First, one makes a firm resolve after seeing God's glory, and then if that glory is not visible and some wicked being commits treachery against God, and nothing bad happens to him, then he does not remain firm in his resolve, and we call him one with inferior knowledge.
He is called one with inferior resolve.
One remains firm in resolve after seeing Maharaj's glory.
Maharaj also did something amazing, if you delve too deep into this, you will face difficulties.
Even the most resolute ones.
Maharaj said that one should not make a firm resolve based on brilliance, nor should one make a firm resolve based on glory.
He said that.
It was said earlier, in the ninth Vachanamrut of the first part, that until I see the effulgent form of God that resides in His abode, my complete salvation has not been achieved.
One who has such ignorance, his liberation, discourses, and stories, Maharaj said that the meaning of this is that to have a firm resolve in God, there is a difference between God's form and His brilliance.
So, its meaning is this.
That to have a firm resolve in God, there is a difference between God's form and His brilliance.
Brilliance and the brilliant one, radiance and the radiant one, there is a distinction between the two.
In justice, there is the lamp, the flame, and the radiance of the flame.
So, radiance is also a substance, it is separate.
It is a substance of knowledge, it is a substance of quality.
It is distinct from its form.
So, Maharaj said that God is distinct due to heterogeneous differences.
And God is distinct not only by homogeneous differences.
Maharaj said in the ninth Vachanamrut that He is distinct due to homogeneous differences.
Who is homogeneous? An avatar.
Maharaj said that even from an avatar, if one considers Maharaj's form to be like another avatar, it is considered an act of betrayal.
It's not that one shouldn't know it's like an avatar, but if one knows it's like an avatar, it's considered an act of betrayal.
So, that is a homogeneous difference.
And Shankaracharya made an internal distinction.
There is no internal distinction in God, there is none.
And Maharaj has all the opposite distinctions.
There is a heterogeneous difference, there is a homogeneous difference.
And there is also an internal distinction.
He said that.
Ramanujacharya did not go that deep.
And he directly, because his field was to uproot Shankaracharya's opinion.
Rather than uprooting, he said that the flaws that remained in it.
Those flaws were to be uprooted.
Because Shankaracharya did not uproot and discard Buddha, just as Ramanujacharya did not uproot and discard Shankaracharya's opinion; it has continued.
In reality, in India.
More people follow Shankaracharya in the current situation; there are very few who follow Ramanujacharya, perhaps a few in the South.
But elsewhere, very few. In UP, Shankaracharya's followers are more.
So, he did it to uproot its flaws.
So, most of the effort remained in that.
Then what Maharaj did was to show a distinct form, even with internal differences, by means of anvaya and vyatireka.
He showed it by means of anvaya and vyatireka.
In that, here, he showed this.
That one has faith in Maharaj, but His glory is not visible.
Then he does not remain firm in his resolve.
And if the glory is visible, then the resolve remains.
What does that mean?
That he considers glory and form to be one.
He considers glory itself to be the form.
Glory and form have always remained together, inseparably.
There is God, and there is God's glory.
But inseparably, glory can sometimes remain separate, and that can remain.
But God's form is inseparably linked with His glory; when God is present, His glory is always there.
But sometimes God sits having merged Himself.
He is not visible in the world.
God
The form of God has such a relationship with light that it is inseparable.
When God is present, His light is also present.
But sometimes God sits by dissolving Himself.
The form does not dissolve.
What did Maharaj say about Pratap? That 'Ete Radha Dayo Bhakta Tasya Shu Pachi Tadangeti Snehat Satugnyastadekala'.
Those devotees like Radha sometimes remain independent outside.
And sometimes they merge into God, then they should know God alone.
So, Pratap alone never remains alone.
If Shankaracharya made a mistake from Maharaj's perspective and Ramanuja's perspective, then he made a big mistake.
That he only considered light.
Not the idol of God, not the form, but just the light.
He believed in pure consciousness, Brahman.
But Ramanujacharya said that it does not exist.
Knowledge, for all time, without these three things, without this triad, can never exist.
