How can other devotees recognize a devotee of God who has been liberated from body-consciousness and has developed an aversion to the five sensory pleasures? So, what he means to ask is, if one has developed an aversion to the five sensory pleasures, would he still indulge in them? If there is an absence of vasana, if there is liberation from it, would his actions still resemble those driven by vasana? Based on the answer, it is a very good question. The question is like that. That he has developed a deep aversion to the five sensory pleasures. Then, can he still indulge in those five sensory pleasures? "He does." Huh? "He does." Maharaj said that he does. Then Muktanand Swami said, "O Maharaj! We will not be able to answer this question of yours, so please answer it yourself." Then Shriji Maharaj said, "Whether a devotee of God is a householder or an ascetic, and his attachment to body-consciousness and the five sensory pleasures has been eradicated, then, by the command of God, even if he has developed a complete aversion to the five sensory pleasures and has been completely liberated from vasana. His attachment to body-consciousness and the five sensory pleasures has been eradicated, then, by the command of God, he should maintain body-consciousness only to the extent necessary. But what should be done according to God's wish? He does only that much. What should be done by God's command? He does only that much. Then, he maintains only that much body-consciousness as required. And that much of the other. Maharaj said that to protect Dada Khachar's field, we have to fight with those people. So he even fights. Fighting is a matter of one's ego. But he does it by Maharaj's wish. And then he fights in earnest. Because he does it by Maharaj's wish, he does not do it by his own wish. So, if it is in this manner, if he maintains only as much body-consciousness as required by Maharaj's wish, then he should be understood to have attained liberation. And if, after grasping it, he cannot let it go, then he has not attained liberation. He keeps it by his own wish. He keeps it due to his own vasana, so to speak. So, there is a very fine, hair-thin line of difference. What is the difference between keeping it by one's own wish and keeping it by God's wish? If asked to leave it, he leaves it. If asked to leave it, he leaves it and goes away. And what about the other, if asked to leave it? He does not leave it. He leaves it as if it were from a past life. If there is an insistence from a past life, he leaves it in that way. If there was vasana in a past life, and those pleasures are enjoyed but not remembered, then he leaves it. And he does not feel regret or much distress. And for the other, even if he leaves it, his distress does not go away. Because he has to leave it; in this, if it is to be left, he must leave it. But his distress does not go away for his entire life. A sting remains that, 'He made me leave it like this.' 'He made me leave it like this.' 'He made me leave the trusteeship, alright.' And as is appropriate for each, the five sensory pleasures should also be experienced. An illustration there: Just as an extremely weak animal is made to stand by placing wooden supports underneath and holding it by its horns and tail, it remains standing as long as the person holds it, and when the person lets go, it falls to the ground. Similarly, one who is nirvasanik is allowed to remain only in as much activity as God, by His command, engages him in. Just as a bow and arrow in a 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 → 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 → 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 → He does whatever is done by the other's command. Similarly, a person who is nirvasanik engages only in as much worldly activity as is commanded by God, but does nothing outside of that command. And one who is savasanik cannot, of his own accord, free himself from whatever worldly activity he has engaged in. And he cannot change. If we want to change it like, 'Brother, you do this instead of this.' Doesn't Maharaj say? 'Now leave the jholi of Nar-Narayan Dev Dev A demi-god who is given powers and responsibilities in the universe, and who lives in a higher lok. Devs are bhaktas of Bhagvãn and follow His ãgnã. Tap to open in glossary → Lakshmi Lakshmi A devi (goddess) who is the wife of Vishnu. She is the devi of wealth. Therefore, money and gold is also called Lakshmi. She eternally remains in the sevã of Bhagvãn. Tap to open in glossary → Similarly, a person who is nirvasanik engages only in as much worldly activity as is commanded by God, but does nothing outside of that command. And one who is savasanik cannot, of his own accord, free himself from whatever worldly activity he has engaged in. He might have engaged by God's command, but the pressure of the mind enters into it. Then, if God makes him leave it, he does not leave it. And if he leaves it, his distress does not go away. God makes him leave it, but the distress does not go away. Distress, which is attachment, is painful, isn't it? It is of the nature of distress. When attachment weakens, distress increases greatly. And one who is savasanik, in whatever worldly activity he has engaged, cannot free himself from that worldly activity of his own accord, nor can he free himself even by the command of God. Such are the characteristics of a nirvasanik person and a savasanik person. Thus ends the Vachanamrut. God might not have engaged him, and he might have engaged thinking, 'God's pleasure lies in this.' And the other was engaged by God. So, that is the only difference between the two. Does God engage him, or does he engage of his own accord? There is no significance in that. The significance lies only in the time of leaving. Does God engage him, or does he himself think, 'Come on, brother, God's pleasure is in this.' So, sometimes we all might feel, 'Now that God has gone, who will come to engage him?' We might feel, 'Now that God is not here, who will engage us, so we should not engage.' It is not like that. Thinking that it is God's pleasure, he engages; he engages himself, or God Himself engages him. In that, it is not that he has become nirvasanik or savasanik. Where is his test? In leaving. The test is in leaving. The test is in changing. 'Do this instead of this.' 'Leave this completely.' Then how does he feel? At that time, it becomes known how much savasanikta or nirvasanikta he has. How much body-consciousness he has or how much body-consciousness he does not have. Like that, Maharaj. In engaging, certainly, it is not known in engaging. In engaging, everyone would jump in and engage. By God's command, if he felt in his mind, 'Come on, it is Maharaj's pleasure,' they would jump in and engage, and even if there is restlessness in his own mind, he would jump in and engage, but how to leave? That, Maharaj. 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