In this Vachanamrut, Akhandanand Swami asked Shriji Maharaj a question: In the infinite crores of universes, is the form of God seen in the present time in this universe, seen in the same way in all other universes, or not?
Then Maharaj replied that the form of God is not seen uniformly in all places in the universe.
The form of God is always the same, it is human-like, always in a youthful state, free from the influence of Maya, endowed with infinite divine powers, and is the abode of beauty, youth, charm, and radiance.
Yet, to give darshan and shower affection upon such loving and yearning devotees who cannot bear separation from God in the infinite crores of universes, He manifests wherever such devotees are present.
He manifests according to the devotee.
If devotees have a desire for a certain form of God, then He manifests accordingly.
So, the forms of God remain the same.
When He manifests, the form does not remain the same.
So, the glory
Being one form, yet having many forms.
Being localized, yet omnipresent.
Is there glory in being that, or is it like there's no connection?
Centralization, decentralization, like that.
Is the glory in centralization or in decentralization?
What do you say?
What, brother, you are doing decentralization.
The glory of centralization or the glory of decentralization.
People consider all forms of God to be different.
It is said here that God is one form and God's true form is then the saints have asked Maharaj a question.
So then, what about the forms like fish and tortoise that are seen?
So, does that God have any connection with this original form, or not?
Whether to believe or not, whether it exists or not, is a different matter.
Is it considered more glorious if one believes in the connection, or if one believes in the disconnection?
There is Varaha Bhagwan.
And he is an avatar of Maharaj.
So, if we consider Maharaj to have a relationship with Varaha Bhagwan, does Maharaj's glory increase, or if we don't consider any relationship with him?
If we believe, it increases.
Why not?
What increases?
That even while sitting in this abode, he can assume many forms.
Maharaj's glory, if one believes in his connection with them, then Maharaj's glory doesn't diminish for some; Maharaj is very great, and they are very small, so to speak.
It doesn't go down.
It's considered more glorious, isn't it?
As many forms as he can assume, or in more places.
Those other avatars, all avatars, Krishna avatar, Rama avatar, Maharaj has no relation with them, nothing like that.
What do you say, should we believe or not?
Then those who believe in supremacy might not believe.
They consider them like servants, like daily laborers whom no one would even hire, they have become so great.
They say that.
They say that.
So what should we understand from that?
They are avatars of God.
Maharaj has said in the Vachanamrut that He is localized yet omnipresent.
So, God's glory lies in being localized yet omnipresent.
If He is localized, what is the glory?
If He is only omnipresent, whose glory should we understand?
If He is only omnipresent, what does that mean? He becomes formless.
Believe in Antaryami, but Antaryami also becomes formless.
So whose glory should we understand? Maharaj says, if one wants to worship in the sky, whom should one worship?
They only understand omnipresent, and not localized.
Maharaj, on the other hand, said that being localized yet omnipresent means the importance of being localized is greater.
And if He is also omnipresent, then there is even more importance.
That's where His power is revealed, isn't it? If He only remains localized, what is the revelation of His power?
And what is the revelation of His capability?
If one is in the form of one, then he is in the form of all.
Then in that, there is the value of his form.
The wonder is in that.
But now, that doesn't fit in a small mind, so they say that a broad vision, a broad vision like God's, doesn't come.
Maharaj would have separated them from the beginning, saying that these are all servants, and this is the master.
Maharaj did not say that.
Being one's abode, he is the abode of all.
If Hyderabad is separate and all other organizations are sitting with their own people and don't give anything.
So, did the glory of Hyderabad come by considering it separate, or did the glory come by considering it together?
He
He
Where did the glory come from?
So all the avatars
Did the glory come from considering them separate, or did the glory come from considering them together?
As such, in considering them together.
As such.
If he kills him, he won't come back.
So this point is very subtle and not very clear, but it is very good.
Is God sagun (with attributes) even though he is nirgun (without attributes)?
Or are nirgun and sagun separate?
God is separate from sagun and nirgun.
He
What did you say?
He is separate from nirgun.
God is about Akshar.
So, one must believe in God, but how should one believe?
Should one believe in sagun or nirgun?
Or should one believe in sagun even though he is nirgun, or nirgun even though he is sagun?
So, in the Satsangi Jivan, there is a whole chapter, isn't there?
What kind of God is he?
And if one has not made a decision about it, then one does not get much taste of that God.
