Jag ga ma ma ga re re ka sa ga re, Jag ga ma ma ga re re ka sa ga re.
Om Avtarine Shri Swaminarayanaya Namo Namah
Shri Harikrishnaya Namo Namah
Shri Purna Purushottamaya Namo Namah
Shlok number 74
Purver mahadbhirapi yadadharmacharanam kvachit krutam syat tu na grahyam grahyo dharmastu tatkrutah
And if the great men of the past have ever committed unrighteous acts, one should not accept them.
And if they have performed righteous acts, one should accept them.
If a great person, renowned for their penance, yoga, and divine powers in the past, has committed an unrighteous act like consuming forbidden food due to the difficulties of time and place or being compelled by adversity, one should not adopt that conduct in their own life.
One should accept the conduct of a great person as proper etiquette, but only if it is alaukik (transcendental) and flawless.
Alaukik avigit shishtachar
That is called dharma.
And it is considered equivalent to the Shruti of the Vedas.
If it is not mentioned anywhere in the Shruti, and not mentioned anywhere in the Shastras, but if virtuous people, trustworthy people, have performed such conduct,
How should it be? It should be avigit and alaukik, these two things.
Firstly, it should not be condemned; the scriptures should not have condemned it.
And it should be alaukik.
In this world, suppose someone knows how to respect others very well, or how to speak a good language, that is called worldly (laukik).
It is not called alaukik shishtachar.
Alaukik shishtachar, how does it lead to the welfare of one's own soul and the souls of others? If it leads to the welfare of one's own soul and the souls of others, then it is called shishtachar.
Shastriji Maharaj established this Gurukul for the welfare of many souls.
So that cannot be called worldly etiquette.
In this, both worldly and transcendental aspects are included.
Teaching knowledge falls under the worldly aspect.
And along with that, instilling God in their hearts is called alaukik shishtachar.
So, worldly etiquette is present in many.
But alaukik shishtachar has greater importance.
In worldly matters, often someone is clever and very successful.
Even then, it is called worldly etiquette.
Warren Buffett is a virtuous, good person, so everyone says, we don't know.
That he is very simple, he still keeps a very basic button phone, and by 6:00 PM he shuts everything down and lives his life at home with his family.
All that, so he is considered good.
And he is called a famous person.
But that is not called alaukik shishtachar.
It is called shishtachar.
So it should be alaukik and unblemished.
Then that shishtachar is considered authoritative and righteous.
One should accept such.
If it is alaukik, it can also be condemned, that is possible.
If it is alaukik and condemned, but if it is alaukik and also
Everything can be condemned, it can happen.
If it is divine and condemned, it probably cannot be so.
We haven't thought much about it.
But it is divine and also condemned at the same time.
For example, sometimes newspaper people come here, right? Famous personalities of society.
Famous personalities.
So, society takes a lot of notice of his good deeds.
And if there is a problem with him, he also discusses it.
Who
So they are called famous personalities.
So there is divinity in it, and at the same time there is a bit of condemnation.
A great person who has attained fame through penance, yoga, divine powers, and other virtues in the past,
Due to the adversity of time and place, Chhatra and Nishkulanand Swami have shown the characters of Narad and all these.
He has shown its flaws.
When Maharaj told the saints, the saints pointed out the flaws in all these characters, from Brahma to Sheth.
Maharaj says that it can be for any reason, they might have come in a certain time and place, or it could be something else.
But such conduct should not be taken as an ideal.
Don't even think that if he did it, we have no problem.
Don't take it lightly either.
Stay away from it.
And he also said not to criticize him.
Do not criticize him.
No matter what, his greatness is there. Maharaj says that even if he made a mistake, his benevolent nature has not gone away.
He is to be called liberated.
And he has attained God.
So, do not criticize him either.
Stay away from it.
From that matter.
If a great person, who has attained fame through penance, yoga, divine powers, and other virtues in the past, has committed an unrighteous act like eating forbidden food due to the adversity of time and place or being compelled by a calamity,
then one should not adopt that conduct in one's own life.
One should accept the etiquette in the form of the conduct of a great person, but only if it is divine and faultless.
That means he took refuge.
If so-and-so did this, then we can do this.
Do not take such a refuge for his weak conduct.
Do not do anything like this to accept weak conduct.
If a polite person or great person has done something bad, do not accept it.
Etiquette is described in the Matsya Purana.
Charity, truth, penance, non-greed, knowledge, worship of God through yagnas, puja, and control of the senses.
A character that possesses these eight qualities is a sign of good manners.
Maharaj Manu and Saptarishi, etiquette means good conduct.
If it has eight subjects, it is called good conduct.
Doing good to people, charity, all these.
Charity, truth, penance, non-greed, knowledge, worship of God through yagnas, puja, and control of the senses.
