jeev that attains a jad svarup, such as the body of a mountain, will never attain kalyãn. This should be understood as the ‘destruction’ of that jeev. Therefore, anyone who seeks kalyãn should never harm Bhagvãn, a bhakta of Bhagvãn, a brãhman, and a person who is humble. 11.5 “Also, a person should never keep mãn of any sort before Bhagvãn or His bhakta. This is because mãn is the cause of krodh, matsar, irshyã, and slander. In fact, even the bhakti of a person with mãn is said to be demonic. Moreover, if a person oppresses a bhakta of Bhagvãn, then even if he himself is a bhakta, he should be known to be a demon. My nature is such that I hate even the sight of a person who harms a brãhman, a humble person, or a bhakta of Bhagvãn. Such a person will never attain my company, either in this lok or in other loks.” 11.6 Having spoken in this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked for two kirtans to be sung. The first was ‘Mãrã Harjishu Het Na Dise Re, Tene Gher Shid Jaiye...’ – why should a person even visit the home of a person who has no love for my lord? The second was ‘Mãrã Vahãljishu Vãlap Dise Re, Teno Sang Kem Tajiye...’ – why should a person abandon the company of a person who has love for my lord? Shreeji Mahãrãj then gave an ãgnã that all satsangis should learn these two kirtans, and added, “A person should constantly sing these two kirtans and remember their message.” 11.7 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj got up and sat on a platform in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan. 11.8 Gopãlãnand Swãmi then asked, “Why is it that despite reading the six-shãstras, the Purãns, and other shãstras, the pandits of the world still do not understand the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant as it really is?” 11.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Though such a person reads the shãstras the Purãns, he does not have the refuge of Bhagvãn. Therefore, his jeev has been overpowered by inner enemies, such as kãm, krodh, lobh, irshyã, and matsar. These inner enemies never allow him to even raise his head. As a result, the pandits perceive Bhagvãn and His sant to be just like themselves. They think, ‘Just as the inner enemies of within us are never eradicated, similarly, the same enemies are probably not eradicated from them either’. In this way, they perceive faults in Bhagvãn and His sant. So, even though they read the shãstras and Purãns, they fail to realise the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant as it really is.” 11.10 Next, Shreeji Mahãrãj posed a question to Dinã-Nãth Bhatt and all the munis: “The sat-purush, who is brahm-svarup, behaves above the three bodies and the three mental states. Also, he does not believe any of the actions of the fourteen indriyas to affect him. However, an ignorant person cannot realise this. Only when he attains a sthiti similar to that of the sat-purush does he behave like the sat-purush, and only then does he understand the great sant’s behaviour. So, as long as a person has not realised the greatness of the sat-purush, he does not attain the sthiti of being brahm-svarup. However, without ãtmã-nishthã, a person cannot realise the greatness of the sat-purush. Therefore, there seems to be a paradox. Now, please example how this paradox can be resolved?” 11.11 Everyone attempted to answer to the best of their ability, but no one was able to give a solution to the question. 11.12 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Here, allow me to answer. The answer is that when a person develops intense love for a sant who has realised the avatãr of Bhagvãn on this earth, he then never perceives any kind of avgun in the sat-purush. For example, when someone has strong love for someone, he will never see that person’s avgun, and he will always believe the person’s words. This is natural on the worldly path and it is also natural on the path of kalyãn. Therefore, intense love for the sat-purush is the only means to realising a person’s ãtmã; it is the only means to realising the greatness of the sat-purush; and it is also the only means to having the direct darshan of Bhagvãn.”

