6.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on the night of Mãgshar sud 1 [6th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white khes and a white dagli made of chhint. He had also tied a white feto around His head and had tied a bokãni with another feto. The chhoglu of the white feto was hanging from His head. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a chãdar. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
6.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the paramhans, “After joining satsang, what do you consider to be the most difficult achievement?”
6.3 The paramhans could not answer the question, so Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “For a person to become ekãntik is extremely difficult. What is this state of being ekãntik? Well, it is to do bhakti of Bhagvãn along with dharma, gnãn, and vairãgya. That is the state of being ekãntik.”
6.4 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which one activity related to dharma is such that if it is practiced, all aspects of dharma remain? Moreover, out of bhajan, smaran, singing or listening to kirtans, listening to talks, and other spiritual activities, which one activity, if it is kept even when all others are abandoned in difficult times, helps maintain all of the others?”
6.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “Of the activities related to dharma, if a person maintains the vow of nishkãm, all other activities will develop. Of the spiritual activities, if a person keeps nishchay in Bhagvãn, then all of the others will develop.”
6.6 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of thinking, if maintained constantly, is beneficial; and if altered, is destructive? Also, which type of thinking is beneficial if repeatedly altered, and destructive if not altered?”
6.7 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “Thoughts regarding a person’s nishchay in Bhagvãn should never be altered. It is beneficial if they are repeatedly reinforced by listening to the greatness of Bhagvãn. Conversely, repeatedly altering them would be destructive. However, if a person has firmly decided in his own mind, ‘I want to do this’, then that type of thinking should be repeatedly altered on the advice of a sãdhu. If the sãdhu suggests, ‘You should not sit here and should not do this’, then a person should not sit there and should not do that. If his own decision is altered, it would be beneficial; if it is not altered and he does as he pleases, then that would be destructive.”
6.8 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “By sitting with and listening to which type of satsangi or paramhans would make him subject to developing faults, despite the fact that he follows dharma?”
6.9 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person has nishchay in Bhagvãn and follows dharma, but also believes himself to be the body and has pride as well as desires for worldly activities, then if Bhagvãn and His sant criticise these, he will definitely perceive avgun in Bhagvãn and His sant. Then, he will talk about the perceived avgun of Bhagvãn and His sant to others, and cause them to become like a vimukh. A bhakta should not associate with such a person in any way; doing so is harmful.”
6.10 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of sãdhu, even though he follows dharma and has nishchay in Bhagvãn, should a person not accompany to bathe, sleep near, or hear talks from?”
6.11 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “A sãdhu who discouragingly says, ‘Can the vow of nishkãm and other qualities really be attained in one life? They are attained only by the grace of Bhagvãn; otherwise kalyãn is attained after countless lives. So, can kalyãn truly be attained in this very life?’ A person should shun the company of anyone who speaks such discouraging words. Conversely, someone else claims, ‘We are fulfilled in this very life. The force of kãm, krodh, mad, matsar, mãn, and other vicious natures is small. By the grace of Bhagvãn and His sant, we will destroy them all’. A person should, by all means, seek the company of a sãdhu who speaks in this way and is eagerly engaged in methods to destroy the vicious natures.”
6.12 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of sãdhu, even if he speaks encouragingly, should be shunned?”
6.13 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “If a sãdhu emphasises his own efforts only and believes himself to be fulfilled by his own efforts, but does not acknowledge the strength of Bhagvãn and does not feel, ‘By acting in this way, I want to please Bhagvãn’, then such a sãdhu should be shunned.”
6.14 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of sãdhu should a person keep the company of, and which type should a person not keep the company of?”
6.15 Shreeji Mahãrãj then replied, “If we are staying with a sãdhu who follows the vartmãn strictly and has firm nishchay in Bhagvãn, but instead of lecturing us, he pampers us and lets us have our way, then even if he is considered great in public opinion, like Muktãnand Swãmi, his company should not be kept. On the other hand, if a sãdhu repeatedly lectures a person, and maintains constant awareness on any svabhãv he sees within him; and if he does not stop criticising that svabhãv until it is overcome, and does not compliment him, then even if he is not considered great in public view, a person should still keep his company.”
6.16 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “Suppose a sãdhu possesses all the glorious qualities like bhakti and gnãn. However, due to which one vicious flaw, should a person avoid his company?”
6.17 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If he is very lazy, sleeps too much, and when told by others to bathe, perform dhyãn, or to follow other niyams, says, ‘I’ll do it later, what’s the hurry? I’ll do them slowly’, then even though he may appear to be good, a person should avoid his company.”
6.18 Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “A sãdhu may speak well; but, due to which fault in his speech should his talks not be heard?”
6.19 Shreeji Mahãrãj then replied, “Out of arrogance, if he talks about the bhakti, gnãn, vairãgya, and dharma within himself to be superior; and shows the gun of bhakti, gnãn, vairãgya, and dharma in other sãdhus to be inferior, then a person should not listen to his talks.”
6.20 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which type of speech should be viewed as amrut even though it is harsh?”
6.21 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The words of a sãdhu who in his speech criticises his own parents, sister, brother, and varna, and ãshram with harsh words, should be known to be good. This is because a person who hears those words realises the qualities of that sãdhu, and thinks: ‘In no way does this sãdhu have attachment to his bodily relations’. Therefore, those words should be enjoyed like amrut.”
6.22 Shreeji Mahãrãj posed another question, “When should a person maintain pride, and when should a person not maintain pride?”
