Here, a curiosity definitely arises in us regarding this subject: are compassion and love material or divine? Or are they virtues or vices? What can they be called? Are compassion and affection material or divine? Are they virtues or vices? If directed towards a devotee of God, they are virtues. But what should we call this? Compassion and affection. What can they be called? They are neither material nor divine. They are nothing in themselves. They become whatever they are attached to. To what do you attach this compassion? And to what do you direct your affection? If that same affection is directed towards this world, towards bad company, towards demonic people, then they become like that. That affection becomes demonic. Demonic affection. It is of no use to one's own soul, and certainly of no use to God. It is of use to demons. So, it is like plugging in a device. There is no current in the plug itself; it depends on where you plug it in. The resolution to this is that compassion and love are relative terms. Therefore, without an object of support, no one can express compassion or love alone. What does relative mean? They become whatever they are applied to. Where? That is the question. If I felt compassion, then a curiosity arises. Where did it occur? Upon whom did it occur? If I felt affection, then just feeling affection is not simply neutral on its own. But, it has a center. Whatever that center is like, this affection becomes like that. It does not remain as this person desires it to be. What is that center like where the affection was directed? If it is material, it becomes material. If it is demonic, it becomes demonic. If it is bad company, then this becomes bad company. The resolution to this is that compassion and love are relative terms. Therefore, without an object of support, no one can express compassion or love alone. Ashwatthama became Brahman-realized, and yet directed his affection towards Duryodhana. So, all his Brahman-realized state was lost. He received no fruit from it. Even though he became Brahman-realized, he still received no fruit. And the Gopis did not perform any spiritual endeavors, and connected themselves with Lord Shri Krishna Krishna 1) An avatãr of Bhagvãn. He incarnated in the svarup of a cowherd. This is considered to be a greater avatãr than the others, as Shree Krishna possessed all of the powers of Bhagvãn, whereas other avatãrs possessed less power. Shree Krishna conveyed the message of love and humanity to the world. Also, He recited the epic poem, the Bhagvad Geetã, to Arjun in which He stated: ‘Whenever dharma declines and adharma increases, I shall incarnate myself as a human to save the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner, and to establish dharma. I come into being from yug to yug’. 2) In the Vachanãmrut, Shreeji Mahãrãj also uses the name “Shree Krishna” to describe Bhagvãn Purushottam Nãrãyan. Tap to open in glossary → So, without endeavors, they received the fruit of spiritual endeavors. The other did not receive the fruit of his endeavors. That other person did not receive the fruit of his endeavors. This one, without endeavors, without performing them, received the fruit of endeavors. They received an even higher fruit than that. So, where we have connected our end, based on that, we receive the fruit. How much effort we made, based on that, the fruit is not received. Thinking about how much effort was made, like 'I made this much effort, so I must get this much fruit, right?' It is not received. Look at Ashwatthama's effort. He became Brahman-realized. While we might not even be able to become devotees of God, he became Brahman-realized. And yet, no fruit for his effort. And the Gopis' effort was nothing. What spiritual endeavors did they perform? No endeavors at all. And the fruit was greater than being Brahman-realized. So, compassion and affection, and service, are they called virtues or vices? Is service called a virtue or a vice? One would say it is a virtue. So, is performing service not a virtue? Whom are you serving? For whose sake are you serving? Based on that, it becomes a virtue. In this world, is everyone not serving their own relatives? Is that not service, or what can it be called? So, did that become a virtue? Or does it lead them away? It leads them to the realm of Yama, that very same service. Compassion, affection, and virtue. Compassion, affection, and service. They remain virtues only when they are connected to the good. They do not remain virtues on their own. They can turn into vices and cause this person to be severely beaten. He receives the fruit of that. It is not that because we serve, we will only receive good fruit. It depends on whom you have served. Whom have you served? Did you serve the world? Then you receive fruit accordingly. Did you serve God and His devotees? Or did you just serve yourself? Then you receive that much. What if one has served God and God's devotees, and still does not receive good fruit? That cannot be the case, right? God is such a master. No one can undo what that master does. So, there might be some flaw in the way the service was performed. So, if one has served God and God's devotees, then it is said, 'No one has ever been known to lose their honor while worshiping God.' In the Gita, God gave a guarantee. 