12.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh vad 2 [25th January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead with a cylindrical pillow on a wooden platform under the neem tree outside the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was wearing a white khes, and had covered Himself with a white pachhedi, over which He had wrapped a rose-coloured shawl. He had tied a white pãgh around His head and was wearing a garland of roses around His neck. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 12.2 In the sabhã, Shreeji Mahãrãj sat thinking for quite some time. He then opened His eyes and looked compassionately at the sabhã of bhaktas, and said, “Today, I wish to talk to all of you about nishchay in Bhagvãn, so please listen carefully. Shree Purushottam Bhagvãn, whose svarup is forever divya, is seated in Akshardhãm, which is as luminous as countless millions of suns, moons, and flames of fire. That same Bhagvãn assumes the avatãrs of Rãm and Krishna, upon this earth for the sake of granting kalyãn to the jeevs. Then, the jeev that develops firm nishchay in that Bhagvãn by great association with a sant, progresses spiritually day by day, just like the waxing moon on the second day of the bright half of the lunar month. As the sun’s effect on the moon increases, the waxing moon continues increasing. Then, when Punam finally arrives, the moon becomes full. Similarly, before developing total nishchay in Bhagvãn, the jeev is as dim as the new moon of Amãs – only as bright as a glow-worm. Then, as a person develops nishchay coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness, his jeevãtmã progresses and becomes like the full moon of Punam. Then, his indriyas and antah-karans are no longer capable of dislodging him from his nishchay. Regardless of the type of charitras Bhagvãn performs, he does not perceive any fault in Bhagvãn. In addition, a person who has nishchay in Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness becomes a brave bhakta. 12.3 “However, if at some time that same bhakta has doubts in the charitras of Bhagvãn, either by the influence of unpleasant kãl, kriyã, sang, dhyãn, mantra, dikshã, and shãstra, or due to his identification with the body, then his jeev, which was like a full moon of Punam, becomes like the unlit moon of Amãs. Therefore, some minor flaw in a person will not really harm the jeev very much; but, if he somehow doubts the charitras of Bhagvãn, or if he somehow develops a dislike for Bhagvãn, then that jeev instantly falls from the path of kalyãn. Just as when the roots of a tree are cut, the tree automatically becomes dry, similarly, a jeev who perceives avgun in Bhagvãn in any way can never stay without falling from the satsang. 12.4 “Moreover, a person whose nishchay in Bhagvãn is weak, despite being in satsang, still doubts, ‘Who knows whether I will attain kalyãn or not? When I die, will I become a dev? Or will I become a king? Or will I become a ghost?’ A person who does not have absolute nishchay in Bhagvãn has such doubts. However, a person who does have absolute nishchay believes, ‘I have attained kalyãn ever since the day I attained Bhagvãn. In fact, whoever has my darshan or listens to my talks will also be freed from all of his sins and will attain Akshardhãm’. So, maintaining such nishchay coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness, a person should believe himself to be fulfilled. All of you should constantly be aware of this fact.” 12.5 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please sing the following kirtans describing Bhagvãn’s greatness: ‘Dhanya Vrundãvan Vãsi Vat-Ni Chãyã Re Jyã Hari Bestã...’ – glorious are the shades of the banyan trees of Vrundãvan, where the lord often sat’.” Then, the kirtan was sung. 12.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “In the same way as the kirtan, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn has also said in the Shreemad Bhãgvat: aho amee devavarã-marãrchitam pãdãm-bujam te sumanah-falãrhanam naman-tyupãdãya shikhãbhir-ãtmanas-tamo-pahatyai taru-janma yat-krutam These trees – which are worshipped by the chief dev (Indra) and all the other devs – offer fruits and flowers at your holy feet, and bow before you with their hands (their branches and leaves) to remove their darkness of ignorance which caused their birth as trees. “So, even a person who is born as a tree becomes fulfilled by being associated with Bhagvãn. In fact, even the tree under which Bhagvãn has sat should be understood to be entitled to attain Akshardhãm. 12.7 “A person, who does not have such firm nishchay coupled with the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness in his heart, should be known to be impotent – no jeev is ever going to be saved by his words. For example, a king who is impotent, who is about to lose his kingdom, and whose family line is about to end, will still not be able to conceive a son with his wife. In fact, even if he summons other impotent men like himself from his entire kingdom and allows them to associate with his wife, she still will not conceive a son. Similarly, no one attains kalyãn by hearing even shãstras like the Geetã and the Shreemad Bhãgvat from a person who does not have nishchay in Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness. Just as death is certain for whoever drinks sweetened milk into which a snake’s venom has fallen, similarly, no one can ever attain kalyãn by listening to the Geetã or the Shreemad Bhãgvat from a person who does not have nishchay in Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness; only harm can come from it.”

