Shikshapatri Katha - Shlok 121(04) || 12 Nov, 2020 || Mahant Swami Shri Devprasaddasji Swami · Mahant Swami Katha

Jag ga ma ma ga dhe re ka sa ga re Jag ga ma ma ga dhe re ka sa ga re

Om Avtarine Shri Swaminarayanaya Namo Namah

Shri Harikrishnaya Namo Namah

Shri Purna Purushottamaya Namo Namah

Nayankbhai is from Australia. Naishadbhai is from Australia. No, Phoenix. Huh? From Phoenix. From Phoenix.

Shlok number 121 continue.

Matam Vishishtadvaitam me Goloko Dham Chepsitam Tatra Brahmatmana Krishna Seva Muktishcha Gamyatam

Doubt.

One who has attained the pure form, that liberated soul does not have a body.

Therefore, how can a bodiless liberated soul have an interest in the service of God?

Solution.

This doubt is not correct.

At that time, the liberated soul attains the Brahmi Bhagavati Tanu body.

There is no contradiction between that Bhagavati Tanu and the manifestation of the true form.

On the contrary, the manifestation of the true form becomes favorable.

Swarup Avirbhav means power and qualities. In the state of liberation, qualities like God

and power like God comes into the jiva. So some people's beliefs are that

if there is a body, then the power gets limited.

If one gets a body, for example, if they are looking at the whole world, then if they have eyes, they can only see what comes in front of them.

So it became a limitation.

And that one sees the whole world.

So that is the limitation of this material body.

Maharaj said that even a Siddha can take objects from Indralok with these very hands and hear talks from other lokas with these very ears.

and with these very eyes, he can have darshan of other lokas.

This body is obtained through karma.

Therefore, it limits the qualities and limits the power.

The body that is obtained in God's abode.

That is a divine body, which we call Bhagavati Tanu, it is not based on qualities.

Therefore, with this very body, Maharaj says, he takes objects from Akshardham.

And from here, he can offer the object of Akshardham to Maharaj.

Such power comes into him.

That doubt of man is due to the body-consciousness and the limitation.

Otherwise, there is no such doubt.

Maharaj said in Vachanamrut that the characteristics of the body are pervasiveness, dependence, and powerlessness.

Here, powerlessness means

Powerless means in comparison to God.

Powerless does not mean being in this world.

In comparison to God, all these liberated souls are powerless.

And it is pervasive.

And it is dependent.

Therefore, it is considered the body of God.

So if they become as capable as God, then how can they be powerless?

Just like God.

God gives more to some.

No one has more than God.

But God's

Such is his nature that he keeps his devotee as a crown jewel.

And he himself acts as a servant.

Maharaj has said this in many places in the Vachanamrut.

That we are devotees of God's devotees.

And if such a quality is not in us, then no quality would suit us, meaning even godliness would not suit us.

So Maharaj said that godliness is glorified by becoming a servant.

So Maharaj's devotees become capable, they become like God.

They are not at all less than God, even if they are in Akshardham.

Then if they come here independently, even if they are liberated souls from Akshardham, they act according to different natures.

Just like in the military, everyone has to wave their hand like this, so they wave their hand like this. If someone else comes, their major comes and hits them twice.

Even if they are walking and their leg has changed.

So there is no place for independence in it.

So nature, attachment, has no place.

It is written in the talks of Gopalanand Swami.

When is attachment or nature known? It is known when independence comes.

If God has sent them here, then some show power like Ramanujacharya, and some show power like Shankaracharya, or Vallabhacharya.

All of them are called liberated.

Their nature is a little different.

So when they come from that abode, they act according to their own nature here, and their independence becomes apparent, their nature is seen.

In God's abode, no one's nature is seen because it is a military rule.

If you move your leg like this, everyone's leg should move like that.

There, God does not hit with a whip like the military does.

But that is the rule of love.

There is no platform for anyone's independent nature.

Whatever God likes, whatever God indicates, that is what needs to be done.

So there is no place for nature there.

If they come here again, there will be a slight change.

Then it becomes a little like it is here.

That is called the nature's disposition.

A liberated soul who has experienced the manifestation of the pure form does not have a body.

Therefore, how can a bodiless liberated soul have an interest in the service of the Supreme Soul?

Solution.

This doubt is not correct.

At that time, the liberated soul attains a divine, Bhagavati body.

There is no contradiction between that divine body and the manifestation of the form, between that divine body and the manifestation of the form.

On the contrary, the manifestation of the form becomes favorable.

There can be a contradiction between the physical body and the manifestation of the form.

