Vachanamrut Gadhada II Chapter 43. Topic: Nirguna love. Main point: Even if a devotee of God becomes gunatit, he still has love for God, and that love is natural (sajatiya) to the soul. Sajatiya means in the form of Brahman. That means the soul has no demands. So, it is love without demands. The meaning of sajatiya of the soul is that the soul has no needs. In love, there can be two aspects. One natural nature of love is that it only involves giving. So here, from 'tarpan' (offering), the word 'priti' (love) has originated. Tarpan means to please others. Performing pitru tarpan means pleasing the ancestors. The nature of love is to please others. Love is relative to the other person. Immediately after love, the question arises: in what? In whom? Just 'love' is not a neutral word, but it is relative. If there is love, in what is it? In whom is it? It is either in an object, in a person, or in an action. Love resides only in these three places. These are the three places to love. Either in a person, in an object, or in an action. I like doing this action very much. Now, in that, there is no need to please the action. If it is an object, there is no need to please it. So, if it is a person, then the love there, according to its nature, is pleasing the beloved, to please others. And if one loves, a person might have a desire to get something in return. It is not like that everywhere. But in this, it is possible that even if people love, they do not love without selfishness; in the world, there is such love, no one loves without selfishness. That means there is a desire to get in return or a desire to take something from it, that is his desire. If there is no desire to take, then it is love of the form of Brahman. If there is no desire to take and only the desire to please, then that is love of the form of Brahman. But when does that happen? It happens when the body-consciousness leaves oneself. As long as there is body-consciousness, the body will have demands that 'I want this, I want this.' Even if we do not wish for it, it will remain. Its nature is such that it is natural that it needs something. So, so that it does not go, Maharaj said that it is natural (sajatiya) to the soul; natural to the soul means the soul has no other needs. This love has no needs. Love without any demands is love of the form of Brahman. That lasts constantly. Otherwise, it does not last. If there is a demand, and Maharaj said that if he loves and God fulfills it, then there is no problem. If He does not, then it does not remain. If He does not, then it does not remain. If his demand is not fulfilled, then what is the connection between you and me? It happens like that. If He fulfills the demand, it increases. Oh! But that increased love is troublesome, and the decreased love is troublesome; both are troublesome. So, love of the form of Brahman. Love natural to the soul and love characterized by intense devotion (premlakshana priti) mean that. It always increases, it does not decrease. It does not decrease in difficulties and in good times. Even if difficulties arise, it increases, and if favorable conditions come, it still increases. So, its basis is that it does not depend on this, it does not depend on place and time. It depends on the soul. The existence of the soul is not going to decrease or increase, so it is natural to the soul. To have such love for God and God's devotee is the opinion of great Acharyas, as Maharaj has said. Vallabhacharyaji, Nimbarka, Madhvacharyaji, they are all Acharyas of love. Why did He not mention Ramanuja's name? Or why did He not mention Shankaracharya's name? Ramanujacharya has the attitude of a servant (sevakbhav). Attitude of a servant. But not that love. Those others depend mostly on love alone. And they emphasize that more. In this, it is based on the attitude of a servant. Love is certainly there. But Maharaj did not mention his name in this. Right? Ramanujacharya's name is not... It has not appeared, Maharaj. Vallabhacharya, Madhvacharya, Nimbarka. Nimbarka, meaning Chaitanya Chaitanya Consciousness. The substance of the ãtmã. A higher consciousness that is beyond the physical world, which is jad and mãyik. It is indestructible. Tap to open in glossary → And Madhvacharyaji and Vallabhacharyaji, they are all of the bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → And they consider love to be supreme. They consider love to be the means to God. So, Maharaj mentioned only their names. The basic feeling of those Acharyas is to have love of the form of Brahman. Not to let it decrease towards God. If there is a great saint of God, and he expects from a seeker (mumukshu mumukshu A person in search of moksh. 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 → and if perhaps the seeker does not walk, and then his love decreases, then is that... Does not walk? Perhaps the seeker does not walk, does not listen to him, and if he does not walk, and love decreases, then is this considered having expectations, or what kind of love is it? Say it again, say it again, I did not understand. If there is a great saint of God, and he expects from a seeker. He has an expectation that he walks on the path of God. The meaning of expectation is that it is not a natural, worldly expectation. It is not a worldly expectation. Like 'I should get respect, I should get some benefit,' he does not have such expectations. Pleasure is pleasure, right! And if there are great saints, and they are sitting with that expectation of him, then that is not love, it is grace. Then what