6.1 In the Samvat year 1878, on Shrãvan sud 8 [6th August 1821], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Swãmi was sitting on a square platform in front of the mandir of Shree Vãsudev-Nãrãyan in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him. Some of the paramhans were singing kirtans to the accompaniment of a mrudang.
6.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please stop the singing and lets us now talk about Bhagvãn.”
6.3 Then, all the munis sat with their hands folded. Shreeji Mahãrãj then continued, “In this world, there are many people who are like nãstiks. They believe, ‘Water from the Gangã and other water seems the same; shãligrãms and other stones seem the same; tulsi and other trees seem the same; a brãhman and a shudra seem equal; food which is the prasãd of Bhagvãn and other food seems the same; to do upvãs on the day of Ekãdashi and to go hungry on any other day seems the same; and a sãdhu and a non-sãdhu also seem the same. Despite this, why have those great men made distinctions in the form of vidhi and nishedh in the shãstras?’ This is what is said by people with evil minds. That is why I put this question to all of you sãdhus: Are those distinctions, in the form of vidhi and nishedh prescribed in the shãstras by great men, genuine or fictional? May the junior paramhans answer this question.”
6.4 The junior paramhans replied, “The distinctions in the form of vidhi and nishedh are indeed genuine. If this were not so, how could there be a distinction as to who deserves to attain Svarg-Lok and who deserves to attain Narak?”
6.5 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj commented, “They are young, but they understand well.” Shreeji Mahãrãj then elaborated upon the answer Himself. “Whatever the great men of the past have prescribed in the shãstras is genuine. Take the example of a wealthy businessman. If he writes a cheque to pay some other merchant, then although it seems that the piece of paper is not worth even a single rupee, it is indeed money. Only when the merchant cashes the cheque the businessman had signed, does the merchant subsequently receive a large sum of money from that very same cheque. Similarly, although at the time there may not seem to be any benefit in following the vidhi and nishedh, a person who does follow dharma by the ãgnã of a great sant, ultimately attains kalyãn – just as a person receives cash from cheques.
6.6 “Moreover, a person who does not trust a cheque signed by a wealthy businessman should be known to be a fool – because he does not realise the wealth of that businessman. Similarly, a person who does not trust the words of great bhaktas, such as Nãrad, the Sanakãdik, Vyãs, and Vãlmik, should be known as a nãstik and a great sinner.
6.7 “Furthermore, a person who has such a nãstik attitude believes, ‘What is the difference between Bhagvãn’s murti and other stones? All stones are one and the same. What is the difference between a married woman and an unmarried woman? All women are equal. What is the difference between a person’s wife, mother, or sister? After all, they all look alike. In fact, even all the avatãrs of Bhagvãn, such as Rãm and Krishna, look like humans. Surely, the concept of them being greater or lesser has been created by man’s imagination. But, what can we do? We have to live with such people, so we have to agree with whatever they say. Nevertheless, the vidhi and nishedh prescribed by the shãstras are definitely nonsense’. This is the understanding that sinners such as the nãstiks have in their minds. If a person hears such words from someone, then the listener should be known as a sinner and a nãstik; and realising him to be an outcast, he should by no means keep his company.”
6.8 Shreeji Mahãrãj then began another topic. He said, “The chitt of all people is like honey, or like water saturated with sugar. For example, if a fly or an ant were to fall into that honey or water saturated with sugar, it would become stuck in it. Even if a person were to touch the honey or saturated water, it would stick to the person’s finger as well. The nature of the chitt is similar to this; it sticks to whatever object it recalls. In fact, the chitt even attaches itself to things that are utterly insignificant, such as stones, or rubbish, or dog excrement – things in which there is not even the slightest pleasure. If it recalls such useless things, it will then also think about them. This is its sticky nature.
6.9 “Furthermore, just as the reflection of a great sãdhu will be seen in a large, glass mirror if he stands before it, the reflection of a dog, a donkey, or an outcaste will also be seen if they stand before it. Similarly, the chitt is extremely pure; it can visualise whichever object it recalls, regardless of whether it is appealing or not. Therefore, a mumukshu should not think, ‘As I do not possess vairãgya, objects such as women and other attractive vishays develop in my chitt’. In actual fact, objects develop naturally even in the chitt of a person who does possess vairãgya. Therefore, vairãgya or the lack of it is not the reason behind this. Instead, the nature of the chitt is such that whatever it recalls; whether it is good or bad, the chitt thinks about. When it thinks about an object, it appears just as it would appear in mirror. That is why a person should realise, ‘I am distinct from the chitt. I am the ãtmã, the observer of the chitt’. Realising this, he should not become frustrated by the pure and impure thoughts arising in the chitt. Instead, he should realise himself to be distinct from his chitt, engage in the worship of Bhagvãn, and always remain joyful.”
End of Vachanãmrut Gadhadã II || 6 || 139 ||