13.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh vad 7 [30th January 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a wooden bedstead under the neem tree outside the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes, and was also wearing garlands of white flowers around His neck. In addition to this, a decorated umbrella with a golden, egg-shaped top-piece had been placed above Him. Shreeji Mahãrãj sat in such a charming way, tossing a pomegranate in His hand. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 13.2 Then, Bhagu-Bhãi Patidãr of Bhadran approached Shreeji Mahãrãj, and asked, “Mahãrãj, how does samãdhi actually occur?” 13.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Bhagvãn assumes an avatãr in Bharat-Khand for the kalyãn of jeevs. When He appears in the svarup of a king, he possesses the thirty-nine characteristics of a king; and when he appears in the svarup of a sãdhu, such as Dattãtrey or Kapil-Dev, he possesses the thirty characteristics of a sãdhu. By appearance, Bhagvãn’s svarup appears similar to that of any human; however, it is an exceptionally divya svarup. For example, a magnetic rock appears similar to all the other rocks on the earth. However, there is an intrinsic magical property in it. When a ship sails past a mountain of magnetic rock, all the iron nails of the ship are drawn towards the magnetic rock. Similarly, when a person does darshan of Bhagvãn’s svarup with shraddhã, be it the svarup of a king or the svarup of a sãdhu, his indriyas are drawn towards Bhagvãn. Then, he attains samãdhi. 13.4 “Upon having the darshan of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, all the residents of Gokul attained samãdhi; and in that samãdhi, Bhagvãn showed them His own dhãm. In this way, whenever there is an avatãr of Bhagvãn, then at that time, Bhagvãn’s svarup definitely possesses certain magical powers. Moreover, all the indriyas of anyone who does darshan of Bhagvãn with shraddhã are drawn towards Bhagvãn, and he instantly enters samãdhi. At the same time, if Bhagvãn wishes to attract many people towards Him, then even people who are not bhaktas, and even animals, attain samãdhi upon seeing Him. So, what is so surprising about this happening to a bhakta of Bhagvãn?” 13.5 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “It is generally said that Brahm pervades everywhere. But, how can something that is pervasive be said to possess a svarup? Also, how can something that possesses a svarup be called pervasive? That is my question.” 13.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Brahm resides in only one place, but not everywhere. That Brahm is Shree Krishna Bhagvãn; He is in all places while still residing in only one place. For example, when a person worships Surya, he grants the person a vision like his own. Then, that person can see as far as Surya’s vision reaches. Also, a person who has attained siddh-dashã can hear people who may be thousands of millions of miles away as if they are speaking next to him. In fact, he is able to pick up an object that may be millions of miles away, even though his arms are the same size as any other human’s. Similarly, when Shree Krishna Bhagvãn wishes to give darshan somewhere, He gives His darshan there while still residing in one place. Even though He has only one svarup, He appears in countless svarups. In fact, if a person who is a yogi has extraordinary powers such as long-distance hearing and long-distance vision, then what is so surprising about Bhagvãn also possessing such powers? 13.7 “So, even though the shãstras describe Bhagvãn as pervasive, He actually possesses a definite svarup. In those shãstras, He is described as pervasive in the sense that using His own powers, He gives His darshan to all while still residing in one place. But, He is not pervasive in the sense of being nirãkãr like ãkãsh. So, in reality, Bhagvãn eternally possesses a svarup. It is that Bhagvãn with a definite svarup, who appears in countless millions of brahmãnds while always residing in Akshardhãm.”

14.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh vad 9 [1st February 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 14.2 Then, Rãm-Chandra Vãghmodiã of Vadodarã asked, “Mahãrãj, why does a person who seems to be an unworthy person still attain samãdhi?” 14.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Everyone believes that a person who disobeys the dharma of his varna and ãshram as prescribed in the shãstras is an ‘unworthy person’. However, if that unworthy person sincerely appreciates the qualities of Bhagvãn and His sant, he earns great rewards. As a result, the sins that he had committed by disobeying the dharma of his varna and ãshram are eradicated, and his jeev becomes extremely pure. Then, when his mind is fixed on Bhagvãn’s svarup, he attains samãdhi. 14.4 “Moreover, when a person abides by the dharma of his varna and ãshram as prescribed in the Dharma-Shãstras, everyone considers that person to be someone who is sincere in his dharma. However, if he criticises Bhagvãn or His sant, then the result of committing the sin of criticising a sat-purush is such that all the rewards earned by abiding to the dharma of his varna and ãshram are burnt to ashes. So, a person who criticises a sat-purush is a worse sinner than a person who has committed the five great sins. This is because he who has committed one of the five great sins can be redeemed of the sin by seeking the refuge of a sat-purush; but there are no means to be redeemed for a person who has criticised a sat-purush. This is because when a person goes to a place of pilgrimage, he is freed of the sins he has committed elsewhere; but the sins committed at a place of pilgrimage are totally irredeemable – it is as if they are etched in iron. 14.5 “Therefore, by seeking the refuge of a sat-purush, regardless of how terrible a sinner a person may be, he becomes extremely pure and attains samãdhi. On the other hand, a person who criticises a sat-purush is still a terrible sinner, regardless of how sincere he may seem to be in abiding by dharma. Moreover, he can never have the darshan of Bhagvãn in his heart. Therefore, whom a vimukh considers to be a sinner is not a sinner, and whom he considers to be sincere in his dharma is not really sincere.”

