Vachanamrut Gadhada I, chapter 11. On the fourteenth day of the bright fortnight of Maagshar, Samvat 1876, Shriji Maharaj was seated in Dada Khachar's darbar in Gadhada. He and the whole assembly were dressed in white, and before him sat an assembly of sadhus and devotees of Hari gathered from various regions. Brahmanand Swami then asked, 'Maharaj, what is the nature of vasana (desire)?' Shriji Maharaj replied, 'The desire that arises within one's inner being (antahkaran) for sense-objects previously enjoyed, seen, or heard is called vasana. And the desire that arises within one's inner being for sense-objects not yet enjoyed is also called vasana.' Muktanand Swami then asked, 'Maharaj, whom do we call an ekantik (single-minded, exclusive) devotee of God?' Shriji Maharaj replied, 'One who has no desire other than for God, and who worships God while considering himself Brahmarup [identified with Brahman], is called an ekantik devotee.' Thus ends Vachanamrut Gadhada I, chapter 11.
The subject expounded in this Vachanamrut is the nature of vasana and of the ekantik devotee. The main point: a strong desire connected to sense-objects is called vasana, and one who has a strong desire to attain God is called an ekantik devotee.
In this Vachanamrut, Brahmanand Swami asked, 'Maharaj, what is the nature of vasana?' Maharaj answered that the desire arising within one's inner being for sense-objects previously enjoyed, seen, or heard is called vasana, and that the desire arising for sense-objects not yet enjoyed is also called vasana. A living being's (jiva's) relationship with sense-objects occurs in three ways — bodily, mental, and imaginative — and, further, across three divisions of time: past, present, and future. Sense-objects, within this framework, are experienced either in the form of vasana or in the form of the body's genuine sustenance (ajivika). Of what is experienced as ajivika, some is experienced as the remnant (shesh) of one's chosen deity or as prasad [a sanctified offering], and some is experienced purely as bare sustenance, without any sense of it being prasad. To clearly recognize the vasana within our own inner being, it is necessary to distinguish all of these categories.
What should be called ajivika, and what should be called vasana? Whatever belongs to the present can be ajivika; the five sense-objects (pancha vishaya) relating to the past or the future are never ajivika. Thoughts like 'I wish I could get this, I wish I could get that' are not ajivika. Ajivika can exist only in the present — while one is seeing, hearing, eating, or drinking, that can be ajivika in the present moment; there is no such thing as ajivika relating to the past or the future. Whether something is genuinely ajivika in the present, or whether it has become one of the five sense-objects, is something a person can judge for himself: the moment it goes beyond ajivika, it becomes vishaya [sense-indulgence], and that becomes vasana. Whatever belongs to the past or future is simply vishaya — it can only be called vishaya, never ajivika.
Maharaj explained that a person may be experiencing the five sense-objects in the form of ajivika, and yet still keep dwelling on them. It is like a banyan tree completely uprooted by a storm, with only a single root still clinging to the ground — because of that one root, the whole tree stays green [alive]. In the same way, a jiva keeps dwelling on the five sense-objects, and because of that, the banyan tree of birth and death stays green. Dwelling on a sense-experience is no part of ajivika. Suppose one does not dwell on it — would he die? A person dies if he does not eat; but after he has already eaten, if he does not go on dwelling on how the food was, will he die from that? So what does he gain by continuing to dwell on it? If a very good meal came his way and he keeps cherishing the memory of it, what purpose does that serve — what need is there for it, as far as ajivika is concerned? There is no such need. If he tends to a genuine need, he lives; if he does not, he does not live — if he eats, he lives; if he does not eat, he does not live: that reasoning holds, and that is called ajivika. But if, after he has already enjoyed something, it makes no difference to his life whether he goes on dwelling on it or not, then that dwelling is one of the five sense-objects — that is called vasana. It exists purely in the form of vasana, and the jiva becomes fixed on that one thread and keeps dwelling on it; day and night, no time is left for remembering God. Dwelling on the future in this way is also not ajivika — it, too, is vasana. Ajivika can exist only, and purely, in the present moment: if it is there, it is there; if it is not, it is not.
Maharaj said that when desire for a sense-object arises, that is a form of vasana — but desire for a sense-object arises only when there is an occasion (a 'platform') for it; where there is no such occasion, desire does not arise for a sense-object already fully enjoyed. [Musical interlude.] When such desire arises, it means that, in time, a person feels hungry, or feels thirsty and so thinks of water — that in itself is not called vishaya, that is ajivika. A genuine need and demand has arisen, and only then does he desire it, thinking, 'I am hungry.' Feeling hungry itself means thinking of food, dwelling on food — that is simply what hunger means, and dwelling on it in that sense is ajivika. But after he has already eaten, if he keeps dwelling on it — asking himself whether it was tasty or bland, thinking 'this was very good' or 'yesterday's meal was spoiled' — that kind of dwelling is called vishaya, that is called vasana. That vasana is like an action followed by a reaction.
In the same way, dwelling on the future is called vasana. Vasana, in its nature, is a matter of sanskar [an impression carried over from past experience]: on the basis of past sanskars, one goes on to dwell on the future. Maharaj also said that even things one has never actually enjoyed — remembering or longing for those too is called vasana. So, fundamentally, whether a sense-object was enjoyed or never enjoyed, the dwelling on it is rooted in sanskar; on the basis of these old sanskars, one forms new imaginings and dwells on new things — that is really all there is to it.
