Sãrangpur 14 · Vachanamrut · Swaminarayan Scriptures

Laziness And Infatuation

In the Samvat year 1877, on Bhãdarvã sud 3 [10th September, 1820], Swãmi Shree Sahajãnandji Mahãrãj was sitting facing west on a decorated bedstead on the veranda outside the rooms of Jeevã Khãchar’s darbãr in Sãrangpur. He was wearing a black-bordered, white khes, and had covered Himself with a white chãdar. He had also tied a white pãgh around His head. Bunches of yellow flowers were placed above His ears, and tassels of yellows flowers had been placed upon His pãgh. In addition to this, a garland of yellow flowers was hanging from His neck down to His navel. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.

Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi then asked a question: “It is said in the Geetã that once a bhakta attains the dhãm of Bhagvãn, such as Vaikunth, he never falls back from it. But, which flaw causes some to fall back?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj asked in return, “Who has attained the dhãm of Bhagvãn and then fallen back? Give me even one example!”

Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi replied, “First of all, there are Jay and Vijay, the pãrshads of Bhagvãn who fell from Vaikunth. Then, there are Radhikãji and Shreedãmã, who fell from Golok.”

Shreeji Mahãrãj then clarified, “Jay and Vijay did fall, but it was only because Bhagvãn wanted to illustrate the glory of a sãdhu. If a person insults a sãdhu, like the Sanakãdik, then even if he has attained a dhãm like Vaikunth, he can still fall from it. That is why they fell. In addition, Jay and Vijay did return to Bhagvãn’s dhãm, Vaikunth, in their third life. Therefore, they cannot be said to have fallen; it happened because it was Bhagvãn’s wish. In any case, a person can only be said to have fallen when he never again retains any contact with Bhagvãn.

“Also, when Rãdhikãji fell from Golok, that too was by Bhagvãn’s wish, as He Himself wished to incarnate in a human body to uplift countless jeevs and perform kalyãn-kãri actions. Therefore, if someone claims that Rãdhikãji fell, then Bhagvãn could be said to have fallen along with her. That is why she cannot be said to have fallen, because it was Bhagvãn’s wish that they both came to earth from Golok. So, in this instance, it should be recognised as being the wish of Bhagvãn only.

“Of course, if it is His wish, a mukta may incarnate in a body even from Akshardhãm. Moreover, by His will, that which is jad can become chaitanya, and that which is chaitanya can become jad. After all, Bhagvãn is extremely powerful, and whatever He wishes, occurs. Therefore, no one who has attained the dhãm of Bhagvãn falls back from it without it being Bhagvãn’s wish. However, a person who does fall, is a worldly incomplete bhakta, who falls during the course of his spiritual activities. Such a person is called ‘yog-bhrasht’. In contrast, those who have become siddh through vairãgya, ãtmã-nishthã, bhakti towards Bhagvãn, and brahm-chãrya, are equal to the muktas of Shvet-Dvip. They never fall.”

Having explained this, Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “Now, I shall ask a question.”

The munis responded, “Please do ask.”

Shreeji Mahãrãj said, “In the Udyog-Parva of the Mahãbhãrat, Sanat- Sujãt Rushi says to Dhrutrãshtra, ‘He who abandons both laziness and infatuation has completely disobeyed Bhagvãn’s mãyã. In fact, laziness and infatuation are mãyã itself’. Now, we are known to be tyãgi bhaktas of Bhagvãn. If someone amongst us has laziness and infatuation, and if that person is not particularly vigilant in eradicating them by using the strength of Bhagvãn’s glory, then what type of bliss does such a bhakta experience in this body? Also, what type of bliss does he attain after he dies? That is my question.”

Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi replied, “A person who is a bhakta of Bhagvãn need not worry too much if his laziness and infatuation are not eradicated by the deep thought of Bhagvãn’s glory.”

Shreeji Mahãrãj then questioned, “What is wrong with a bhakta of Bhagvãn who has laziness and infatuation and is vigilant in his efforts to eradicate them? What makes a person who is not so vigilant better than the person who is?”

Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi explained, “That bhakta of Bhagvãn relies on the strength of Bhagvãn, not on the strength of his spiritual activities. That is why he is better.”

Shreeji Mahãrãj questioned further, “You are claiming that a person who is careless, despite the enemies of laziness and infatuation being prevalent in him, is superior. Well, consider the example of a pati- vratã wife. Due to the fear of her husband, and the fear of preserving her pati-vratã dharma, she remains very conscious in her mind, in case she smiles at or touches another man. Moreover, in her mind lies the following fear: ‘If I behave freely, my husband will think of me as an adulteress, and will no longer accept my sevã. This would be a breach of my pati-vratã dharma’. Bearing this in mind, she remains ever vigilant. So, you are claiming that a bhakta who keeps bhakti just like the pati-vratã wife and who is conscious in his efforts to eradicate laziness and infatuation is at fault. Furthermore, you are suggesting that a bhakta who is not concerned about eradicating laziness and infatuation, like a woman who flirts with any man she fancies, and is not concerned about preserving her fidelity, is actually superior! Is this because of a misunderstanding on your behalf, or what?