15.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh vad 11 [3rd February 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a platform under the neem tree in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was wearing a dagli and a survãl made of kinkhãb. A rich, orange shelu with wide, golden edges had been tied around His head, and another orange shelu with very wide, golden edges rested upon His shoulder. In addition to this, a decorated umbrella with a golden, egg-shaped top-piece had been placed above Him. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 15.2 Then, Shobhã-Rãm Shãstri asked a question: “Mahãrãj, there are two types of jeevs: religious and demonic. Have they always been like this since eternity, or have they become like this due to association?” 15.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “In the beginning, during the period of destruction, both types of jeevs, religious and demonic, are absorbed within Mãyã. Then, when the universe is created, both types of jeevs emerge, each with their own nature. There are also ordinary jeevs who become religious or demonic due to association with religious or demonic jeevs. Also, there are some religious and demonic jeevs who gradually develop such a nature due to the karmas they perform. 15.4 “However, the main cause of such religious and demonic natures is the grace or the fury of a sat-purush. For example, Jay and Vijay were pãrshads of Bhagvãn, but since they insulted the religious Sanakãdik, they attained a demonic nature. On the other hand, Prahlãdji was a demon, but since he absorbed the preaching of Nãradji, he was known as a renowned bhakta of Bhagvãn. Therefore, whomever the fury of a sat-purush falls upon, that jeev becomes demonic; and whomever a sat-purush is pleased upon, that jeev becomes religious. There is no other reason for becoming religious or demonic. Therefore, a person who desires to attain kalyãn should by no means criticise Bhagvãn or His bhaktas. Instead, he should do only whatever pleases Bhagvãn and His bhaktas.”

16.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh vad 13 [4th February 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a platform under the neem tree in front of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 16.2 Also sitting in the sabhã was a shãstri from Vadodarã. He said, “Mahãrãj, if you show a miracle to some worldly, renowned man, then its effect will be very beneficial for the development of the satsang.” 16.3 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “I do not get along very well with such worldly, renowned men. After all, they have pride of their power and wealth, whereas I have pride of tyãg and bhakti. Therefore, neither of us is in a position to surrender to the other. Even if I did send some great man into samãdhi, then at most he would give a village or a part of his kingdom, neither of which I have the slightest desire for in my heart. Even if I were to wish for a village or a part of a kingdom for the sake of happiness, still when I close my eyes and think of Bhagvãn’s murti; that bliss cannot be found even in a kingdom consisting of the fourteen loks. 16.4 “Also, if there is as much bliss in ruling a kingdom as there is in worshipping Bhagvãn, then why would great kings, such as Svayambhuv Manu, leave their kingdoms and go into the forests to perform tap? If there is as much bliss in women as there is in worshipping Bhagvãn, then why would King Chitraketu abandon ten million women? 16.5 “Compared to the bliss of worshipping Bhagvãn, the bliss of the fourteen loks is said to be like that of Narak. Therefore, a person whose happiness is based on the bliss of Bhagvãn feels that the pleasures of all the vishays in the entire brahmãnd are like Narak. Even I feel that the bliss of worshipping Bhagvãn is the only real bliss – everything else is full of misery. Therefore, while worshipping Bhagvãn, if I encounter someone who is naturally drawn into satsang, then I encourage him; but there is no type of insistence in my heart. I only insist upon engaging in the worship of Bhagvãn and keeping the company of bhaktas of Bhagvãn. What I have disclosed before you is my inner belief.”