A character that possesses these eight qualities is a sign of good manners.
The conduct and good behavior practiced by polite persons like Maharaj Manu and the Saptarishis in all the Manvantaras is called etiquette.
The characteristics of charity and other virtues mentioned above should be learned from the Matsya Purana.
Even if they are called polite persons, if their conduct is bad, it should not be accepted.
In the Bhagavat
Now, whatever time and place has come upon him and affected him.
Then do not accept it.
Mostly, it is like that for great men.
If they are truly great, they don't have it, but if they are merely weak, they want to quickly publicize and spread their weaknesses, and they want to make them successful.
Weak activity.
So they deceive people, appearing good from the outside, and they make such weaknesses their guru.
So, the examples that Maharaj Swami has given, of Narad and
Of Narad and Brihaspati and Brahma
So what is its meaning? How can we stay positive from it?
Stay away, don't criticize, and don't let such things come into our lives.
That's it, what else is there?
Maharaj said that sometimes there was a conjunction of time and place, sometimes there was a flaw in him, sometimes there was something else.
That could be, it might have happened in his life.
We should not follow his example.
That in our tradition, so-and-so did this, so we have no problem.
Don't do that.
Even if they are called noble persons, if their conduct is bad, it should not be accepted.
It is said in the Bhagavat that, O Jagatguru, even luminous persons like you do not suit such work, because only by following you does the welfare of the world occur.
Marichi and others have told Brahmaji.
That you are such a brilliant person, you are sitting as the grandfather of the entire universe.
And it's not right for you to do this.
The penance, yoga, truth, and compassion practiced by those great persons, such a virtuous dharma should be accepted, their virtuous conduct is for all of us to learn.
In the Bhagavat, Markandeya Muni has said that the preachers of dharma almost always practice and approve of it in order to explain the secret and nature of dharma to living beings.
If there are noble persons and they have made some mistake, we should not follow it.
If someone is averse to God, even if their conduct is good, don't take it as a great quality.
Ravana had many good qualities, so don't go to take his good qualities.
Because sometimes, if we take his quality and it settles in our heart, it creates problems.
That's why Maharaj said that one should not listen to stories from the mouth of a soul averse to God.
Averse means his mentality is against God and against dharma.
This is not how it is.
If there is God, then what?
If he has an opposing mentality, then even if there is some good quality in it, don't take it.
And if his mentality matches God's, and he has some flaw.
Then don't let it come.
But take his other qualities.
So don't criticize him.
Take his other good quality because he has a positive mentality.
Whose quality should not be taken?
Whose mentality is completely wrong.
One whose mentality is completely opposite to God, scriptures, and great saints, there is no need to take much of his qualities.
There is no need to take much of Karna's qualities.
Bhishma Pitamah's qualities can be taken.
Even though Bhishma Pitamah was on Duryodhana's side, his mentality matched Krishna's.
And his heart was more inclined towards the Pandavas, he preferred Yudhishthira more.
He preferred.
So, Bhishma Pitamah's qualities should be taken.
But Karna's and Duryodhana's qualities should not be taken.
Duryodhana's qualities are written in Kiratarjuniyam.
They are written very well.
They are written better than Yudhishthira's.
Duryodhana's conduct had as many good deeds as Yudhishthira did not have; quality is not really a quality, but he did good deeds.
Maharaja Yudhishthira went to the forest, lost, and had a 12-year exile, and then Duryodhana became king.
So Duryodhana ruled in such a way that he thought everyone should forget Yudhishthira.
No one should remember Yudhishthira.
When does it happen that Yudhishthira should not be remembered, that Yudhishthira
If you do your work, it will happen.
So Yudhishthira also started doing good deeds.
The other secret works are different, but he started doing good deeds in this society.
So don't take his quality.
It is said in the scriptures.
If you take his quality, it will turn out to be the opposite.
Because his mentality is twisted.
And if the mentality is positive, it meets God, it meets the scriptures.
Yudhishthira Maharaj also had vices, he had sat down to play dice.
He had sat down to play dice, so that cannot be called a virtue.
No king or anything in Mahabharata has given him any justification.
That Yudhishthira played, so we should play.
At least on Ashtami and Ekadashi, Yudhishthira should play.
So he used to play anytime.
We should play a little on the eighth and eleventh.
Maharaj said not to take such a quality anywhere.
Abhibhuri phalam purve mahadbhirapi yad adharmacharanam kvachit Yudhishthira Maharaj was the embodiment of dharma.
So don't take that from it.
And Karna and other Duryodhana were doing very good deeds, so don't take any original quality from them.
Whose mentality is against God.
And it is against the great saints.
Don't go to take too much of his quality.
Many times, Shastriji Maharaj was there, so Swami used to do all this work to please God.