For the embodied soul, beloved happiness and unpleasant sorrow never cease.

This scripture speaks of happiness and sorrow regarding the body obtained through karma.

Furthermore, in this regard, others say that the word 'Golok' means a specific divine place or country by that name.

In that abode, in Akshardham, in the form of Akshardham, to serve Shri Krishna with the sentiment of Brahman is liberation.

Doubt.

How can service truly be called liberation?

What did the commentator say here? He has resolved the dispute about Golok Dham.

From the perspective of the Puranas, Golok, Vaikunth, Brahmapur, Shvetadvipa, Badrikashram are all different.

But from the perspective of the Upanishads, Golok means Paramdham.

Go means splendor.

Go does not mean cows.

Go means splendor and Paramdham.

So, Goloko Dham Chepsitam here does not mean that we have to go where there are cows and cowherds.

Goloko Dham Chepsitam means Paramdham, which is a heap of light, that is what the commentator has taken, meaning he has taken the meaning of Akshardham.

And from the perspective of the Puranas, there are many abodes.

Maharaj, from the perspective of the Puranas, not the Puranas, but from the perspective of the Upanishads, Golok is one abode.

Call it Akshar or Golok, the names are different.

From the perspective of the Puranas, the abodes are also different.

And from the perspective of the Upanishads, all these are not creation, but after creation, God arranges for the sagun and nirgun murtis for each universe.

When there were no universes, there was only one abode, and it was called Golok.

Golok means pervaded by oil, which we call Akshardham.

So,

Now, he talks about seva in that.

Doubt: How can service truly be called liberation?

Seva means the attitude of service, the duty of a servant.

Thus, how does the service of remaining a servant suit a liberated soul who has attained the manifestation of Brahm-swarup? How does it fit? Because just as knowledge and bliss, etc., are the natural qualities of the soul, so too, servanthood is not a natural quality of the soul. However, qualities like fatherhood and sonship apply to the jiva due to ignorance and karma. Similarly, servanthood is also a matter that has come upon one.

However, qualities like fatherhood and sonship apply to the jiva due to ignorance and karma. Similarly, servanthood is also a matter that has come upon one.

But in this world and in common scriptures, serving is a lowly tendency. Not something to be praised much. In the world and in scriptures, being a boss is considered a high tendency.

But it is not so in the path of God.

In the path of God, if one gets to serve, then not to do bossism is God's choice and priority.

If you get service, then no problem.

It should be God's service.

In the previous verse, Maharaj used the word 'bhakti' everywhere, saying that 'tasyaam sarvata bhakti' and 'bhavyateno kartavya bhakti Krishna sasurvata'.

So here Maharaj used the word 'seva' and further on he used the word 'bhakti', so in seva, the main place is 'bhaktimaan seva' which is one and the same.

It's the same.

Is there a name for service in Navadha Bhakti?

In Navadha Bhakti, Bhakti means Navadha Bhakti or Prem Lakshana Bhakti, whatever you call it.

But it has the name of service, doesn't it? Shravanam, Kirtanam, Vishno, Smaranam, Pada Sevanam.

To serve God is that.

Archana, Vandana, Dasya, so there one has to become a servant.

That is called service.

Sakhyam Atmanivedanam.

There are nine types of devotion, and service is also named in them.

In that service, there are groups of three.

Listening, chanting, and remembering.

And serving the feet, worship, and salutation.

And Dasya, Sakhya, and Atmanivedan are groups of three each.

So,

So there are groups of three, if done normally, all devotions are equal.

In the Vachanamrut, there is a question: which of the nine types of devotion is superior?

So Maharaj said that for whomever there is more love for God, that is superior for them.

All the other nine types are equal.

Maharaj said that from the perspective of love, from a general perspective.

But then, Maharaj mentioned here yesterday, didn't he, that sometimes Maharaj said there are four limbs.

Maharaj has mentioned many limbs.

If we look from a worldly perspective, or from a practical perspective, someone might have the limb of faith, or that limb, and such, we have limbs of devotion, service, kirtan, katha, and so on. Maharaj selected four from such many different limbs.

From such many limbs, Maharaj selected four.

From those, Maharaj then selected three.

From those, one permanent was selected.

This is a permanent selection.

So, it works in this world and it works in that world.

Some of those limbs that exist, they work when they are in this world, but they don't work when they go there.

If someone has a limb for fighting, then who will they fight with there?

It works in this world.

There are people with fighting limbs, aren't there?

So,

It is a selection.

This service is devotion. Devotion is not of only one type.

This is permanent devotion.