Firstly, knowledge has its object.
And the knower of knowledge.
Knowledge has its support, and knowledge itself.
Without these three, the existence of knowledge does not exist in the world.
So, he made a very strong mistake.
So, Shankaracharya made a mistake by saying that knowledge alone, Pratap alone, light alone, devotion alone, devotion is what, power.
All these—power, knowledge, light, glory—cannot exist without the support of God.
Maharaj said that if there is only light, like the sun, there is light from the sun, but there is no idol of the sun; there is no light without an idol.
And Shankaracharya only believed in light.
He said it is devoid of internal difference.
And Maharaj said that it includes internal difference.
This is internal difference.
The meaning of difference is that there is a difference between the two.
Sometimes the difference is equal.
This and these two.
No, it's not like that here.
It's not like that here.
The meaning of difference can sometimes be an equal difference.
For example, two souls.
Two liberated souls.
Gopalanand Swami and Muktanand Swami.
There is a difference between the two.
That Gopalanand Swami is separate and Muktanand Swami is separate.
That difference is an equal difference.
But in that, it is equal that Gopalanand Swami is considered great, Muktanand Swami is considered great. If that is the case, it's a different matter, but for us, Muktanand Swami is venerable and Gopalanand Swami is venerable; it is called an equal difference.
Both possess the qualities of Akshar.
All have attained the state of sadharmya, yet all liberated souls are distinct.
And there is a difference in it, but it is an equal difference.
But God and God's light, and God and God's glory, God and God's power, cannot be called an equal difference; there is a difference.
And that is an inherent difference, the difference is such.
In the concept of difference, Ramanujacharya emphasized it greatly, didn't he?
That without one, the other two always remain together.
That is called Sarupya.
Let's say all liberated souls have attained the state of sadharmya with God.
Sadharmya means having similar attributes.
It has glory like Him, it has power like Him, it has form like Him.
The form is not like that.
But it cannot be called oneness.
Those two are one, sadharmya means they have become one.
Two personalities remain.
The very meaning of the word 'sadharmya' is that there are two personalities in it, and both have similar attributes.
If there are not two personalities, then it cannot be called sadharmya.
Only then does the question of sadharmya arise, the meaning of sadharmya, the question of sadharmya. The word sadharmya is justified only when there are two things and they have similar attributes.
So, in this, in God, sadharmya is often such that dharma and dharmi do not have separate existences; it is called avinabhava (inseparable).
What word has he used for that?
Jai Maa
It's like they are always together.
He used a very good word.
Not a competitor, no, no.
So he is such that he can never be separated.
Mutual dependence.
Mutual dependence.
No, not mutual dependence.
Mutual dependence is different.
But when these two are separate, they are always together.
Being together does not mean that they are one.
There is a word, 'sahacharyam'.
Sahacharyam, yes, sahacharyam.
But being together does not mean that they have become one.
So God's radiance, God's glory, God's power, they are always with God.
They can never be separate.
Power alone cannot remain independent, power.
Glory cannot exist alone, radiance cannot exist alone, that is Maharaj's belief.
Even then, there is a difference between Maharaj's form and power.
Maharaj's form and glory, Maharaj said that form means murti.
Maharaj's murti and Maharaj's glory are both one.
Just like a tube light and its glow.
Both are one.
One says that they stay together, but they are not one.
Maharaj said that these two are not one.
They stay together.
They are never one.
So, and they are not equal either.
Just as Gopalānand Swami and Muktānand Swami are considered equal, they are not equal.
The importance of no other thing can be said to be like Maharaj's form.
So when it goes wrong, there is confusion in the conviction.
What did I say in this, look.
If one makes a firm resolve by seeing Maharaj's glory and does not see the glory, then the resolve is removed and it is raw, meaning it is recognized as an inferior resolve.
That is an inferior resolve, look.
So its basis is that one should make a firm resolve based on the form.
Not just based on glory.
Glory is not the form of God.
It is his quality.
The conviction happens, yes, on what basis does it happen?
The conviction happens based on glory.
But based on glory, one is not to make a firm resolve about glory.