Even then, many saints or devotees do not match with Swami.
Swami's work or Swami's thoughts do not match.
Then we should understand that we should stay away from there.
And Maharaj has said that 'Vimukh jeev ke vadan se katha suni nahi jaat' (one should not listen to discourses from a person who is averse to God), he has said it like that.
Whose mentality is twisted and he talks well.
The mentality is against Maharaj.
The mentality is only in violating Maharaj's command.
Or hidden.
And he talks about obeying commands.
In the assembly.
Open and hidden, there are two roles.
So then.
The hidden part shows his mentality.
The open part shows his livelihood.
If he doesn't talk like this openly, his livelihood won't work.
No one worships him.
No one offers him gifts or dhotis.
So what does he wear?
So in that, he is nowhere near his livelihood.
So in the open, there is livelihood, in the hidden, there is mentality.
So if someone is doing this in secret, and his mentality is against God's principles, against God, against great saints.
Then Nishkulanand Swami said that if his darshan does not cause sorrow, then do not do it.
Do not listen to his stories either.
It is also said that one should not listen to discourses from a person who is averse to God.
He talks well.
Even then.
And he gives darshan properly, with a proper tilak, chandlo, and shawl.
Even then, one should bow down from a distance.
With eyes closed.
It is said that if darshan does not happen, then do not do it.
Whose words would that be?
Whose words would that be?
If it doesn't happen, then don't do it.
He said this.
So that is a condemnation of mentality.
Such a mentality should not exist.
Such beliefs should not exist.
If they look good from the outside but have a hidden different mentality inside, how would we know?
Sometimes, if he gives a miracle, then it happens.
If he has given us a private miracle, then it happens.
Or if he has given a miracle to someone else, we should see it, then it also happens.
Sometimes they give that mentality.
Maharaj said that one comes to know by staying together.
By action, by inference.
As character rises to the sky, his gaze is low.
Seeing the killing, the mind believes.
He has closed his eyes to see others.
Such a person with such characteristics, lakhs of lamps.
I have filled my eyes with this.
Nishkulanand says, "What should I say?"
Recognize his actions.
Yes.
Recognize his actions.
What?
Those who have good conduct.
Yes, those who have good conduct are polite people.
Yet, we don't feel devotion towards them.
And if someone's conduct is bad, we know that it is so.
Yet, everyone in that
So, its meaning is that we are fans of his mentality.
And we are not fans of a good mentality.
So, we feel affection for the weak.
And not for the good.
Yes.
In the hidden secret, we feel sympathy for the weak.
And we don't feel sympathy for the good.
In the open, we maintain relations with the good.
And we keep affection for the weak.
Yes.
Its meaning is that our mentality is like that.
Sometimes a person has two roles.
When there is weakness, one cannot escape without playing both roles.
One hidden and one open.
So, a person's true identity is their hidden role.
Who does he love in secret?
With whom does he match?
With whom does he feel sympathy?
That is his secret role, and that person is like that.
And what is open is a compulsion.
If I want to gain prestige and market value, then I have to maintain a superficial match with the good people.
Even if he is the leader of ruffians, if there is a dispute somewhere, what does he swear by?
Huh?
Of truth.
Of truth.
I swear by the truth.
Does he have a connection with truth?
That is the market value of truth, so people see it and say, "Oh, its market value is also as much as truth."
But he has no connection with truth.
So, what is open has compulsion.
And what is secret has no compulsion.
So, it is understood that the person's personality is as he is in secret, as he is hidden, whatever his role, whatever his mentality.
In the Bhagavat, Markandeya Muni has said that preachers of dharma almost always practice and approve of it in order to explain the secret and nature of dharma to living beings.
Good people.
Now it has become a little different; all this must have been written in Satya Yuga.
Who wrote it?
Markandeya Muni.
Markandeya Muni lived in the Satya Yuga, so it was written then.
Now we have to make some changes and what is it called? A new version, oh, a new version has to be made.
So we talk about a new version, but it cannot be printed.
And if anyone else follows that dharma, he praises them.
Both these matters have been taught and stated by Bhishma in the Mahabharata Moksha Dharma.
Is it like that now, that if someone follows a dharma, everyone praises them?
Even good people don't do it.
Even those who are called good don't do it.
Sometimes.
Not everyone is like that.
So, there is a need to release a new version of Markandeya's work.
Markandeya Version Number Two.
This modern Markandeya.
Markandeya-ji is immortal; he must be wandering somewhere, so one should assume that Markandeya entered someone to create Version Two.
And if anyone else follows that dharma, he praises them.
Both these matters have been taught and stated by Bhishma in the Mahabharata Moksha Dharma.
Whatever actions great deities and great sages have performed, a righteous person should not do the same after hearing about them, nor should they criticize them.
