Then junior Shivanand Swami asked, "How can one know who has an unwavering foundation in satsang?"
One question is that, and the second question is, how are enemies like pride, lust, anger, greed, arrogance, envy, and jealousy destroyed?
Then Shriji Maharaj said, "One who has a very firm side for satsang cannot tolerate it when someone speaks ill of satsang."
Just as if one's own family member is involved and there is some bitterness with them, even then, if someone speaks ill of them, it cannot be tolerated.
Similarly, just as there is a side for one's bodily relatives, one who has a side for satsang has an unwavering foundation in satsang.
And the answer to the second question is that one who has such a side for satsang, how can that saint or satsangi harbor pride, envy, or jealousy with them?
Therefore, one who has a side for satsang, all their enemies like pride, arrogance, envy, and jealousy are destroyed.
And one who does not have a side for a satsangi, and has an equal feeling towards a satsangi and a kusangi (bad company), no matter how great he is said to be in satsang, he will eventually become averse.
Who is said to have taken a side?
What is a side called?
What came in this? Who has an unwavering foundation in satsang?
So what did Maharaj say?
To whom
The side of God's devotee
One who has a very firm side for God's devotee and a satsangi.
It's written like that, isn't it?
Yes.
He said, one who has a very firm side for satsang.
Of satsang and of a satsangi, that is its meaning.
What is satsang, but in it, there is a very firm side for a satsangi.
So who is said to have taken a side?
What is the meaning of a side?
Even when there is a fault of God's devotee, one should take their side and stand by them.
Then if there is no fault?
Not like that.
That fault happens even if two are fighting.
If they are not fighting?
Then is there any action for him?
What you said, that point is correct, that if he has a fault,
and even then, takes his side.
Only then is it called taking a side.
If he has no fault, then even animals take sides.
Justice and injustice.
But if they are not fighting?
Then how would one know? One would only know on the day they fight that he took his side.
What is it called?
If he speaks ill, he won't tolerate it.
So, if there's a fight or something, then one speaks ill, right?
This person is very good and a true gentleman, so he wouldn't speak ill of anyone.
And he wouldn't be fighting with anyone.
Then?
When one's own nature and God's devotee's path cross.
He helps him.
That is called taking a side.
Furthermore, if someone has helped us and we help them, that is also not taking a side.
That is also not called taking a side.
We help him just like that, and we help him knowing he is a devotee of God.
And furthermore, we don't expect that he will help me.
In the future.
Or that he might have helped me in the past.
This is helping him without any reason.
Then it is called taking his side.
That other thing, when a fight happens, that's fine.
When a fight happens, that's fine.
But if there was no fight?
How would one know whose side he is on?
Because he helps him.
Moh (attachment) and paksh (side), all the characteristics of moh are already present.
In moh, there is no discretion.
When discretion is locked, that is called moh.
Then, where there is excessive attachment, that is called its side.
He does it without discretion.
But discretion, if he has taken a side, then there is discretion in that, isn't there?
In that, there is discretion.
There is a big difference between moh and taking a side.
When taking the side of God's devotee, what discretion is there to keep?
These are God's.
If one keeps discretion,
There is a lot of discretion in that.
sits in it.
And the other one sits and keeps looking at himself.
He exclaims, "Oh, oh!"
Then he gets the fruit of attachment.
He doesn't get the fruit of taking the side of a devotee of God in satsang, even if he is an unknown devotee.
Maharaj has said in some places that he gets a little fruit.
He gets fruit, but it's a small amount of fruit.
But he does get bound by attachment.
He gets bound by attachment.
Perhaps that devotee is protected by him.
Huh? Then in the time of attachment.
Then no, then he gets merit and is taken to God.
Maharaj said that, didn't he?
All those maidens of Saubhari Rishi, out of attachment, developed affection for God.
But the Rishi was a devotee.
The maidens don't know that this Rishi is a devotee.
So, by having affection for him, they attained salvation.
Due to Kardam Rishi's association, Devahuti attained salvation.
Due to Saubhari Rishi's association, the 50 daughters of King Mandhata attained salvation.
Now, in that, he had affection.
So, the maidens had affection for Saubhari Rishi.
They didn't do it knowing he was a devotee, thinking, "Oh, this Rishi is great."
What was she going to do? She ran away after seeing the Rishi.
She married him after seeing his form.
When the Rishi entered the inner chambers, all the maidens started hiding and ran away, thinking, "Where will we go now?"
Where did this ghost come from?
A skeleton.
Then he showed his form.
So all of them married him.
She married him and took his side, which is what is said to have happened, but she did it only with worldly intelligence.
Even then, Maharaj says he attained salvation.
So he attained salvation.
So, if, as you say, his disciple is a vessel of attachment, or if he is doing satsang with him.
And if he is going to God, then he might take him along.
But just like that, immediately, he immediately gets the fruit of attachment.
That fruit doesn't happen.
The fruit of taking sides doesn't happen.
A side is taken knowingly.
If it's kept unknowingly, then it does bear fruit.
But in a party, known people are kept.