There are three kinds of sense-objects: bodily, mental, and imaginative. In bodily sense-objects, both the body's genuine sustenance (ajivika) and vasana are mixed together — both can genuinely be present. But in mental sense-objects — that is, objects that come to mind as memories — vasana alone is ever the cause, because not dwelling, in the mind, on good or bad sense-objects does not cause the body to fail or die. Maharaj's own teaching was that while seeing, eating, or drinking, one should remember God rather than keep dwelling on the very thing one is eating — and that not dwelling on it in that way does not leave one any less satisfied. So mental dwelling is purely vasana, whereas in bodily experience, both vasana and ajivika can genuinely coexist. To repeat: mental sense-objects — objects recalled in the mind — are caused purely by vasana, because not dwelling on good or bad sense-objects there does not cause the body to fail. Failing to physically partake of something may perhaps cause the body actual harm, but failing to dwell on mental sense-objects neither strengthens nor weakens the body, nor makes it any more or less capable. So then what reason is there for dwelling on it at all? That should be reckoned as plain, unmistakable vasana.
The same holds for imaginative sense-objects. Through repeated and intensifying dwelling on a sense-object, one moves into the realm of pure imagination. A person driven by lust, taste, or greed builds castles in the air, in his mind — those are called imaginative sense-objects, and they are, for the most part, oriented toward the future; whereas the recollective kind of dwelling is, for the most part, oriented toward the past. Both are forms of vasana. For example, suppose we imagine, 'Let's say a Gurukul is built in Delhi' — the mind runs on: 'we'll do it this way, we'll do it that way' — but when did we ever actually experience that? There was never a Gurukul in Delhi; we never experienced it. Yet the mind goes on: 'we'll design it this way, we'll design the gate like this, we'll build it like that' — or plan it out step by step. [Musical interlude.] 'We'll have this much ground here, this plot here, that plot there' — in this way, the imaginative kind keeps expanding; and when it turns into an intense fantasy, it grows finer and finer in detail and becomes ever more elaborate — but all of it is still called vasana. Whatever pertains to the five sense-objects is called vasana; whatever pertains to duty or work is not called vasana.
For instance, I have never seen America — so imagining, 'when I go there, I'll do this, I'll see this, I'll see this, I'll see this' — that does pertain to the five sense-objects: seeing, hearing, eating, touching all belong to the five sense-objects. But whatever pertains to duty or work is not called vasana. Work can even have a goal behind it — 'I will carry out this task, I will please God in this way, I will please Him by doing this work' — that is not called vasana. [Musical interlude.] 'I will provide this much for my children' — that too is not vasana. So, because it pertains to duty, it is not simply called vasana — even if it concerns the future, and even if the dwelling on that duty concerns the past, it is still not vasana. If, in the past, we did something good — a deed that pleased God — and we recall it, thinking, 'yes, that is how it happened,' that recollection is not vasana either. Only what pertains to the five sense-objects is called vasana. If it is about the pleasure itself — 'at that time, it was such fun' — that is not the same as dwelling on the duty; and if the heart dwells on the happiness one felt after doing a deed rather than on the deed itself, that too shades away from pure duty-related thinking.
To restate: a person driven by lust, taste, or greed builds castles in the air, in his mind — those are called imaginative sense-objects. They are, for the most part, forward-looking imaginings; an intensely fixed resolve of this kind is called bhavna (fantasy/imagining), and such fantasies are, for the most part, about future objects. Imaginative fantasies often feel almost as vivid as direct experience — one can get carried away in them — and whoever feels that kind of direct joy in imagining is engaged in the imaginative kind, which is mostly about future objects; whereas the recollective kind is mostly about the past. Both are forms of vasana. In recollective thinking, one runs an analysis: 'it was like this, it was like that' — and that is generally about the past, though this is a general pattern, not an absolute rule. Both are forms of vasana, and so mental and imaginative sense-objects relating to the past and the future are simply what reveal vasana.
Thinking about one's work or duty is not counted as vasana — one has to think such things through. If someone is doing some task, working on a computer, or doing design work, thinking about how to do it and what to do is not called vasana, whether it concerns the past or the future. But whatever pertains to the five sense-objects — whether in the past, the future, or the present — is called vasana.
If some task undertaken in order to please God is left incomplete, that unfinished resolve — like the one clinging root that keeps the banyan tree alive — causes the jiva to be born and to die again. [A short phrase in the source captions here is garbled and could not be confidently reconstructed; see flags.] If, at the moment of death, a person dwells on that unfinished task rather than on God, it brings about rebirth — even if the task itself concerned God, even if it concerned pleasing Him. Among the devotees' life-accounts (charitro), there is an episode of just this kind: a devotee referred to as 'Arji Thakkarna Ma' had a wish to serve a meal to Maharaj, and because that wish remained unfulfilled, she had to take another birth. So should that be called vasana, or something else? Because it remained tied to this world, it is indeed called vasana — even though it was a good wish, it is still vasana, and it still causes birth and death. A good vasana causes birth and death just as a weak one does; so even a good vasana should not be held onto at the time of death — instead, one should hold only the wish to please God. Vasana still belongs to this world, and any fulfillment sought through it is sought from within this world; so it should not be relied upon. For instance, if I undertake some task meaning to please Maharaj through it, and I die in the middle of it — if, at the moment of death, I am rightly dwelling on God, then there is no problem at all. If, at death, one dwells on God, or on Maharaj's murti [sacred image/form], there is no problem. But if, instead, one dwells on the unfinished task itself, that is called vasana, even if the task was a good one. [Musical interlude, twice.] So: if a person's mind remained fixed on that task, but God was also being remembered, then it can be said that his mind stayed engaged in the task without harm. But if God was not remembered, and what instead came to his mind was, 'this is what I still have left to do' — if what surfaced was, 'I still have not finished serving Maharaj his meal' — then the desire to serve that meal remained as vasana. Even though that vasana was, in truth, directed toward Maharaj, and was even something fitting to offer Him, this still occurs. [Musical interlude.]