Asserted Topics:
The nature of firm ashray (refuge).
Key Points:
- Whatever one desires, one should seek it from Bhagwan alone, not from anyone else.
- If one’s ashray (refuge) is weak, they cannot endure the demands of being in close association with other devotees
- If a humble devotee engages in mansi puja (mental worship) of Bhagwan with equal dedication, then even if they were to achieve the highest spiritual state over hundreds of lifetimes, they could attain it in this very life.
Explanation:
In this Vachanamrut, Maharaj instructed the assembly to pose challenging and intricate questions. Accordingly, Muktanand Swami asked a question inspired by the verse:
daivī hyeṣā guṇamayī mama māyā duratyayā | māmeva ye prapadyante māyām etāṃ taranti te ||
In this verse, it is said that one who attains Bhagwan overcomes the difficult-to-cross Maya imbued with the three gunas (three attributes of Maya). Muktanand Swami inquired, “For one who has attained Bhagwan, who or what could create inner disturbances or conflicting thoughts in their devotion besides Maya?” A similar discussion occurs in Vach. Loya 10, where Maharaj mentions that Maya is exceedingly blissful for a firm devotee. The faculties created by Maya, such as the senses and the antahkaran (inner faculties), strengthen devotion to Bhagwan.
Yet, Sadguru Muktanand Swami questioned Maharaj, “When a devotee of Parameshwar sits for worship, envisioning the divine form, why does the antahkaran as Maya generate conflicting thoughts, causing distress?” Maharaj replied that there is a lack of firmness in the devotee’s ashray. If the devotee’s ashray were firm, Maya would not cause distress.
Maharaj explained that even after attaining a firm ashray in Bhagwan, as long as the current body endures due to past deeds, the faculties of Maya—senses and antahkaran—and their limitations will persist. Such faculties also influenced previous devotees, but those who had unwavering conviction recognized that Bhagwan is beyond the influence of Maya and its three gunas. They firmly believed that Bhagwan transcends Maya and its effects. For such a devotee, the faculties governed by Maya continue their actions, yet the devotee is said to have crossed Maya.
Furthermore, Brahma and other deities, and sages like Vashishtha and Parashar, are also influenced by the gunas; yet, are they not considered liberated souls? Are they not regarded as having crossed Maya? In fact, they are all liberated and have transcended Maya. Otherwise, this question would remain unresolved, and the statement of Bhagwan would seem incorrect—which, of course, it is not. In Vach. Loya 4, Maharaj similarly clarified that if Brahma and others are influenced by kutarka (speculative reasoning), they cannot be said to have transcended the power of Maya. But if they view Bhagwan as free from faults and beyond Maya, then they can be said to have crossed Maya. Firm conviction that Bhagwan is beyond Maya is indeed the way to cross Maya.
Then Nityanand Swami asked, “Maharaj, what is the nature of having refuge in Bhagwan?” Maharaj quoted a verse from the Gita to illustrate the nature of ashray:
सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज |
अहं त्वा सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः || १८–६६ ||
Sarvadharmān parityajya mām ekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja |
ahaṃ tvā sarvapāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ || 18-66 ||
In this verse, Bhagwan says, “Renounce all your self-conceived duties and come to Me alone for refuge. Forsake other deities’ worship and take refuge solely in Me. I shall free you from all sins; do not grieve.” According to this verse, the nature of exclusive ashray in Bhagwan is described. The scriptures define ashray in various ways, such as:
विश्वासो वरणं न्यासः कार्पण्यं च स्थिरा मतिः |
अनुकूल्यसंकल्पः प्रातिकूल्य वर्जनं, षड्विधा शरणागति: ||
Viśvāso varaṇaṃ nyāsaḥ kārpaṇyaṃ ca sthirā matiḥ |
Anukūlyasaṃkalpaḥ prātikūlya varjanaṃ, ṣaḍvidhā śaraṇāgatiḥ ||
These six components describe sharanagati (surrender), which is ashray.
