The second point of the Vachanamrut is about the characteristics of demonic intellect, meaning, who is a demon, and its clarification.
To understand that, we will raise another delicate question along with it: who is a devotee?
Because a devotee and a demon are two opposing words.
A devotee and a non-devotee are both different, but not opposing.
Therefore, in relation to this Vachanamrut, we now have these two questions: who is a devotee and who is a demon?
In response to that, if we consider four options, the essence of the Vachanamrut will become clearer.
Those options are as follows.
One, who always sees God, God's devotee, and non-devotees everywhere with a virtuous perspective.
Everyone has a virtuous intellect in everyone.
So, is he called a devotee?
Everyone has a virtuous intellect.
So what's the problem with that?
Everyone has a virtuous perspective in everyone.
Is there a problem with that?
A devotee has a virtuous perspective even in a non-devotee.
It's not like it's only in common non-devotees.
But if there is virtue, then take it everywhere.
Take it from where there is virtue.
If it's in a non-devotee, then what's the problem with that?
Where is the good person? He takes the virtue of a devotee.
So what's the difference between a devotee and this one?
If a devotee has a purpose and virtue comes only from that, then he is a devotee.
What if it comes from elsewhere?
He is called a good person, he takes virtue.
He
So one, that a devotee has a virtuous perspective from everywhere.
Then the second option?
One who sees virtue only in God and God's devotee is a pure devotee.
Third, to whom
Virtue is seen everywhere and virtue is seen only in God's devotee.
Then the other one is called good.
This one has limited virtues, right?
Or not?
What does Tirth Saheb say?
He is called a devotee of God, a loyal one, a partisan.
He
He is loyal to God's devotee.
What's the problem?
If he takes someone's virtue, then his partisanship goes away.
He
If you take someone's virtue, then his partisanship goes away.
Does that happen?
Why? What does Swami say?
What is the specialty of God's devotee? He has that specialty.
If he takes someone's virtue, then he ceases to be a devotee.
The virtue of a devotee does not diminish.
Then why not call him a non-devotee?
One takes virtue from everyone, and one takes virtue only from God's devotee.
So, taking virtue from everyone means he takes it from someone else too.
God's devotees are included in everyone, right?
Or not?
What does this Tamsahib say?
If any fault is seen in God's devotee, then it should not be taken.
Only virtue should be taken.
You said that third thing again.
You just gave a guideline that it shouldn't be taken like that.
That if a fault is seen in God's devotee, it should not be taken, that's what you said as a guideline.
Guideline statement.
So what is our question?
That one person takes the virtue of God's devotee, and another person takes the virtue of everyone.
So, he took everyone's virtue.
We talked about how if someone takes only the virtue of God's devotee, then he is called a devotee.
If he takes from everyone, then he is not a devotee, is that what you're saying?
Then he is not a devotee.
He
If he takes from everyone, he is called impure.
He is purely pure.
He became impure by taking everyone's virtue.
If he takes faults, then he becomes impure.
What does the devotee say? The devotee?
A devotee should know about a devotee, right?
How can one become impure by taking everyone's virtue? One becomes impure by taking faults, right?
So that point hasn't even come up yet.
Taking faults is still behind.
He
What do you say, brother?
If one takes the virtue of God's devotee, only the virtue of God's devotee, then he is a devotee.
And if he takes from everyone
He cannot be called a devotee.
So I am saying that he took the virtues of everyone else, of the devotee.
And if he has virtues of others besides a devotee and he takes them, then he is no longer a devotee.
So he is influenced by everyone, so which path does he take?
So he is not a devotee.
That is not devotion.
He will also be influenced by the world.
Did Ravana have any virtues or not?
He did.
Huh?
He did.
He was very learned.
And he was also powerful.
What virtues do sages have?
They were just learned, they didn't have power, but he had one more.
Kings had all the power.
But not as much as Ravana.
And the same.
Sages had all the rituals, but it seems they wouldn't know everything like Ravana.
That no sage could challenge him.
Sages did not challenge anyone.
And Ravana, while fighting, started performing yagnas.
While fighting, he started performing yagnas.
And Lord Ramachandra caused the disruption of that yagna.
Then Ramachandraji cannot be called completely right.
If he disrupts the yagna, then he is a guru.
And if he performs a yagna, then.
So if someone takes Ravana's virtues in that way, then.
