Maharaj is a Sadhu and Muktanand Swami is a Sadhu, so what is the difference between the two? The attributes of Maharaj are natural and infinite. Saints like Muktanand Swami, and Gopalanand Swami, they are natural too. They worship Maharaj, that is the only difference. They are not acquired through sadhana. That is true, but if we want to identify them, how do we know? If two people are sitting together, Maharaj and Muktanand Swami, when they are sitting together, how do we identify them? Whether this one has learned it. If we have just arrived yesterday morning, we would not know who has learned it and who has come naturally. How do they learn? So, there is a difference between the two. That God, for the liberation of the jiva, whether God is in the form of a king, He has majesty, and if God is in the form of a sadhu, He has sadhana, then He uses that sadhana for the liberation of the jiva, then He is God. Hiranyakashipu, Hiranyakashipu was a king and he had majesty. Just as God is immanent, and he was immanent only in the three worlds. So, being immanent is called the pinnacle of majesty. Majesty, it is called its pinnacle. So, what is the difference between the two? The use. Where is it used? God uses 100% of His attributes for the liberation of the jiva. He even does it by force. He even liberates them by force. And in sadhus, such majesty is not predominant, there is sadhana. Even if God is in the form of a sadhu, God is God. His sadhana is also predominant in majesty. He uses it by force. And even if God is in the form of a king, He uses all His attributes for liberation. His attributes are focused solely on liberation. Focused solely on liberation. And the attributes of a sadhu, if he is a sadhu, if God is in the form of a sadhu, then his focus is solely on liberation, and if he is a sadhu in the form of a sadhu, then his focus is solely on moksha. His sole focus is that moksha is attained, ours and others'. First, ours must be attained. In the saintly virtues of Muktanand Swami, the primary focus is first his own liberation, and then the liberation of other jivas. To please Maharaj, he also works for the liberation of other jivas. But in this, there must be a focus solely on moksha. There must be a focus on attaining God. Why has a sadhu acquired the virtues of a sadhu? To show majesty like God? Or is there a focus solely on moksha? Because the extraordinary duty of the jiva is to attain moksha for his own soul. And God's extraordinary purpose is not to attain moksha for His own soul. He has to attain moksha for other souls. So, He uses it there. The glimpse of both is like that. Muktanand Swami has the pinnacle of saintliness, but its glimpse is in his own liberation. Pleasing Maharaj, his own liberation, meaning liberation does not mean 'may I attain moksha', but the focus is on pleasing Maharaj. That God is pleased, and the more God's pleasure is there, they are focused on that. It is used in that. And whom does God have to please? He has to bring about the liberation of the jiva by any means. Even if they are displeased. He wants to bring about their liberation. So, in both, God has come in the form of a sadhu, in the guise of a sadhu. And others have come as seekers in the guise of a sadhu, as sadhus. So, one must also know that difference. Because both the jiva and God can be sadhus. One jiva has become a sadhu and one God has become a sadhu. And both, again, possess complete attributes. So, are both the same? God, in the form of a sadhu, has complete attributes in Him, and if that jiva, who is a seeker, has become a sadhu, and he also has complete attributes, are they both the same? Both cannot be the same. So, there is certainly a possibility of being mistaken. A possibility of being mistaken. What did Maharaj say in this? If one identifies, liberation is attained. If one identifies, liberation is attained. If one does not identify, it is not attained. Even if they are in hand, it is not attained. The Yadavas, they had 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 → First, if God has come in the form of a king, then even after knowing His 39 attributes, there is still a difference. What if some king has complete attributes? Some jiva, Manu Manu Manu is responsible for overseeing the first stages of all life forms in the new cycle of creation and he lives for the entire cycle. Manu and his wife become the first parents for each cycle (Adam and Eve). In one day of Brahmã, fourteen Manus reign and die. The duration of the reign of one Manu is 306,720,000 human years, and is called a manvantar. Fourteen Manus are created and destroyed during one day of Brahmã. Tap to open in glossary → Then, if you put both face to face, neither falls short in any attribute. If you put Muktanand Swami and Maharaj face to face, in attributes, in the attributes of saintliness, would Muktanand Swami fall short? If you put Gopalanand Swami, they were not such as to fall short. But if there is a third, a third person, and he has made a mistake in identification? Even if both are good. If he knew Muktanand Swami as God and did not know Maharaj as God, then? Liberation is ruined. Liberation is ruined, isn't it? Transgression of worship of the worshipful. 'Shreyo hi pratibandhnati pujya-puja-vyatikramah'. If a transgression has occurred, even if both are good, still, if there is a mistake in identification, there is a difference in liberation. So, it is very subtle. God in the form of a sadhu and a seeker in the form of a sadhu. First, we do not even know what the attributes are, so when this happens, how would we know? So, Maharaj says if he identifies Him, his liberation is attained. How do we differentiate between focus solely on moksha and focus solely on liberation? Focus solely on moksha is for oneself. Focus solely on liberation is for others. All of God's wealth, whom is it for? For the jivas. For other jivas. And all of a sadhu's wealth, whom is it for? First, for himself. First, for himself. Once his own moksha is attained, then if it is attained by pleasing God, he uses it in that. But why is his wealth there? These 24, sorry, all 30 attributes are his wealth. It is also God's wealth. If God is in the form of a sadhu, would His wealth be the same? Another thing is that He does not hoard anything. And He does not pluck green grass. So, what is His wealth? These 30 attributes are His wealth. And if that jiva is a sadhu, what is his wealth? 30 attributes. Those 30 attributes. But that wealth, the jiva has those 30 attributes for himself, for his own liberation. And God's wealth, those 30 attributes are for the liberation of other jivas. So, that is a difference based on use, isn't it? Based on use. Then, the virtues of both, is there any difference in their infiniteness? There is a difference in infiniteness. Because his virtues can never match those of the other, can never match those of God. And as you said, it is natural, and his are acquired. They are through worship. That then became a matter of essence. In identification, it is only the use. In identification, it is only about how he uses it. Muktanand Swami thinks, okay, if someone goes to him and asks, he says, 'Brother, we must do this for our liberation. These are our virtues.' So, it is not that just because the virtues of a sadhu are acquired, his liberation is attained. If the virtues of a sadhu are acquired, it is not that his liberation is attained. Would anyone believe that? Huh? They would not. What are the virtues of a sadhu? Come on, Hiranyakashipu performed penance, so an anthill grew over him. So, he performed great penance, and a sadhu must be an ascetic, shouldn't he? That is his great necessity. A sadhu's penance is one of his attributes. So, did Hiranyakashipu's saintliness lead to his liberation? The virtue of an ascetic was in him. He was such an ascetic that an anthill grew over him. And he performed penance. So, just because the virtues of saintliness are acquired, it is not that they all lead to liberation. 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