Loyã 13 · Vachanamrut · Swaminarayan Scriptures

Not Being Overcome By Unpleasant Circumstances

In the early morning of Mãgshar vad 10 [30th December, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead in Surã Khãchar’s darbãr in Loyã. He was wearing a red, woollen dagli and a white khes. He had tied a white feto around His head, and had tied a bokãni with another white feto. In addition to this, He had covered Himself with a white chofãl. A sabhã of paramhans, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.

Shreeji Mahãrãj then told the senior paramhans to ask questions amongst themselves. So, Gopãlãnand Swãmi asked Brahmãnand Swãmi, “What type of person is overcome by unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang; and what type of person is not overcome? After all, it is said that even Brahmã was infatuated upon seeing Sarasvati, as was Shivji when he saw Mohini. So, please answer carefully, because even such great devs have been overcome by unpleasant circumstances.”

Brahmãnand Swãmi attempted to answer, but could not give an adequate reply.

So, Shreeji Mahãrãj explained, “A person who has withdrawn his nãdis and prãns, and by way of his nirvikalp state remains at the holy feet of Bhagvãn, would not be overcome by unpleasant desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang, even if he was an insignificant being. In fact, if Brahmã and other devs behave in this way; they would also not be overcome. However, if he has not developed such a state, and instead, behaves as if he is the body, then average beings, as well as great devs, would be overcome. If this were not so, then the meaning of the following shlok would not be true: tat-shrushta-shrushta-shrushteshu konvakhandita-dheehee pumãn rushim nãrayanam-rute yoshin-mãyyeha mãyayã Of the progeny of Brahmã (Marichi), and their progeny (Kashyap), and their progeny (humans and devs) – whose mind in this world, besides that of Nãrãyan Rushi, can be distinguished as being unaffected by the mãyã and attractive charm of women?

“Therefore, Bhagvãn alone is not overcome by those influences. While all others, no matter how great they may be, if they are not engrossed in the holy feet of Bhagvãn, would be overcome; those who do remain engrossed are not overcome. This is a universal principle that I have firmly established within myself.

“Moreover, it is mentioned in the Shreemad Bhãgvat: etad-eeshanam-eehasya prakrutisthopi tad-gunahee na yujyate sadãtmasthair-yathã buddhis-tad-ãshrayã Just as a person’s buddhi (knowledge of Bhagvãn) is not affected by the characteristics of the body (such as birth, death, age, illness), similarly, Bhagvãn, who pervades Prakruti, is forever unaffected by their influences and the influences of ãtmãs. This is the ability of Bhagvãn.

“Krishna Bhagvãn has also said: daivee hyeshã guna-mayee mama mãyã duratyayã mãm-eva ye prapadyante mãyãm-etam taranti te My mãyã, which I have created and is composed of the three gun, is indeed difficult to rise above. However, those who take refuge in me alone can rise above that mãyã.

“Therefore, only Bhagvãn remains unaffected by mãyã; and a person who has realised Bhagvãn through a nirvikalp state is also not overcome by mãyã. On the other hand, someone who has realised Bhagvãn through a savikalp state would still be overcome, no matter how great he may be.”

Then, Nityãnand Swãmi asked, “Mahãrãj, as long as a mukta is associated with the three gun (sattva-gun, rajo-gun, tamo-gun), he is affected by desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang. However, it is accepted that Bhagvãn is not influenced by desh, kãl, kriyã, and sang – even while He remains with the gun. However, when all the muktas are free from the association of the gun, and have become nirgun, they dwell in Akshardhãm along with Bhagvãn – who dwells there in the same way; and all the muktas are nirgun, and composed of chaitanya. Also, as explained by ‘mama sãdharmya-mãgatãha’, they have attained qualities similar to those of Bhagvãn. Then, how should we understand the distinction between the muktas and Bhagvãn?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj answered, “Look at the moon and the stars. Is there not a difference between the two? They are not similar in terms of brightness, and there is a vast difference between the intensity of their rays. All the herbs are nourished by the moon, but not by the stars. Also, it is the moon that dispels the darkness of the night, not the stars. Bhagvãn and the muktas differ in the same way.

“Also, a king and his servant are both the same, as they both are humans; yet the authority, power, beauty, and charm of the king are far more superior. His servant, regardless of how great he may be, cannot achieve what the king can achieve. In the same way, Purushottam Nãrãyan is the all-doer, the cause of all, the controller of all; He is extremely attractive, extremely radiant, and extremely powerful; also, He possesses kartum, akartum, and anyathã-kartum powers. If He wishes, He can conceal all the muktas of Akshardhãm by His own divine light and prevail alone. Also, if He wishes, He can accept the bhakti of the muktas and reside with them. He can conceal even Akshar, in the svarup of Akshardhãm, in which He dwells, and preside alone. If He so chooses, He is capable of supporting the countless muktas by His own power, without even needing Akshardhãm. For example, Pruthu Bhagvãn told Pruthvi, ‘I can kill you with the arrow from my bow and still be able to support the whole world by my powers’. Likewise, through His powers, Bhagvãn reigns as the supreme lord. A person who equates Bhagvãn with Akshar and the other muktas should be regarded as evil-minded and as a great sinner. A person should avoid even looking at him. In fact, merely looking at such a person is as sinful as committing the five great sins.

“Ofcourse, by considering their association with Bhagvãn, it is acceptable to grant greatness upon anyone. Brahmã, Shiv, Nãrad, the Sanakãdik, and Uddhav can all be called Bhagvãn because of their association with Bhagvãn. At present, even a sãdhu like Muktãnand Swãmi can be considered to be like Bhagvãn because of his association with Bhagvãn. However, without Bhagvãn, even Akshar cannot be called Bhagvãn – let alone anyone else.

“This Vedic shlok reflects the same truth: aparimitã dhurvãs-tanubhruto yadi sarvagatãs-tarhi na shãsyateti niyamo dhruva netarathã O loyal Bhagvãn! If the embodied jeevs, which are innumerable and eternal, are believed to be all-pervasive, then they would not be governable. Not believing them as all-pervasive would not cause any discrepancies. “If this were not so, then why would we – despite regarding ourselves to be brahm-rup, and distinct from the body, and possessing gnãn and vairãgya – try to please Bhagvãn by staying up day and night, clapping, singing kirtans, and chanting His holy name tirelessly? Why would we engage in kathãs and talks day and night, and encourage others to do so as well? Why would we make so much effort if we could become like Bhagvãn? Therefore, only Bhagvãn is like Bhagvãn; no one can become like Him. The Vedic shlok ‘ekam- evãdviteeyam brahm’ also explains that Bhagvãn alone is like Bhagvãn. This is the principle of all the shãstras.”

In this way, Shreeji Mahãrãj addressed the bhaktas for their benefit, when in reality He Himself is Purushottam Nãrãyan. || End of Vachanãmrut Loyã || 13 || 121 ||