Additionally,
आनुकूल्यस्य संकल्पः प्रातिकूलस्य वर्जनं |
रक्षिष्यतीति विश्वासो गोप्तृत्ववरणं तथा ||
आत्मनिक्षेपकार्पण्यं षड्विधा शरणागति: |
Anukūlyasya saṅkalpaḥ prātikūlyasya varjanaṃ |
Rakṣiṣyatīti viśvāso goptṛtvavaraṇaṃ tathā ||
Ātmanikṣepa-kārpaṇyaṃ ṣaḍvidhā śaraṇāgatiḥ |
The six limbs of ashray are thus described.
Another verse states:
कृतानुकूल्य संकल्पः प्रतिकूल्यं विवर्जयन् |
विश्वासशाली कृपणः प्रार्थयन् रक्षणं प्रति ||
आत्मानं निक्षिपति यद्विप्रदेवस्य पादयोः सा प्रपत्तिः ||
Kṛtānukūlya saṅkalpaḥ pratikūlyaṃ vivarjayan |
Viśvāsashālī kṛpaṇaḥ prārthayan rakṣaṇaṃ prati ||
Ātmānaṃ nikṣipati yad vipradevasya pādayoḥ sā prapattiḥ |
In this, ātmanikṣepa—the surrender of oneself at Bhagwan’s feet—is the primary limb, while the others are supporting limbs. This surrender involves heartfelt prayer with an urgent plea: “Maharaj, You alone are the means to my liberation.” Such surrender and firm ashray are characterized by the unwavering conviction that whatever one needs, one will seek only from Bhagwan and not from others. They will not accept anything offered by others.
Brahmanand Swami expressed it thus: “Just as the Chatak bird waits only for the Swati rain, refusing any other water…”
And, there is a saying in society that one who is blemished may appear virtuous but carries hidden defects, just as a person with leprosy. Similarly, even if another provides greater gifts than Bhagwan, it is considered a blemish and a disfigurement. Therefore, ashray must have exclusivity. Although previous devotees occasionally made specific or general requests, the essence of reliance solely on the Ishtadev (chosen God) remains, and this principle must be clear in a truly dedicated devotee. The Gita’s verse, sarvadharmān… śaraṇaṃ vraja – “Come to Me for refuge” – embodies this commitment.
Just as a Brahmin is instructed with the guideline: Snātva bhuñjīta—to eat only after taking a bath—here, the bath is the vidhi (prescribed action), while the act of eating arises from natural inclination or rāga (desire). No prompting is needed to eat; rather, what is necessary is a restriction, as in this instruction. Similarly, in the phrase śaraṇam vraja (seek refuge), what is the vidhi component? Which part conveys Parmatma’s instruction? Here, it is “sarvadharmān parityajya” (abandon all duties) that addresses attachments related to the physical body, mental inclinations, the perceptions of propriety or impropriety, and all associations arising from the kāraṇa deha (causal body). Such attachments might seem valid, yet one is advised to completely detach from these bodily attachments in such a way that they do not re-root. Another vidhi is “mām ekam.” Here, if only śaraṇam vraja (come to me for refuge) had been said, it would suffice, so why add ekam (alone)? The word mām already implies singularity. The repetition of ekam emphasizes renouncing all others to seek refuge solely in Bhagwan. Until one fully lets go of all other dependencies, Bhagwan does not fully accept them.
Maharaj further explains in the Vachanamrut that even if one faces immense distress, akin to the ultimate dissolution, they should look only to Bhagwan for protection. They should not seek comfort from others and should desire whatever happiness they seek from Bhagwan alone, perceiving no one else as a source of joy. This means that they should not ask for anything from others, nor accept anything even if offered without solicitation. For example, if a poor woman were to remain devoted solely to her husband, she would neither accept nor even look upon wealth offered by another. Likewise, the sharanāgata (one who has sought refuge) should be nishkām (free from desires), though it does not mean such steadfastness is essential for true sharanāgati. A true sharanāgata may request, for asking is, in essence, the purpose of sharanāgati; yet, they must not seek from anyone but Bhagwan. If they do, their sharanāgati would be deemed false. This is why the Maharaj states that one who lives by Bhagwan’s will is indeed a true sharanāgata.