God's conviction.
One has to make a firm resolve about the form.
God's form is such that it is called the characteristic of the form, isn't it?
That Devadatta's house is like a crow's.
Indicative, indicative.
There must be some characteristics that show God.
That which shows God.
So, based on radiance, the experience of God's form happens.
Based on that.
But to whom does it happen?
The experience happens to the jiva.
He considers glory and form to be separate.
All these are its characteristics that indicate it.
God's form is such that if all these were not there, it could not be indicated.
If a substance has no quality, it cannot be known.
To the substance.
So, for Shankaracharya, the form is anupapatti (inconsistent).
This sapt anupapatti (seven inconsistencies) that the brahmachari gave, the form anupapatti.
If the form has no quality.
Then the form itself would not exist.
The form cannot be described; its form cannot be perceived by anyone.
No one would have such an experience.
Without dharma, its experience does not come.
So all these are its uses, that they cause conviction.
That which causes conviction.
In this world, where is it?
That a Brahmin performs a marriage.
Then he says, but he is not the husband of the girl.
After getting it done, hand it over to him.
After performing the marriage, hand her over to him.
He cannot be called the husband of the girl.
Similarly, glory, power, radiance, they indicate God's form, they introduce God's form, there is no denial of that.
But then it is not needed.
Just like a rocket has those fuel tanks, those fuel tanks propel it into space.
But then it detaches.
And the shuttle keeps moving everywhere.
Until a firm conviction in God is not achieved.
Yes, until then, one does not see or perceive the glory, power, and opulence.
Then there is no chance of getting confused, that the conviction of Godliness gets mixed up with others.
But it only works when he understands this separately.
That the glory can be found even in someone like Hiranyakashipu, so how can we call him God? How can we call him the form of God?
He has the power of Antaryami, God, power and the powerful.
The power of Antaryami is the extraordinary power of God.
So Hiranyakashipu had the power of Antaryami.
So, all those who have power cannot be called the form of God.
But if it is the form of God, then it must have power.
So the confusion is there, how to differentiate that this is the form of God and this is not.
Why?
Those are the characteristics of the scriptures.
So for that, the Brahmasutra says, 'Jagat Vyapar Varjam'.
Jagat Vyapar Sahitam.
All those who are devoid of worldly activities are not God, and those who are involved in worldly activities are the form of God.
That is its extraordinary characteristic.
The powers of worldly activities are seen in others.
But still, it is dependent.
It's not independent, is it?
It is given by someone.
If one worships this, Maharaj says that Shiva becomes capable of destruction when he worships Sankarshan.
Brahma becomes capable of creation when he worships Pradyumna.
So it is dependent.
Extraordinarily, 'Janmadyasya Yatah'.
That from which creation, sustenance, and dissolution originate, that is the form of God.
And when that God comes to earth in a human form, Maharaj says that sometimes he reveals it.
Maharaj might have shown it in samadhi, or in other ways, or sometimes in his divine pastimes.
Maharaj said something, and from that, conviction arises.
Maharaj said something like, when one attains such a saint, conviction arises from that.
Sometimes, the conviction of God is achieved only through God.
Ah.
Sometimes it is said that the conviction of God is achieved through the words of such a sadhu, through the words of such a Satpurush.
Ah.
So, there are different chapters.
It has been said from different angles.
The conviction of God's form is achieved only through God.
Just as a diamond is cut by a diamond.
So its meaning is that
that the conviction of God cannot be achieved through brilliance.
How can it be?
If one grasps the brilliance.
To the glory.
But even if there is no use of brilliance, it won't happen.
Using brilliance, the conviction of the form is achieved only through the form itself.
Even if there is no brilliance, it won't happen.
And it won't happen even with brilliance.
By using brilliance, one gets acquainted with the form of God.
By the glory of God, by the glory of God.
So it means that one should know how to understand something different from brilliance.
The form of God is indeed different from brilliance.
Just as light and the glow of light, a lamp and the glow of a lamp, are completely different.
Both are separate.
If the lamp is extinguished, the glow disappears.