To become Brahmarup and serve God, that is called devotion.

And Maharaj would have called it liberation.

In the devotion of liberation, Maharaj made it one.

However, for the jiva, qualities like fatherhood and sonship, etc.

Liberation means retirement.

Maharaj does not believe in retirement.

If one retires from the service of God, where does one go?

What is the meaning of liberation?

No tension of any kind, no burden of any kind. We call it a burden of service, don't we?

No tension of any kind and no burden of any kind.

So Maharaj, such liberation,

He has not considered retirement as liberation.

He has considered the liberation of burden.

From our perspective.

From Maharaj's perspective, it is a divine thing.

However, for the jiva, fatherhood

We often say that our saints, the infinite saints, never took retirement until their last breath.

Maharaj takes him away on duty.

So he is called a martyr of India.

He gets the Vir Chakra.

And he gets the salute of the President.

Because the whole country salutes the one who goes on duty.

Then, if he retires and goes to bed or goes to the hospital, his news is given on the radio one day, saying, 'This person'

Pranab Mukherjee has passed away.

They say 'bye bye'.

On that day, the flag of the Red Fort of the entire country flies at half-mast for him.

And if he has gone on duty, the flag of the Red Fort is lowered.

So, being on duty has great glory.

Similarly, Maharaj's Nand saints never thought of taking retirement and going to God's abode.

And if someone thinks so, Maharaj says, 'Where did you find this new path?'

He comes on duty.

Brahmanand Swami gave all his belongings to Devanand Swami.

And he said, 'Now I want to go to Dham.' It is for going to Dham.

That thing

Not too early.

So Maharaj said, 'Why do you do that?'

Take it, call them back.

Call back all the instruments that were given.

And do a Dhyanashtak of the darshan we gave you.

So Brahmanand Swami wrote the Dhyanashtak.

So Maharaj has a custom of being on duty.

And 'on duty' is a small word.

Until the last breath.

Maharaj is beyond the breath.

Beyond life.

Even after this life.

In his duty.

Not even a second.

He has to remain in his duty.

He called it liberation.

Him

The dharma of fatherhood

is dependent on karma.

Similarly, the dharma of a servant is dependent on karma.

There is such a doubt.

So Maharaj said that the dharma of a servant is not dependent on karma, it is a dharma of selection.

It is a matter of one's own selection.

That I have chosen to serve Maharaj.

It's not forced.

It's not compulsion.

It's about one's own passion.

It's a selection of passion.

That I have a lot of passion for this.

I have a lot of love for this.

So he makes a selection.

Playing with grandchildren is not compulsory for a grandfather.

But the grandfather gets stuck when he comes home.

Similarly, being a servant is also an imposed matter, but it is not natural.

To remain dependent is not the nature of a liberated soul.

If even in the state of liberation there is dependence, then how can the state of Brahmaswarup be called true spiritual effort? That would be called a lack of spiritual effort.

The ultimate spiritual effort, spiritual effort means what? The final spiritual effort.

How can such an effort, after which nothing else needs to be done, be called seva?

It is our human imagination.

What did people consider liberation? As we said yesterday, 'pesda'.

Deal, delightful ment.

Entertainment.

That is liberation for them.

Retirement.

All these 'ments' are 'ments' of human imagination. They are not 'ments' of Maharaj's imagination.

Maharaj's imagination is like this: to do seva.

We don't enjoy it, we don't enjoy doing seva.

If you don't enjoy it, does the lack of enjoyment come from the seva or from somewhere else?

If we are sitting for puja and we start to doze off, do those naps come from the puja or from somewhere else?

From where do the naps come?

But they only come out when you open it.

Otherwise, they wouldn't come out. If they just made us sit here, then look.

But as soon as the puja starts, the naps come out of it.

So, were they filled in that box or in what?

So, it's not in that.

They are filled in our ego of the body.

There are no naps filled in the puja; naps are filled in the ego of the body, so they come.

Then, when it becomes a little free, it comes.

To remain dependent is not the nature of a liberated soul. If even in the state of liberation there is dependence, then how can the state of Brahmaswarup be called true spiritual effort, true liberation?

To remain dependent is not called liberation; that is what others say.

Not what Maharaj says.

If even in the state of liberation there is dependence, then how can the state of Brahmaswarup be called true spiritual effort, true liberation?

Many times here, Niskulanand Swami has written in Vachan Vidhi that

He pressed his throat and joined in the work.

First, in my mind, I thought that I would go there and do something special.

We will roam around in new villages every day.

We will intimidate the devotees.

And we will take proper service.

And here, he said everything, only the glory of service.

