Loyã 10 · Vachanamrut · Swaminarayan Scriptures

Remaining Without Moh

In the Samvat year 1877, on the morning of Mãgshar sud 8 [13th December, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a white dagli made of chhint and white survãl. He had also tied a white feto around His head. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.

Then, Nityãnand Swãmi said, “In this world, there are some men who have such love for women and other objects, that if they were to be separated, they would not be able to live. There are others who have love for women and other objects, but it is not as intense. So, if they were to be separated, they would survive. In this way, there are two types of people. Now, if the first type of person, who involves himself in worldly life with love, were to meet Bhagvãn, he would become attached to Bhagvãn in the same way; if he were to be separated from Bhagvãn, he would not be able to survive. Moreover, if the second person, with less love for worldly life, were to meet Bhagvãn, he would have less love for Bhagvãn as well. Is the difference between these two types of people due to karmas, or is it eternal?”

Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Those differences are not inherently present in the jeev; instead, they arise as a result of karmas. How does this happen? Well, when a jeev performs a karma, the force of its vruttis can be of three levels: mild, medium, and intense. The force with which the vruttis attach themselves to the object, determines the effect of the karma upon the jeev. As a result, three levels of love arise due to these karmas.”

Again, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Do the three levels in the force of the vruttis occur as a result of the gun, or is there some other reason?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “The three types of differences are not due to the gun; to be more precise, when only the indriyas indulge in an object, then a mild force results. When the indriyas indulge in an object along with the mind, a medium force develops. When all three – the indriyas, the mind, and the jeev – combine and indulge in an object, the vruttis develop an intense force. Even if that intense force affects only the eyes, the other indriyas would follow, and the force would affect them as well. In this way, whichever indriya is primarily affected by the intense force, the other indriyas follow. Moreover, that intense force affects all three types of people – rãjasi, sãttvik, and tãmasi. In fact, such intense force is present in each of the indriyas; therefore, love for objects arises.”

Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Why does he not develop love for Bhagvãn with such an intense force?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Good and bad behaviour is determined by the factors of desh, kãl, kriyã, dhyãn, shãstras, dikshã, mantra, and sang. So, if a person attains pleasant factors, then he develops love for Bhagvãn quickly. But, if he encounters unpleasant factors, then he would develop love for objects other than Bhagvãn.”

Then, Chaitanyãnand Swãmi asked, “What should a person do in difficult times?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Whenever and wherever times are difficult, a person should abandon that place for another location; he should not stay where the factor of kãl is unpleasant. In actual fact, kãl, in the form of Satya-Yug, Tretã-Yug, Dvãpar-Yug, and Kali-Yug, exists both externally and internally. So, when Kali-Yug is prevalent within a person’s heart, he should not visualise the murti of Bhagvãn within his heart; instead, it should be seen externally, before his eyes.”

Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “How can a person distinguish whether a mild, a medium, or an intense force prevails within someone’s heart?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “When the force is mild, a person would have the same feelings on seeing a young girl, a young woman, or an old woman. This is because only the vruttis of the indriyas have become involved. As a result, a mild force has developed. When the mind unites with the indriyas and they see the three types of women, then no improper thoughts arise towards the young girl or the old woman; but indecent thoughts certainly do arise towards the young woman, and a disturbance is experienced. This should be known as a medium level force. When both the mind and the jeev combine with the indriyas and look at the three types of women, then improper thoughts arise towards all three types of women, and a disturbance is experienced. In fact, a person would experience such improper thoughts even on seeing his own mother or sister. This should be known as an intense force.”