6.23 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered once again: “A person should not maintain pride before a devoted follower of Bhagvãn, even though he may be a simple and humble haribhakta. On the other hand, a person should certainly maintain pride before a person who has fallen back from satsang. In fact, a person should not become suppressed by him; and in any question-answer exchange, his words should be answered with harsh words.”
6.24 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “When should a person have a desire for the darshan of Bhagvãn and His sant? When should he not have such a desire?”
6.25 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Suppose I were to ask all the sãdhus, ‘Who will go to Burãnpur and Kãshi?’ Then, when no one speaks, someone should rise in the sabhã and say to me, ‘Mahãrãj, if you say so, I shall go’. So saying, he should follow my ãgnã and go there. In those situations, to gain my happiness, a person should not keep any desire for keeping the company of sant or my darshan.
6.26 “Moreover, when a person – who a sãdhu or I have criticised, lectured, insulted, or expelled, and who is crying out of shock – is approached by an ekadmal vimukh who starts to talk about the avgun of the sãdhu or me, then before him, the person should reveal tremendous love towards the sãdhu and Bhagvãn. He should say, ‘I am his servant, and even if he were to cut me to pieces, I still would never perceive avgun in him. He will grant me kalyãn’. In that situation, he should reveal great love.”
6.27 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “What should not be done, even if Bhagvãn is pleased by it? What should be done, even if Bhagvãn is displeased by it?”
6.28 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own questions: “If I were to give an order which seems to be full of adharma, then a person should be hesitant in following it; he should take some time and not accept it immediately. For example, Shree Krishna Bhagvãn ordered Arjun, ‘Cut off Ashvatthãmã’s head’. But, Arjun did not follow that ãgnã. Likewise, even if I am pleased by it, that type of instruction should not be followed. Also, an instruction by which the prescribed niyams of the panch-vartmãn are disobeyed should not be followed. If by not obeying these two types of ãgnã, Bhagvãn is displeased, then a person should definitely let Him be displeased; in those cases, a person should not attempt to please Him.”
6.29 Shreeji Mahãrãj asked again, “While performing dhyãn upon Bhagvãn, countless different waves of vicious thoughts arises in the mind, just as large waves arise in the ocean. When such thoughts do arise, how can they be suppressed?”
6.30 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered His own question: “When such vicious thoughts arise, a person should stop the dhyãn, and should clap and chant ‘Swãminarayan, Swãminarayan’ loudly, without shame. He should pray to Bhagvãn, ‘O lord! You are a friend of the humble! You are an ocean of mercy!’ Also, he should remember a great sãdhu of Bhagvãn, like Muktãnand Swãmi, and pray to him too. As a result of this, all disturbing thoughts will be eradicated, and peace will prevail. Apart from this, there is no other method to eradicate such thoughts.”
6.31 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj posed another question: “Which quality should be abandoned, even if it is believed to be a great quality in this satsang and is being praised by all? Which fault, even though it is a fault, is suitable to be absorbed?”
6.32 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj supplied the answer Himself: “A person may be like Muktãnand Swãmi and may be following the vartmãn strictly than all. However, as a result of this, if another sãdhu feels inferior because he cannot behave on the same level, then that quality, even though it may be great, should be abandoned. Instead, he should behave on the same level as all the other sãdhus. Even though behaving on the same level as others is a drawback, it should be done.”
6.33 Again Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “In these sãdhus, which is the one flaw which, when abandoned, would cause all flaws to be abandoned? Which is the one quality which, if developed, would cause all qualities to be developed?”
6.34 Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “All flaws in a person reside in the flaw of perceiving himself with the body. If that is abandoned, all flaws are abandoned. Furthermore, if the sole quality of ãtmã-nishthã (realising himself as the ãtmã, and distinct from the body) is developed, then all qualities will develop.”
6.35 Shreeji Mahãrãj again asked, “Which types of panch-vishays, when indulged in, enlighten the mind, and which types of vishays, when indulged in, cause ignorance to prevail in the mind?”
6.36 Again, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “By indulging in vishays related to Bhagvãn, the mind is enlightened; and by indulging in worldly vishays, ignorance prevails in the mind.”
6.37 Next, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Which desh, which kãl, which sang, and which kriyã should a person not associate with, even if it is Bhagvãn’s ãgnã?”
6.38 Shreeji Mahãrãj again supplied the answer Himself: “Even if it is Bhagvãn’s ãgnã, a sãdhu should not stay in a place where he has frequent contact with his bodily relations. Also, if I seat him where women can also be seen while having darshan, and if I were to say, ‘Do my darshan’, then he should not sit in that place. Instead, he should make an excuse and leave. In addition, if unpleasant kãl is prevailing and riots are taking place, then even if it is Bhagvãn’s ãgnã to stay, a person should leave that place; but he should not stay there and suffer beatings.”
6.39 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “Which shãstras should be heard and studied, and which shãstras should not be heard or studied?”
6.40 Once again, Shreeji Mahãrãj answered Himself, “Shãstras which do not promote Bhagvãn possessing a svarup and do not describe Bhagvãn’s avatãrs, but instead discuss pure Vedãnt and propose a single, formless entity, should never be studied or heard; even if they have been written by someone very intelligent. On the other hand, simple kirtans, like those composed by Ranchhod Bhakta, should be sung and heard if they describe Bhagvãn’s murti. Such shãstras should only be studied and heard.”
End of Vachanãmrut Loyã || 6 || 114 ||