He doesn't say any glory at all.

Then I woke up in the middle of the night.

So, if someone is forced like this, how can they enjoy seva?

And if someone is forced and suppressed, then there is no glory in seva, man.

This is passion and selection.

And that is Maharaj's.

It's not ours. Whether this limb fits us or not, if there are many different limbs and it doesn't fit, then congratulations to them.

But this is Maharaj's passion and Maharaj's selection.

If even in the state of liberation there is dependence, then how can the state of Brahmaswarup be called true spiritual effort, true liberation?

That would be called a lack of spiritual effort.

Resolution.

You call the manifestation of Brahmaswarup a lack of spiritual effort because there is suffering in it, therefore we call it a lack of spiritual effort.

Question from the other side.

Where is the suffering in the manifestation of Brahmaswarup?

Is there suffering because it is Brahmaswarup?

So they say, yes, there is suffering. Having to do this 'dhavdo' is suffering, isn't it?

One has to do seva, and there, one has to do the same work.

Here, the children of the house, they say that the children are tired of doing chores, and there, we barely go into retirement, and then we suppress them and say, 'Come on, you do this.'

Lift the temple bells.

So, for him, it's nothing compared to making these children play.

caste

Anand says, after doing the dhodo all day, who will play with them?

You call the manifestation of Brahmaswarup as apurusharth.

There is sorrow in it, so we call it apurusharth.

Question.

Where is the sorrow in the manifestation of Brahmaswarup?

Answer.

Even at that time, there is sorrow due to dependence, isn't there?

Service means dependence.

Dependence means dhodo.

We have to do forced labor.

Question.

And we are doing forced labor.

Question.

Is dependence itself sorrow, or does sorrow arise through dependence?

Is dependence itself sorrow, or does sorrow emerge from dependence?

This is a very subtle question.

Question.

Is dependence itself sorrow?

Yes.

Is dudhpak itself happiness, or does happiness emerge from dudhpak?

What is it called?

Happiness emerges from dudhpak.

So dudhpak is not happiness.

But happiness emerges from dudhpak.

But still, we

When we see dudhpak, we see a pile of happiness.

So that is the question.

Is dependence itself sorrow, or does sorrow emerge from dependence?

That is the question.

It has been taken very subtly because Maharaj's principle needs to be clarified, that's why.

Question.

Is dependence itself sorrow, or does sorrow arise through dependence?

He himself

Is money itself happiness, or does happiness come from money?

What?

Happiness comes from money.

Money is not that.

By repeatedly churning, money has become happiness.

In reality, money is not happiness.

These people extract happiness from money.

He tries to extract it.

Then whatever comes out, comes out.

But they try to extract happiness from it, saying, 'Let's extract happiness from this.'

But from birth after birth, that's what has been churned, so money has become happiness for him.

It is said that when he sees money, he becomes happy.

In the same way, means and end.

Is dependence itself sorrow, or does sorrow emerge from dependence?

Is service itself liberation, or does liberation emerge from service?

What happens?

Is service itself liberation, or does liberation come from service?

What?

Liberation from service.

Service itself is liberation.

Not liberation from service.

Many do service.

If there is liberation from service, then one would not have to do it there.

And Maharaj said that service itself is liberation, meaning that even there, one has to do the same.

If liberation is attained through service, then one would do service here and then attain liberation, and then go there and enjoy.

Where did Maharaj say that?

Maharaj said, 'There, service to Krishna with a brahmatmic attitude is liberation.' 'There, service to Krishna with a brahmatmic attitude is liberation, let it be known.'

Only by going there.

So service itself is liberation, not that liberation is attained from service.

Liberation from service is here.

In this world, service is a means, and what is received as its fruit in God's abode is the ultimate goal; then it continues permanently.

He himself answers it.

The answer to the first question is that in the life of a householder, his wife and all other family members remain dependent on their husband.

Yet, it does not appear that all of them are permanently unhappy.

They live, they live.

It's a family.

Huh?

Do all the family members live, or does he live?

He lives.

It's a family, so he says it's a family.

Single.

So, if the family members are a good family, then the sons, wife, and everyone else remain dependent on the husband.

And the owner is dependent on everyone.

But him

And whether there is happiness or sorrow?

Huh? There is happiness.

In that, he finds happiness.

And in his mind, he feels proud, 'Oh, look, my children do as I say, and my family members also do as I say.'

So, he can't contain his pride, he can't contain his happiness.

And he has called this the happiness of this world.

Good health, good endeavor, good effort, a virtuous wife, and a serving son.

