A saint who has self-realization possesses both self-realization and intense detachment. because of which he does not face any kind of bondage. But if he does not have devotion towards God, then just as many types of food and many types of delicacies are prepared, and if there is no salt in them, then they all become useless. Similarly, without devotion to God, mere knowledge of Brahman and detachment are indeed useless. And they are always detrimental to ultimate liberation. Knowing this, Shukdevji, even though he had attained the state of Brahman, studied the Shrimad Bhagavatam. And he practiced firm devotion towards 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 → Therefore, if one who has self-realization does not have devotion towards God, then that is a major flaw in him. And one who has... What is that flaw? What did Maharaj say? What did He say? [inaudible] What does that mean? [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] Even if one is extremely detached, yet has no love for God, then that is extremely inauspicious. That detachment has no meaning. There is no attachment anywhere and one is extremely free of desires. Even if it is so, what of it? Suppose that state of being Brahman is inauspicious, detrimental to ultimate liberation. Maharaj explained the meaning of being Brahman as: if there is extreme self-realization and extreme detachment, then he certainly remains detached from the world. But because of that detachment from the world, if that detachment from the world obstructs him from attaching to God and God's devotee, then it becomes inauspicious. It becomes contrary to his ultimate liberation. In comparison, it would have been better if he were attached to the world and also attached to God. His extreme detachment became an obstacle for him. God... because of extreme detachment from the world, he also became extremely detached from God and God's devotee. So that became an obstacle for him, hence it became inauspicious. Inauspicious means detrimental to ultimate liberation, contrary to ultimate liberation. Here, 'a' is in the sense of contrary. Not in the sense of zero. Not that ultimate liberation became zero. Contrary to ultimate liberation. Read that line again. And a saint who has self-realization possesses both self-realization and intense detachment, because of which he does not face any kind of bondage. That means he remains in the world with extreme detachment. No problem with that. But if he does not have devotion towards God, then just as many types of food and many types of delicacies... If he has no attachment to God, no love... no connection, no attachment, then that other thing becomes inauspicious for him. It must have happened because of that. Otherwise, if he were attached to the world, he would have certainly attached to this as well. In comparison, it would have been better if he did not have that intense detachment and the other thing. He would have attached to the world and also to God. He became detached from the world, and yet he does not attach to God. So that became the cause for him, it became inauspicious. Can one who attaches to the world not attach to God? There is no such necessity. That means attaching to the world... is better than this. He made so much effort, and yet what he was supposed to do—attach to God—he could not do. So those became beneficial... became detrimental to ultimate liberation, like that. And what obstructs him from attaching to God? In the world... otherwise, mostly the world obstructs everyone from attaching to God. The world also obstructs him; because he attaches to the world, he does not attach to God. But this one became free of desires from the world. So now he should attach to God. Yet he does not attach. So there must be some reason. So the reason must be what is present right here, who else could it be? Otherwise, why would he not attach? The souls in the world... all the worldly souls do not attach to God, what is the reason for that? They attach to the world. The world comes in their way. The world does not let them attach to God. This one does not have that. This one has self-realization and detachment, extreme detachment, because of which detachment from the world has become firm; he does not attach to the world. And yet he still does not attach to God. So Maharaj means to say that if he is obstructed from attaching to God, and the world is not the obstacle, then it must be this, there can be no other. God is such an entity that He attracts everyone. "Itthambhūtaguṇo hariḥ, ātmārāmāśca munayo nirgranthā apyurukrame, kurvantyahaitukīṁ bhaktimitthambhūtaguṇo hariḥ." God is indeed such an entity that He attracts even those who are rejoiced in the self. So this one is rejoiced in the self, yet he does not come. He is not attracted like that. He does not develop love for God and God's devotee. So what must be obstructing him? Therefore, it became inauspicious. It is not necessary... it is not certain that self-knowledge and detachment only bring ultimate liberation. They can also cause detriment to ultimate liberation. How to use them, they are qualities, aren't they? Where to apply the