Then,Brahmãnand Swãmi asked, “Suppose a person notices the distinction between the three types of women, and notices their beauty and ugliness, yet he does not experience any improper thoughts. Which type of force is that?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Having realised an object to be the cause of intense misery and having reflected upon that fact, a person assigns serious flaws to that object. The reflection of those disadvantages in the mind then leads to those flaws being acknowledged by the jeev. The witness (Bhagvãn), who is greater than the jeev, also confirms those flaws, and so an extremely firm belief in those flaws is developed. Therefore, when the vruttis of the indriyas enter the object, the mind and jeev also go along with the vruttis; but since the jeev’s deep belief of the flaw in the object pierces the mind and indriyas, even though the object is seen and fully recognised, an intense hatred still arises for it. For example, if a snake’s venom is dropped into a bowl of sweet milk, and a person sees the venom being added, then even though the milk appears exactly as before, an intense hatred for it prevails in his heart. This is because he has realised, ‘If I drink the milk, I will die’. Similarly, such a person has realised, ‘This beautiful woman is an obstacle on the path of kalyãn; and she is the cause of extreme misery in this lok and in the higher loks. In fact, I have attained the company of women countless times in past lives in various life-forms, and if I still do not worship Bhagvãn, I will attain the company of countless more females. Therefore, this attainment is not rare. However, the company of Bhagvãn and His sant is extremely rare, and this woman is a major obstacle in the attainment of that’. A person who has realised this and has intensely realised the flaws in the object, will never be infatuated on seeing a woman, regardless of how beautiful she may be.

“Furthermore, there is another way to remain free of infatuation: Janak the Videhi, who was a great king and a bhakta of Bhagvãn, stayed in his kingdom and, due to his firmness in gnãn, remained free of infatuation even while indulging in attractive vishays. Similarly, a bhakta with gnãn like Janak, has the thought, ‘I am the ãtmã – pure, chaitanya, unchanging, blissful, and imperishable. However, vishays like women and other objects, are full of misery; they are worthless, perishable, and jad’. With this thought, he believes only his own self, the ãtmã, as being blissful. Also, he believes, ‘The pleasure and charm which are apparent in the vishays are only experienced due to the ãtmã. But, when the ãtmã leaves the body, that which was once pleasurable becomes miserable’. He reflects upon his ãtmã in this way.

“He also reflects upon Paramãtmã, who is greater than the ãtmã, as follows: ‘I have attained this gnãn of the pure ãtmã, which is greater than mãyã, by the grace of the sant. That sant is a bhakta of Bhagvãn. Moreover, that Bhagvãn is the ãtmã of even brahm, who is ãtmã of all. He is the ãtmã of Akshar, and is also the ãtmã of the countless millions of muktas. I am the brahm-rup dãs of that Parbrahm Purushottam Nãrãyan’.

“Also, he understands the greatness of Bhagvãn by realising: dyupataya eva ten a yayur-antam anantatayã tvamapi yad-antarãnda-nichayã nanu sãvaranãhã Even the masters of the higher loks cannot understand your greatness, because it is endless. Neither can you yourself understand your own greatness. In your each and every hair, countless brahmãnds and their barriers (jad prakruti) fly simultaneously at immense speed – like specks of dust flying in the air. Even the Shrutis, ultimately perish in you, and fail to praise your glory. “Such shloks have greatly explained the greatness of Bhagvãn.

“When a person, who has gnãn of his own self and of Bhagvãn, attains a vishay, his mind would not even be slightly affected by it, regardless of how appealing it may be. He indulges in the essential vishays without becoming dependent upon them. Instead, he indulges in them independently of his own accord. Just as a spider spreads its own web and then it independently retracts it when necessary, in the same way, a bhakta possessing gnãn engages the vruttis of his indriyas in the vishays and retracts them on his own accord. Such a person feels as if he is in the forest, even if he is amongst people; and though he may be in the forest, he experiences more happiness there than a person does from ruling a kingdom.

“The bhakta may reside in a kingdom, thousands of people may be under his command, and he may be wealthy; but he himself does not feel, ‘I have become very great’. Furthermore, if the kingdom is destroyed and he begs for food from house to house with a clay bowl, he does not feel, ‘Now I have become poor’. This is because he remains absolutely carefree in his own bliss, and he knows the greatness of his own self and that of Bhagvãn. Therefore, he views gold, dirt, iron, and stones as equal; he also feels calmness in praise and insult. Since his vision has become broad, and he knows all worldly objects to be worthless, no objects are capable of binding a person with gnãn. For example, when a man who was initially poor receives a kingdom, his vision becomes broad. At first, he may have been selling bundles of wood or doing various other insignificant jobs, but he forgets them all and he begins to do important tasks related to his kingdom. Similarly, to a person with gnãn, all objects become worthless; and due to that gnãn, his vision becomes broad. A person with such an understanding becomes happy.