Then Naja Bhakta asked, “For one who does not have firm ashray in Paripurna Bhagwan but outwardly appears to be a devoted Haribhakta and even speaks as if firmly grounded, how can we know their true state?” Maharaj replied that certainty and ashray in Bhagwan are revealed by close association and personal dealings. When in the company of devotees, one’s interactions with them directly reflect how one would interact with Bhagwan or would in a testing moment. A devotee with weak ashray cannot genuinely respect other devotees when living among them. If they are too self-centered to respect other devotees, their weak inner reliance on Bhagwan becomes apparent, even if their speech seems devout. They rarely, if ever, display selflessness in their conduct and often remain focused on their own honor, discontented if required to bear any disrespect.
Those with weak ashray often exhibit selfishness and experience inner friction when forced to compromise. Such an individual does not derive joy from taking a loss for the sake of a fellow devotee; rather, they seek to protect their interests. Such tendencies are signs of weak ashray. In Satsang, if a devotee is envious or resentful at seeing another’s honor, success, or progress, it resembles a smoldering, half-burnt piece of wood that still emits smoke. Such a person does not feel the bliss of Satsang, focusing only on their qualities or achievements. This tendency often becomes apparent only after prolonged association and interaction. Maharaj says that a devotee of this nature cannot withstand the discipline of Satsang. They may tolerate another’s honor only as long as it doesn’t affect them directly, but if it does, they withdraw, avoiding situations where they would have to suffer for others. This reveals a flaw in their ashray.
Then Nityanand Swami asked, “If a devotee who is currently of a lower level resolves to improve, can they attain the status of an uttam bhakta (excellent devotee) in this very life?” To this, Maharaj responded, “If such a devotee performs mansi puja (mental worship) of Bhagwan in the same manner that they would for an uttam bhakta, and if they spend money, say five rupees, for Bhagwan’s sake, they should also spend similarly for the sake of a saint of that caliber. By serving a truly great saint with equal devotion and immense love, even if they were destined to become an uttam bhakta in two, four, or one hundred lives, they will achieve it in this very life. This is the reward for rendering service to Bhagwan and His great devotees with equal reverence.”
The essence here is that remembering devotees in one’s mansi puja, and offering them respect and regard equal to Bhagwan, is a true indicator of complete ashray (refuge) or true bhakti (devotion) toward Bhagwan. Outer acts of worship, service, or respect may sometimes be performed out of mere social or ashram duty, even without true feelings of reverence, but such duties do not encumber the mind. However, when one remembers a saint with true love and offers mansi seva (mental service), they do so with the sincere belief that any shortcomings are on their part alone. Inner worship of a saint with heartfelt regard is complete worship, with no room for imperfection. With such genuine bhavana (devotional sentiment), spiritual progress on the path of devotion naturally occurs.From the words of this Vachanamrut, it can further be inferred that Bhagwan especially cherishes one who serves a saint or devotee with such qualities, even more than those who serve Bhagwan directly. Analyzing the wording of the Vachanamrut, we understand that Maharaj has highlighted a hundredfold greater merit or significance in this act. This suggests that maintaining such devotion toward a visible, excellent devotee requires a hundredfold more effort and sincerity, or else such rewards would not be promised. Thus, deep introspection is necessary here. Without this, if one presumes their own excellence or has their greatness declared by followers and then claims these words as validation, they receive an abundance of external respect, but the outcome Maharaj intends does not materialize. Worshiping a genuinely great saint through mansi puja leads to becoming great oneself; However, worshiping one who only pretends to be excellent makes one proficient in imitation, not in true greatness.