17.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Posh vad Amãs [6th February 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed in the mansion facing the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of sãdhus, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 17.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked a question: “Each of the five gnãn-indriyas and the five karma-indriyas have total knowledge of their respective vishays. Furthermore, both a person with gnãn and a person without gnãn behave in the same way through their indriyas; the indriyas of the person with gnãn do not behave in a different way from those of the person without gnãn. However, the person with gnãn is said to have conquered the indriyas. How can this be so? That is the question.” 17.3 Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “It seems that a person conquers his indriyas when he attains nirvikalp samãdhi.” 17.4 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Even a person who has attained nirvikalp samãdhi indulges in the panch vishays through the indriyas just like everyone else; so, how can he be said to have conquered his indriyas?” 17.5 Muktãnand Swãmi made many attempts to answer the question, but he was unable to give a satisfactory explanation. 17.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The answer is that he realises that there is only misery in the panch-vishays (shabda, sparsh, rup, ras, and gandh). He also realises that there are only kalyãn-kãri qualities in the svarup of Bhagvãn. He even realises that by indulging in worldly vishays, the jeev is condemned to Narak, where he must suffer terrible miseries. Having realised this, he develops an intense hatred towards the panch-vishays. There is no way a person will have love towards something with which he has such hatred. A person who realises this, and then develops an extreme hatred in his mind towards the panch-vishays can be said to have conquered his indriyas. As a result of this, he spends the rest of his life offering bhakti to Bhagvãn by listening to talks of Bhagvãn, singing kirtans, and performing sevã. However, unlike a vimukh, he does not become attached to the panch-vishays. Such a person is known to have conquered his indriyas.” 17.7 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “Suppose there is a tyãgi who has adopted the path of nivrutti. He realises himself to be the ãtmã and does not believe his body to be his true svarup. Also, his physical behaviour is rather unusual and irregular. This man does not have any pride of his varna and ãshram. The way in which he eats, drinks, rises, and sits is all rather unusual – it does not seem to match the norms of society. Such a tyãgi does not stay in anyone’s company; he is like a young, carefree deer, wandering alone in a forest. He cannot be bound by anything in any way. 17.8 “On the other hand, there is another tyãgi who behaves in accordance with the path of pravrutti, despite also having adopted the path nivrutti. When he engages in pravrutti that brings out vicious natures, such as kãm, krodh, lobh, moh, mad, matsar, ãshã, and trushnã, it also causes a disturbance in his heart. So, is it appropriate for such a tyãgi to continue following the path of pravrutti? If he does remain on the path of pravrutti, how could he remain undisturbed? If you say, ‘If he follows the path of pravrutti by Bhagvãn’s ãgnã then he will not become attached to anything’, then a person can argue, ‘If someone drinks bhãng by Bhagvãn’s ãgnã, does that mean he will not become delirious? Of course, he will become delirious’. Then, how can that tyãgi follow the path of pravrutti and not become attached to anything? That is the question.” 17.9 Hearing this, Nityãnand Swãmi and Shuk Muni attempted to give an explanation, but were unable to give an accurate reply. 17.10 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “The tyãgi who abides by nivrutti dharma only and who behaves in an unusual way should be known as a person who has only ãtmã-nishthã. On the other hand, the tyãgi who has adopted nivrutti dharma but also offers bhakti to Bhagvãn should vigilantly adopt the path of pravrutti related to Bhagvãn and His bhaktas while staying within the niyams prescribed by Bhagvãn. In fact, adopting the path of pravrutti in order to serve Bhagvãn and His bhaktas is the very definition of bhakti. 17.11 “The tyãgi who has adopted the path of nivrutti and who has only the virtue of ãtmã-nishthã can never be equal to the tyãgi who has adopted the path of pravrutti. This is because although he is also a tyãgi who has adopted the path of nivrutti, he engages in pravrutti for the purpose of being able to serve Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. Such a person should stay on the path of pravrutti while abiding by the niyams prescribed by Bhagvãn. However, he should never do more than or do less than those niyams. While discarding vicious natures such as kãm, krodh, lobh, moh, mad, matsar, ãshã, and trushnã, he should follow the path of pravrutti for the purpose of serving Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. As a result, he will never become attached to anything. Compared to the tyãgi who has only ãtmã-nishthã, this tyãgi is far superior, and it is he who earns the grace of Bhagvãn.”