“Remember, if a person remains careless, then even if he is a bhakta of Bhagvãn, the two enemies of laziness and infatuation would not fail to hinder him. For example, when a person drinks alcohol or bhãng, then just as a vimukh becomes intoxicated, a bhakta of Bhagvãn would also become intoxicated and delirious. In the same way, just as alcohol and bhãng in the form of laziness and infatuation affect a vimukh, they affect a bhakta of Bhagvãn as well. However, the only difference between a vimukh and a bhakta of Bhagvãn is that a vimukh cannot eradicate these two enemies, whereas a bhakta can overcome them if he remains vigilant in his efforts. That is the advantage a bhakta of Bhagvãn has. Nevertheless, he is not better if he remains careless, even if he is a bhakta of Bhagvãn.”

Then, Shreeji Mahãrãj asked another question: “How many elements is the sthul body composed of, and how many elements is the sukshma body composed of? Are there equal elements in both, or does one have more or less than the other? Please describe the nature of these two bodies.”

Svayamprakãshãnand Swãmi attempted to answer the question, but was unable to do so adequately. Then, all the munis said, “Mahãrãj, please be kind enough to answer this question yourself.”

Shreeji Mahãrãj then explained, “The sthul body is composed of the five tattvas known as the five mahã-bhuts, such as pruthvi and jal. The sukshma body is composed of nineteen tattvas: the five gnãn- indriyas, the five karma-indriyas, the five prãns, and the four antah- karans. Yet, only when the sukshma body is interwoven with the sthul body, can all activities be carried out properly, but not otherwise. This is because only when the sukshma body, together with the indriyas, joins the sthul body – which includes the organs of the indriyas, such as the eyes and ears – can the vishays of those indriyas be indulged in. This is not possible by the organs of the indriyas of the sthul body alone. Therefore, the sukshma body composed of the nineteen tattvas is interwoven with the sthul body composed of the five tattvas (five mahã-bhuts). That is why the sthul body is also said to be composed of twenty-four tattvas.

“In the same way, the pleasures of the sukshma body can only be indulged in when the sukshma body behaves as one with the sthul body, which is composed of the five tattvas. That is why the sukshma body, which is composed of nineteen tattvas, is also said to be composed of twenty-four tattvas. Moreover, because the sthul body is inherent within the sukshma body, when a person associates with a woman through his sukshma body, he ejaculates semen from his sthul body. Therefore, there is unity between the sthul body and the sukshma body during the jãgrat state and the svapna state.”

Then, the munis remarked, “Mahãrãj, this suggests that the sukshma body is the same as the sthul body. So, just as there is an effect of karmas on the sthul body, is there a similar effect on the sukshma body as well? Or is there a difference?”

Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “If a person has just as strong a belief that the sukshma body is ‘mine’, as he has that this sthul body is ‘mine’, then the law of karmas would apply to the sukshma body just as it does to the sthul body. Indeed, it is only to encourage the individual that the karmas of the sukshma body have been said to be insignificant.

“In comparison, neither the sthul body nor the sukshma body of a person who has no consciousness of his sthul and sukshma bodies, is affected by karmas. This is because such a person behaves only as the ãtmã. Therefore, a person who has such ãtmã-nishthã, remains unaffected by karmas related to the sthul and sukshma bodies. Nonetheless, such a person would never physically perform any impure karmas. Furthermore, he endures any joy or pain resulting from his prãrabdha. Even while experiencing them, he believes, ‘I am not the one who experiences. I am the ãtmã’.

“On the other hand, a person who is ignorant and who perceives himself with the body, is affected by all karmas related to the sthul and sukshma bodies, and therefore he experiences joy and pain according to his karmas. This is because an ignorant person, while experiencing whichever vishays he indulges in, believes the body to be his true svarup, and feels, ‘I am the one who experiences these vishays’.

“Then, in his final moments, such an ignorant person sees yamduts. He then becomes unaware of his body and enters a state of unconsciousness. The yamduts force him to leave his body and therefore separate his jeev. The jeev then receives the body of an evil spirit, in which it suffers the torments of Yampuri. In comparison, a bhakta of Bhagvãn possessing gnãn, sees Bhagvãn or His sant in his last moments. He also becomes unaware of his body and enters a state of unconsciousness. However, when that bhakta discards his body and becomes separate from it, Bhagvãn grants him a divya body like that of Bhagvãn, with which he resides in the dhãm of Bhagvãn.” || End of Vachanãmrut Sãrangpur || 14 || 92 ||