qualities, where to use them, and where not to use them, depends on that. Therefore, self-knowledge and detachment can be in a divine soul, and also in a demonic soul. A demonic soul cannot use them for God. For God's... for the benefit of his own ultimate liberation. Maharaj spoke of that very thing regarding Ashwatthama, who had both. He had attained the state of Brahman. And one cannot become Brahman without detachment. Yet his soul did not attach to God. And it did not attach to the Pandavas either. It did not attach to God and the Pandavas. On the contrary, he felt malice towards them. He felt malice towards the Pandavas. See, coming to Maharaj, that Dharmapita... to Dharmadev, he himself vented his anger. He vented his anger because there was malice inside, like that. Yes. 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 → I know Him. "I know Him," so he vented his anger. On the contrary, he felt malice towards Him. So that self-knowledge and detachment, or his state of being Brahman, became inauspicious for him. Correct. And a saint who has self-realization possesses both self-realization and intense detachment, because of which he does not face any kind of bondage. But if he does not have devotion towards God, then just as many types of food and many types of delicacies are prepared, and if there is no salt in them, then they all become useless. If there is no divine nature in his soul, then that self-knowledge and detachment do not benefit him. Divine nature in the soul... self-knowledge and detachment are qualities. They are indeed his qualities. They are instruments. It is a vehicle. Where to take the vehicle is in the driver's hands, isn't it? What benefit to derive from self-knowledge and detachment, depends on the soul. So even if there is no divine nature, what is the factor based on which he developed self-realization and detachment? Spiritual endeavors. If there is no divine nature, then in detachment or self-realization... Whatever your logic may be, the example says so. Ashwatthama had indeed developed them. Ashwatthama had developed them. And the great demons also possessed detachment. They had detachment. And even though they were devotees... devotees of God, they were all infatuated with other things. That does happen. Each has its own quality; a quality has its independent nature. Self-realization has an independent nature, so... if someone acquires it, he must get its result. Detachment has an independent nature. If someone adopts it, it does not let him attach to the world. If divine nature is not the cause, on what basis is it developed? On what basis is it developed? By seeing misery; there is misery in the world, so they developed it to escape from the misery of the world. To escape from miseries... from the misery of the world, it is indeed necessary, isn't it? So he escapes from the misery of this world. Was Ashwatthama demonic, or did he become so due to the company of Duryodhana? Duryodhana... Maharaj has not written anything like whether he became so due to company or anything like that. But mostly it means he became so due to company. He might not have been so from the beginning. He might not have been so from the beginning. The reason is that initially they were poor. They did not even have anything to eat at home. So Drona brought him here, they came to seek refuge in the kingdom. Then he might have become so due to company. Because it is nowhere written that he was Brahman from the beginning. It is not written anywhere that Ashwatthama was immortal from the beginning. Maharaj said that it is attained through spiritual endeavors. In his context, Maharaj wrote that through some spiritual endeavors, he attained the state of Brahman... Brahman. So he must have performed spiritual endeavors. Just as many types of food and many types of delicacies are prepared, and if there is no salt in them, then they all become useless. All the spices became useless. What? That self-realization and detachment are spices. They are not the main dish. They are spices, so they make the main dish taste good. If there is self-realization and detachment, it becomes easy for him to love God. If he wants to attach to God, it becomes easy for him. If he wants to attach to God's devotee or serve him, it becomes easy for him, that is all. Similarly, without devotion to God, mere knowledge of Brahman and detachment are indeed useless. And they are always detrimental to ultimate liberation. Like... 