But if the glow is turned off, the lamp does not go out.
The glow, it is said, expands and contracts.
The glow of the form does not contract or expand.
It is the same in the jiva.
There is contraction and expansion of the Dharmabhut knowledge, but the form is not fully dim.
The form is fully dim.
In God, even the form's
This power of knowledge, it also does not contract or expand.
But God sometimes does it on his own.
The contraction and expansion of the jiva's Dharmabhut knowledge is dependent.
And the contraction and expansion that God does is self-controlled.
Assuming my own nature, I manifest myself through my own maya.
All these natures of mine, such as knowledge, I control them.
Controlling them, I come to earth.
So it cannot be said that it does not exist.
Even in the form of the jiva, it cannot be said that it does not exist.
The form of a jiva devoid of knowledge never exists.
The contraction becomes so great that it becomes completely ignorant.
Then the form of God that has been directly attained
Ah, and the form of God is in the divine abode.
Ah, those two are one, Maharaj said.
There is not an iota of difference.
So, wouldn't that be considered a difference?
How much?
The form that is here, it has contracted its power, glory, and radiance. It has contracted them, and what is there,
What is the difference between contraction and expansion? That much difference.
So there is no difference in the form, only contraction. There is not even a tiny bit of difference in the form, Maharaj said.
There is only a difference in power, knowledge, and glory. What is the difference?
That these have been contracted, they have been done by their own will, haven't they?
Yes.
It's not that they were done dependently; they were done voluntarily.
On the contrary, for the welfare of the jiva, God's great compassion increases.
And to bring about the welfare of the jiva, God performed that contraction and expansion; He performed the contraction.
Because if they come as they are, even Brahma and others cannot have firm conviction in God.
So its special glory means special.
On the contrary, some have a greater special glory of that state of contraction, even more than the other.
Only then can the jiva attain salvation, Maharaj said.
One with inferior knowledge first sees the glory of God and then attains conviction.
So, the glory is needed.
That is why Maharaj said that God shows His specialty, He shows a glimpse.
And then immediately, He contracts it again.
So, Maharaj, the saints asked that question.
That Maharaj, if he shows a little glory and conviction is attained, then if he shows a lot, a lot of glory,
Then Maharaj says, one will have conviction in a ghost.
He will think, 'Is this a ghost or what?'
If it is, then there will be no conviction in God.
If it is, then some would turn away, become something else.
That one, some of it breaks.
So, it appears a little.
And sometimes, God keeps showing glimpses of it, keeps showing glimpses, and makes the jiva attain conviction.
But one should have conviction in the form; God makes one have conviction in the form.
He does not make one have conviction in the glory.
Through glory, one attains conviction in God.
Through power, one attains conviction in God.
And through radiance, one attains conviction in God; there is no denial in that.
If that is not there, then the jiva will not attain it either; that is true.
So God, little by little, as much as this one can digest,
When there is a small child learning to eat, its mother,
applies some honey or a sweet thing like that on its lips.
And then that one sticks out its tongue and does this, so,
it gets practice eating.
Glory happens that way.
All this glory has only this much use.
God
Then, when he grows up and starts eating, he won't just be given honey to lick.
Then he has to eat rotlas.
So, the form is to be eaten.
But in the form, there is no sweetness like honey in rotla, like honey.
Some attain conviction gradually, and some attain it suddenly.
And firm conviction, some attain it, those are two things.
That the jiva is a mumukshu.
And there is God. If God's glory is seen and there is a similar desire for liberation, then it happens immediately.
And if not, even if God shows any amount of glory, but if one's desire for liberation is weak, then it won't happen; one won't quickly recognize God.
So Maharaj, in this, the question is of knowledge, and Maharaj answers.
So Maharaj has discussed both knowledge and conviction by mixing them.
Knowledge and conviction, both.
First, one sees the glory of God and attains conviction, and then, if that glory is not seen, and some wicked jiva is betraying God, and nothing bad happens to that jiva, then one's conviction does not remain.
We call such a person one with inferior knowledge.