'O beloved one, one who performs auspicious deeds never meets with an evil fate.' No harm will come to him. When I am here, how can it happen? It cannot happen at all. Therefore, without an object of support, no one can express compassion or love alone. How many enemies did the Pandavas have? Were the Pandavas more in number, or were their enemies more? And yet, no one could do anything to them. And yet, they could do nothing. Because they had served God. No one could do anything to them. The ultimate protector is God, isn't He? Who can harm them? They can do nothing. If there is a flaw in one's actions, then harm may occur. If there is no flaw in the actions, nothing will happen. And one must have the right intention. The intention that one has, must be firm. Therefore, without an object of support, no one can express compassion or love alone. There is always some object of compassion or love. In yielding fruit, it requires the recipient object. Based on that, the fruit is received. The fruit is not received merely by looking at compassion, affection, or service. It is received based on where you have directed it. Did Ashwatthama receive anything? What was he doing? He did it his whole life; what did he do? He only served Duryodhana, didn't he? He served Duryodhana until his very death. Even when Duryodhana was dying, he served him. So, would he receive the fruit? He did not receive the fruit. He directed affection there, felt compassion, and served. Based on whom you are doing it for, you receive the fruit. How much you do or how you do it, based on that, the fruit is not received. The scriptures say so. It is history, the history of Hinduism. Eternal history, it says so. Karna served Duryodhana, directed affection towards him, served him, so he received such fruit. Those who served the Pandavas received the fruit associated with the Pandavas. Since the Pandavas served Lord Shri Krishna Krishna 1) An avatãr of Bhagvãn. He incarnated in the svarup of a cowherd. This is considered to be a greater avatãr than the others, as Shree Krishna possessed all of the powers of Bhagvãn, whereas other avatãrs possessed less power. Shree Krishna conveyed the message of love and humanity to the world. Also, He recited the epic poem, the Bhagvad Geetã, to Arjun in which He stated: ‘Whenever dharma declines and adharma increases, I shall incarnate myself as a human to save the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner, and to establish dharma. I come into being from yug to yug’. 2) In the Vachanãmrut, Shreeji Mahãrãj also uses the name “Shree Krishna” to describe Bhagvãn Purushottam Nãrãyan. Tap to open in glossary → Now, if Duryodhana says, 'How can he receive it when I am here?' then what else can he do for him? He can do nothing for him. Whomsoever God protects, who else can harm or ruin them? So, one's intention, must be completely firm. And it must be pure. Then there is no other issue; the fruit is definitely received. In yielding fruit, it requires the recipient object. God, you see, gives fruit according to the intention. He does not give according to the gross action. Not based on weight. Someone might have performed a massive gross action, thinking they should receive a massive fruit, it is not like that. How strong is their intention? They receive fruit accordingly. But what kind of intention should it be? Pure. To serve God and God's devotees. What else would there be? It must be a firm intention. It should not be weak. Like, 'If service to God's devotee happens, fine, otherwise we must definitely look after ourselves.' That is called a weak intention. A firm one, like where does the resonance come from when one taps it? Have you ever tapped a clay pot or not? What? When there is a whole pot and one taps it, what does the tap tap Physical strictness. Penance. Enduring harsh weather (pronounced tup) conditions. Tap to open in glossary → Whether it is weak or not. It shows there is no crack in it. And if the crack is on the other side and one taps it? Then the sound comes out dull. Then the sound comes out dull. It says, 'I, the crack, am telling you that I am sitting right here.' No matter where, if tapped from all four sides? The crack would only be in one place. Then what? Wherever you tap tap Physical strictness. Penance. Enduring harsh weather (pronounced tup) conditions. Tap to open in glossary → The crack, you see, speaks with a dull sound. The pot does not speak. So, one's intention, if it is weak anywhere deep down, then God gives a dull fruit. How can God give a perfect fruit? A perfect one, when tapped, tells the tapper, 'Look, there is no weakness in this.' In that intention. The intention, after all, lies deep inside, doesn't it? But it speaks. The crack might be lying somewhere else, not visible to the eye. Even if covered with paint on top. Still, even if covered in paint, the crack speaks, not the pot. If there is no crack, then the pot speaks. So, one's intention must be perfect. Decisive and clear-cut towards God. Then God gives him such a perfect fruit. Otherwise, it is not received. There is always some object of compassion or love. In yielding fruit, it requires the recipient object. There is a center. Its object, meaning, is usually a person. It is not as if someone feels compassion for