17.1 In the Samvat year 1878, on the night of Ãso vad 11 [21st October 1821], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a sinhãsan on the veranda outside the rooms near the mandir of Shree Vãsudev-Nãrãyan in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Two torches were lit in front of Him. While kirtans were being sung, a sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
17.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please stop the kirtans now, and let us begin a question-answer discussion.”
17.3 Then, all the munis replied, “Very well, Mahãrãj.”
17.4 Shreeji Mahãrãj then raised a question: “Some bhaktas understand the svarup of Bhagvãn as being composed of the twenty-four tattvas of Mãyã, while some understand it as being composed purely of chaitanya and free of mãyik elements. Of these two types of bhaktas, whose understanding is correct, and whose understanding is incorrect?”
17.5 Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “The understanding of a person who considers Bhagvãn’s svarup as being composed of the twenty-four mãyik elements is incorrect. The understanding of a person who considers Bhagvãn’s svarup as being composed purely of chaitanya, and free of mãyik tattvas, is correct.”
17.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “Followers of the Sãnkhya philosophy claim that there are twenty-four tattvas. According to that philosophy, there are twenty-three tattvas, and the twenty-fourth is kshetragna – in the form of jeev and ishvar – which is composed of chaitanya. The twenty-four tattva have been described in this way. This is because kshetra and kshetragna have a mutual dependence on each other. Without kshetragna, kshetra cannot be described, and without kshetra, kshetragna cannot be described. For this reason, jeev and ishvar have been included with the elements, while Bhagvãn has been described as the refuge of both kshetra and kshetragna. In this case, how can the mãyik tattvas be described as being distinct from Bhagvãn? For example, four tattvas reside within ãkãsh, yet ãkãsh is unaffected by any of their flaws. In the same way, not a single flaw of the mãyik tattvas influences the svarup of Bhagvãn. So, what is the inconsistency in believing that Bhagvãn’s svarup is composed of the twenty-four tattvas? Does claiming ‘Bhagvãn’s svarup is not composed of the tattvas’ prevent inconsistencies? This is how I understand it.”
17.7 Then, Dinã-Nãth Bhatt asked, “Should a person who wishes to perform dhyãn on Bhagvãn’s svarup understand it as being composed of the tattvas or understand it as not being composed of the tattvas?”
17.8 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A person who understands Bhagvãn’s svarup as being composed of the tattvas, is a sinner; and a person who understands Bhagvãn’s svarup as not being composed of the tattvas is also a sinner. Those who are bhaktas of Bhagvãn do not at all like to senselessly quibble over whether or not Bhagvãn’s svarup is composed of the tattvas. A bhaktas realises, ‘Bhagvãn is Bhagvãn. There is no scope for dividing or discarding any part of Him. That very Bhagvãn is the ãtmã of countless brahmãnds’. A person who has no doubts at all regarding the nature of Bhagvãn should be known to have attained the nirvikalp state. A person with such stable understanding should be known as ‘sthitapragna’. Moreover, Bhagvãn redeems all the sins of a person who has such stable understanding regarding Bhagvãn.
17.9 “In the Bhagvad Geetã, Bhagvãn has said to Arjun,
17.10 “In fact, it is a usual custom in this world that an intelligent person will not notice a fault in someone who serves his major self-interests. For example, to serve her self-interest, a woman will not notice any faults in her husband. This also applies to other grahasthas who do not notice the faults in their relatives, if they have intense self-interest in them. In the same way, if a person realises that Bhagvãn serves his own self-interest – Bhagvãn relieves His bhaktas of their sins and ignorance and grants them kalyãn – then he will never perceive avgun in Bhagvãn in any way.
17.11 “For example, when Shukji narrated the rãs-leelã, Parikshit Rãjã raised the following doubt: ‘Why did Bhagvãn associate with other women?’ However, Shukji did not have the slightest doubt. Even the gopis, with whom Bhagvãn engaged in romantic actions, did not doubt by thinking, ‘If He is Bhagvãn, why does He behave like this?’ They did not have any such doubts. Moreover, when Bhagvãn went to the home of Kubjã, He took Uddhavji along with Him, yet Uddhavji did not have any doubts at all. Also, when Uddhavji was sent to Vraj, he still did not have any doubts on hearing the words of the gopis. Instead, he greatly realised the greatness of the gopis.
17.12 “Therefore, the understanding of a person who has developed an unwavering refuge of Bhagvãn will not become distorted, regardless of whether he is very educated in the shãstras, or he is naïve. Also, the greatness of a loyal bhakta of Bhagvãn can only be realised by a person who is a bhakta of Bhagvãn. Regardless of whether a person is educated in the shãstras or is naïve, only a person with a firm understanding of Bhagvãn realises the greatness of a bhakta of Bhagvãn, and only he recognises a bhakta possessing a firm understanding. On the other hand, vimukhs in the world, regardless of whether they are pandits or fools, are unable to develop such firm understanding of Bhagvãn. Moreover, they do not recognise a bhakta possessing a firm understanding, and nor do they realise the greatness of a bhakta of Bhagvãn. Therefore, only a bhakta of Bhagvãn can recognise another bhakta of Bhagvãn, and only he can realise his greatness. For example, Uddhavji realised the profound greatness of the gopis. Likewise, the gopis realised the greatness of Uddhavji.
17.13 “Although Purushottam Bhagvãn is the kshetragna of all kshetragnas, He is still not subject to change. Moreover, the disturbances of objects that cause disturbances – such as Mãyã – do not influence Purushottam Bhagvãn. In fact, if the disturbances of sthul, sukshma, and kãran do not influence a person who has realised the ãtmã, what can be said about them not influencing Purushottam Bhagvãn? Therefore, Bhagvãn is certainly not subject to change; He is absolutely unaffected.
17.14 “A bhakta of Bhagvãn who understands Bhagvãn’s svarup in this way should be known to be ‘sthitapragna’. Just as a person who has realised his ãtmã is called ‘sthitapragna’, a bhakta of Bhagvãn who has no doubts at all regarding the svarup of Bhagvãn, and glorifies His strengths, is also called ‘sthitapragna’. He also glorifies those charitras of Bhagvãn that appear to be inappropriate, in exactly the same way that he glorifies charitras that are appropriate – without having any doubts about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of those charitras. Such a bhakta should be known as being ‘sthitapragna’ with regards to the nature of Purushottam. A person who has developed such a firm belief of the nature of Purushottam has nothing more left to understand.”
End of Vachanãmrut Gadhadã II || 17 || 150 ||