This is all his glory.
Understanding all this is the glory of God.
Is God nirgun or is God sagun?
Beyond both.
Is God localized or omnipresent?
He is omnipresent even though he is localized.
So what about nirgun and sagun?
The glory of God is his divine power.
He
It is the glory and divine power of God.
God is endowed with divine qualities.
So, it means that he is sagun even though he is nirgun.
What is the permanent form of God?
It is nirgun.
It is nirgun.
He is devoid of the qualities of Maya.
How can one be sagun even though he is nirgun?
So, he is devoid of the qualities of Maya.
He is devoid.
Even then, Maharaj says, if you consider him to have the qualities of Maya, then what deficiency has come?
Does God have three qualities? Does God have tattva or not?
So, does God have tattva or not?
What did you say?
Swami, tell me.
He has all the talks, but he never said he would go to Mumbai and say it.
That he won't go to Mumbai.
He
He is devoid of the qualities of Maya.
What?
Since it is tattva, one should not discuss it much.
Don't do it at all.
Then that's good.
One should not discuss sagun and nirgun at all, that is good.
We just have to keep going straight.
If we don't do it, does the glory go this way, or if we do it, does the glory go this way?
He
If we discuss God's sagun and nirgun forms, do we understand his glory, or do we understand it if we don't?
Maharaj said that by knowing God's sagun and nirgun forms, how much is included.
It is said so.
How much is included in the soul of Karyani?
By knowing the sagun and nirgun form of God, how much is included?
No.
What did you say?
They don't read all these Vachanamruts or anything like that, so what do they read?
They must be watching videos.
Because they don't get time from that.
If you don't get time from that, then what two Swamijis are you talking about?
That in your mind
Sadguru Saheb, tell me.
What is said in the Vachanamrut?
What fruit is said to be attained by knowing God's sagun and nirgun nature?
It is said that one is freed from the nature of time, karma, and maya.
Karyani's 12th Vachanamrut, that Karyani's.
Look at the last paragraph of the eighth Vachanamrut.
And the devotee who understands the nirgun and sagun nature in the murti of God in that way, time, karma, and maya are not able to bind that devotee, and he constantly experiences wonder in his heart for all eight watches of the day.
Is it nirgun becoming sagun, or sagun becoming nirgun?
What is the meaning of 'thaka' (becoming)?
Main secondary.
Unity and main secondary.
Unity and main quality, it is the main quality.
It is like nilam (sapphire) and utpalam (lotus).
It becomes a compound word, right?
It is a Karmadharaya compound.
In 'nilam tatat utpalante', what is its glory?
It is the glory of nilam.
Nil is the glory.
Utpal is the main. It is one.
And it earns like this.
So, if it's a Karmadharaya, it has glory.
In this, it is Karmadharaya.
There is no duality.
So, does God, who is Vishishtadvaita, believe in duality or unity?
No, we should do all the work by becoming a pest.
Let them believe whatever they believe.
Does Vishishtadvaita believe in the oneness of God or in duality?
Generally, it believes in Advaita, but it believes in Vishishtadvaita.
So what is the purpose of Vishishtadvaita?
Glory.
It is special.
What do all these adjectives do?
They increase the glory.
They increase the glory.
So, they should be taken as adjectives.
It takes excessively.
It takes excessively.
It takes excessively from it.
So, in this Vachanamrut, Maharaj has taken a very deep point.
That he is one-regioned yet all-regioned, Maharaj said that in another Vachanamrut.
But here, he is one-formed yet all-formed.
Nirgun, he says.
He is one-abode yet all-abode.
Is God only one-abode or all-abode?
If you were made the mahant of Hyderabad, then if you were the mahant of everyone, would your glory be greater, or just of Hyderabad?
Or he is from Gulbarga.
There is more glory in the centralization of all connections.
The form is always the same.
That is a human creation.
It is always in a youthful state.
It is devoid of the influence of maya.
It is endowed with infinite divine powers.
Yet, Maharaj said that the same form appears elsewhere as fish, tortoise, and so on.
God shows it, and then, according to the devotee's wish, whether you consider them separate or together, still believe that they belong to Him.
And by believing that they belong to Him, His glory increases.
He is the abode of beauty, youth, charm, grace, and radiance, yet he cannot tolerate separation from God in infinite millions of universes.