One who understands what is possible for their own good and performs auspicious deeds sees their own welfare.
Commentary.
Doubt: What if someone deviates from the path of dharma due to some strange circumstance? It doesn't cause much harm.
Because it is heard in the lives of gods and sages that they sometimes deviate from the dharma prescribed in the scriptures.
And yet they are called great, so what's our problem?
Even if he did that, he would still be called great.
If someone thinks that the conduct of great people is the only प्रमाण for us,
then Shri Hari says for them that in the past, the tradition.
If great gods or maharishis in the past had acted against dharma.
Maharaj has given as much clarification as possible.
All this may be true in the scriptures.
But Maharaj has given more clarification than others, which no one else has done anywhere.
Never.
This violence, we had it yesterday, violence, it came in the twelfth shloka, there is a lot of violence, but Maharaj said that if there is violence in yagna or shastriya violence, then we should stay away from that violence, our devotees should stay away.
Otherwise, in some sampradayas, violence in yagna or shastriya violence is approved.
Even if they don't do it, those people don't commit violence.
But they don't challenge it by saying that this is wrong.
They don't say that this shouldn't be done.
And Maharaj openly opposed it.
Maharaj went to Jagjivan's yagna in the Satsangi Jivan.
So Maharaj says how much in the Satsangi Jivan is a very big what.
He has openly opposed it.
That if violence happens in a yagna, it's not right.
That is violence.
Our devotees should not do that.
Not just our devotees, but good people should not do it either.
If someone wants to be called good, and then they do such things, they cannot be called good.
That's what Maharaj says.
So Maharaj has given a lot of clarification on certain things.
This is considered a major clarification.
That even if great men lived in the past, their weak conduct should not be taken as a role model.
What if someone deviates from the path of dharma due to some strange circumstance? It doesn't cause much harm.
Because it is heard in the lives of gods and sages that they sometimes deviate from the dharma prescribed in the scriptures.
The conduct of great people is the only प्रमाण for us.
If someone thinks so, then Shri Hari says for them that in the past, even by great ones.
Even if great gods or maharishis in the past had acted against dharma, we should not accept that.
Only their other best conduct is acceptable as प्रमाण for us.
We are not to observe or consider the conduct of those gods or maharishis who, by the power of their penance, can realize the Vedas and establish the limits of dharma.
We are to remain on the right path shown by them.
It is said in the Mahabharata that
A righteous person with the intellect to follow dharma should not act according to the deeds performed by gods or sages, nor should they criticize it after hearing about it.
If there is criticism, don't do it.
By criticizing, our sparrow's death is like a lump of earth, they say.
Gunatitanand Swami said that Bhajnanand Swami's three trunks were opened, but nothing came out.
Even after opening three trunks, nothing came out.
So there is no detached person like him in this satsang.
So what did Swami say?
Forehead comes out.
What forehead comes out.
What is the reason for gathering three trunks?
What is the reason for taking even one trunk, brother?
So there are such men.
That he should renounce a crore women, but why did he gather a crore of them?
So, he then thought to himself that even Lord Shankar cannot give up one, and I have given up a crore.
So he fell down and became Vritrasura.
He attained the demonic nature.
Therefore, one should not criticize great men too much.
If we feel that something is against the scriptures and not found there, then we should stay away from it.
And if his conduct is good, accept it.
He said that one should accept good conduct, meaning that whose mentality matches with God and with the scriptures, one should accept their good conduct.
One should take their good qualities.
But if someone's mentality doesn't match, even if their conduct is good, one should not go near them.
It's very good, he tells very good stories.
And he does very good work.
Let's become a helper in that.
That also should not be done much.
Verse number 75.
Goyya varta tu kasyapi prakashya naiva kutrachit samadrashtya na karyascha yatharharacha vyatikramaha
And anyone's secret story should not be revealed anywhere at all.
And one should honor a jiva in the way that is appropriate for them.
But one should not transgress that limit by having an equal vision.
If there is any secret account of any man or woman, do not reveal it to anyone.
It is said in the Yajnavalkya Smriti that
There are two types of secret accounts.
Some are weak, and some are also good.
Good people think that they want to do good work, but it should not be revealed prematurely.
And if it becomes public, then many obstacles arise in it.
That is, it is kept secret.
And the work has been started.
We know.
Then don't make it too public.
If it is his wish that this should not be made public, then we should not make it public.
Phalanu meya prarambha samskara samskara praktanaya, such is the policy of great people.
That the whole world knows by the fruit.
Phalanu meya prarambha, prarambha means action.
All his actions, when their results come, then one should infer from that that he had started this two years ago.
Like that.
Fruit, phalanu meya prarambha.
Prarambha means his intention.