'always detrimental to ultimate liberation,' Maharaj wrote so. Not just detrimental to ultimate liberation. If there is no devotion to God, then at any time, it is contrary to one's own ultimate liberation. If there is devotion to God, it helps. Similarly, without devotion to God, mere knowledge of Brahman and detachment are indeed useless. And they are always detrimental to ultimate liberation. Knowing this, Shukdevji, even though he had attained the state of Brahman, studied the Shrimad Bhagavatam. And he practiced firm devotion towards 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 → His state of being Brahman did not become an obstacle for him. To sit and learn the basics. So now, Shukdevji would be considered a beginner, wouldn't he? What did Shukdevji have to study? What? What was there to study? He had to study the Brahma Sutras. And he sat sat 1) True. Real. 2) Permanent, imperishable and unchanging. Is unbound by the past, the present, and the future. Tap to open in glossary → So, to learn the basics, in his situation, that state of being Brahman did not become an obstacle. It did not obstruct him. Knowing this, Shukdevji, even though he had attained the state of Brahman, studied the Shrimad Bhagavatam. And he practiced firm devotion towards 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 → Therefore, if one who has self-realization does not have devotion towards God, In that also it is written, 'Harerguṇākṣiptamatiḥ bhagavān bādarāyaṇiḥ' it is written so. What words did Vyas Bhagwan write, what did He write? 'Harerguṇākṣiptamatiḥ bhagavān bādarāyaṇiḥ' Badarayanih Badarayanih Then that other thing is written. This shloka he studied, like that. nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' adhyagānmahadākhyānaṁ nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' What was the need for him to write 'Bhagwan' there? What? Being God, He cannot do that. Being God, He cannot do that; they were like God, so they could not do that, yet he did it. What is the reason for that? Divine nature. That is it, his attraction to God. Devotion. Devotion to God. So even though he was God, yet nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' Then God... he did not write 'Nityaṁ viṣṇupriyaḥ', but 'Nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ'. Maharaj says that in the scriptures, it is written everywhere in seed form, it is indeed present. This is the Bhagavatam scripture, this is not Maharaj's. The Bhagavatam scripture, but Maharaj says it is present in seed form. Maharaj brings it to light. nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' Etadadhyagānmahadākhyānaṁ nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' Harerguṇākṣiptamatiḥ bhagavān bādarāyaṇiḥ. There, Vyas Bhagwan did not even write 'Nityaṁ viṣṇupriyaḥ'. If He wanted to write that, He could have, couldn't He? He would have put some other adjective if the syllables fell short. Like 'Mahāviṣṇupriya', like that. He did not write so. Vyas Bhagwan could have put any word He wanted. Or it means that even if they become like God, yet they can do this. No, it does not mean that. Because even an ordinary person can do that. Otherwise, all these people would simply say, "We are not like God, so we don't have to do anything like that." So they would escape through that. Therefore, one cannot take such a meaning. Only this meaning can be taken: even though they had become like God, yet... There seems to be no other purpose for writing 'bhagavān bādarāyaṇiḥ'. That, 'Harerguṇākṣiptamatiḥ bhagavān bādarāyaṇiḥ adhyagānmahadākhyānaṁ nityaṁ viṣṇujanapriyaḥ.' After becoming like God, he should have love for God, shouldn't he? So? But he did not develop love for God. Where did he develop it? In God's devotee. He developed it in God's devotee. Even after becoming like God, he developed love for God's devotee, and because he developed love for God's devotee, he studied this. His context—God does not come to listen to discourses. Who comes to listen to discourses? The devotee comes, like that. So, being attracted to the association of devotees, and... it is written so. God. This... this is written very clearly in the Sudha Sindhu. The entire shloka is also written. Yes. This is in its commentary. The shloka. Knowing this, Shukdevji, even though he had attained the state of Brahman, studied the Shrimad Bhagavatam. And he practiced firm devotion towards 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 → Therefore, if one who has self-realization does not have devotion towards God, then that is a major flaw in him. And even if one has devotion towards God, if he does not have self-realization and detachment, then that is a flaw in him. It does not penetrate deep within, you see. And even if one has devotion towards God, if he does not have self-realization and detachment, then just as he has love for God, he also develops love for other objects. So it is an obstacle. It cannot be called a flaw. That other thing is called a flaw. And this is called an obstacle. For him, there is no obstacle, but inside him lies a flaw. That. And even if one has devotion towards God, if he does not have self-realization and detachment, then just as he has love for God, he also develops love for other objects. Therefore, that is also a major flaw for one on the path of devotion. And one who is such a mature devotee of God, has indeed understood the true glory of God. Therefore, to him, everything other than God appears insignificant. Because of that, he does not get attached to any object. Therefore, self-realization, detachment, and devotion towards God— when all three are present together, then there is no deficiency of any kind. And one who is like that is indeed called a wise devotee of God, is called an ekantik devotee, is called an exclusive devotee. 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