He appears wherever there are such loving and separated devotees to give them darshan and to shower them with affection.
There, He gives His darshan according to the wishes of those devotees.
But He does not give darshan in the form that He is eternally.
Because the purpose of an avatar is to fulfill the wishes of loving devotees in various places in the universe.
There is no purpose of His own will in assuming those forms.
Therefore, the devotees are infinite.
It is not the purpose of an avatar to fulfill his own wishes.
What is the purpose of an avatar?
To fulfill the wishes of the devotees.
Maharaj's purpose is to fulfill his own wishes.
It is to introduce himself.
Maharaj's resolve was that everyone should recognize his form.
And in all other avatars, it is to fulfill the wishes of their devotees.
He will not do it.
Because the purpose of an avatar is to fulfill the wishes of loving devotees in various places in the universe. There is no purpose of His own will in assuming those forms.
Therefore, the devotees are infinite, and their desires and tastes are of various kinds.
All the devotees have different ones.
Some devotees have strange ones.
So then God has to assume a strange form.
Therefore, God also appears in infinite forms according to the wishes of the devotees.
So when God assumed the form of Varaha, whose wish would that have been?
Brahma's wish.
Brahma is a devotee of God, isn't he?
So Brahma wanted to do the work of this creation, but where was he to do it? That demon had taken the earth and gone away.
So then God, by his wish.
To do all these big tasks, Matsya Bhagwan and all of them came, so they came by his wish.
The work was going on.
What should I do, Maharaj?
Maharaj said, "No problem."
Swami further asked, "Shri Krishna Narayan is always in human form, and He is eternally true. How is it that the same God sometimes appears in infinite forms like Matsya, Kachha, Varaha, Nrusimha, etc.?"
What is the meaning of saying that it is true at all times?
That God does not change his form.
He does not change, he remains the same.
It is true at all times, meaning that in all three periods of time, there is no change in it; it remains the same form.
Eternal form.
So then why does this appear like that?
Why does he appear in forms like Matsya and Kachha?
That same God sometimes appears as Matsya, Kachha, Varaha,
Maharaj wrote that the same God sometimes appears in forms like Matsya and Kachha.
The question is like that.
Maharaj wrote that.
But the question.
But Maharaj gave such an answer to that question.
That to fulfill the wishes of those devotees, he gives darshan in such forms.
How should one understand that the same God sometimes appears in infinite forms like Matsya, Kachha, Varaha, Nrusimha, etc.?
Furthermore, is the method of salvation for each universe and the murti of God the same or different?
Then Shriji Maharaj replied that the murti of God is always the same.
If one considers God to be different, then one should consider it His vibhuti.
What is called vibhuti?
What is the meaning of vibhuti?
An avatar is called a vibhuti.
Huh?
The avatars of God.
Such an avatar is called a vibhuti.
A sadhu is also called a vibhuti of God.
These abodes like Goloka are called the vibhuti of God.
An avatar is called an avatar, an avatar.
Vibhuti, that is called vibhav.
Vibhav means avatar.
The avatar of God is the vibhuti of God.
That is called himself.
An avatar is.
There is no vibhuti in the incarnation.
If you want to call other avatars vibhuti, there is no harm in that, but then what should be the definition of vibhuti?
If it represents.
Huh? It represents.
Does a representative become a vibhuti?
Yes.
It is an avatar.
What is the difference between a representative and a vibhuti? They are both the same.
So, in vibhuti, there are both aspects: vibhuti can have oneness and also distinctness.
That is, oneness with distinctness.
So it is still called his vibhuti.
There is some unity in both, father and son, the son is called the vibhuti of the father.
So are father and son considered one or separate?
What do you say? Oneness with distinctness.
Oneness with distinctness.
So that is called vibhuti.
The superiority in it is due to its unity.
The inferiority in it is due to its distinctness.
What?
Vibhuti means a sadhu is a vibhuti of God.
So what is the oneness in it and what is the distinctness?
Qualities like God are
The benevolence like God is oneness.
And drawing circles is distinctness.
A sadhu does not draw circles, but he says
Sometimes, if he gets time and space, he draws them.
So that is called vibhuti.
That is, distinctness with oneness.
Wherever God has mentioned vibhuti in the Gita, its meaning is such.
Vibhutis are mentioned in the Gita, aren't they?
God said that
Among the Vaishnavas, I am Shankara; among the wielders of bows, I am Rama; among the Pandavas, I am Arjuna.
