Asserted Topics:
The difference between Bhagwan’s form and other forms in Maya.
Key Points:
- Those who constantly contemplate upon Bhagwan’s divine form are liberated from the bonds of Kal (time), Karma (actions), and Maya (illusion).
- Those who contemplate upon the forms of Maya are trapped in the cycle of births and deaths and suffer endless miseries.
Explanation:
In this Vachanamrut, Shreeji Maharaj explains that there is a great difference between the pratyaksh (manifest) form of Bhagwan and other mayik (material) forms. An ignorant soul, being extremely foolish, considers Bhagwan and these material forms to be similar, but they are not. The forms of Maya deceive the mind and those who dwell upon these forms wander through the cycle of 84 lakh life forms for countless eons, experiencing immense suffering. In contrast, those who see and contemplate the divine form of Bhagwan are liberated from the bonds of Kal, Karma, and Maya, and attain Abhayapad (the state free from fear), becoming the attendants of Bhagwan.
Here, Shreeji Maharaj emphasizes the importance of contemplating upon the manifest form of Bhagwan. He uses the phrase “pratyaksh Bhagwan ni murti” (the manifest form of Bhagwan), indicating that when Bhagwan incarnates in a human-like form, people often misunderstand and fail to realize His true divine nature. As mentioned in the Gita:
अवजानन्ति मां मूढा मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितम्।
परं भावमजानन्तो मम भूतमहेश्वरम्।। (९.११)
Avajānanti māṁ mūḍhā mānuṣhīṁ tanum āśhritam |
Paraṁ bhāvam ajānanto mama bhūta-maheśhvaram || (9.11)
This verse explains that the ignorant and foolish fail to recognize Bhagwan when He incarnates in a human form, as they are unable to understand His divine essence. Hence, they disrespect Him, a reaction born out of ignorance.
यो यस्य न वेत्ति गुणप्रकर्षः स तं सदा निन्दति नात्र चित्रम्।
यथा किराती करिकुम्भजातान् मुक्तान् परित्यज्य बिभर्ति गुञ्जाम्।।
Yo yasya na vetti guṇa-prakarṣaḥ sa taṁ sadā nindati nātra citram |
Yathā kirātī karikuṁbha-jātān muktān parityajya bibharti guñjām ||
A bhiladi (tribal woman) discards the pearls obtained from an elephant’s forehead and instead adorns herself with mere chanauthi (cheap beads). Similarly, Maharaj explains that there is a vast difference between the pratyaksh Bhagwan ni murti (manifest form of Bhagwan) and other mayik (material) forms. Although they may appear similar externally, their inherent divine power and influence are as different as heaven and earth. The results they produce are equally distinct. Maharaj emphasizes that those who contemplate the forms of Maya wander endlessly in the 84 lakh life forms for countless ages. While Bhagwan may appear in a human-like form, those who meditate upon His divine form are liberated from the bonds of Kal (time), Karma (actions), and Maya, and attain the ultimate state of param pad (divine abode), becoming divine attendants of Bhagwan. Just as gold and brass, ordinary iron and a magnet, and a common stone and chintamani (a wish-fulfilling jewel) appear alike but are vastly different in their functions and powers, the same distinction applies here.
In Satsangijivan, Prakaran 4, Adhyay 72, Sadguru Shukanand Swami beautifully elaborates on this concept, discussing the difference between Bhagwan and others. The scriptures state that Kaivalyam sāttvikam jñānam (sukham) and Manasthim nirguṇam smṛitam (Bhag. 11). The knowledge and happiness related to the self (the atman) are considered sāttvik (pure), while Bhagwan says that knowledge of Me, My form, and the happiness associated with that knowledge are nirgun (beyond the three qualities of Maya).
Here, opponents raise a doubt: “Why is knowledge and happiness related to the atman considered sattvik, while knowledge of Paramatma is considered nirgun? The atman is also beyond Maya, just as Bhagwan is. Both the atman and Bhagwan are free from Maya, so why is atman-related knowledge considered sattvik while Bhagwan-related knowledge is nirgun?” To this, the proponent replies that while both are beyond Maya, their natures are not the same. Their effects are different. One leads to the growth of sattva (goodness), while contemplation of Bhagwan’s form leads to the realization of the divine, beyond all attributes of maya.
Contemplation of the atman purifies the heart and enhances sattvaguna, whereas contemplation of Bhagwan’s form eradicates the influence of the three gunas (three attributes of maya) at their very root, destroying the material ties of Maya and manifesting divinity. Therefore, it is impossible to equate the two. Their results and effects are distinct. Maharaj, in Vach.G.M.4, mentions that just as gold and other metals may be buried in the earth, over time, the other metals will decay and turn to dust, while the gold will not diminish but will instead grow in value. Similarly, Bhagwan is not equal to Brahma, other devas, or munis.
In Vach. Loya 13, Maharaj also explains that just as the devas and munis are not equal to Bhagwan, neither are Aksharadi muktas (liberated souls like Akshar). Even if they are eternally liberated, they cannot be considered equal to Bhagwan. Those who claim otherwise should be considered misguided and wicked, and one should not associate with them. Maharaj states that there is no one who can rival Bhagwan. This is why, in Shikshapatri shlok 115, Maharaj teaches that one should not focus on anyone other than Bhagwan, even if they are a deva, a human, a liberated soul, or a siddha (accomplished being) who has attained liberation. This is because it is only by contemplating Bhagwan’s form that one can uproot Maya from its core. No other entity possesses the power to help the jiva (soul) conquer Maya.Contemplation of the objects of Maya only increases attachment and delusion in the heart of the jiva and expands the cycle of births and deaths. That is why, in this Vachanamrut, Shreeji Maharaj explains that those who contemplate the forms of Maya wander endlessly in the cycle of 84 lakh life forms for countless eons. This is the result of contemplating material objects. Therefore, Bhagwan’s form and the forms of Maya are not the same. Maharaj concludes by saying that “I never find satisfaction in listening to anything other than the discourses of Bhagwan, His devotional songs, or meditating upon Him. You should follow the same practice.” This is because these activities are directly related to the divine form of Bhagwan, and thus, they do not lead to mere mental satisfaction but help attain spiritual progress.