When Shastriji Maharaj established this Gurukul, many souls benefited from it, so it can be inferred from that that his intention was good.
Such was his intention.
Many get beaten up.
So, when he gets beaten up, one should assume that his intention was to get beaten up.
Many get beaten up even after doing Gurukul.
So, when he gets beaten up, then we
Because the weak one might have hidden it, and this one might have hidden the good one.
Great people hide good intentions.
And everyone has to forcibly hide weak intentions.
And these people hide weak intentions.
But when do they find out?
When the result comes.
When a couple of people go to him with sticks.
We think, what is this?
So, when he got beaten, then 'phalanu meya prarambha' (the fruit of his actions) was done then, he did this to get such a result, so he
Phalanu meya prarambha.
And when a good result comes, then also one should believe that his intention was such.
That's why this work turned out well.
But no one knows the intention.
When we have already done it and are sitting.
Suppose we have finished all the puja and are sitting with everything in order, how would we know that they are going to run away early in the morning?
The one who is watching knows that there is some change in this today.
Then 'phalanu meya prarambha' happens.
When the result comes, we start running around with cars, asking, 'Where did they go? Where did they go? Where did they go? Where did they go?'
So, 'phalanu meya prarambha'.
Past samskaras have come.
Any man or woman, etc., means
If we know someone's secret, many times they might have told us considering us a friend.
Many times, he might feel that he needs to make some improvement and this one
If you say it, it's good.
It must have been said knowing its glory.
But if it's a weak point, it's very hard to digest it.
To keep it hidden in the heart, it comes in the way, and sometimes if someone is against you, you shouldn't tell them, that's what a great person does.
He digested it.
It didn't even come to him.
Then he is called a great person.
They are called broad-minded, noble-minded.
A strong-willed person does not count happiness or sorrow.
So, he is called strong-willed.
Strong-willed means learning to digest someone else's weak or bad things.
If we know about a bad thing, we feel a burning sensation in our mind.
And if we know about a weakness, we are very eager to reveal it, to expose it and bring them down.
When will we reveal it and when will we bring him down?
Only great people can digest both of these things; no one else can.
No one can.
If someone has a weakness, people are very eager to reveal it.
Weak people are especially prone to this.
In society, it is said that certain people of certain castes cannot keep a secret.
He shouldn't be told much.
That's why it's written in Rajdharma (the duty of a king).
It is written in Rajdharma that a very noble family should keep their prime minister or minister and consult with them on the good works of the good kingdom.
It shouldn't become too public.
If you want to do a surgical strike.
Now, if he has consulted, then some consultation must have happened.
Obama had done a strike, so there must have been a consultation.
How many? The consultation went on for two years, it happened two years ago.
And it happened to him.
And when the whole work was finished, the whole world came to know that, oh, this happened.
So, that one may begin.
To digest it in such a way, the whole country is considered so systematic.
That there was such a huge consultation, a terrible consultation that could shake the whole world.
So, no one would know.
No one knows.
And the work was done, all his work was finished, and then he found out that this had happened.
So, sometimes secret consultations are very necessary for important people.
So, not everyone can digest it; if everyone has secret consultations, they cannot digest it.
So, how big is our stomach?
From that, we can tell what kind of people we are.
Our stomach is considered a bit deep and serious.
That's why it is said that great people are more profound than the ocean and more elevated than the Himalayas.
High, elevated.
Such is his mind.
More profound than the ocean means that no matter how weak a thing is, it all settles at the bottom.
And no one can overtake his conduct.
That's why Maharaj said that.
If someone has a secret story that shouldn't be revealed, whether good or bad, mostly Maharaj has spoken about weak things here.
Yet, sometimes people keep good things hidden.
They need it.
If someone fails in some work, they should tell others to improve it.
What did you say?
If we have done some work and we fail in it, should we tell others to improve it or not, that we have failed?
One's own secret story should be told to whom?
Tell the right person.
Don't open someone else's secret.
There are other people.
Sometimes our friends tell us.
He might have come into sattva guna and told us.
And then we found out, so we got the key to it in our hands.
Don't tell him, 'I know you'.
If we have decency.
If we have decency, that we told him.
So, don't grab his braid and twist him around as we please.
That is not called decency.
Otherwise, if there is any weakness in us, and if there is a possibility of improvement, then why not go to him? There is no problem in that.
One should not reveal the secret story of any man or woman to anyone.
It is said in Yajnavalkya Smriti that one should not reveal anyone's private matter.
And that is why in the Nar-Narayan Akhyan, Naradji has stated his quality as the reason for God's pleasure, saying that I have never revealed anyone's secret to anyone before.
Until now, I have not revealed anyone's secret.
Naradji was the guru of people like Hiranyakashipu and Kansa.