So, if the family members do as they are told, and the son does as he is told, and the business is going well.

That is the rule of this world.

So, that is called happiness.

So, if all these are dependent on each other, then is it happiness or sorrow?

So, not all dependence is sorrowful.

The dependence of a foolish person is sorrowful.

By chance, we found them.

If there is a boss with less power, and he has a share, then he becomes the boss.

It's not that only someone with more power becomes the boss.

But whoever has a share, wherever he presses his thumb, the boss acts like a boss there.

So now, bosses with less power have come to us.

Then his dependence is sorrowful.

If we get better bosses than us, then some people feel happy.

They don't feel sad.

So, is God considered better than us or weaker?

So, serving him is not called sorrow.

The ancient Nand saints and the saints in the guru parampara used to serve Maharaj.

Hmm, so that seems to be directly related to Maharaj, and now we serve the institution.

If it seems worldly, then are both services considered the same or different? They are considered the same.

What the Nand saints were doing was service to Maharaj's mission.

And what Shastriji Maharaj has propagated is service to Maharaj's mission.

Then, how we do it, with what intention, that makes a difference.

If we don't have that intention, then such service won't happen; the service itself is like that.

They all introduced God and connected them to the feet of Swaminarayan.

Shastriji Maharaj has introduced the feet of Swaminarayan Bhagwan throughout his life.

And we have to do the same; if we do the same, then no change is said to be there.

It was difficult for the Nand saints, but it is easy for us.

Even then, because of him, it is easy for us, so it's not that the value of our work decreases.

For Maharaj, if one jiva came in Satya Yuga, that's it. Maharaj's vision is that he is seated in Akshardham.

Creation and dissolution are not in his vision.

His vision is only for one jiva to come into his service.

So, for him, there is no Satya Yuga or Kali Yuga.

For him, it's about how many jivas come into my service.

That's his measurement.

From Maharaj's perspective, how many jivas are there? There's no such thing as this being Kali Yuga or that being Satya Yuga.

So, it was tough then.

Now it has been made easy for us.

But still.

If we introduce God to a jiva and connect them to Swaminarayan's service, connect them to Swaminarayan's feet.

So, for Maharaj, whether one came in Satya Yuga or one came in the other, both are equal.

There is no difference in that.

If we do it with the same target.

Then it is considered the same.

And if we don't do it with that target, then it is not considered the same.

He himself gives the answer to that.

Answer to the first question.

In the life of a householder, his wife and all other family members remain subordinate to their husband.

Yet, it does not appear that they are all permanently unhappy.

Some are happy.

On the contrary, if there is very good etiquette in a family, then that family is the happiest.

If the son is running in one direction, and the family members are running in another direction, and this one is running behind, then none of them are happy; neither that one is happy, nor this one is happy.

Rather than that, if they remain dependent on each other with devotion, they are very happy.

So, it's not to say that all dependence is only happiness or sorrow.

The answer is like this.

Now, look at another thing: how does sorrow come through dependence?

If you say that you have to live and work according to someone else's will.

But if that work is extremely dear to oneself, then where does sorrow come from?

Someone assigned us a task.

And if it's our favorite.

Then where is the sorrow in that?

Some people get very happy that they got a visa for America.

They have to go there and do slavery.

A very close friend of mine who studied with me.

And he said that I got a visa for America, I graduated and went to America.

200 people came to see me off at the airport.

200 people.

At that time, there was a lot of glory, so

200 people came to the airport to say goodbye.

I went there, and there's a rule in America, I landed and got a job the next day.

But what kind of job? Unloading trucks.

So I unload each box and hit my head, where did I get stuck, brother?

Compared to this, there was a monarchy there.

Only those who were comfortable would have gone from here at that time.

So here it was a monarchy, and there we had to do labor work, unloading trucks.

So it happened that I got stuck, brother, I got stuck.

Now, look at another thing.

So he feels that way in his mind.

But there, many people who were pharmacists from here were directly stamped and taken, and got a direct job.

So, is it difficult for him to do any job? They all became very happy that a great job was done.

Immediately, he put down the files of two or three others, saying, "You come quickly."

So, a good job is not a source of sorrow.

A foolish person's job is a source of sorrow.

And if someone has a job with less work, we should consider it luck.

Then you can't get out of it.

If a son has less work, what should the father understand?

You have to understand it as a creditor, as destiny.

That, brother, it can be changed a little.

Or if someone is a good person, I'll give you extra. If there's a piece of land or a plot, you can exchange it, saying, 'Here, take this much, 50 lakhs extra, give me that plot.'

And you take this plot of mine.

