20.1 In the Samvat year 1882, on Mahã sud 3 [10th February 1826], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a cylindrical pillow that had been placed on a square platform under the neem tree in the darbãr of the mandir of Shree Lakshmi-Nãrãyan in Vadtãl. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. Garlands of chameli flowers were hanging around His neck. In addition to this, a red umbrella made from fine, silken cloth had been placed above Him. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
20.2 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked the paramhans a question: “Kãm evolves from rajo-gun, and krodh and lobh evolve from tamo-gun. So, which one spiritual activity totally uproots the seeds of kãm, krodh, and lobh?
20.3 Shuk Muni replied, “The seeds of these vicious natures are burnt from a person’s heart only when he attains nirvikalp samãdhi and when he sees the ãtmã.”
20.4 Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj raised a doubt: “Did not Shiv, Brahmã, Shrungi Rushi, Parãshar, and Nãrad have nirvikalp samãdhi? All were overcome by kãm. However, despite their attainment of nirvikalp samãdhi, when the vruttis of their indriyas reverted outwards, they were overcome by the vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh. For this reason, what you have said cannot be the answer to the question. In fact, just as a person with gnãn remains undisturbed in nirvikalp samãdhi, a person without gnãn also remains undisturbed in sushupti. When the vruttis of the indriyas revert outwards, both are disturbed by kãm and krodh. Therefore, there does not seem to be any distinction between the person with gnãn and the person without gnãn. Now, other paramhans may try to answer the question.”
20.5 Then, Gopãlãnand Swãmi, Devãnand Swãmi, Nityãnand Swãmi, and Muktãnand Swãmi collectively attempted to answer the question according to their understanding, but they could not give a precise response to Shreeji Mahãrãj’s question.
20.6 Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Janak Rãjã followed the path of pravrutti, and yet he was undisturbed. For example, when a female tyãgi named Sulbhã came into Janak Raja’s court, He told Sulbhã, ‘Though you are trying to seduce my mind, by the grace of my guru Panch-Shikh Rushi, I have mastered the shãstras of both Sãnkhya and Yog. So, even if half of my body is smeared with sandalwood paste and the other half is slashed with a sword, both would be the same to me. Even if my Mithilã were to burn down, still nothing of mine would be burned. Therefore, even though I have adopted the path of pravrutti, I am still unaffected and undisturbed’. This is what Janak Rãjã said to Sulbhã. Also, Janak Rãjã was said to be the guru of Shukji.
20.7 “Therefore, the answer to the question is as follows: A person’s indriyas may be directed outwards and he may be on the path of pravrutti, but if he has a firm understanding in his heart, like that of Janak Rãjã , then he will in no way become disturbed by vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh.
20.8 “After a person has thoroughly known that which needs to be known – this is true and this is false – he realises that except Bhagvãn’s svarup, all worldly objects are full of terrible miseries, and that they are all perishable. Also, he realises himself to be the ãtmã, distinct from his body, his indriyas, and his antah-karans. After this, there is no object that would be strong enough to seduce him. This is because he sees all worldly objects as worthless. So, even if all the indriyas of a person in whose heart such understanding has become firmly rooted were to extend outwards on the path of pravrutti, still he would not be disturbed by vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh.
20.9 “The seeds of vicious natures, like kãm, and krodh, in the heart of such a bhakta of Bhagvãn will be destroyed, whether he is a tyãgi or a grahastha. Also, of all the bhaktas of Bhagvãn, he is the best Vaishnavs. So, being a tyãgi or a grahastha is of no significance. Instead, a person whose understanding is greater should be known as being a greater bhakta than the rest.
20.10 “The mistake of those like Shiv and Brahmã were mentioned only to illustrate that when they encountered unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang, even they were disturbed by vicious natures, regardless of whether they had deficiencies in their understanding or not. Therefore, even if a person has this understanding, he should never associate with any type of evil influence. This is the universal principle.”
End of Vachanãmrut Vadtãl || 20 || 220 ||