2.1 In the Samvat year 1877, on Fãgan sud 7 [10th March, 1821], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead that had been placed on a platform in Jhinã-Bhãi’s darbãr in Panchãlã. He was wearing a white khes and had covered Himself with a white pachhedi. He had also tied a white feto around His head. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
2.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Please bring the Moksh-Dharma shãstras so that we can arrange for a kathã on the chapter of Sãnkhya and the chapter of Yog.” Then, the shãstras were brought to the sabhã, and Nityãnand Swãmi commenced the reading.
2.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “The followers of Yog consider jeev and ishvar to be the twenty-fifth tattva, and Paramãtmã to be the twenty-sixth tattva. On the other hand, followers of Sãnkhya include jeev and ishvar with the twenty-four tattvas, and consider Paramãtmã to be the twenty-fifth tattva. Of the two, the followers of Yog believe that regardless of however much a person thinks of the ãtmã and non-ãtmã, or however much effort he makes, without accepting the refuge of pratyaksha Bhagvãn, he cannot attain moksh. On the other hand, followers of Sãnkhya believe that if a person understands the ultimate fate of all devs and humans, develops vairãgya for the vishays, and realises his ãtmã as greater than the three bodies (sthul, sukshma, kãran), then he becomes a mukta. However, since each of these two types of beliefs has their own deficiencies, a person should employ certain methods of understanding for the purpose of resolving those deficiencies.
2.4 “The flaw of the Yog philosophy is that both the jeev and ishvar have been considered as the twenty-fifth tattva and both have been said to have bodies comprised of twenty-four tattvas. As a result, both the jeev and ishvar seem equal. This would suggest that the sthul body is the same as virãt, the sukshma body is the same as sutrãtmã, and the kãran body is the same as avyãkrut. It also suggests that the jãgrat state is the same as that of sustenance, the svapna state is the same as that of creation, and the sushupti state is the same as that of destruction. Moreover, vishva, taijas, and prãgna, would be considered equal to Vishnu, Brahmã, and Shiv respectively. As a result, those followers would worship the twenty-sixth tattva with such understanding.
2.5 “To remove this deficiency of equating jeev and ishvar, a person should learn the following method of interpretation from a wise person: The five bhuts residing in the body of ishvar are known as mahã-bhuts, and those bhuts sustain the bodies of all jeevs. On the other hand, the five bhuts in the body of the jeev are minor and are incapable of sustaining others. Also, the jeev possesses limited knowledge compared to ishvar, who is all-knowing. A person should learn such a method of interpretation so that the jeev and ishvar are not understood to be equal to each other. If a person has not done that and some opponent were to ask a question in a debate, then he would find it difficult to reply. As a result, his own understanding would become confused. But, if he has learnt such a method, then even if someone were to raise a question, he would not allow the jeev and ishvar to be considered as being equal. Also, he should only listen to words that strengthen this belief.
2.6 “Next, the flaw of the followers of the Sãnkhya philosophy is that they consider Paramãtmã to be the twenty-fifth tattva, who is greater than the twenty-four tattvas. They consider the twenty-four tattvas as being false and Paramãtmã as being satya. If that were so, who would attain that Paramãtmã? After all, the jeev, who is the achiever, is not considered distinct from the tattvas.
2.7 “To remove that deficiency, a person should learn the following method of interpretation from a wise person: Jeev and ishvar have been included with the tattvas because those twenty-four tattvas cannot exist without the jeev and ishvar. But, in reality, jeev and ishvar are distinct from those tattvas, and do attain Paramãtmã. A person should learn such a method of interpretation. If he has not done so, and an opponent in a debate were to ask a question, doubts would arise, and he would think, ‘If the tattvas are truly false, then what is the purpose of prescribing the observance of dharma, such as brahm-chãrya, and spiritual activities such as shravan, manan, and nididhyãs, to attain Paramãtmã?’ Therefore, jeev and ishvar have been included with the tattvas because they have attained oneness with the tattvas; however, they are totally distinct from those tattvas and do attain Paramãtmã. In this way, followers of the Sãnkhya philosophy should learn such methods of interpretation from a wise sãdhu.
2.8 “Moreover, the followers of Yog propose the following methods: Moksh is attained by performing dhyãn on the pratyaksha murtis of the avatãrs of Bhagvãn such as Matsya, Kurma, Varãh, Nrusinh, Vãman, Rãm, and Krishna. However, the followers of Sãnkhya accept methods which claim that moksh is attained when a person fully realises the svarup of Bhagvãn, through experience, as described by the various Shruti shãstras:
“Both philosophies are good and have been accepted by the great, and a person who follows both of them appropriately does attain Akshardhãm. In both of these philosophies, the same spiritual activities have been prescribed, but the method of worship in each is not the same; in fact, it is extremely different.”
2.9 Having spoken in this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj then told the paramhans, “Now please sing kirtans.”
2.10 Then, Muktãnand Swãmi and some other paramhans began singing kirtans to the accompaniment of musical instruments. Following this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Now, please stop the kirtans. While you were singing, I thought over the philosophies of both Sãnkhya and Yog. Please listen as I explain.