a pot or feels compassion for an object. They are living entities, for the most part. Compassion, love, and service, their objects are living entities. We serve an organization, so the organization is also a personality and it is a symbol of God, believing this, we do it. So, we believe it to be service to God. But for the most part, compassion, love, and that compassion, love, and service are directed towards living entities. It happens with a connection to a living entity. There is always some center of compassion or love. In yielding fruit, it requires the recipient object or center. If compassion or love was expressed, upon whom was it expressed? Or with whom was it expressed? Based on that recipient object, its materiality or divinity is determined. Whether it is material or divine, whether it is a virtue or a vice, its determination, based on how much service you performed, how much compassion you showed, and how much affection you directed, is nothing at all. Absolutely zero. Where you did it and whom you did it for, based on that is the fruit. Based on that is the fruit. So, does one have to be very careful in selecting the recipient? Only then does one receive the fruit. The focus is on selecting the recipient. Based on that alone, is it a virtue or a vice, divine or material? Maharaj says that one who serves here, in Akshardham. He receives it in Akshardham. So, if one performs some service here, sweeps the temple with a broom here, then he has swept the temple in Akshardham. If it was performed with such a connection, with such an intention. If compassion or love was expressed, upon whom was it expressed? Or with whom was it expressed? Based on that recipient object, its materiality or divinity is determined. It cannot be determined based on the one who expresses compassion or love. No matter how pure a person he may be, and no matter how wise he may be. The doer. Yes, the doer may be as wise as can be and as pure as can be. But if he served an impure person, then he does not receive a pure fruit. Bhishma Pitamah and others were indeed pure persons. They served Duryodhana. Sometimes, when they felt like it, they served the Pandavas a little. But, Lord Shri Krishna Krishna 1) An avatãr of Bhagvãn. He incarnated in the svarup of a cowherd. This is considered to be a greater avatãr than the others, as Shree Krishna possessed all of the powers of Bhagvãn, whereas other avatãrs possessed less power. Shree Krishna conveyed the message of love and humanity to the world. Also, He recited the epic poem, the Bhagvad Geetã, to Arjun in which He stated: ‘Whenever dharma declines and adharma increases, I shall incarnate myself as a human to save the holy, to destroy the sin of the sinner, and to establish dharma. I come into being from yug to yug’. 2) In the Vachanãmrut, Shreeji Mahãrãj also uses the name “Shree Krishna” to describe Bhagvãn Purushottam Nãrãyan. Tap to open in glossary → But on the 18th time, when He Himself retreated, Kalyavan pursued Him to kill Him. God is all-powerful, so nothing could happen to Him. Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Ghori 17 times and released him out of compassion. And on the 18th time, when he won, what fruit of compassion did he receive? History shows that. They were unworthy recipients. Deserving of compassion, they were not. Therefore, no good fruit ever comes from that. God, of course, did it knowingly. They brought an army together, and He reaped that fruit. Where would I go to gather them? And all of them were demons. So, all his friendships, were mostly of that kind. So, he would call all his friends over. God would deal with all of them and leave this one alone. So, he would go and make new friends again, another bunch. Then God would deal with them again. And there are also many historical accounts regarding what is attained through compassion shown to a devotee of God. The Gopis directed their love towards God, and it was of a worldly manner. Even though it was of a material sentiment, they became Brahman-realized. While Bharatji, with a pure sentiment, directed affection and compassion towards a deer calf, look, how pure a person he was. And his intention was also good. The intention was certainly not to harass anyone. When Ashwatthama helps Duryodhana, what is the intention behind that help? To harass the Pandavas. But Bharatji had no such intention. Like, 'If I help this one, its mother will be harassed.' Like, 'If this comes to me, its mother will be harassed,' there was no such thing. So, still, the fruit was not good. No matter how pure a person he may be. No matter how powerful a person he may be. Bharatji was powerful, pure, and possessed everything, look. But because he plugged it in somewhere else. The Gopis directed their love towards God, and it was of a worldly manner. Even though it was of a material sentiment, they became Brahman-realized. While Bharatji, with a pure sentiment, directed affection and compassion towards a deer calf, still he had to take three births. Therefore, compassion and love do not determine the outcome on their own, but if they are directed towards immortal recipients, who are God or His Ekantik devotees, then they become immortal. They become Brahman-realized and divine. 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