That, "No matter how hard I try, Maharaj does not remove my desires." Such are his thoughts. And they do not decrease. So, if they do not decrease, whose fault is it? Maharaj says that such false arguments and weak desires keep arising in his mind, and the inner enemies do not leave his heart. So, what does that mean? Why did Maharaj attribute this to a lack of conviction? When one experiences desires from inner enemies, and then finds fault in Maharaj, what is that to him? Why did he find fault? He gets such a thought, that "Why is Maharaj not removing my desires?" This means he has not known God to be omniscient. Perhaps God does not have such power. Our hand has mistakenly fallen into the curry. Our hand has fallen on a buffalo. Perhaps God does not have such power, otherwise would He not remove them? I worship, yet He does not remove my desires. So, God must not have that power. Therefore, such thoughts keep arising: "Who knows whether I will attain liberation or not?" "And after death, will I become a king or a ghost?" Because, Why would you become a ghost? Why does he have doubts in his mind? What if God does not grant me liberation? And perhaps all of this is completely false and hypocritical. And this is the path of sin, not the path of merit. If someone says, "These Swaminarayan followers are like this and like that, they are not even like human beings." If someone says that, it enters his mind. Yes, it seems so to you. So, it means that he has not known Maharaj from within. He has not known Maharaj. Or he has not known the ways, nor has he compared them with the scriptures. And he does not value it. So, he feels in his mind, "Who knows, after death, if I become a ghost, so be it." Therefore, such thoughts keep arising: "Who knows whether I will attain liberation or not?" "And after death, will I become a king or a ghost?" Because, due to a lack of conviction, a deep doubt remains in his heart. "Is what I am doing considered devotion, or merit, or is it a sinful activity?" He cannot judge his own actions. The reason is that because he has not made a judgment on the other side, his judgment falters everywhere. Where he was supposed to make a judgment on the other side, he could not make a proper judgment. And he could not establish a proper conviction. Therefore, he cannot judge his own actions, whether "I am on the right path or the wrong path." He cannot make such a judgment. Because he lacks conviction... Because without conviction in God, darkness has enveloped his intellect. He lacks discrimination. Without conviction in God, where would discrimination come from? So, darkness has enveloped him, and thus he cannot judge his own actions, whether "I am in a meritorious activity or a sinful activity." Such deep darkness comes over him. And the root cause of that deep darkness is, that he thinks, "Is this a 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 → Since he cannot make a judgment there, he also cannot judge his own actions. Because, due to a lack of conviction, a deep doubt remains in his heart. "Is what I am doing considered devotion, or merit, or is it a sinful activity?" He doubts to that extent, and therefore believes, "What if, as a result of this activity, I become a ghost?" If it is a sinful activity, then he certainly will. If it is a sinful activity, sitting in satsang satsang 1) True company. The practice of associating with Bhagvãn’s sant, other satsangis, the ãtmã, and the sacred shãstras, and also observing vartmãns and niyams. 2) Also refers to the sampradãy, which is the presence of good company. Tap to open in glossary → If you do not do anything good, then you are sinning. This sampraday, the fundamental principles of the sampraday... If you lead someone's child onto the wrong path, how great a sin is that. Are the fundamental principles of this sampraday full of sinful activities, or compared to others... There is no special... there is no specialty in this compared to others. What? The principles of this sampraday, are they increasing sins or destroying sins? He cannot make this judgment. Because he cannot judge the original person, and because of that, this happens. Therefore, he also cannot judge his own actions. Whether "No, no, this light is spreading in my heart," or "darkness is spreading in my heart," he cannot make that judgment. Therefore, all of this happens to him. So, often it appears that he has no issue with the original person, and yet, if such thoughts arise, then? I did not understand. It is because he does not have that view of the original person that this happens. Yes. Understood. Even then, Maharaj said that it is his weakness. Even if he does not have it in the original person, meaning he has not associated with Him, so he does not know much. His clarification has not happened. But it means that it is called a weakness. Weakness in conviction. And yet, Maharaj has said, that often, even if there is conviction in God, inner enemies remain. Then, he should always perceive divinity in God. If he has no doubt but lacks the perception of divinity, then he is somewhat lacking. That aspect of his conviction is weak. Are the fundamental principles of this sampraday full of sinful activities, or compared to others... The fundamental principles. Are Maharaj's principles those that increase sinful activities? Often, people might have distorted them, and that can cause doubt. But in the fundamental principles, he should have clarity. Are they full of sinful activities, or is there no specialty in this compared to others? In Maharaj's commands and in the traditions established by Maharaj, he sees the eighteenth century, he sees orthodoxy, and he perceives blind faith, rigidity, etc., due to his weak conviction. The flaws that exist in the world, the same or even more, in this satsang satsang 1) True company. The practice of associating with Bhagvãn’s sant, other satsangis, the ãtmã, and the sacred shãstras, and also observing vartmãns and niyams. 2) Also refers to the sampradãy, which is the presence of good company. Tap to open in glossary → That is called a lack of conviction in Maharaj. What? He cannot speak against Maharaj, but he says to Maharaj, says to Maharaj that, "Maharaj wanted to do this thing, but Maharaj could not do it." "So now we will do it." So, what does that mean? He has no knowledge of Maharaj's personality. And there is a lack of conviction. Then, no matter how much they try to put on a face outwardly, but it is called a lack of conviction. If he sees a flaw in Maharaj, then that is indeed a lack of conviction. That "Maharaj could not do it, and we are doing it." We are doing something greater than Maharaj. Maharaj did not know Himself, so we are making Maharaj better known. So, who are those fools? Maharaj says that by his own principles, his own arguments are refuted. He is a fool, so he does not know. In Maharaj's commands and in the traditions established by Maharaj, he sees the eighteenth century, he sees orthodoxy, and blind faith, rigidity, etc... He sees flaws. He saw some flaw in Maharaj's character, even if that flaw is seen in some corner. That "Maharaj did not do this properly, it would have been better if He had done this much." If he feels that way, then his conviction is said to have shaken. Once a single pebble shakes, then it becomes easy to make a hole in the wall from there. As long as the pebble does not move, there is no problem. In Maharaj's commands and in the traditions established by Maharaj, he sees the eighteenth century, orthodoxy... Nowadays, many such things are said in the sampraday. That "Maharaj did not want to do this, Maharaj did not want to install such murtis, and Maharaj wanted to do that." Right? Right? "He did not want to build a temple here, and He wanted to build one there, but Maharaj could not do it." "So now we are doing it." So, all of this is called a lack of conviction in Maharaj. This is because someone's conviction might have become too excessive, so it became excessive in that, not in Maharaj. Any action of Maharaj and any tradition established by Maharaj, if a person sees a flaw in it, then there is a flaw in his conviction. Some might even have doubts about the Vachanamrut. That "In one place in the Vachanamrut, Maharaj said this, and in another place, He said that; there is a contradiction between the two." "In one place, Maharaj has said it this way, and in the very same text, Maharaj has said the same thing in that way." So, it means that Maharaj did not understand. And he caught Maharaj's flaw. He caught Maharaj's flaw. How intelligent he must be. In the traditions established by Maharaj, he sees the eighteenth century, he sees orthodoxy, and blind faith, rigidity, etc... Many say, "When Maharaj did it, it was fine then, but now this is not right." So? Even then, it is a flaw. What is the flaw in that? Did Maharaj not understand? Could He not see the future? Was He an ordinary 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 → In the traditions established by Maharaj, he sees the eighteenth century, he sees orthodoxy, and he perceives blind faith, rigidity, etc., due to his weak conviction. 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