2.11 “For a person who follows Yog, the luminous, divya svarup murti of Bhagvãn which resides in Akshardhãm at the time of ãtyantik-pralay is worthy of performing dhyãn upon. Moreover, Bhagvãn in the form of Prakruti-Purush is also worthy of performing dhyãn upon, but to a lesser extent. To a lesser extent than that, Bhagvãn in the form of the twenty-four tattvas, which have evolved from Prakruti-Purush, is also worthy of performing dhyãn upon. To a lesser extent than that, Hiranyagarbh; and to a lesser extent than that, Virãt – who has evolved from the twenty-four tattvas – is also worthy of performing dhyãn upon. Still to a lesser extent than that, Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, as well as the avatãrs of Bhagvãn on this earth, such as Matsya, Kurma, Nrusinh, and Varãh, as well as shãligrãm and other murtis of Bhagvãn – are all worthy of performing dhyãn upon. While I was thinking, I realised that this is the essence of the philosophy of Yog.
2.12 “Then, I thought over the Sãnkhya philosophy. They have done away with all those svarups, and it appears that they believe, ‘The cause of all thoughts is the jeev, and since there is nothing as pure as the jeev, it is appropriate to perform dhyãn upon the jeev’. In order to disprove this view of Sãnkhya, I again thought of Yog. Specifically, Purushottam Bhagvãn, who is greater than everything, has an anvay relationship with Prakruti and Purush and all other entities. Therefore, they are all Bhagvãn; all possess a divya svarup; all are satya and worthy of performing dhyãn upon. Certain Vedic shloks also support this fact:
2.13 “Therefore, a mumukshu who follows the path of Yog encounters no obstacles. This is because that path is easy and relies on the pratyaksha murti of Bhagvãn. For this reason, through that path, even an ordinary person can attain kalyãn without any difficulty.
2.14 “However, there is one flaw on that path: Entities, such as Prakruti and Purush, are thought of as being the components of Purushottam Bhagvãn. This could cause the following belief to develop: Prakruti and Purush are components of Bhagvãn, and their components are Hiranyagarbh and Virãt. If such an understanding develops, then that is a major flaw since a person feels Bhagvãn is divisible and has components. However, Bhagvãn is indivisible, without components, unchanging, imperishable, and whole. Therefore, such a misunderstanding should not be allowed to arise.
2.15 “Also, a person should understand, ‘Bhagvãn is one and unparalleled, while others, such as Prakruti and Purush, are His bhaktas and perform dhyãn upon Him. That is why they are referred to as svarups of Bhagvãn. Just as a great sãdhu who performs dhyãn upon Bhagvãn is known as a svarup of Bhagvãn, in the same way Prakruti and Purush are also svarups of Bhagvãn. Moreover, Purushottam Shree Krishna, who is greater than everything, Himself assumes the forms of Vãsudev, Sankarshan, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha, and assumes avatãrs such as Ram and Krishna. Therefore, He is worthy of performing dhyãn upon’. If a person has such an understanding, then that path of Yog is absolutely free of obstacles and is the best path.
2.16 “Now, the flaw of the Sãnkhya philosophy is that it claims, ‘All that is grasped via the antah-karans and the indriyas is false, while all that is grasped through experience is satya’. Therefore, they propose all svarups as being false. Along with that, they also consider the svarups of Bhagvãn that have incarnated for the kalyãn of the jeevs, as being false. In fact, they also view the svarups of Aniruddha, Pradyumna, and Sankarshan as being false. They only accept Vãsudev, who is nirgun. That is their major flaw.
2.17 “Therefore, it suits the followers of Sãnkhya to believe, ‘After absorbing the thoughts of Sãnkhya and considering whatever has evolved from Prakruti and Purush as being perishable, a person should realise his own ãtmã as being distinct from all, as being pure, and brahm-rup. Then, understanding the svarup of Bhagvãn that has incarnated for the kalyãn of the jeevs as being satya, he should perform dhyãn upon Him’. In this way, these two types of thoughts can be known if a person learns from someone who is wise, like myself; otherwise, even if a person studies or listens to the shãstras, he cannot understand them.
2.18 “In reality, the teachings of Yog are actually for a person who has become brahm-rup by initially having practiced thoughts of Sãnkhya. Therefore, it is said:
2.19 “In this way, the Sãnkhya philosophy is dependent on Yog. This is because through that Sãnkhya philosophy, the followers of Sãnkhya realise all vishays that can be indulged in via the five indriyas and four antah-karans – which are distinct from a person’s own ãtmã – to be totally worthless. Therefore, such a person is not tempted by any objects, nor does he become attached to them. Moreover, if someone were to say to him, ‘This object is extremely pleasurable’, he would think, ‘It may be pleasurable, but it is perceived through the indriyas and antah-karans; and that which the indriyas and antah-karans perceive is asatya and perishable’. This is the firm understanding of a follower of Sãnkhya, who also realises his own ãtmã as pure. Such a person should perform dhyãn, upãsanã, and offer bhakti to Bhagvãn according to the path of Yog. If he does not adopt this, that would be a major flaw in him.
2.20 “In this way, I have described the eternal philosophies of the Sãnkhya shãstras and the Yog shãstras having thoroughly thought about them. However, the followers of Yog and Sãnkhya have corrupted both paths. Those who are followers of Yog try to establish the truth of svarups, and in the process they realise all people, the svarups of Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, as well as svarups of Rãm, Krishna, and other avatãrs as equal to each other. Followers of Sãnkhya criticise all svarups, and in the process they also criticise places of pilgrimage, vrat, murtis, yam and niyam, forms of dharma such as brahm-chãrya, as well as Brahmã, Vishnu, and Shiv, and Rãm, Krishna, and other avatãrs. Therefore, both the followers of Sãnkhya and the followers of Yog have deviated from the correct path. As a result, they will be sent to Narak.”
End of Vachanãmrut Panchãlã || 2 || 128 ||