Can you change your son a little, saying, 'Hey brother, this is your good son, so give him to me, take 50 lakhs extra from me'?

This is a small turn, you take care of it.

You get 50 lakhs, you need 50 lakhs, and I need this turn, both things.

How can that happen?

So, those are the parts to understand.

But it's not like that in God's path.

In God's path, the boss can be changed.

No one can stop us from selecting Maharaj.

If we select a good devotee, no one can stop us from doing that.

That can be changed.

That's the only thing that doesn't change.

A son is still 50-50 with his wife.

If it's not right, then let's change it.

But a son cannot be changed.

How does sorrow come through dependence?

If you say that you have to live and work according to someone else's will.

But if that work is extremely dear to oneself, then where does sorrow come from?

Doubt.

It cannot be said for certain that the work done according to someone else's will is always very dear to oneself.

The work assigned to someone who is dependent.

If there is no dependence, then it can be done according to our wish.

If you want to stop, you can stop.

If you want to wake up early, you can, if not, it's fine.

No one tells us anything.

Doesn't bother.

When that brother heard the bell for aarti at six o'clock, how difficult it must have felt.

So that becomes very difficult.

Instead, if you want to go, you go, if you don't want to go, you don't go, how fun is that?

So, the general opinion of people is that there is joy in freedom.

Doubt.

It cannot be said for certain that the work done according to someone else's will is always very dear to oneself.

The work assigned to someone who is dependent.

Even if one does not want to do it or does not like it, a dependent person has to try to do that work, right?

So it is painful, isn't it?

If there is independence, one can act according to one's own will.

If you say so, what is the benefit of that?

The benefit is that no harm is done.

If one is independent, no harm is done.

If we do it according to our own will, then no harm is done, so that's how it is.

We have given a very good example of independence.

If you want to say that no harm is done, then listen.

When the monkey, acting on its own will, pulled out the wedge from between the scattered pieces of wood, did it not cause any harm?

A monkey was roaming freely.

So, no boss.

He doesn't need anyone to tell him what to do, and I don't need anyone to ask me for an account.

I will do it like this.

So he was roaming freely.

So a carpenter was working, and he had to split a piece of wood.

So, to split the wood, he hit it with a chisel, and after hitting it with the chisel, he split another piece of wood further, then he put another chisel there, and the other carpenter got the work done.

So he went away.

He must have gone home to eat and drink.

Then the free-roaming monkey came there.

And as he was doing it, he thought that it is the nature of a monkey to roam freely.

The upper compartment is not the small brain, so the small brain is called the upper compartment.

It has that much space.

But it is called the upper compartment.

Monkeys do not have a small brain.

We humans have both small and large.

And some have less.

So, monkeys don't have a small brain.

So, only the large brain works, and the large brain works fast.

So if a monkey is making gestures like that, we can't act with it.

It jumps and goes straight to a high branch.

So the free-roaming monkey came there and started struggling with the wooden wedge that was stuck there.

So he started struggling, and when one struggles a lot, one doesn't pay attention to one's limbs, so his tail got caught in that split.

And the monkey, being a monkey, was so quick that he pulled out the wedge, and with a bang, it happened, and then his tail got crushed.

So this is the fruit of free roaming, everyone's tail gets crushed when we roam freely.

So somewhere or the other, the tail gets crushed.

Instead, if someone says to do it like that, then the tail, we would be careful behind, saying, 'Hey, take your tail,' and if we are not free to take it, then it takes it.

An example is given in the Shikshapatri.

We haven't given our own.

Yes, it is.

If you want to say that no harm is done, then listen.

When the monkey, acting on its own will, pulled out the wedge from between the scattered pieces of wood, did it not cause any harm?

His death was caused by his self-willed behavior.

That action of the monkey was imprudent.

So, it was such that if one is not dependent on anyone and performs an independent action, only happiness results.

It is not.

If one acts with discretion, then on the contrary, Maharaj's satsang is helpful to us.

Dependence is helpful in liberation.

In this world.

If we maintain dependence in this world, and remain dependent on great devotees of God, then on the contrary, we attain liberation in this very life, it becomes so helpful.

Which we would not do independently.

So all.

So not all dependence is the same.

The dependence of a fool, the dependence of one who has not conquered his senses, the dependence of a wretched person, the dependence of one who has less flour, all these cause suffering to that person.

That action of the monkey was imprudent.

If you say so, then it is said that its decision has been made.

So what decision has been made?

That dependence is not based on independence.

Happiness and sorrow occur based on discretion.

If there is an absence of discretion, there is sorrow.