When one leaves justice aside and overtakes justice, then it is called taking sides.
But there is no such tug-of-war.
Even then, how do we know that this person is on his side?
There is no debate or tug-of-war.
Even then, how do we know that this person is on his side?
He helps him.
He helps in such a way that no one knows.
It's not like he helps him in return for something.
He doesn't help him and then expect something in return in the future either.
He just helps, he helps him.
Just as one serves God with a selfless attitude, he serves him with the same selfless attitude.
Even then, he took his side.
And if he takes such a firm side of satsang and a satsangi, a staunch satsangi, then what did Maharaj say in that?
Huh?
He has an unshakeable foundation in satsang.
Otherwise, he might sometimes, even in that, if.
Secretly, he is not a devotee.
He is helping him.
Then sometimes it backfires.
That Vishwarupa knew Indra, and secretly from Indra, his own.
He had maternal uncles somewhere, didn't he?
Huh?
They were his maternal uncles.
But they were demons.
He used to offer oblations to them somewhere.
And that one got angry and cut off his head.
Indra got angry and then cut off his head.
So sometimes it backfires, Maharaj said that.
That if he takes the side of a non-devotee.
He takes the side of a non-devotee.
Then that day, that day in satsang.
Help.
So the meaning of 'paksh' is help.
The reason for the firmness of the side.
Certainly, the firm conviction of God, nothing else.
Maharaj said it is certainly a conviction.
He said it was related to conviction, didn't he? That he has a firm conviction. What did Maharaj say in the answer to the second question?
Due to pride and envy,
Yes, to him,
If one takes the side of a satsangi, then pride and envy, all of that goes away.
But a firm conviction, nothing else.
After conviction, then comes taking sides.
Taking sides, it comes in the family of devotion.
One who has firm devotion, only they take sides.
And if one takes sides, it means they have firm devotion.
If there is no devotion and only mere bhakti, then one's side won't remain.
If there is weak bhakti, then one won't take sides.
One takes sides only if they have firm devotion.
Because taking his side means helping him.
If you think about it in worldly terms,
then many times, even if they are our sadhus, they don't help God's devotee.
And they help scoundrels.
Huh?
Yes.
They might have their own preferences or whatever, but they help the scoundrel.
But they won't do even one percent for a devotee.
This happened even among saints.
So then what's the difference between taking sides and seva?
Why seva to God's devotee?
Help is occasional.
And seva is like service, all those things.
What do you want to say?
Is helping not called seva?
There is a slight difference between help and seva.
What is occasional is called help.
Occasionally, for example, if he needs help and goes, that's called help.
But if God's devotee needs help, he doesn't go there, doesn't do seva there, doesn't help.
And seva is a permanent connection.
Let's go and serve him.
Even if it's called the same, there's a slightly different category.
Seva is a permanent bond.
And help is not a permanent bond.
If we help someone, it doesn't mean we've joined their permanent seva.
It's called seva, helping is called seva, but it's temporary.
It's called temporary, but even in that, what is our attitude?
Is it towards a devotee or a non-devotee? That is understood.
And that is called devotion.
So when a devotee has a problem,
Yes.
He has
When we have problems, then we take sides and leave.
Then there is a side.
Yes.
And when it's normal, then all those things, his help, all that, he doesn't make others do it.
Huh?
There is advice
Meaning, there is
No person is 100% clear.
So this is its result.
Everything is mixed.
It's mixed.
So he wants to help the devotee, but he also wants to help the other one.
He has some other connection with him, like self-interest, a connection.
So that's called mixing.
It doesn't mean that this is wrong or that is wrong.
Both can happen many times.
Incomplete conviction
Incomplete conviction
He helps the non-devotee, and because he helps the non-devotee, he takes the non-devotee's side.
So there is no flaw in his conviction.
He is not on the side of satsang.
And he takes the side of bad company.
And he knows that this is bad company, yet he takes their side.
So that means there is a flaw in his satsang side, and therefore there is also a flaw in his conviction.
Otherwise, it wouldn't happen.
That's how it is, it's called a flaw.
If not, he does that and he does this.
So it means both are there.
And the second question is, whichever saint we live near,
why don't all saints have the same affection for us as that saint does?
Then Shriji Maharaj said,
Just as the answer was given to Shivanand Swami's question, one who has a firm conviction in satsang,
then by speaking and listening to him, God and God's saint will not have any doubt.
There.
He would take the side of a satsang supporter without anyone's inspiration.
Did I just say that, or something else?
If someone is on the side of satsang, he would take their side.
So, if someone helps satsang, he indirectly helps them.
Without telling anyone.
So what happens?
Then the saint feels the same way.
The sadhu and God trust him, they have faith in him, they trust him.
That he will never fall back from satsang because he has learned to help the devotee.
He has learned to help satsang.
It has come to him on its own.
If someone says, 'Go help him,' then it's not considered that he helped.
But he himself selects everyone, 'Who is the devotee among these?' Then we should help him.
He learns that way.
Then will he ever have to fall back from satsang?
Then he doesn't have to fall back from satsang.
And to whom the unwavering