He would not reveal Kansa's secret, saying, 'I went to Kansa today and did this.'
If he wants to say something, he goes and tells Lord Krishna, and then he comes back and says that no one should know this secret, that you are sitting here and your parents are all sitting in jail.
How can this be?
You are throwing lumps of butter.
Who would call you a good person?
Who would trust you, Kanaiya, who would trust you? Naradji went there and said that.
He put his parents in jail and rejoiced at Nanda's house.
Kanaiya, who would trust you?
So Naradji tells him.
But he didn't reveal the secret that he was going to do this.
Leave a little incomplete, if he comes to pick you up tomorrow, then go.
If he comes to pick you up, don't say no.
So it is said that he did not reveal the secret.
Naradji has given a clean chit to Lord Nar-Narayan, saying that this whole world is one.
I have never revealed anyone's secret, not even Kansa's.
You should be pleased with me.
For this.
So he has given a clean chit.
Otherwise, he has to carry out all these transactions everywhere.
Naradji took it upon himself to carry out the transactions of the whole world.
And all those who are complicated in it.
So what kind of management does he say?
Risk management.
Huh?
Conflict management.
Complicated management.
Naradji's role is to manage all the complicated things.
And the responsibility is Naradji's.
That God himself tells him, 'Go, there is a conflict here, so you go.'
And look, don't tell anyone each other's secrets.
And that is why in the Nar-Narayan Akhyan, Naradji has stated his quality as the reason for God's pleasure, saying that I have never revealed anyone's secret to anyone before.
This whole world has originated from one Brahman, therefore everything is Brahman.
Now, the matter of 'yatha samadrishtyanu karya yatha harcha vyatikram'.
That matter is over.
If Naradji doesn't tell God, it's considered deceit.
Where is the deceit?
He would have told God as much as was necessary.
Naradji was clever, so both things would happen.
He would also follow the commands of the scriptures and would be considered guileless.
This whole world has originated from one Brahman.
One should not act with equal vision, as it leads to transgression.
Do not have equal vision, do not treat everyone as the same.
According to the category and hierarchy, one should maintain their respect and honor.
If there are very weak people, they should not be elevated too high.
This whole world has originated from one Brahman, therefore everything is Brahman. With this thought, one should not destroy the appropriate welcome and worship.
Do not consider everyone equal by treating them as Brahman, whose proper worship is due.
The wise see with equal vision a learned and humble Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and a dog-eater.
So, one should not be so equally sighted.
It is said differently in that.
It is said with divine intellect.
But if you want to honor someone, you shouldn't do that.
If there is equality in the worship or honor of a good person and a bad person, then the discrimination between good and bad will be lost.
Lord Kapildev has clearly shown the discrimination between truth and untruth, saying, "O Mother, among inanimate objects, living beings like trees are superior to stones and water."
It is a living being.
There is life in a tree.
It sucks water from the ground.
And stones cannot suck; life is in them.
It is said that there is life in the Himalayas, isn't it? Maharaj came to the Himalayas to show the way.
So there is life in it and it has a living personality.
But even then, if you hit the Himalayas with two stones, it's fine.
Don't hit the trees.
If you hit a tree, its bark peels off. If you hit the Himalayas, a stone just goes from here to there, no other problem arises.
So, it doesn't incur as much sin as hitting a tree with a stone.
So, it doesn't incur as much sin as hitting a tree with a stone.
If there is no reason.
If we want to knock down raw mangoes, then we hit them with stones, what else?
It should be ours.
Compared to inanimate objects like stones and water, living beings like trees are superior.
Compared to that, those who breathe
So, by harming what is superior, more sin is incurred.
And for what is inferior, it means it decreases.
Even by nurturing it, less merit is gained.
Harming what is superior incurs more sin, and nurturing it gains more merit.
And for what is inferior, harming it does not incur as much sin as the other, and its penance is also said to be less.
And its merit also decreases.
If you pour water on a stone, it's not much, but if you water a tree, you gain merit.
If you pour water on a stone, what other merit is there?
Because that is superior to this.
One should maintain such discrimination.
Discrimination is very far-reaching, all the way to God.
So this discrimination is taken from the root.
Discrimination.
Compared to inanimate objects like stones and water, living beings like trees are superior.
Compared to that, animals that breathe are superior.
Trees cannot take fragrance, can they? Trees cannot take fragrance.
So, bees, flies, honeybees, if there is a bee, it automatically reaches where there is fragrance.
So, it is considered superior to that.
Among them, animals with a mind are superior.
Therefore, those with sensory activities are superior.
Sensory activity means, brother, taste. Fish, ants, they have knowledge of taste.
Those who have knowledge of touch, among all, those who have knowledge of touch are first.
Compared to that, those who have knowledge of taste are a bit more.
