And if even a poor person is hurt by us, then a thought arises in our heart that God is immanent, and residing in one place, He knows the hearts of all. Therefore, He must be residing in the heart of the one we hurt, so we have committed an offense against God. Knowing this, we bow to them and give them whatever they need, and we do whatever it takes to make them pleased. And also... How did the sadhu describe the asura? The sadhu... to protect oneself. God fights against the asuras. Sadhus should protect themselves... just as our Nand Sants did. Sadhus, just as the Nand Sants did, that is our, that is our path. Didn't Maharaj say that if there are five or ten of you and some asura comes to beat you—one who comes to beat you must be called an asura, right? Then what should you do? To run away. What? To run away. No, no, not like that. To confront them... Maharaj actually said to confront them. But the sadhus did not agree to that. "Maharaj, we... if he performs his duty, then we must perform our duty." If he performs his duty, then we must perform our duty. But Maharaj said at least this much, "Do not sit there and take a beating." "And do not get destroyed by just sitting there." When our path is completed, one must save oneself from its weak influence. And save our work from that weak influence. Do that much. Those asuras, no matter how they want to cause harm, those asuras want to destroy our work and they also want to destroy us. So, do not let that happen. Do not let ourselves be destroyed, and do not let our work be destroyed. Do not let our principles be destroyed. For that, do as much protection as possible, and what cannot be done, God will do. If we cannot protect ourselves after we have tried, then God will take care of it. That is called our dharma dharma 1) Universal law or principle that 'sustains' or 'upholds' the entire world. Righteousness, morality, religion, Tap to open in glossary → And that is called the path of sadhuta. So that means not to lose sight of the goal, right? The goal... if one loses sight of the goal, then sadhuta is said to be lost. And if one confronts them, then also sadhuta is said to be lost. If he loses sight of the goal, he has not become an asadhu. If he confronts them, he is said to have become an asadhu. If he loses sight of the goal, he has not become an asadhu. But sadhuta is lost, right? On what is sadhuta based? Even if you do nothing? On what is sadhuta based? You have some good goal of pleasing God, or following or spreading God's principles, sadhuta is based on that. Just because you do nothing, are you a sadhu? Suppose you do not fight with anyone. Does that mean you have become a great sadhu? What is it? What do you both say? You do not fight with anyone, you do not do anything else, then, have you become a great sadhu? One does not become a great sadhu like that. With God's principles, as much as you can make them... cling to them. propagate or spread them, or if you instill those principles in someone's heart, if you instill God's principles in another's heart, in the heart of an ordinary jiva, then you are a sadhu. It is not that you are a sadhu just because you do nothing and do not fight with anyone. Later, if your self-interest is affected, then? If someone causes you pain, then? Then what will you do? Then won't you feel hurt? Even if you do not fight back, you will still feel hurt, right? So it is not like that. If sadhuta loses sight of the goal, then sadhuta has weakened. Although they have not become asadhu. An asadhu is one who fights, right? "Khalasya sadho viparita metat." There is a contradiction between a wicked person and the sadhuta of a sadhu. If one does this, the other does that. He does the opposite of it. So what is the opposite of what the asuras do? What? What is the opposite of what the asuras do? Then, "khalasya sadho viparita metat." This one does the opposite of what the wicked person does, and the wicked person does the opposite of what this one does. With whom does this one have opposition? With whom does a sadhu have a contradiction or reverse? With the wicked person. Not with the non-devotee. What? If there were opposition with the non-devotee? Then what would be called sadhuta? Do you understand? Who is the opposite of night? What? Day. Even if it is cloudy and dark, it is still day. Even if clouds are spread all around and the sun is not visible, it is still day. That is the opposite of night. Similarly, if someone does not perform bhajan bhajan Worship. Tap to open in glossary → bhajan bhajan Worship. Tap to open in glossary → The asura. The wicked person and the asura. Wicked means asura. Wicked. Not of the non-devotee. One may be a non-devotee and often, say, poor. It is not that only devotees are poor. Whether all devotees are poor or not is a big question. Whether all devotees are poor or not is a big question, and it is not that those non-devotees cannot be poor. A non-devotee himself can be poor. So the wicked, the sadhu is the opposite of the wicked. And the opposite, yet both can be devotees. A sadhu means the opposite of the wicked, and a devotee means he has to maintain both. To maintain bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → What? Sadhuta and bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → but they are not the same. Because sadhuta is the opposite of wickedness, and a devotee is the opposite of a non-devotee. From non-devotee... this one performs bhajan bhajan Worship. Tap to open in glossary → So he is the opposite of a non-devotee. But being a non-devotee does not mean he is opposed to bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → He himself does not perform it, so... he may not be opposed. Being a non-devotee means he himself does not perform bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → Maharaj said