Discourses of Sadguru Sadguru A great sant. Tap to open in glossary → and how should one understand so that even if someone like Shankaracharya talks about formlessness, its trace does not enter the heart at all? Then Swami said, if one understands in this way, then even a trace of that talk will not touch them. In all the Shrutis and Smritis, God and God's divine abodes like Golok Golok 1) The dhãm of Shree Krishna Bhagvãn. 2) Also means Akshardhãm. The prefix ‘go’ means light; therefore, meaning the ‘lok of light’ – Akshardhãm. Tap to open in glossary → Vaikunth Vaikunth The dhãm of Vishnu, and Rãm Bhagvãn. Tap to open in glossary → and there are thousands of Shrutis and Smritis that describe that form. By many statements such as 'Nityo nityanam chetanashchetananam', 'Sa aikshata', 'Sarve nimesha jagnire vidyutah purushat', 'Yada yada hi dharmasya', 'Janma karma karma Action. Deed. Any thought, word, or deed that will sooner or later reap its consequences. Karmas of a person are linked to their rewards (cause and effect). Bhagvãn is the giver of the rewards of the karmas; good deeds reap pleasant rewards, and bad deeds reap painful fruits. Karmas remain with a jeev until it has received its rewards. Tap to open in glossary → then the belief in formlessness would not occur even in a dream. And if one has acquired knowledge from an untrue person of an untrue Sampraday, then the belief in formlessness occurs. Therefore, the cause of the discrimination between truth and untruth is indeed the true or untrue person. What was that? The question was, how should one understand so that even if someone like Shankaracharya advocates formlessness, one does not believe in it. So Swami says that in the scriptures, in the Shrutis and Smritis, the form has been advocated. Even if someone like Shankaracharya Maharaj advocates formlessness, what is it? its trace does not settle in the heart. Huh? Its trace does not settle in the heart. Meaning, that talk is not accepted, it does not enter the soul. What is the meaning of the question? No matter how great they are, if there is bad company, one identifies them. Even if they are great and intelligent, and oneself is small, their talk, untrue talk, does not affect one. If the great are speaking untruths and the small are speaking the truth, does that happen or not? So do you believe based on the greatness of the person or based on the truth of the talk? If someone like Narendra Modi comes to you and says, "Saral Swami, come here." And whispers in your ear. But the talk is untrue. Then? Then would you believe it? Then you would be considered very good. If the great speak untruths and the small speak the truth, and both talks are in opposition, then whose talk do you believe? Whom does Vishwamangal Swami believe? Even if they are small, if they speak the truth then... Huh? If the great are somewhat useful to us, then we believe the talk of the one who is useful. If they are not useful, then whose talk, who believes their talk? What do you do? This is all past history, but what do you do now, we have to talk about that now. That if they are very great, Shankaracharya Maharaj is considered the pinnacle of intellect. In this world, three intellectuals were counted in the old days. Now there are many, after this software there is no limit at all. But earlier, three intellectuals were counted. Who were they? In the world, yes, when a survey was done in the whole world, three intellectuals were counted. Who were they counted as? Then Shankaracharya. One is Shankaracharya Maharaj, the second? Brihaspati. Brihaspati. Brihaspati is not of our world, he is of the world of demigods. Ramanujacharya? Huh? Ramanujacharya? Plato and Vyas Bhagwan. The authors of scriptures praised the intellect of these three. Whether other people of this world praised them or not, I don't know much. But among the authors of scriptures, the intellect of these three was highly praised. One was Plato, who lived in Western countries, and Shankaracharya Maharaj and Vyas Bhagwan. Those three were considered the pinnacle of intellect. So what is to be said in this? That if there is a pinnacle of intellect and they speak untruths, and one who is completely zero in intellect speaks the truth, and both are speaking at the same time and both are opposing, then which do you believe? Which talk do you believe? Which talk does Saral Swami believe? We believe what benefits us. If there is no benefit, then what do you believe? If he favors us and supports our talk, then we believe. Then even if it is untrue, we believe. Or do we believe only what is true? Do we believe even if it is untrue or not? Huh? It gets believed. Then it gets believed. When is it believed? If he supports us, yes. This brother is Nana Swami, if he does not support you and supports someone else, and takes away your support and gives it there. Then what do you do? Then if he comes and bows to your feet? Then do you say, "Shame on you, wicked one"? Blessings have to be given if he bows to the feet. But "Shame on you, wicked one, shame on you, wicked one, bow to the feet. Brother, may you be liberated." Then what solution did Swami give for that? If someone speaks untruths and they are very great, intelligent, very sharp. The reason for giving the example of Shankaracharya Maharaj is that he is at the absolute peak of any matter. AI translation of the Gujarati transcript above, produced in the same pass that transcribed the audio, one English segment per Gujarati segment. Devotional and technical terms with no precise English equivalent (kirtan, satsang, vasana, samskara, and similar) are kept as their plain transliteration rather than force-translated. Not human-proofread., AI-translated, unverified · Source details