Then is he called a devotee or not?
Huh?
He had virtues, and he takes them, so what's wrong with that?
So even if he has them, he shouldn't take them.
What do you say?
Tirth Swami says so.
If he has them, should he take them or not?
Nothing.
If he has teeth, he should show them.
If there are virtues, show your teeth, and if there are vices, start crying, that's what happens.
What, brother, what are you saying?
Vices.
Let's get back to the original question.
That he takes the virtues of God's devotee and also takes those of others, so if he takes those of others, does he cease to be a devotee?
Or does he remain?
He is not a devotee then.
Huh?
Where is the devotee?
So who should be called a devotee?
One who has abandoned God and has affection for God.
He has both of God's things, come on.
What you are saying is also true, he has affection for God, he is in God's devotee, and he is also elsewhere.
Come on, let's talk according to what you say.
He comes on track.
He has affection for God, he has affection for God's devotee, and he also has affection elsewhere.
So should he be called a devotee or not?
He cannot be called a true devotee.
Take.
He showed affection elsewhere. He has affection for God, he has affection for the devotee, he has affection for God. So if he showed affection elsewhere, he shouldn't be gone, should he?
Huh?
What are you saying?
It disappears.
Huh?
He becomes affectionate towards others.
And he becomes affectionate towards others.
It is his fame that his devotion is somehow lost in it.
So he is without a place.
He has a habit of showing affection.
Huh?
He has a habit of showing affection.
It is his nature to show affection, not to do devotion.
He is without a place, and only those who have a place are called devotees.
There should be some place for affection, only then can devotion happen, right?
If there is affection for a demon, then.
He is called a demon.
It is called affection.
But he is called a demon.
So if there is affection elsewhere, he cannot be called a devotee.
It disappears.
Even if it is in God and God's devotee, it disappears.
Everything is the same for him.
He sees no difference between God, God's devotee, and the rest of the world.
So he is called good.
He is called good, no problem with that.
But he cannot be called a devotee.
He cannot be called a devotee.
Read both options.
One who always sees God, God's devotee, and non-devotee with a virtuous perspective, sees only virtues, he is a receiver of virtues but not a devotee.
One who sees virtues only in God and God's devotee is a pure devotee.
That's what needs to be done.
We see virtues in Maharaj and in Maharaj's devotee.
It appears.
And it should not be seen anywhere else.
So, it's not about betraying others.
It's not about betraying others.
A devotee of God should also be a good person.
So, if he sees good qualities in other places, it's not a big deal, but he shouldn't be seen like this.
It should be decided that it's fine, he has those qualities, but they are of no use to me.
Is the person useless or are the qualities useless? Everything.
In the end, no one remains useful.
If he gets carried away by that,
then being a good person is one thing, and being a devotee is another.
Impartiality comes with being a good person.
And partiality comes with devotion.
Partiality in devotion.
Devotion is partial.
Only devotees of God, no one else.
Mine and yours.
And there is no partiality in being a good person.
There is no partiality in being a good person.
There is justice there.
A good person acts justly.
He never shows partiality.
Justice is the opposite of partiality.
A good person never shows partiality.
He doesn't even show partiality towards God.
Everyone is equal to him.
For Maharaj Yudhishthira, Duryodhana was equal, and Shri Krishna was also equal.
If Shri Krishna says something, he won't lie.
And if Duryodhana says something, he still won't speak.
Everyone is equal to him.
Yet, they were devotees.
But they were true devotees.
He is considered a good person.
Duryodhana was not a wicked person, Yudhishthira.
He was a good person, but not a devotee.
When both are in conflict, then it's fine.
In normal circumstances, if someone in this world has good qualities.
So, when there is a conflict, only then should you not take the qualities of others and keep your own.
In general, you should take everyone's.
If there is no problem, then take everyone's qualities.
If he is a devotee of God, he must be a good person.
But if he has to make divisions, then he makes that much division.
He drops the other one late.
One who sees flaws only in God and God's devotees, and not everywhere, is purely demonic.
One who sees flaws everywhere in God, God's devotees, and non-devotees is not entirely demonic, but flawed.
He is flawed.
He has negative thinking everywhere.
He is a negative thinker.
So he is flawed.
But he is not a demon.
Often, a sinner may not be a demon.
And if someone appears to be a good person and righteous, then he might be a demon.