Compared to that, those with knowledge of hearing, sight, all of them.
Among them, animals with a mind are superior.
Therefore, those with sensory activities are superior.
Among sentient beings, fish and other creatures that know touch and taste are superior to those that only experience touch.
And superior to them are bees and others who can discern smell.
Superior to them are snakes and other creatures that recognize sound.
Superior to them are crows and others who recognize form.
Compared to them, animals with teeth on both the upper and lower jaws are superior.
Oxen, goats, cows, buffaloes, all of them are superior.
And those with many legs are superior to those without legs.
And therefore, those with four legs are superior.
And superior to them are humans with two legs.
Humans are superior to all.
Among them, the four varnas are superior.
So, feeding ants gives less merit than feeding sparrows.
And even more than that, feeding a cow is superior.
Feeding a dog a roti is better than feeding a sparrow, because a dog is a dog.
There is loyalty.
There is not that much loyalty in a jackal.
So he got a sense of it.
So more merit is earned.
Feeding a jackal is better than that.
And feeding a cow is even better, because a cow is
said to be a sacred animal.
And feeding a human is better than that, especially those in need, and feeding people is considered the best.
Even better than that are those who belong to the four varnas.
So it means that dharma is paramount for them.
Varna is a command of dharma, so
those who follow dharma are superior.
Even better than that is a Brahmin.
Those who believe in dharma, but a Brahmin is superior.
Those who are educated are superior to them.
If they know the scriptures, they can be useful to others.
So that is superior.
The meaning of studying is that.
That it becomes useful to others.
If we study and are not useful to others, it is considered as if we have not studied at all.
It's called a certain thing.
One is educated, has mastered Vedanta, and the other is uneducated.
Both are equal.
Then who suffers more loss? If both do the same work, who suffers more loss?
The educated one.
Huh?
The educated one.
Why?
A very educated person wastes time.
Then he becomes a Brahma Rakshasa.
If he doesn't use it, he becomes a Brahma Rakshasa.
If an educated person doesn't use his knowledge properly, either by not teaching others or not making good use of it, he becomes a Brahma Rakshasa.
The knowledge of a monkey is like a conscious being, like a witch or a ghost.
So if he doesn't do anything, then this is what he's called.
So, if someone who is not educated at all dies, they won't become a Brahma Rakshasa.
If it happens, it becomes a common ghost.
So it becomes something that can be quickly removed.
If we try a little, it will go away.
There's no need to take it to Sarangpur.
Among them, the four varnas are also superior.
Among them, the Brahmin is also superior.
Among Brahmins, one who knows the Vedas is excellent.
Among those who know the Vedas, one who knows the essence of the Vedas is superior.
Even more than that,
Tatparya means one who knows the meaning.
That this is what it means.
That is called superior.
Even more than that, one who removes doubts is excellent.
They may know the essence, but if they cannot remove the doubts of others, then that is a different art, a different skill.
If you want to remove someone else's doubt, what is the unique skill in that?
What skill did you write?
They understand others.
They understand others.
We are not prepared to understand others.
If he can understand others, then he can remove their doubts.
So they may know the essence of the Vedas, but they don't know the essence of the other person.
They don't recognize the essence of a human being.
And the Vedas are straightforward, so they reveal their essence, and people are not straightforward, so their essence only comes out when they are in trouble.
So then, if he knows its meaning, then he
can cut off doubt, and if he has good intentions, he can cut off his doubt, which is considered superior to that.
That is considered superior to that.
Then
Therefore, even doubt
The one who removes is excellent.
Therefore, one who follows his own Varna-Ashrama dharma is superior.
If you just remove it, many are intelligent.
Ravana also mastered the Vedas.
He has written a guide and a commentary on it.
So, if one understands the essence, only then can a commentary be written; otherwise, a commentary cannot be written.
But now, there's nothing left within him.
So nothing can be said.
Therefore, one who abandons attachment and observes dharma with a selfless attitude is superior.
That is more superior.
Why? He has given up body-consciousness.
Without giving up body-consciousness, one cannot practice.
He knows everything.
He knows the core points of the scriptures.
But without giving up body-consciousness, he cannot practice it.
So, one who practices is superior to him.
It is mentioned somewhere in Vidyavatta.
Kriyavan
Kriyavan Varishthah
Kriyavan Varishthah
So, if one gives up body-consciousness and learns to apply it,
then that is the best of all.
It is said that there is no one superior to him.
In applying it, body-consciousness is a hindrance to him.
I know a lot. Sahadev knew everything; he was omniscient.
But he wouldn't tell anyone or do anything.
So it caused him pain.
That knowledge was painful to him.
It is said in the Mahabharata that Sahadev was like Shri Krishna.
Sahadev had as much knowledge as Shri Krishna.