18.1 In the Samvat year 1882, after the sandhyã ãrti on Mahã sud 1 [7th February 1826], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed under the dome of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of the paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered on all four sides around Him. 18.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Seeing that you are all senior paramhans, I shall ask you a question: Which facts are essential for a satsangi to understand? If someone were to ask him, or if he were to experience a doubt in his own mind, then without knowing these facts, how would he be able to find the solution?” 18.3 Having asked the question, Mahãrãj Himself continued, “I shall answer the question myself. Firstly, a person should realise that our sampradãy is the Uddhav Sampradãy, and therefore, a person should know its customs. 18.4 “Secondly, a person should know the line of succession of our gurus. He should know that Rãmãnand Swãmi was the avatãr of Uddhav himself; and in a dream, that same Rãmãnand Swãmi was initiated into the Vaishnav sect by Rãmãnuj-Ãchãrya in Shreerang-Kshetra. So, Rãmãnand Swãmi’s guru was Rãmãnuj-Ãchãrya, and I am Rãmãnand Swãmi’s shishya. A person should understand the succession of gurus in this way. In addition, he should understand the tradition of the Dharma-Kul that I have established. 18.5 “Thirdly, a person should know the authoritative shãstras of our sampradãy, the names of which are: Ved, Vyãs Sutra, Shreemad Bhãgvat Purãn, Vishnu-Sahasranãm from the Mahãbhãrat, Bhagvad Geetã, Vidur-Niti, Vãsudev Mahãtmya from the Vishnu-Khand of the Skand Purãn, and Yãgnavalkya Smruti. A person should know these eight shãstras. 18.6 “Fourthly, a person should know all the niyams which are prescribed for all satsangis. 18.7 “Fifthly, a person should understand Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, our ishta-dev, and also the variety of the svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn due to varying locations, followers, and actions. 18.8 “In addition, the pratyaksha and the non-pratyaksha svarups of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn should be understood. He is non-pratyaksha in the sense that Shree Krishna Bhagvãn resides in Akshardhãm in the midst of Golok, which is beyond the darkness of Mãyã. He has two arms and is as luminous as millions and millions of suns, while He has a dark complexion. Rãdhikãji and Lakshmiji are beside Him, and He is served by pãrshads, such as Nand, Sunand, and Shreedãmã. He is the cause of creation, sustenance, and destruction of countless millions of brahmãnds. He reigns as the supreme ruler of everything. This Bhagvãn sometimes assumes a svarup with four arms; sometimes, He assumes a svarup with eight arms; and He may even assume a svarup with a thousand arms. He also assumes all the svarups of the four avatãrs (Vãsudev, Sankarshan, Aniruddha, and Pradyumna); as well as the twenty-four avatãrs. He also takes birth through avatãrs such as Varãh, Nrusinh, Vãman, Kapil-Dev, and Hayagriv, while He actually always possesses two arms. It is this same svarup that has been described in the Upanishads, the Sãnkhya shãstras, the Yog shãstras, and the Panch-Rãtra. This is how Bhagvãn’s svarup is described as being non-pratyaksha. 18.9 “Furthermore, of all the ãchãryas that have lived, Vyãsji is the greatest. Even Shankar-Ãchãrya cannot be said to be like Vyãsji. In fact, nor can Rãmãnuj-Ãchãrya, nor can Mãdhvã-Ãchãrya, nor can Nimbãrk, nor can Vishnu Swãmi, and nor can Vallabh-Ãchãrya. This is because those ãchãryas will only be accepted as respected in the world if they accept the greatness of Vyãsji’s words; but not otherwise. However, Vyãsji does not need to rely upon anyone else to be respected. This is because Vyãsji is the ãchãrya of the Veds and is Himself an avatãr of Bhagvãn. Therefore, we should abide by Vyãsji’s teachings only. 18.10 “That same Vyãsji, for the kalyãn of the jeevs, separated the Veds into four parts, wrote the seventeen Purãns, and the Mahãbhãrat. Still, he felt in his mind, ‘I have not been able to carefully explain the methods for the kalyãn of the jeevs’. As a result, he did not feel satisfied in his mind. So, he wrote the Shreemad Bhãgvat Purãn, which is the essence of all the Veds, the Purãns, the historical shãstras, the Panch-Rãtra, the Yog shãstras, and the Sãnkhya shãstras. In that Shreemad Bhãgvat, He has described Shree Krishna Bhagvãn as greater than all the other avatãrs, and that all the avatãrs originate from that same Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. 18.11 “In the Gun-Vibhãg chapter of the Shreemad Bhãgvat, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn says to Uddhav, ‘I am nirgun, and whoever comes into my contact also becomes nirgun’. That is why all those who came into my contact with Shree Krishna Bhagvãn – with whichever feeling – also became nirgun, regardless of whether it was a feeling of lust, hatred, fear, friendship, or love. Therefore, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn Himself is nirgun. This is how Vyãsji has described Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. Also, Vyãsji has established the following principle: ‘Shree Krishna Bhagvãn Himself is the Bhagvãn who assumes all the avatãrs, and all other avatãrs are also Him’. If Shree Krishna Bhagvãn is described as being merely the embodiment of pure sattva-gun instead of being described as nirgun, then a person has not grasped the context of the Shreemad Bhãgvat and it results in a major misunderstanding. After all, the gopis did not realise Shree Krishna Bhagvãn to be Bhagvãn; their feeling of lust for Shree Krishna Bhagvãn was their method of worship of Him. However, they still became nirgun. Then, how can Shree Krishna Bhagvãn be described as being