All demons used to perform religious rituals.
They were not completely dry.
They perform religious rituals.
He is a demon.
That's why he is called a demon.
Because he had a problem with only one person.
There was Jarasandha and there was Karna.
Karna is said to be very generous.
What is Jarasandha called?
Brahminical.
Brahminical.
What does Brahminical mean, brother?
One who protects Brahmins.
Of a Brahmin?
Worships Brahmins.
Worships Brahmins.
One should worship Brahmins daily.
In his sacrificial hall, he also performs sacrifices.
Shri Krishna Bhagwan went there to beg, didn't he?
In Jarasandha's sacrificial hall, Shri Krishna Bhagwan, Arjuna, and Bhima all three went to beg.
Give alms.
Then he looks like this.
It seems like he has seen them somewhere.
It seems like he has seen them somewhere.
He says, 'No problem, we need alms.'
Whether he has seen them or not, there is nothing like that in a beggar; even if he comes to beg every day, we give him alms.
So he was called a Brahmin, he used to honor Brahmins every day.
And yet, he is still considered an asur.
Karna is called a donor.
He gives donations to his enemies.
Yet, he is still counted among the asurs.
He is an asur.
And many others may not give donations.
Yet, they are called devotees.
They may not do charity or such things.
Even then, they are not called Brahmagnani.
What is he called?
He takes his side, that's why Maharaj said that one who takes the side of God and God's devotee is a true devotee.
One who performs bhakti is not necessarily a devotee.
He may be performing bhakti, chanting on a rosary, but he sits in an inappropriate place.
Then he is not a devotee.
A devotee only takes the side of a true devotee.
He still takes his side.
Then he is not a devotee, his complete devotion is not achieved.
It cannot happen otherwise.
The two questions above
It is written in Gunatitanand Swami's discourses that what becomes bad by taking sides does not become bad by indulging in the five senses.
What does that mean?
What does that mean?
One does not become an asur by indulging in the five senses.
What becomes bad by taking sides, that kind of bad does not happen to this jiva by indulging in the five senses.
He takes the side of the wrong.
Of a wrong person.
What becomes bad by taking the side of an asur, that kind of bad does not happen by indulging in the five senses.
If he indulges in the five senses, he doesn't become an asur, does he?
If he has a connection with God, he will become a devotee again.
But if he doesn't fit in with God's devotee, then he becomes an asur.
Then even if he is a renunciant.
Even among asurs, there are renunciants.
Was Ashwatthama a renunciant or not?
Huh?
He had renunciation.
He had nothing at all.
No property or wealth.
He even had problems with food and drink, then Duryodhana made some arrangements.
So he had problems with food and drink.
He was a renunciant.
But
It doesn't mean that if someone is a renunciant, they cannot be an asur.
And it doesn't mean that if someone is knowledgeable, they cannot be an asur.
Sometimes, a knowledgeable person might fall headfirst.
He might be very knowledgeable.
And we fall headfirst, and he is a renunciant, and we fall headfirst.
Then sometimes he is an asur.
It's not like that.
It's not that it can't be.
Even among asurs, there might be some renunciants, very few, but they exist.
It's not that it can't be.
Considering the two questions above and the options below, everyone will superficially conclude that a devotee is the one with the first option.
He takes the good from everyone.
And an asur means he takes the bad from everyone.
Not like that.
An asur means he takes the bad from everyone, he is a negative thinking person, that much is certain.
And one who takes the good from everyone is a positive thinking person.
But he is not a devotee.
He is not devoted.
Devotion, you see, has a single focus, there is only one center in it.
How can one call it devotion if they have centers in seventy places?
So there should be a single focus.
Then he has devotion, otherwise not.
Considering the two questions above and the options below, everyone will superficially conclude that a devotee is the one with the first option.
This is the decision of the scriptures.
This is the decision of the scriptures.
Maharaj has said the same thing in this.
That Shishupal had faults of the Pandavas and Shri Krishna.
So, did Shishupal have Duryodhana's fault?
So, was Duryodhana a good person?
His fault did not come.
Only the Pandavas' came.
Among them, Yudhishthira's and everyone else's came.
If one wants to find fault with Yudhishthira, even Lord Shri Krishna would find it difficult to know how to find his fault.
Lord Shri Krishna would not find fault with him, as Yudhishthira could find fault with Lord Shri Krishna.
