17.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar vad Amãs [4th January 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He had tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. He was also wearing a warm, red dagli with a white angarkhu inside. He was also wearing a white khes. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a chofãl, over which He had wrapped a yellow rajãi. Shreeji Mahãrãj was in a pleasant mood. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
17.2 Then, of His own will, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “See how powerful the force of Bhagvãn’s mãyã is! It can cause great wickedness. Someone who previously seemed very good, can suddenly become extremely evil.”
17.3 So saying, Shreeji Mahãrãj urged the paramhans, “Ask questions today, so that we can talk.”
17.4 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, the very same person who was previously good and who prays to Bhagvãn, later begins to criticise Him. How can a good person remain good and never let his understanding become impaired, amidst even the most unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang?”
17.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “If a person is indifferent to his body, has firm ãtmã-nishthã, maintains vairãgya towards the panch-vishays, and has absolute nishchay in Bhagvãn coupled with the knowledge of His greatness, then his mind will never become distorted – even amidst the most unpleasant circumstances imaginable. On the other hand, a person who believes himself to be the body, and does not have an intense hatred for the panch-vishays, would spite a sãdhu if he were to criticise the vishays, even though the sãdhu may be senior. Such a person would ultimately spite Bhagvãn as well. Furthermore, if someone has firm nishchay in Bhagvãn, but lacks an extreme hatred towards the vishays and is still attracted to them, then even if a person like Muktãnand Swãmi were to criticise those objects, he would go as far as to cut off the person’s head with a sword in order to harm that person.”
17.6 “Nityãnand Swãmi then asked, “Someone may identify himself with the body and may be attracted to the panch-vishays; yet he seems to survive in satsang. How can this be explained?”
17.7 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “He survives in satsang only as long as he is not confronted by an unpleasant situation. If a great sãdhu or Bhagvãn were to criticise his mãn, svãd, lobh, kãm, krodh, or his belief that he is the body, then he would surely develop a dislike for the sãdhu. Then, he would certainly insult the sãdhu, and therefore fall from satsang. For example, whoever has drank sweetened milk that has been poisoned by the venom of a snake, even though he may be living at present, is sure to die – within half an hour, in the morning or in the evening, today or tomorrow; eventually, he will die. In the same way, he who identifies himself with the body, will definitely dislike the sãdhu, and will eventually fall from satsang – either after one month or after two months; after one year or after two years or even after ten years; or maybe at the time of death or even after death – but he will certainly fall.
17.8 “In comparison, there is a person who does not identify himself with the body and believes, ‘I am the ãtmã, due to which this body functions; I am sachidãnand; I enlighten the indriyas and antah-karans. I am not a person who becomes happy by possessing wealth and women; nor am I a person who is saddened by not possessing them’. Such a person never dislikes a sãdhu, no matter how strongly the sãdhu criticises the panch-vishays or the belief that he is the body. Furthermore, he would never quarrel with the sãdhu over insignificant issues, and nor would he hold a grudge against him.”
17.9 Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked again, “How can a person recognise someone who has a hatred for the panch-vishays?”
17.10 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “A person with a hatred for the panch-vishays can be recognised by the following characteristics: When he receives luxurious food, he would eat it, but he would not enjoy it as much as he would enjoy eating simple food. In fact, he would be troubled by it. Also, he would become upset wearing fine clothes; he would not enjoy them as much as he would enjoy wearing tattered, coarse clothes. In fact, his mind becomes troubled by fine clothes. If he were to receive a luxurious bed, or if someone were to honour him, or if he were to receive any sort of pleasant object, his mind would become troubled by it; in no way would he be pleased by it. On seeing such a person, a person should realise, ‘He has a hatred for the vishays’.”
17.11 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked another question, “Mahãrãj, how can a hatred for the panch-vishays be developed?”
17.12 Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “The most important method for developing such a hatred for the panch-vishays, is the knowledge of Bhagvãn’s greatness, followed by ãtmã-nishthã and vairãgya.