“Also, if a person has faith, and he believes, ‘Whatever such a great sant and Bhagvãn say is the truth; there is no doubt in it’, and with this belief he does as Bhagvãn and His sant instruct him to do, then that person remains happy. These are the two types of people who are happy; apart from them, everyone is unhappy. This is also described in the following shlok: yash-cha mudhatamo loke yash-cha buddheha param gataha tãvubho sukham-edhete klishya-tyantarito janaha In this world, there are two types of people who experience the bliss of Bhagvãn: those who are utterly ignorant and have blind faith in Bhagvãn, and those who are perfectly enlightened and have realised Bhagvãn. Those who are in between, are troubled.

“Also, in the Bhagvad Geetã, it is said: vishayã vinivar-tante nirãhãrasya dehinaha rasa-varjam rasopyasya param drushtva nivartate The sense objects recede for a person who refrains from indulging in them. However, the longing for them does not subside. The longing subsides only when his vision reaches Bhagvãn. “This means that all objects, except Bhagvãn, become worthless to a person whose vision becomes alokik in this way. Moreover, the meaning of these two shloks is the same.”

Then, Muktãnand Swãmi said, “Mahãrãj, now please ask the question you were going to ask.”

So, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked, “Is there only misery in mãyã, or is there also some happiness in it? That is the question.”

Muktãnand Swãmi replied, “Mãyã causes only misery.”

Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Of the three gun – sattva-gun, rajo-gun, and tamo-gun – which arise from Mãyã, sattva-gun is said to give happiness. Furthermore, in the Shreemad Bhãgvat it is said: sattvam yad-brahma-darshanam Sattva-gun leads to the vision of Bhagvãn. “It is also said that the products of sattva-gun are gnãn, vairãgya, wisdom, tranquillity, and discipline. How is mãyã in this form a cause of misery? Furthermore, it is stated in the eleventh skandh: vidyavidye mama tanu viddhyud-dhava shareerinam; bandha-mokshakari ãdye mãyayã me vinir-mite O Uddhav! Realise my two forms – both of which have been created from my mãyã: the ancient vidya and avidya, which free and bind people respectively. “So, how is mãyã in the form of knowledge, which leads to moksh, a cause of misery?”

Hearing the question, Muktãnand Swãmi and all the other paramhans said, “Mahãrãj, we are unable to answer, so please have mercy, and give the answer yourself.”

Hearing this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “To a sinful person, the svarup of Yam-Rãj appears frightful and terrible, with large teeth and a large, frightening mouth; he appears black like soot, huge like a mountain, and horrific like death. In this way, his svarup appears dreadful. However, to a good person, the svarup of Yam-Rãj appears very pleasant, like Vishnu. Similarly, to those who are vimukhs, mãyã causes attachment and intense misery, while to a bhakta of Bhagvãn that same mãyã is the cause of intense happiness. Also, the entities that have evolved out of Mãyã – the antah-karans, the indriyas, and their presiding devs – all support the bhakti of Bhagvãn. Therefore, for a bhakta of Bhagvãn, mãyã is not a cause of misery; it is a source of great happiness.”

Then, Muktãnand Swãmi asked, “If mãyã is a cause of happiness, why is it that when a bhakta of Bhagvãn visualises the murti of Bhagvãn and engages in worship, mãyã, in the form of the antah-karans, causes misery by generating many disturbing thoughts?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “Mãyã, in the form of the antah-karans, does not cause misery to a person who thoroughly understands the greatness of Bhagvãn and has an absolutely firm refuge of Bhagvãn; but it does cause misery to a person who does not have this refuge. For example, a kusangi would attempt to dislodge only a weak satsangi; but no one would dare to dislodge a firm satsangi. In fact, no one would be able to speak unkindly of satsang in his presence. Similarly, mãyã, in the form of the antah-karans, would never entertain a desire to intimidate a person who has a firm refuge in Bhagvãn. Instead, it would help his bhakti to flourish. However, mãyã does deflect a person who has a slight deficiency in his refuge in Bhagvãn, and does cause him misery. However, when that person develops a complete refuge in Bhagvãn, mãyã is not able to disturb him or cause him pain. Therefore, the answer is that if a person has complete nishchay in Bhagvãn, mãyã is not capable of causing him misery.” || End of Vachanãmrut Loyã || 10 || 118 ||