It is not that a person who is infatuated does not have knowledge, and it is not that wise souls do not have infatuation. Even the sages had infatuation. Sages were those who preached to others and were wise men. Similarly, sadhus and mahatmas are called wise men, aren't they? And they are called those who preach to others. But they have infatuation. So it is not that a wise person cannot have infatuation. In connection with that, God said, "Even a wise person acts according to his own nature." Often, both things work together in both places. One may be wise and also full of infatuation. The interesting fact about infatuation is that even though one has knowledge, when one violates the limits, then it is called infatuation. When the title of infatuation is applied, then there is a disregard for knowledge or the actual best thing. It must happen, only then is it considered as infatuation. Otherwise, it is considered as something else, not infatuation. If he does not disregard the best thing and does not hold on to the weak thing, then until then it is not even considered in the category of infatuation. You may consider it as ignorance or vasana or all of that, but not this. When the title of infatuation is applied, then in it... That is why God put infatuation at the end. "Thinking of objects, attachment to them is formed." Attachment means affection. "From attachment arises desire." That is, from affection arises desire. "From desire arises anger." If desire is broken, then anger arises. And if desire is fulfilled, then "from greed arises greed." Then he desires again. And "from desire arises infatuation." That "from anger arises infatuation." From anger arises infatuation. So he forgets his duty. And even if there is greed, there is infatuation. He forgets his duty. So greed is the root of affection, or it is affection of a kind. Even if we say that when the title of infatuation is applied, there is a disregard for knowledge or the actual best thing, it will not be an exaggeration. In infatuation, there must be a disregard for knowledge, otherwise infatuation is not infatuation. There must be a disregard for the true thing, the best thing. Arjun respects Dronacharya. Whom does he disregard in front of him? 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 → Maharaj has made a very complex statement here too to explain the nature of infatuation. Maharaj says, "Tonight we saw Dhruva, then we saw the positions of stars, deities, planets, sun, moon, etc. Then we looked within and saw everything in the body too. And finally, seeing the knower of the field and Purushottam Purushottam God. Supreme being. Bhagvãn. He is unparalleled, omnipotent and the all-doer, omniscient, omnipresent, the ocean of all forms of bliss, does not have any attributes of Mãyã, divine, always taking birth on earth for Tap to open in glossary → Maharaj means to say that this whole creation is lying there. In it, there are extremely superior things. And there are extremely weak things. To accept them is not a hindrance to anyone. What is the hindrance? One's own affection. One's own affection does not let him connect with God. So Maharaj said that affection is... What did Maharaj say in the Vachanamrut about the extremely superior objects? That the word is 'beautiful five objects'. The beautiful five objects are the cause of the rise of infatuation. And it brings him from the best to the worst. It does not let him hold on to the best thing. Then a thought arose in our heart, "How do others come out of samadhi?" Then it was known that they come out because they have some attachment to objects. This means that in comparison to the five objects, we disregard or disrespect the bliss of Maharaj's form, which is our state of infatuation. Difference between infatuation and ignorance. Objects and duty. In this, Maharaj has spoken of objects. The delusion of objects is infatuation, and in the Gita, God spoke of the delusion of duty. The delusion of objects itself causes the delusion of duty. And the knowledge of duty purifies the object. If he grasps the true duty, then he will grasp the true object in the future. And if instead of God in the object, he becomes attached to the worldly object, the beautiful five objects, then his duty is bound to be corrupted. And if he grasps the true duty, the selfless service of God, then even though he does not yet have the recognition in his heart, or the recognition of this object, of how much happiness there is in God and how much misery there is in the world, still he will grasp it one day. He called it a means. He called it a means to overcome infatuation. God called it a means to overcome infatuation in the Gita. Selfless devotion to God. Selfless service of God and God's devotee. He called it a means. Difference between infatuation and ignorance. Infatuation and ignorance are both different. Therefore, infatuation is not just ignorance, it is something more than that. Ignorance comes within infatuation. Infatuation does not come within ignorance. If there is only ignorance, though they are all