merely the embodiment of pure sattva-gun? Therefore, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn is definitely nirgun. In addition, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn Himself has said to Arjun: janma karma cha me divyam-evam yo vetti tattvataha tyaktvã deham punar-janma naiti mãm-eti sorjuna He who thoroughly realises my birth and actions to be divya will not take another birth when he leaves his body. Instead, he will attain me. 18.12 “At the time of His birth, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn showed Vãsudev and Devki His svarup with four arms so that they would realise Him to be Bhagvãn. He also showed Brahmã many svarups with four arms; He showed Akrur the svarup of Shesh-Shãyi Nãrãyan; and He showed Himself in the Vishvarup form to Arjun. In this way, it is acceptable to make distinctions in the types of worship of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn due to differences in His svarups. However, this true svarup is different. 18.13 “In Vraj, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn was known as Bãl-Mukund; He was also called Murli-Manohar, and Rãdhã-Krishna; He used to take the cows and calves for grazing; He lifted Mount Govardhan; He played rãs with the gopis; He went to Mathurã and killed Kans; He pleased the Yãdavs; He studied at the home of the brãhman named Sãndipani; He associated with Kubjã; He stayed in Dvãrkã, where He married eight queens, such as Rukmani; He also wedded sixteen thousand women; while staying in Hastinãpur, He protected the Pãndavs from all the calamities which fell upon them; He saved Draupadi from humiliation; and He became Arjun’s charioteer. In this way, there were many leelãs of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn due to differences in locations. However, from this, a person should not make distinctions in the types of worship of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn’s two-armed svarup. A person who does, should be known as a blasphemer of the guru and the guru’s word. 18.14 “In fact, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn has behaved in many different ways. He has eaten the leftovers of the cow-herds and has even played rãs with the gopis. However, the bhaktas of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn should not imitate His behaviour. Instead, they should behave according to the characteristics of a sãdhu and abide by the dharma of their varna and ãshram. They should offer bhakti to Him as prescribed by Shree Krishna Bhagvãn in the eleventh skandh of the Shreemad Bhãgvat, the Bhagvad Geetã, and the Vãsudev Mahãtmya. However, they should behave as Shree Krishna Bhagvãn behaved. A person who does behave as Shree Krishna Bhagvãn behaved is a vimukh, and is not my satsangi. 18.15 “Just as a person should not imitate the behaviour of our ishta-dev Shree Krishna Bhagvãn, similarly, as I am your ãchãrya, your guru, and your adviser, you should not imitate my physical behaviour. Instead, all of you should behave according to my ãgnãs that I have prescribed for those in my sampradãy; but no one should imitate my behaviour. 18.16 “All paramhans and all satsangis should learn these facts which I have told you. After understanding them, all should behave accordingly. Also, when speaking with others, you should tell them to behave similarly.” 18.17 Having said this, Shreeji Mahãrãj left for dinner. Upon hearing this talk, all the sãdhus and satsangis understood that the non-pratyaksha svarup of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn whom Shreeji Mahãrãj spoke of is none other than this Shreeji Mahãrãj, son of Bhakti and Dharma, and that no one is greater than Him. It is only He who is our ishta-dev, and it is only He who is our guru.

19.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on the evening of Mahã sud 2 [8th February 1826], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed in the eastern rup-choki of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 19.2 Then, after the sandhyã ãrti had finished, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please listen, I wish to speak to all of you about Bhagvãn. Whenever a jeev attains a human body in Bharat-Khand, Bhagvãn’s avatãrs or Bhagvãn’s sãdhus will certainly also be present on earth at that time. If that jeev can recognise them, then he becomes a bhakta of Bhagvãn. 19.3 “Once he has become a bhakta of Bhagvãn, it would be improper for him to have love for anything except Bhagvãn. This is because, compared to the bliss of the dhãm of Bhagvãn, the pleasures of worldly vishays are like faeces. Only worms that live in the faeces feel that there is profound bliss – a human would realise faeces to be nothing but utter misery. Therefore, a person who has recognised Bhagvãn becomes a pãrshad of Bhagvãn. Then, he should not cease to be an attendant of Bhagvãn by desiring to enjoy the pleasures of worldly vishays like worms in faeces. 19.4 “Also, whatever a bhakta of Bhagvãn wishes for comes true. Therefore, he is extremely careless when he desires any object other than Bhagvãn out of ignorance. That is why a bhakta of Bhagvãn should consider the pleasures and delights of the fourteen loks to be like the faeces of a cow. He should have strong love only towards Bhagvãn and His bhakta, by thought, word, and deed. He should believe, ‘If a bhakta of Bhagvãn has some desires remaining in him other than those of Bhagvãn, he will still attain the status of Indra or will attain Brahm-Lok. However, unlike worldly people, he will certainly not pass through the cycle of births and deaths or go to Narak. If that is so, then how can a person describe the greatness of Bhagvãn and the bliss enjoyed by a true bhakta of Bhagvãn?’ Therefore, a bhakta of Bhagvãn should maintain deep love only for Bhagvãn.”