But Shri Krishna's knowledge was very useful to everyone, while his was not useful to anyone.
So it causes stomach pain.
And Lord Shri Krishna would immediately relieve others' stomach pain; everyone's pain would stop.
If he just said it while laughing, the other person's stomach ache would stop.
And if it wasn't hurting, it would start hurting people like Duryodhana.
So there was that much difference between Lord Shri Krishna and Sahadev.
It is said in the Mahabharata that the two were equal.
They were omniscient.
Therefore, one who abandons attachment and observes dharma with detachment is superior.
Compared to him, the person who offers karma, the fruits of karma, and even his own body to me is superior.
One who surrenders with detachment is the best of all.
Because he has to give up body-consciousness; detachment comes only after giving up body-consciousness.
And application happens after giving up body-consciousness, after giving up the sense of body.
Until one gives up the sense of body, it cannot be applied.
Therefore, he is the best of all.
So, whatever good deeds one performs by keeping Him as the subject and at the center,
those become the best of all good deeds.
And whatever harm one causes by keeping Him at the center, there is no other sin like that.
Keeping such discrimination, one should honor whomever it is appropriate to honor.
But do not disregard discrimination and treat everyone equally.
Discrimination is necessary.
It is said that those without discrimination are like animals.
People without discrimination are considered equal to animals.
Compared to that, the one who
Maharaj said that an evil person accepts what kind of teachings from the holy scriptures.
And what kind of teachings does a good person accept from the holy scriptures?
So what did he say?
What is the difference between the two?
That a good person accepts from the holy scriptures, and an evil person accepts from the holy scriptures.
What difference did Maharaj make?
Acceptance with discrimination.
And man is all the creation of Brahman.
Where is it said to be the creation of Brahman?
Brahman is manifest.
This world is all Brahman.
So there is no need for discrimination at all.
If one keeps discrimination, it will cause trouble.
The conduct will spoil.
So, do not keep discrimination.
That is the secret of the holy scriptures.
Those people have extracted it.
It must have been somewhere in the holy scriptures; we might not have found it, but they did.
If something like this is found in the holy scriptures,
that means one should not find fault in anyone.
One should only see the good in everyone.
And everyone should be considered divine, devoted to Brahman, and in the form of Brahman.
What does it mean to consider everything as Brahman?
Brahmanishtha Nirgun Swami and Brahmanishtha Dhyey Swami, like that.
Everyone should be considered Brahmanishtha.
No one should be considered inferior to him.
And one who keeps such discrimination is called foolish.
Maharaj said that all sadhus are equal to him.
So what is this 'up' and 'down' in that?
Everyone has a direct connection with Maharaj, so everyone is equal.
Then, we have talked about it many times, haven't we? Once we went to an Annakut, one
We went to Ankot.
Our saints, these speaker saints, they celebrated a festival there, they performed Ankot for Diwali.
There must have been a one-day program.
So, I wasn't there, so we went from there to Ankot.
So, we were all sitting there, and the discourses were going on, when two new saints entered.
And he said that I am in a hurry, so give me the mic, give it quickly, then I will leave.
And he started saying, 'Brother, this saint is small and that saint is big, this one is good and that one is bad, no one should do such a thing.'
We said, 'We don't do that here, and right now it's about Ankot.'
There are good and bad items in it, pickles and ladoos, how can we call both of them the same?
We didn't say that, but he just took it that way.
So, all this kind of thing goes on, he says.
If we call someone good or bad, or talk about discretion, not everyone likes it.
So Maharaj said that this is the understanding of an unrighteous person.
One who has truth within them, they challenge.
That you do something, there's no problem.
Look in me, if there's anything in me, then what do we search for?
If I don't understand my own thing, then you might understand it, others understand a lot, but we don't understand it ourselves.
So that's good for us.
Keep the critic close, let them build a hut in your courtyard.
Without water, without soap, it cleanses, sir, but when?
When does that happen?
It happens if there is the water of truth within.
Otherwise, no one can say that.
Otherwise, one can give this advice that one should not take on vices.
And this one is good and this one is bad, and all these, one should do satsang of this one and not of that one, what is that?
Do everyone's.
It's Maharaj's, so do it.
It's God's, so do it.
Only those who are God are worthy of satsang.
So Maharaj said that where is the transgression in the garland?
Do not commit such a transgression.
Keep it within its limits, whatever it may be.
Therefore, one who abandons attachment and observes dharma with a selfless attitude is superior.
Compared to him, the person who dedicates his actions, the fruits of his actions, and even his own body to me, and who worships me, is superior.
Accordingly, no other being appears superior to the non-doer and equanimous person who dedicates their mind and actions to me.
Kapil Bhagwan has said that.
Victory to Sahajanand Swami Maharaj.