The subject of discussion: To keep the goal of pleasing God and to do what pleases God. Main points: It is true to maintain a desireless state in any action, but do not abandon the desire to please God; that must be kept. To do what pleases God and not to do what does not please Him, then God is pleased. This Vachanamrut is about desiring and obtaining the pleasure of Shreeji Maharaj. First, Maharaj has said that whatever is done in relation to God, such as bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → dharma dharma 1) Universal law or principle that 'sustains' or 'upholds' the entire world. Righteousness, morality, religion, Tap to open in glossary → If one does all of that in vain without keeping such a desire, then it is called tamoguni. It is said in the Gita... That is why it is said like that, why is it tamoguni? If one does good, how is it tamogun? That means, the knowledge of God's pleasure, the knowledge of His glory, its greatness—he is ignorant of this. And ignorance is the effect of tamogun, therefore it is called tamoguni. Maharaj has spoken about this, how does desireless 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 → "Karmanyevadhikaraste ma phaleshu kadachana, ma karmaphalaheturbhurma te sangostvakarmani." A person makes an effort and does not desire its fruit, to what extent is this possible? To what extent is this possible? It is possible, except for sustenance. Yes, it is possible except for sustenance. If one is a renunciant, he still needs the materials for bodily sustenance. So should he desire those or not? To maintain his bodily sustenance, is that needed or not? If one is a householder, he has a family. So, maintaining the family is his responsibility. So should he desire that fruit or not? What God has forbidden is worldly fruits, "ma phaleshu kadachana." One should not desire the honor, greatness, fame, material objects, status, or prosperity of this world. But even not desiring that, to what extent? To what extent should one not desire it? Desiring sustenance does not break the desireless state. So, by desiring sustenance and not desiring anything else, does he become desireless? Maharaj's question is like this. He desires sustenance in this world and keeps no other desires, just by that much... one still has to desire. One has to desire sustenance. If one is a householder, he has to desire the sustenance of his family. If one is a renunciant, he has to desire the sustenance of his body. He needs clothes, that, eating, drinking, all those desires... can it happen without desiring? So does he cease to be desireless? Just by that much, does he cease to be desireless? Maharaj added to this that even if a person desires the liberation of his own jiva, still that desireless... that desireless state is not lost. On the contrary, more of a desireless state comes into it, that is what Maharaj says. If one desires God's pleasure, there is no one as desireless as him. When one desires God's pleasure and does not desire worldly things, then a desireless state is achieved. Suppose we are walking on the path of God, then all these means are needed to please God. So, is desiring the means a worldly desire or a desireless state? If one truly wants to please God... If it is a reality, then it is not worldly. Maharaj says that one has to investigate a lot, one has to remain very alert. One has to constantly watch whether we are slipping from a desireless state into a desire-filled state. But if the means are solely to please God, then there is no problem; then it is called desireless. To please Him. Everyone should look into their own hearts. Should one desire for sustenance, or should one sustain oneself with whatever comes by God's will? Sustain oneself with whatever comes, but he does accept it, right? He accepts it but does not desire it. He does not desire it, which means it is indeed a desireless state. But he does accept it. What is the meaning of "ma phaleshu kadachana"? Not to keep desires. It does not mean not to accept it at all. And then sustenance... in that, it is like, suppose more than sustenance comes, should one accept it or not? Not to accept. It is not like that. If one is a householder, and a wealthy householder, does he get only as much as his sustenance? He gets more than that. So did they not remain desireless devotees? Did they remain desireless devotees or not? They remained desireless. They did, right? If he spends it all for his own bodily use, then he did not. But if he spends according to his status and utilizes the other things for God's pleasure, then he is indeed a desireless devotee. Can King Janak not be called a desireless devotee by anyone? King Janak was there, so is he called desireless or not? He is indeed called desireless. So did he have only enough for his bodily sustenance? He had an entire kingdom. Therefore, whether he accepts it or not, how he utilizes it determines whether he is desire-filled or desireless. How does King Janak use that kingdom? And there is a poor, destitute man man Mind. One of the four antah-karans, with the function of (pronounced mun) generating thoughts and desires, and governing all of the indriyas. Tap to open in glossary → So, it is something to be thought about very deeply. One is livelihood and acceptance—what kind of acceptance? The things he accepts, and where does he spend them? Where does he utilize them? If the utilization, as Maharaj said, if the utilization is for God's pleasure, then even if he accepts more than his sustenance, still his desireless state is not lost. And if someone did not get even enough for his needs, then there is no problem in him accepting that, right? He did not get enough for bodily sustenance. 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