If there is an absence of discretion, then there is sorrow, and if there is presence, there is happiness.

That was his answer.

If you say that the monkey's action was indiscreet, then its decision is considered to have been made.

Work done without discretion causes harm.

Indiscretion is the highest state.

The cause of a person's sorrow is their own indiscretion, not someone else's.

It is one's own indiscretion.

It's not like someone else can act indiscreetly and cause us sorrow.

Work done without discretion causes harm, and work done with discretion is beneficial.

So, whether a discreet act is done independently or dependently, there is no difference in the outcome.

Therefore, why is there insistence on independence?

Doubt.

An independent, selfish person harms others even if they are discreet and under their control.

And a discreet person, if independent, will not allow harm to come to themselves.

Oh, if that's the case, then an independent person who harms others out of selfishness will certainly suffer at the hands of others.

Therefore, independence also causes sorrow.

So, the ultimate conclusion is that whether it's one's own indiscretion or the owner's wickedness, a person has to suffer sorrow.

Either it's one's own indiscretion.

Or the owner is not good.

Then sorrow will surely come to him.

We have a lot of discretion.

But if the owner's selection was wrong, then he had no escape from suffering.

Won't there be wise people in India?

There were many wise people in India.

Still, the Kashmir clause was inserted.

So, one hundred crore people were kept in memory for 70 years.

That is all said to be the owner's.

If the owner is foolish, then the people have to suffer.

Then the people are very discreet, even more discreet than America.

Is the intellectual wealth of America greater or that of India?

India's is more.

They take India's intellectual wealth from India's wealth and then use it.

So, intellectual wealth is here.

But still, they are troubled.

Why?

The owner made the selection.

A weak owner was selected.

So, he had no escape from sorrow.

And if the owner is good.

And if one doesn't have a turn.

Still, he had no escape from sorrow.

So, it's not that sorrow comes from dependence.

And it's not that happiness comes from independence.

If one discreetly selects an owner, then the owner helps us more in liberation than our own strength.

Oh, if that's the case, then an independent person who harms others out of selfishness will certainly suffer at the hands of others.

Therefore, independence also causes sorrow.

So, the ultimate conclusion is that whether it's one's own indiscretion or the owner's wickedness, a person has to suffer sorrow.

So, what was the decision?

That independence or dependence is not the cause of sorrow, nor is it the cause of happiness.

This is the cause of happiness: one's own indiscretion and the owner's indiscretion.

The owner's foolishness, indiscretion means foolishness.

The owner's flaw becomes everyone's destiny.

If there is a leader and they have a flaw, then it causes sorrow to everyone.

And if the owner is clever, then everyone becomes happy.

That is everyone's destiny.

It is said to be the leader's destiny.

Then everyone becomes happy.

When Lord Shri Krishna was there, all of Dwarka was happy and enjoying themselves.

Even if they have their own indiscretion, they still enjoy themselves.

But then they have to bear the consequences.

But if the owner is a great and capable owner, and they have made the selections, then they do not become the cause of sorrow.

The essence is that whether one has a lack of discrimination or the owner is wicked, one has to suffer.

The cause of happiness or sorrow is neither independence nor dependence.

In this world, changing the owner is sometimes not in our hands.

It is subject to destiny.

Changing the owner in God's path, there is no place for destiny in that.

If we worship Lord Ramachandra and from that we recognize satsang and we worship Maharaj, then there is no play of destiny in that.

That is the game of our selection.

We do it.

Here, in the liberated soul, there is not even a trace of indiscretion.

And the Lord, who is God, is extremely faultless.

And he is supremely capable. If even a little service is done to him, then he protects from great fear. Even if a small amount of service is done to him by mistake, he makes one happy. That is his nature. So how can serving him be sorrowful?

Draupadi tied a bandage, and he made her happy. And Sudama offered rice, and he made him happy.

So, where can one find such a noble owner?

People die for their owners.

And if such an owner is found, it is said that his destiny has opened up.

Here, in the liberated soul, there is not even a trace of indiscretion.

And the Lord, who is God, is extremely faultless.

And he is a mine of supremely auspicious qualities.

Therefore, there is no room for doubt about any kind of fault in it.

Therefore, the dependence on God, which is inherent in the nature of the liberated soul, is not a fault.

Therefore, serving God in the state of moksha is not inappropriate in any way.

It becomes extremely joyful.

Whose, as we said,

Even in the four types of liberation, there is not as much happiness as in its manifestation.

Such happiness comes from serving God, and that is what Maharaj and the scriptures believe.

One thing is also that in the world, no one likes dependence.