And one who has medium knowledge, when he sees the auspicious and inauspicious human deeds of God, then he becomes deluded and his conviction does not remain. We call him one with medium knowledge.
And for one with superior knowledge, it is like this: God,
This first conviction and the second conviction, what subtle difference Maharaj made in them, that is a subject for a little research. What is it called?
The first conviction is that,
Read the second one, read the second characteristic.
One who has medium knowledge, when he sees the auspicious and inauspicious human deeds of God, then he becomes deluded and his conviction does not remain. We call him one with medium knowledge.
What did Maharaj say in that? What else did he say in that?
In that, it was said that if Pratap is seen, then there is certainty. If Pratap is not seen, then it goes away. If it is there, it goes away.
So what happened in this?
In this, he sees the auspicious and inauspicious character, meaning he has become certain once by seeing Pratap.
But then, the certainty of the other person is removed based on the absence of Pratap, based on the absence.
And what is removed for this person is by seeing the human emotions, the auspicious and inauspicious actions related to humans, which are seen in Maharaj's form.
It is not removed by seeing Pratap, because Pratap is not there.
That's what it means.
That's what it means.
Auspicious and inauspicious characteristics mean divine and non-divine qualities in God.
Sometimes, there is the ultimate limit of divinity in God.
And sometimes, God shows the ultimate limit of helplessness or non-divinity.
But in this world, it seems like that, Swami.
If we are in satsang, then someone develops affection for someone else.
For example, Maharaj went to the grocery store and told Meenbai to hide them.
Okay.
And Maharaj was hidden in that damchiya and in the kothi, and Maharaj Meenbai did all that.
So what did that mean?
Maharaj showed human nature.
Showing human nature means showing the minus of divinity.
Yes, it showed the minus.
It showed the minus of divinity.
That he doesn't have as much courage as a human.
He doesn't have as much courage as an ordinary person.
It showed the absence of courage, meaning it showed the minus of divinity.
So, it showed the minus.
So that's what it means.
Such a change is visible.
That if someone, say, develops affection for someone, then they develop affection by seeing their divine power, strength, and often their qualities.
But then, that affection exists.
So, in Pratap and in the first and second, it can be said that if Pratap is seen, there is certainty, and if not, it does not go away.
In this, it is removed when a minus is seen.
This is it.
If a minus is seen in God, then it is removed.
Pratap, power, radiance.
Like this.
If you search in the dark, what about in the dark, but if you search in the light and don't find it.
Then his certainty is removed.
It won't be removed until then.
If it's zero, it won't be removed.
If it's minus, it will be removed.
This is what it means.
If Pratap is not seen, it doesn't matter.
Then it's not a problem.
Even then, it's not a problem.
But God shows the minus by performing a character.
Then it is removed for him.
Then medium.
One who has medium knowledge, when he sees the auspicious and inauspicious human character of God, he becomes deluded and his certainty does not remain.
We call him a person with medium knowledge.
And one with excellent knowledge behaves in such a way that even after seeing God perform any auspicious or inauspicious action, he does not become deluded by it.
Even if there is the ultimate limit of minus, it doesn't matter.
So Maharaj said that.
That somewhere else, there was Lord Rishabhdev, and even if he performed such actions, he would not waver.
Even in that, Maharaj had unwavering certainty, the highest unwavering certainty.
Excellent unwavering.
Unwavering certainty is achieved, and it is called firm certainty.
Maharaj has given an example from certainty in one place.
One with excellent knowledge behaves in such a way that.
So a human would not do that.
A human would not perform the kind of character that Lord Rishabhdev performed.
So it's called a minus, isn't it?
Very much minus, very much minus.
One with excellent knowledge behaves in such a way that even after seeing God perform any auspicious or inauspicious action, he does not become deluded by it.
And certainty does not go away.
And if the one who made him certain then says that he is not God, then he knows that his head has turned.
Such a person is called one with excellent knowledge.
He is called one with excellent certainty.
If the one who made him certain does not waver, then it means that his certainty is considered excellent.
There are three types of knowledge.
And to him