So what is its meaning?
The superiority is that
That superiority belongs to God.
In that, there is oneness with God.
And the distinctness is its own.
So in that, in vibhuti, there is distinctness with oneness.
And this use of 'sati' (with) expresses great glory.
That is why all these complicated forms of God exist.
Even if it seems contradictory, it is not a contradiction.
Even though it is contradictory, there is no contradiction; there is oneness in it.
And that is the glory of God.
God is called Ubhaya Vedanta, isn't he? Why is he called Ubhaya Vedanta?
He believes in both Dvaita and Advaita.
Dvaita and Advaita both
Hey Pratibhat and Kalyan Ekta.
Hey Pratibhat and Kalyan Ekta.
God balances both these qualities, he plays a balanced role, he balances them.
Hey Pratibhat means that there is no part of the world in it.
And if there is no part of the world, then whose welfare does God do?
Huh?
God does welfare only by creating the world.
But even then, God has remained detached as he is.
Hey Pratyanik.
He used the word Pratyanik.
Hey Pratyanik.
So Pratyanik means
Opposite.
There is a difference between the sky and the netherworld.
Even if God enters the 'hey' (that which is to be rejected), he does so while maintaining his 'hey pratyanik' (opposite of 'hey') nature.
So if God believes in elements, or if elements believe in God, Maharaj said that what inferiority has come into it.
God is the opposite of elements.
He is the opposite of the qualities of inferiority of the elements.
So it is 'hey pratyanik'.
Pratibhat means Pratyanik.
So in understanding both of them, there is the glory of God.
So the avatars are all different from God, or Swaminarayan Bhagwan is the opposite of avatars.
In understanding
So it is called vibhuti.
You cannot consider vibhuti as completely separate.
A son cannot be considered completely separate from his father.
He is with him and he is separate.
Similarly, Maharaj has called God and other abodes as vibhuti in the Vachanamrut.
Vibhuti is said to be an avatar.
All avatars are also in vibhuti.
So vibhuti cannot be considered separate.
Vibhuti
There is unity.
Both are worldly affairs.
But there is no crossing of it.
Someone says, "How can one be two, or two be one?" But it is like that.
It is understood.
There is no contradiction between the opposition and the auspiciousness, is there?
There is a contradiction.
There is a contradiction because of that.
Why is it not visible inside?
But when there is a nature of God, when there is detachment, one cannot do devotion.
Devotion is auspicious.
And detachment is towards that.
But it is difficult for both to get along.
So if God is in the center, it is not difficult.
Otherwise, both are complementary to each other.
If detachment plays its role, then they become complementary to each other.
If detachment tries to be wise to others, then
it will cause harm.
If detachment protects devotion, then there is no problem.
And devotion allows it, saying, "You are not here, you are inauspicious and rude."
If it sees that, it will remove it.
Then its own security will not remain.
So if both become complementary, then there is a contradiction in the nature of both.
In the nature of both.
But both can be complementary if they are in God.
So it is very difficult to maintain both the opposition and the auspiciousness in one place.
It is very difficult for one person to maintain complete detachment and complete devotion.
And only a true master can maintain it, otherwise, it cannot be maintained.
If one tries to maintain devotion, detachment becomes slow, and if one tries to maintain detachment, devotion becomes slow.
Both have different natures and are contradictory.
But there is no contradiction within, there is a contradiction above.
If one wants to worship God within, then there is no contradiction between the two.
If one does not want to worship God and wants to worship the world, then there is a contradiction.
Then Shriji Maharaj replied that the idol of God is always the same.
The essence of Swami's question is that the form of God in Akshardham is eternal, as mentioned above.
But seeing the incarnations of God like Matsya, Kachha, etc., a doubt arises in the mind whether the form of God in God's abode, which is the eternal divine form of God, is not like the forms of Matsya, Kachha, Varaha, Nrusimha, etc.?
Then Maharaj said, "No."
In God's Akshardham, God's eternal form is not like any other form, leaving aside the human form.
Then the doubt arises that many times
It is opposed to all forms.
All forms, that's why Maharaj said,
that this is the form of God.
The form of God is only as much as it appears.
No.
It is believed from that.
There is both belief and connection.
Without it, there is existence in its presence and non-existence in its absence, meaning it happens without it.
In the morning, a very good chapter came in the good.