20.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Mahã sud 3 [10th February 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a square platform under the neem tree in the darbãr of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of chameli flowers were hanging around His neck. In addition to this, a red umbrella made from fine, silken cloth had been placed above Him. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. 20.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the paramhans a question: “Kãm evolves from rajo-gun, and krodh and lobh evolve from tamo-gun. So, which one spiritual activity totally uproots the seeds of kãm, krodh, and lobh? 20.3 Shuk Muni replied, “The seeds of these vicious natures are burnt from a person’s heart only when he attains nirvikalp samãdhi and when he sees the ãtmã.” 20.4 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj raised a doubt: “Did not Shiv, Brahmã, Shrungi Rushi, Parãshar, and Nãrad have nirvikalp samãdhi? All were overcome by kãm. However, despite their attainment of nirvikalp samãdhi, when the vruttis of their indriyas reverted outwards, they were overcome by the vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh. For this reason, what you have said cannot be the answer to the question. In fact, just as a person with gnãn remains undisturbed in nirvikalp samãdhi, a person without gnãn also remains undisturbed in sushupti. When the vruttis of the indriyas revert outwards, both are disturbed by kãm and krodh. Therefore, there does not seem to be any distinction between the person with gnãn and the person without gnãn. Now, other paramhans may try to answer the question.” 20.5 Then, Gopãlãnand Swãmi, Devãnand Swãmi, Nityãnand Swãmi, and Muktãnand Swãmi collectively attempted to answer the question according to their understanding, but they could not give a precise response to Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question. 20.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Janak Rãjã followed the path of pravrutti, and yet he was undisturbed. For example, when a female tyãgi named Sulbhã came into Janak Raja’s court, He told Sulbhã, ‘Though you are trying to seduce my mind, by the grace of my guru Panch-Shikh Rushi, I have mastered the shãstras of both Sãnkhya and Yog. So, even if half of my body is smeared with sandalwood paste and the other half is slashed with a sword, both would be the same to me. Even if my Mithilã were to burn down, still nothing of mine would be burned. Therefore, even though I have adopted the path of pravrutti, I am still unaffected and undisturbed’. This is what Janak Rãjã said to Sulbhã. Also, Janak Rãjã was said to be the guru of Shukji. 20.7 “Therefore, the answer to the question is as follows: A person’s indriyas may be directed outwards and he may be on the path of pravrutti, but if he has a firm understanding in his heart, like that of Janak Rãjã , then he will in no way become disturbed by vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh. 20.8 “After a person has thoroughly known that which needs to be known – this is true and this is false – he realises that except Bhagvãn’s svarup, all worldly objects are full of terrible miseries, and that they are all perishable. Also, he realises himself to be the ãtmã, distinct from his body, his indriyas, and his antah-karans. After this, there is no object that would be strong enough to seduce him. This is because he sees all worldly objects as worthless. So, even if all the indriyas of a person in whose heart such understanding has become firmly rooted were to extend outwards on the path of pravrutti, still he would not be disturbed by vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh. 20.9 “The seeds of vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh, in the heart of such a bhakta of Bhagvãn will be destroyed, whether he is a tyãgi or a grahastha. Also, of all the bhaktas of Bhagvãn, he is the best Vaishnavs. So, being a tyãgi or a grahastha is of no significance. Instead, a person whose understanding is greater should be known as being a greater bhakta than the rest. 20.10 “The mistake of those like Shiv and Brahmã were mentioned only to illustrate that when they encountered unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang, even they were disturbed by vicious natures, regardless of whether they had deficiencies in their understanding or not. Therefore, even if a person has this understanding, he should never associate with any type of evil influence. This is the universal principle.”