21.1 In the Samvat year 1884, on Bhãdarvã sud 9 [31st August 1827], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a decorated bedstead outside the west-facing rooms of Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes, and garlands of chameli flowers were hanging around His neck. A sabhã of the entire muni-mandal, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
21.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj requested Gopãlãnand Swãmi and Shuk Muni to begin a question-answer discussion.
21.3 Then, Shuk Muni asked Gopãlãnand Swãmi, “It is through offering bhakti to Bhagvãn that the jeev crosses Bhagvãn’s Mãyã and attains Akshardhãm. Through dharma, it attains Dev-Lok; but once the rewards it has accumulated are exhausted, the jeev falls from Dev-Lok. Now, whenever there is a decline in dharma, Bhagvãn assumes an avatãr for the purpose of restoring bhakti. However, it appears that whatever can be attained through bhakti cannot be attained through dharma. Therefore, how can the level of dharma be elevated to the status of bhakti? That is the question.”
21.4 Gopãlãnand Swãmi began to answer that question. In whatever he said, dharma became a component of bhakti, but in no way could he elevate the level of dharma to the status of bhakti.
21.5 On hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj laughed a great deal, and commented, “To answer that question is difficult indeed. Therefore, allow me to answer it.” He then explained, “Dharma is of two types: One is nivrutti dharma and the other is pravrutti dharma. In turn, these two types of dharma can either be related to Bhagvãn or not to Bhagvãn. Of these two, the type of dharma that is related to Bhagvãn is the one that was adopted by Nãrad, the Sanakãdik, Shukji, Dhruv, Prahlãd, and Ambrish. It is this dharma that is known as bhãgvat dharma or ekãntik dharma. In fact, this type of dharma is not different from bhakti; they are both one. The type of dharma that avatãrs of Bhagvãn come to establish is this very same dharma. On the other hand, the dharma of a person’s varna and ãshram alone is extremely inferior compared to bhãgvat dharma, because it is through bhãgvat dharma that the jeev crosses Bhagvãn’s Mãyã and attains the dhãm of Purushottam. Therefore, the status of bhãgvat dharma and bhakti is the same, and the rewards of both are exactly the same as well; so, the greatness of bhakti and dharma are the same. In comparison, the dharma of a person’s varna and ãshram on its own is extremely weak, and its rewards are temporary.”
21.6 Shreeji Mahãrãj then continued, “In my opinion, even if I try to develop affection for anyone other than Bhagvãn and His ekãntik bhaktas, I cannot do so. I also feel that my strength is similar to that of Jadbharat, Shukdevji, Dattãtrey, and Rushabh-Dev Bhagvãn. As a result, I also prefer to stay only in forests, mountains, and jungles; I do not like to stay in large towns or cities. This is my inherent nature. Despite this, I stay in the midst of thousands of people for the sake of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. However, I remain just as detached here as I would if I were living in the forests. I do not stay amidst thousands of people out of any self-interest; it is for the sake of Bhagvãn and His bhaktas that I stay in the midst of people. No matter how much pravrutti I may have to engage myself in for the sake of the bhaktas of Bhagvãn, I still consider it to be nivrutti.
21.7 “Moreover, I do not see the flaws of a bhakta of Bhagvãn, however much at fault he may be. I believe that even if there are some intrinsic, minor flaws in a bhakta of Bhagvãn, a person should overlook them. However, if those flaws are in himself, then he should make an effort to eradicate them. Also, if that type of flaw appears in a bhakta of Bhagvãn, he should not take note of that flaw. A person should perceive flaws in a bhakta only if he were to lapse in his observance of some major vartmãn, but not on account of some other minor flaw.
21.8 “A person should also not be pleased by defeating a bhakta of Bhagvãn in arguments. Instead, he should derive pleasure in deliberately losing to him. A person who does engage in an argument and defeats a bhakta of Bhagvãn is a sinner worse than someone who has committed the five great sins.
21.9 “In addition, I do not like even the sight of a person who speaks unkindly of a bhakta of Bhagvãn before me. In fact, I do not enjoy food or water offered by a person who perceives flaws in a bhakta of Bhagvãn. If he does do so, then even if he happens to be my relative, I still develop an intense dislike for him. This is because in reality, we are the ãtmã; so, why should we keep affection for our body and the relatives of the body? We have developed affection for Bhagvãn and His bhaktas believing ourselves to be an ãtmã, not out of the belief that we are the body.
21.10 “The inner enemies, such as kãm, krodh, lobh, moh, will certainly distress a person who is unable to behave as the ãtmã. Therefore, if a person offers bhakti without attaining ãtmã-nishthã, his true nature is sure to be exposed in this satsang. This is because this satsang is alokik, and all these satsangis are exactly like Bhagvãn’s pãrshads residing in Shvet-Dvip, Vaikunth, and Golok. I take oath on Bhagvãn and His bhaktas that I realise these satsangis to be the same as the pãrshads of Bhagvãn residing in the divya Akshardhãm.
21.11 “However, a person whose gnãn, vairãgya, dharma, and bhakti are not extremely firm will most certainly fall back in satsang. For example, a thread dipped in wax remains stiff in winter and monsoon, but when summer comes, it becomes loose. In the same way, monsoon and winter represent the period when the bhaktas here are happy in every way and are also honoured in satsang. During that period, gnãn, vairãgya, dharma, and bhakti appear to be very intense. However, with the arrival of summer – the period when a bhakta is insulted in satsang or when he becomes physically distressed – his gnãn, vairãgya, dharma, and bhakti become loose like the thread dipped in wax. Even then, I do not abandon such a person. However, he becomes obliged to leave satsang of his own accord. Then, even if he is supposedly a satsangi, he does not experience the bliss of satsang within.
21.12 “For this reason, a person should practise satsang with intense firmness after attaining ãtmã-nishthã; he should not practise satsang in such a way that affection for his body and his relatives persists. To continue the analogy, a thread of gold remains the same in all six seasons; it does not become loose even during the heat of summer. Similarly, when a person’s satsang is firm, regardless of the amount of misery that he may encounter, and however many times he is insulted in satsang, his mind never turns away from satsang. Only such loyal satsangi Vaishnavs are my relatives; and I wish to stay in Krishna Bhagvãn’s dhãm. This is my decision, and all of you should also make the same decision.
21.13 “I say this because as you have all become my ãshrit, I should tell you that which is beneficial to you. After all, a true friend is a person who tells us that which benefits us, even if it may appear to be hurtful. Please realise this as the characteristic of a true friend.”
End of Vachanãmrut Gadhadã || 21 || 255 ||