together, but in case there is only ignorance, it is not that it is infatuation. A child is ignorant. A child is ignorant, and a 60-year-old 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 → Infatuation and ignorance are both different. Therefore, infatuation is not just ignorance, it is something more than that. It is not that there is no ignorance at all in infatuation, but if ignorance itself were infatuation, then it should be destroyed as soon as knowledge is attained. It should never happen to scholars, but it is not so. Sometimes... God would not have said so. He would not have said, "Beings follow their nature." If they were one. Sometimes, for scholars, scriptural knowledge becomes an instrument of infatuation. It becomes a means to achieve the goal of infatuation. How do scholars fulfill their infatuation? By making scriptures a weapon. It is said so in the Gita, to worship sadhus and mahatmas in that way. Otherwise, don't they say that infatuation will happen, what is that in Swami's talks? "Join the cart and then there will be heat and you will incur sin." There is something like 'face becomes' and 'join the cart', isn't there? Sometimes, for scholars, scriptural knowledge becomes an instrument of infatuation. "You will incur sin," where was that from? Where was it taken from? It was taken from the scriptures themselves. Sometimes, for scholars, scriptural knowledge becomes an instrument of infatuation. It becomes a means to achieve the goal of infatuation. Therefore, in infatuation, there is a disregard for existing knowledge. Arjun said, "Thus we have heard from the wise." What have we heard? That if there is intermixture of castes, then the ancestors fall into hell, we have heard so. So you make us do that. We too have heard the scriptures somewhere. It is not that we haven't heard it. Therefore, in infatuation, there is a disregard for existing knowledge. Keeping knowledge in the background and violating it, infatuation does its work. And if anyone comes to stop him? He shows that knowledge, "Look, it is said so." Difference between infatuation and vasana. Infatuation is also slightly different from vasana. Vasana is not just infatuation, it is something more than that. If there is only vasana, then one feels ashamed, so some limit remains. People with vasana have shame. And infatuation is shameless. Once infatuation occurs, he shamelessly asserts it. Ravana is called the symbol of infatuation. Ravana is called the personified form of infatuation. So he shamelessly abducted Sita. When Indra Indra The king of the devs. He resides in Svarg-Lok. Tap to open in glossary → What else happens in this? If they have come under its grip, "I don't want to do it, go, do whatever you can." So that is called shamelessness. So in this, shamelessness is in infatuation. In vasana, if it has not yet gone out of control, there is no shamelessness. Who does not have vasana in this world? God's devotee... If God's devotee is walking on the road, does he not have vasana? He too has it. But he has shame. He has vasana and then he has shame. He feels that if we do something wrong, it will bring a blemish to Maharaj, it will bring a blemish to our guru guru A teacher. He will guide you on the path of kalyãn. Tap to open in glossary → ashram ashram 1) Stage of life. There are four ãshrams in total, each with their duties and responsibilities – brahm-chãrya, grahastha, vãnprasth, and sannyãs. 2) Hermitage. Place where tyãgis live. Tap to open in glossary → And for the other, vasana has already come within infatuation, he does it only to fulfill vasana, but when shame is gone, then it becomes infatuation. Vasana plus the absence of shame becomes infatuation. So both are not said to be one. Infatuation always favors fulfilling vasana to fulfill vasana. "This must be done." There is no other way than this. And if there is only vasana, he feels ashamed. Infatuation is also slightly different from vasana. Vasana is not just infatuation, it is something more than that. If there is only vasana, then one feels ashamed, so some limit remains, but in infatuation, there is no hesitation. Vasana is fulfilled again. Infatuation is not fulfilled. If someone has a vasana for eating and drinking, and if he eats to his fill, then? Then? Then it is over, for the time being. So it is over for the time being. And infatuation is never fulfilled. Infatuation just goes on and on. Why is Ravana said to have 10 heads? Why is Ravana said to have 10 heads? Even with 10 heads, one stomach is not filled. Ravana did not have 10 stomachs. He eats with 10 heads together, if he eats, then with all 10 and he had 20 hands, so he must be putting 10 morsels. Or not? How must Ravana be eating? One has to go and see. Even if he eats with all 10 hands, still one stomach is not filled. Ravana's stomach was not filled till the end. And not having the stomach filled, that itself is called infatuation. The stomach is given to lose honor. No one's stomach is ever filled. So that is called infatuation. 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