simply that we do not get along with non-devotees. Our hearts do not align. But Maharaj did not say that we should have enmity with them. Enmity happens with this one. If one torments a sadhu, then enmity happens with him. Maharaj said in this itself, right? One who lapses from dharma dharma 1) Universal law or principle that 'sustains' or 'upholds' the entire world. Righteousness, morality, religion, Tap to open in glossary → one who is poor... one who is strong torments the poor, torments and, takes the side of injustice, we feel anger towards him. For that reason. Yes. See, between sadhuta and being a devotee, there is a slight, difference. Just a slight difference. Not much. Maharaj has taken both sadhuta and being a devotee together. He has taken them believing so. Faith in Maharaj and sadhuta. So if there is faith in Maharaj and sadhuta, then Gunatitanand Swami says that nothing else will surpass that. Among them, which is difficult? Being a devotee or being a sadhu? Being a sadhu. Being a sadhu is difficult. That is very hard. As for just being a devotee, we can all apply tilak-chandlo and sit. We can apply tilak-chandlo and sit, but after applying tilak-chandlo, maintaining sadhuta is very difficult, right? If maintaining sadhuta after becoming a sadhu is difficult, then what is the problem after applying tilak-chandlo? Now, if someone is sitting with tilak-chandlo and a mala, no one would trouble them. Rather, others would be troubled. When you were in civil dress and someone troubled you, and now if someone troubles you, how is it? Do you feel any difference between the two? What? Do you feel any difference between the two or not? At least check that much. At that time, you were a devotee, right, or were you not? Were you a devotee or not? What? But if someone troubled you then? And if someone troubles you now? We would give a TC (transfer certificate). Giving a TC is correct. So that is the difference considered between a devotee and a sadhu. Sadhuta is difficult. Compared to bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → And in that, maintaining sadhuta while being a devotee, and maintaining bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → When those two combine, it becomes supreme. Shastriji Maharaj possessed both of these qualities. He had the heart of a devotee, and his sadhuta was also at its peak. That is our tradition. Narayandas Swami, Gunatitanand Swami, and Balmukund Swami—that is our tradition. The peak of sadhuta and bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → If you are just a devotee but ruin someone else, are you a true devotee? In this world, they wouldn't even call him a devotee. But the scriptures forbid it. A true devotee. But not a sadhu. Not a sadhu. So the status of sadhu that Maharaj has given is the status of a sadhu along with being a devotee. People often say that about a sadhu, and their point is correct. A sadhu in the world would not do bad to anyone else. Yet they may not be devotees. So in our view, they are considered quite inferior. Because what Maharaj established—sadhu and devotee—He established both statuses together. That is why we are called Vaishnavi Paramhansas. Not plain Paramhansas. What are we called? Vaishnavi Paramhansas. And the status of sadhu that Maharaj gave is that of Vaishnavi Paramhansa. Meaning supreme devotee and supreme sadhu, both. A combination of both. The attire is also kept like that. Not like those sanyasis... or just wrapping a dhotis around, not like that either. To keep a shikha, to wear a janoi. A sanyasi has none of these. Sanyasis are sadhus. It is not that all sanyasis are asadhus. They are sadhus. Ramsukhdasji. Yes, he was a sadhu. But they were not Vaishnavi Paramhansas. He did have the qualities of a Vaishnavi Paramhansa, as he had the heart of a devotee. But mostly, there is sadhuta but not bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → The glimpse of sadhuta was more. In comparison between the two. And Maharaj kept it so that there is more glimpse of sadhuta... that is, nothing is lacking in either sadhuta or bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → Nishkulanand Swami Nishkulanand Swami Disciple of Sahajanand Swami (Swaminarayan Bhagwan) and author of the Bhaktachintamani, as stated in the scripture's own closing colophon at the end of every chapter. Tap to open in glossary → You cannot say that because they became sadhus, their bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → Yes. So here, what Maharaj said is that if you feel like this towards someone else, if a negative thought arises, if a negative thought arises, it is towards the devotee and towards God. That shows a lack of sadhuta. That is not a lack of bhakti bhakti Devotion to Bhagvãn. One of the four attributes of ekãntik dharma. There are nine types of bhakti: Tap to open in glossary → Maharaj has highlighted that lack of sadhuta. In one place, Maharaj has said another thing: one may even betray one's own Ishtadev. If Ishtadev forbids, that is said regarding attachment. If there is attachment, then even if one's Ishtadev stops them, they won't stop. What else is said? Does he even betray his own Ishtadev or something? Is it this today? Today... what is it? In this, "God" is written. Ishtadev. He betrays Him as well. It does indeed say so. "And if one harbors a negative thought towards anyone, then he also harbors a negative thought towards God's devotee and towards God." "And if even a poor person is hurt by us," "then a thought arises in our heart that God is immanent, and He..." But if you go very deep into these words written by Maharaj, non-devotee, poor, and sadhu—if there are slight differences among them, then a consistent meaning emerges, otherwise a consistent meaning does not emerge. 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