should be called love? Pleasing the beloved. His intention is to please him, that 'he should be pleased.' Great saints are not sitting to please everyone, they are sitting to liberate them. And if they please him, then if he becomes like them, he does. If they please him, then what is the meaning of pleasing? It would be at his level. Yes, it would be at his level. They are not sitting to please everyone. They are sitting to liberate everyone. So, their vision is of liberation, that 'good happens to this jiva.' That good happens, so he expected that 'if he does this, it will happen.' He expected from him. That is not love. It is compassion, that there is some mercy on him. He feels, 'Come on brother, let good happen to him, we want to do it,' they are sitting to do good to everyone. They are sitting to do good to everyone, so does good happen if they do what the seeker wants, or does good happen if they do what this one wants? If the seeker gets what he wants? If he gets what he wants, he does not know, so he has ignorance. So, even if he does not get what he wants and they make him do what pleases God, still no. So, it is not that it is a desire. You want to say whether it is called a desire or what? But that is not a desire. It is not for his sake. Desire is related either to one's own personality being joined to something, or it is natural. If it is worldly and beneficial to one's own personality, then it is a desire. This one has done it solely out of compassion to join the other to God, having made such a wish. So, if he expects from him that 'brother, you do this, you do this, and you do not do this.' Then it cannot be said that he had a desire. And that is indeed love of the form of Brahman, but there is no question of love in it, it cannot be titled as love. It is compassion. Topic: Nirguna... If God loves a jiva, then God expects that 'this jiva walks on My path.' So, is that a desire? In that, it is very good for him. 'This jiva walks on My path.' God certainly has that wish, the greatest of all. Whose wish is the greatest of all? God's. That 'all these jivas walk on My path.' So, that is not a desire. It is His compassion that He wishes so, so that this one gets a chance. Topic: Nirguna love. Main point: Even if a devotee of God becomes gunatit, he still has love for God. And that love is natural to the soul. Now, Maharaj had talked about this elsewhere too, in mercy and affection. Even if one becomes Brahman-molded, mercy and affection remain in God's devotee. Mercy and affection remain. Here, love remains. Difference in words. In this Vachanamrut, Shreeji Maharaj has asked a question. If a devotee of God is gunatit and behaves solely as existence, then in him, the sattvaguna in the form of detachment, and the rajoguna in the form of love for worldly objects, and the tamoguna in the form of ignorance—the states of these three gunas would not be present. He would remain holding only a void-like equanimity, free from any active thoughts. Would there be no detachment? Would he not have detachment? If one becomes a devotee of God, does he have detachment or not? Eh? For him, there is nothing left to renounce. Nothing is left, so what is the very meaning of detachment, the subject of detachment? That 'I should renounce this.' 'I should renounce this.' When nothing is left to renounce, detachment becomes quiet. It awakens only if needed. So, he remains holding a void-like equanimity. Holding a void-like equanimity means detachment is quiet. Of the negative impressions... Of the negative impressions... These negative impressions. The negative impressions become quiet. Why do they become quiet? He has nothing. It has no fuel. If there is a pile of wood and it is burning, then a blazing fire burns. But if the wood is exhausted, then? It automatically becomes quiet. But if wood comes again, as long as it is still burning? Then it burns again. In that, there are negative impressions; detachment itself is a negative impression. So, it becomes quiet. Why? Because there is no wood. Nothing is left with him to renounce. Material objects. So, it became quiet. If he perceives something like material attachment, then immediately it awakens that 'you should not do this here.' 'Do not get attached here.' Then immediately it awakens. So, he remains holding a void-like equanimity. Detachment, which is the effect of sattvaguna, love, which is the effect of rajoguna, and ignorance, which is the effect of tamoguna. All those... Void-like equanimity... he does not wish to become ignorant. Sometimes he might feel like, 'For many days, for a long time, we have never fought, have not made any trouble.' 'Now if it happens, it would be a little good.' That is a tamasik state. That is the state of tamoguna. The love in rajoguna, which love is that? Love for worldly objects. In worldly objects. Not in God. Love for God cannot be said to be the effect of rajoguna. That is of the form of Brahman, as Maharaj says. If a devotee of God is gunatit and behaves solely as existence, then in him, the sattvaguna in the form of detachment, and the rajoguna in the form of love for worldly objects, and the tamoguna in the form of ignorance—the states of these three gunas would not be present. He would remain holding only a void-like equanimity, free from any active thoughts. And the nirguna devotee who remains as existence in a state like deep sleep, does he have love for God or not? In reality, these three gunas are the generators of attachment. 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