Such was the character.
Even then, why did Shishupal not get any good from it?
And he came from Duryodhana.
If one wants to take the good qualities of Duryodhana, then one has to think about everyone else.
Even Dhritarashtra had to think about it, and he used to take it every day.
But he has to think.
How should he take his qualities? From where should he take the qualities?
But still, Shishupala saw good qualities in Duryodhana.
And he saw good qualities in Yudhishthira.
That is called an asuri bhava (demonic nature).
Just taking good qualities doesn't mean that devotion has come and one has become a bhakta.
If there is discretion in taking good qualities, then devotion comes.
The devotion to God is not biased.
Everyone is equal to him.
It's not like that.
Maharaj himself refused.
He said, "Everyone is equal, who do we call good or bad?"
Who do we call good or bad to him?
So Maharaj says,
What did he say?
He called him half-liberated.
He is half-liberated.
Even if everything is equal and everything seems good, he is still half-liberated.
Maharaj did not say whole.
And he takes what is worth taking from this one, doesn't he?
That's why he said half.
He takes the good qualities where they are worth taking, and he also takes them where they are not worth taking.
So it became half.
Then Maharaj said that in the future, he will become whole.
Maharaj said that in the future, he will not become a complete bhakta.
One who has affection for bad company,
to him,
that day,
Maharaj said that before dying or after dying, he will become vimukta (liberated) on that day.
He has half good qualities, but it was not said that he would become a bhakta on that day after death.
Why?
Because the asuri (demonic) saliva is much stronger than the bhakta's saliva.
So it makes him demonic, but it doesn't let him become a bhakta.
So he said to be very afraid of it.
Nishkulanand Swami has said in his poem that one should not even mistakenly let it enter one's mind.
He said that good qualities enter the mind.
If by mistake his quality comes,
One should speak of good qualities in the assembly, but not bring them into the mind.
Now, if we go to Jarasandha's assembly, we must praise Jarasandha.
Oh, what strength!
He can even reach Bhima.
And what's wrong with praising what exists?
There is a slight difference between praising and taking good qualities.
It's a matter.
Considering the two questions above and the options below, at first glance, everyone will give the same decision that a bhakta is the first option and asuri buddhi (demonic intellect) is the last option.
But that is not the correct assumption.
In the Vachanamrut, by taking the example of Shishupala, only one option has been clarified.
Is Shishupala a person of the fourth option or the third option?
Is Shishupala one who takes good qualities in everyone, or one who takes bad qualities, or one who takes bad qualities only in God and God's devotees?
Hey, only God.
He finds good qualities and bad qualities only in God and God's devotees.
Nothing else.
He doesn't get the qualities of a bhakta at all.
And he gets the qualities of the other one.
Then he has asuri (demonic nature).
So what Maharaj has said is based on the examples from all the scriptures, derived from historical accounts.
This option is derived from historical accounts.
Who is asura and who is bhakta.
If someone is only doing devotion for 24 hours and has the quality of an asura (demon), then all his devotion goes in vain.
If one has little devotion and is bound to one God, then on that day he becomes a bhakta.
In the Vachanamrut, by taking the example of Shishupala, only one option has been clarified.
Is Shishupala a person of the fourth option or the third option?
According to the opinion of the Vachanamrut, it will come in the third option.
Shishu
He sees flaws everywhere, so he sees flaws in Lord Krishna and the Pandavas.
It's not that Lord Krishna and the Pandavas have flaws.
He was a negative thinker, so he saw flaws in everything.
That's not why flaws are seen in Shri Krishna.
He has an objection to the personality of Lord Krishna.
Those who are negative thinkers have an internal objection.
His perspective has become inverted, so everything appears that way.
It's not like that for him, he has an objection with Lord Krishna.
It's not that Shishupal sees flaws everywhere, so he sees flaws in Lord Krishna and the Pandavas.
Shishupal does not see any flaws in his related circle.
We do not hear that Shishupal saw flaws in Jarasandha, Kansa, or Duryodhana.
Shishupal's opposition to Lord Krishna boiled over.
You know.
He didn't let the engagement happen, right?
When they both went to get engaged, Lord Krishna's engagement happened, but his didn't.
That's why there was an objection.
So this is a big question.
In times like these, engagements are very rare, and they don't happen quickly, do they?