17.13 “Now, what is this greatness of Bhagvãn? Well, it is due to the fear of Bhagvãn that Indra rains; that the sun, the moon, and flames of fire emit light; that the earth supports one and all; that the oceans do not exceed their boundaries; and that the herbs produce fruit in their appropriate seasons. Also, it is Bhagvãn who is the creator, sustainer, and destroyer of the world, and whose powers include Kãl, Mãyã, Purush, and Akshar. Then, what object in the world can attract someone who has understood the greatness of Bhagvãn in this way? Well, not even kãm, krodh, lobh, mãn, irshyã, svãd, fine clothes, wealth, women, and none of the panch-vishays can bind him. This is because he has assessed everything. He knows, ‘Bhagvãn is like this, and these are the rewards of engaging in Bhagvãn’s worship and listening to kathãs and talks. Akshar is like this, and the bliss associated with him is like this. Furthermore, the pleasures of Golok, Vaikunth, and Shvet-Dvip are like this, the pleasures of Prakruti and Purush are like this, the pleasures of Brahm-Lok are like this, the pleasures of Svarg are like this, and the happiness of a kingdom is like this’.
17.14 “In this way, a person who has understood the happiness hidden within everything, realises the bliss of Bhagvãn to be the highest and then attaches himself to Him. Is there any object in the world that can draw him away from the holy feet of Bhagvãn? There is none. For example, take a piece of iron. Once touched by a pãrasmani, it is transformed into gold. It cannot be transformed back into iron; not even by the pãrasmani itself. Similarly, a person who has realised the greatness of Bhagvãn cannot be made to fall from the holy feet of Bhagvãn, not even by Bhagvãn Himself. Then, how could he be made to fall by any other object? Of course he cannot.
17.15 “In addition to realising the greatness of Bhagvãn, such a person also deeply realises the greatness of a sant who worships Bhagvãn. He feels, ‘This sant is truly great because he is a true bhakta of Bhagvãn’. For example, Uddhav was very educated, but as he had understood the greatness of Bhagvãn, he did not become arrogant due to his intelligence. In fact, he yearned for the dust from the feet of the gopis, and therefore asked to be reborn as a vine. The reason for this was that he had witnessed the profound love the gopis had towards Bhagvãn, whom even the shloks of the Veds seek. So, how can a person who realises the greatness of a sant of Bhagvãn hold any arrogance before a sant? Why could he not bow down to him? In actual fact, he would behave as a dãs of a dãs before a sant. Even if a sant were to repeatedly physically mistreat him, he would tolerate it and would believe, ‘It is my great fortune that I am bearing the hatred of such a sant. Due to my prãrabdha, I would have been forced to endure the abuses of my wife and children, my parents, and the king. I may even have had to eat the leaves of spinach and moss. At least here, in the company of the sant, I am fortunate enough to be able to keep the vow of nisvãd. Due to my prãrabdha, I may have been forced to wear tattered clothes or rags; but at least here with the sant I am fortunate enough to have a blanket to cover myself with’.
17.16 “Conversely, if a person enters a sabhã of sãdhus and is not appropriately honoured by a sant, and if he then has a dislike towards that sant, it implies that he has not realised the greatness of the sant; otherwise he would not have a dislike towards the sant in that way. Consider the following as an example: If the British Governor of Mumbai were seated in an assembly, and if at that time a poor man were to enter that assembly, but was not given a seat or welcomed in anyway, would the poor man become angry with the Governor? Would he feel like swearing at the Governor? Not at all. This is because the poor man has realised the importance of the British official, and thinks, ‘He is the ruler of the land, and I am a mere pauper’. For this reason, he does not become upset. In the same way, if a person has realised the greatness of a sant, then regardless of how much the sant hates him, he would never become upset with that sant. If fact, if he does find an avgun in anyone, he would find it in himself, but in no way would he perceive an avgun in the sant. Therefore, a person who has realised the greatness of Bhagvãn and His sant has a firm foundation in satsang. Conversely, a person cannot be certain about someone who has not realised such greatness.”
End of Vachanãmrut Loyã || 17 || 125 ||