But there is a natural inclination towards independence.

Even if you say this, it is not so.

If there is any doubt about a fault in one's owner,

Who has a liking for independence?

Whose?

I remain independent, no one else tells me anything.

Whose is it?

There is a desire to do what one wants.

Of foolishness.

That is the result of foolishness.

If there is such dependence that I grow, that is what I want, then that is the result of discrimination.

And whatever I want, I don't want anyone over me, I don't want anyone to ask me.

So what is that a result of?

Of foolishness.

That is called the result of one's own foolishness.

But we don't understand, so that happens.

One thing is also that in the world, no one likes dependence.

But there is a natural inclination towards independence.

Even if you say this, it is not so. If there is any doubt about a fault in one's owner, then one does not like his dependence.

That's right.

If there is some flaw in one's owner, then good people do not like his dependence.

And the scriptures do not find any fault in that either.

But if one knows that one's owner has many excellent qualities, then everyone develops love and affection for him.

In the state of liberation, one becomes independent by remaining subservient to God.

He feels proud.

Where do we get the subservience to God?

Even Brahma and other deities wish, "Oh, if only we could get that share."

But that is not available.

Great deities do not get darshan; they remain in a short conversation.

In the state of liberation, one becomes independent by remaining subservient to God.

This will not contradict the Shruti.

The meaning of calling a liberated soul independent is that upon attaining liberation, that liberated soul is no longer subject to karma.

Dependence on others sometimes brings sorrow, but dependence on God always brings happiness.

Dependence on anyone other than God sometimes brings sorrow.

If the owner lacks discretion.

Or if there is any flaw in anything, the meaning of a lack of discretion is that there is a tendency for any fault in it.

If there is any flaw or incompleteness, it truly causes sorrow.

But dependence on God never causes sorrow to anyone.

It becomes a knot of happiness.

Being dependent on others sometimes becomes painful.

But being subservient to God

Somewhere means

Sometimes

Sometimes means that in dependence on others, besides God, one sometimes experiences sorrow.

Being dependent on others sometimes becomes painful.

But being subservient to God is only blissful.

I am powerful and capable, I am the enjoyer of pleasures, I am accomplished, strong, and happy.

I am God, I am the enjoyer, and so on, deluded by independence, even in dependence on God, I am hated like a demon.

A person deluded by such independence, like the king of demons, becomes displeased in remaining dependent on God.

But he does not desire to remain subservient to God.

One who does not much like being dependent on God and God's devotee.

In that, he said that this is called an asuric (demonic) disposition.

I am the servant of Kaushalya's son, Rama, whose actions are pure. Thus, Hanuman, the knower of truth, always rejoices.

Thinking, 'I am the servant of Shri Ramachandra, the king of Kaushal, who performs blissful deeds,' just as Hanumanji remained joyful, so too does the knower of truth, the liberated soul, remain immersed in joy by submitting to God.

Maharaj has called Hanumanji an ideal devotee, hasn't he?

Hanumanji has such a servant-like attitude, and there are also Gopal Anand Swami and Muktanand Swami.

Like Hanumanji, with a servant's intellect.

He found joy in that.

If he didn't get to serve, he would face difficulties.

For those whose true nature has manifested, who are devoted to the Lord, what else is sweeter than serving their Master?

For a liberated soul who has attained liberation through the manifestation of the Brahmarup form, and whose mind remains happy only in the servitude and subservience to God, what else can be considered sweeter or dearer than serving one's own Master?

We have stated above that remaining as a servant, an object of enjoyment, of God is the true nature of the soul.

The essence of all this is that serving God is the true characteristic of the soul.

Indivisible, impenetrable - that is the characteristic of an element.

But the true characteristic of personality, of self-personality, is to become an exclusive servant of God.

And Maharaj says that we consider that as liberation.

That which is attained, in that is liberation, to become an exclusive servant of God.

We have stated above that remaining as a servant, an object of enjoyment, of God is the true nature of the soul.

Somewhere, the attainment of Akshar is called liberation, but Akshar itself is not the ultimate attainment; rather, Paratattva Parabrahma is the ultimate attainment, superior to Akshar.

The Shruti says that one who becomes a knower of Brahman attains Parabrahman.

That devotee experiences all auspicious qualities in the supreme divine Akshardham, along with the omniscient Parabrahman.

With the same intention as stated here, it is said in the original shloka that serving Shri Krishna Bhagwan is what we consider liberation.

Even the attainment of Akshar merely by escaping old age and death is considered liberation.

Victory to Shri Swaminarayan Bhagwan.