Sarangpur-1

Conquering the Mind

On Shrāvan vadi 5, Samvat 1877 [28 August 1820], Swāmi Shri Sahajānandji Mahārāj was sitting on the veranda outside the north-facing rooms of Jivā Khāchar’s darbār in Sārangpur. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. At that time, an assembly of munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.

Thereupon Muktānand Swāmi asked a question: “The verse ‘Jitam jagat kena mano hi yena ||’¹ explains that a person who has conquered his mind can be said to have conquered the whole world. But how can one know whether the mind has been conquered?”

Shriji Mahārāj replied, “When the indriyas withdraw from the panchvishays, i.e., sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch, and no desire to indulge in those vishays remains, then all of the indriyas are said to be conquered. Moreover, when the indriyas do not come into contact with the vishays, the mind also does not come into contact with the indriyas, and its vrutti remains within the heart. In this way, one who has shunned the panchvishays with absolute resolution should be known as having conquered one’s mind. But if one does have some affection for the vishays, then even if one has conquered one’s mind, it should not be known as having been conquered.”

Again Muktānand Swāmi asked, “Is the means to defeat the vishays vairāgya, or is it affection for God?”

Then Shriji Mahārāj explained, “One way to defeat the vishays is ātmā-realization, and the other is the realization of God coupled with the knowledge of His greatness. Specifically, ātmā-realization should be of the following type: ‘I am chaitanya, while the body is jad; I am pure, whereas the body is the embodiment of narak; I am imperishable, while the body is perishable; I am the embodiment of bliss, whereas the body is the embodiment of misery.’ In this manner, when one realizes the ātmā to be totally distinct from the body in every way, one will never consider oneself to be the body, nor will one harbor affection for vishays. This is how the vishays are subdued through knowledge of the ātmā.

“Also, one should think of the greatness of God in the following way: ‘I am the ātmā, while the manifest form of God whom I have attained is Paramātmā. I have attained Shri Purushottam Bhagwān in person, the very Purushottam Bhagwān who is the lord of Golok, Vaikunth, Shwetdwip and Brahmapur, as well as master of Brahmā and the other deities, who themselves are the lords of countless millions of brahmānds. That Paramātmā forever resides in my ātmā. I would discard all of the pleasures of the vishays of countless millions of brahmānds just for one second’s darshan of that God. Moreover, if one were to gather together all of the pleasures of the vishays of countless millions of brahmānds, even then it would not equal even one millionth of a fraction of the bliss which is present in just one pore of God. In fact, in the Moksh-dharma, it is said that the realms of the other deities are like narak compared to the Akshardhām of God. It is that very God whom I have attained in His incarnated form. So how can I possibly discard Him and wish for the pleasures of the vishays, which are like the pits of narak? In fact, the pleasures of the vishays are nothing but the embodiment of misery.’ So, the vishays can be subdued by realizing God’s greatness in this manner.

“The vairāgya generated by such knowledge of ātmā and Paramātmā is such that it eradicates desires of the pleasures of all vishays. A person who has shunned the pleasures of the vishays by cultivating an understanding in this way never again develops affection for the vishays. Only such a person’s mind can be said to be conquered.

“Without such understanding, it may appear that a person has much affection, but when he encounters an alluring vishay, he abandons God and develops affection for that object. Or, if he develops affection for his son, wife, etc., or he suffers on account of some illness or the pleasures of the vishays disappear, then his affection for God subsides, and he becomes disoriented. Just as a dog’s puppy appears cute when it is young, the bhakti of such a person initially appears to be good, but ultimately it does not remain appealing.”

On Shravan vadi 5, Samvat 1877 [28 August 1820], Swami Shri Sahajanandji Maharaj was sitting on the veranda outside the north-facing rooms of Jiva Khachar’s darbar in Sarangpur. He was dressed entirely in white clothes. At that time, an assembly of munis as well as devotees from various places had gathered before Him.

Thereupon Muktanand Swami asked a question: “The verse ‘Jitam jagat kena mano hi yena ||’¹ explains that a person who has conquered his mind can be said to have conquered the whole world. But how can one know whether the mind has been conquered?”

Shriji Maharaj replied, “When the indriyas withdraw from the panchvishays, i.e., sights, sounds, smells, tastes and touch, and no desire to indulge in those vishays remains, then all of the indriyas are said to be conquered. Moreover, when the indriyas do not come into contact with the vishays, the mind also does not come into contact with the indriyas, and its vrutti remains within the heart. In this way, one who has shunned the panchvishays with absolute resolution should be known as having conquered one’s mind. But if one does have some affection for the vishays, then even if one has conquered one’s mind, it should not be known as having been conquered.”

Again Muktanand Swami asked, “Is the means to defeat the vishays vairagya, or is it affection for God?”

Then Shriji Maharaj explained, “One way to defeat the vishays is atma-realization, and the other is the realization of God coupled with the knowledge of His greatness. Specifically, atma-realization should be of the following type: ‘I am chaitanya, while the body is jad; I am pure, whereas the body is the embodiment of narak; I am imperishable, while the body is perishable; I am the embodiment of bliss, whereas the body is the embodiment of misery.’ In this manner, when one realizes the atma to be totally distinct from the body in every way, one will never consider oneself to be the body, nor will one harbor affection for vishays. This is how the vishays are subdued through knowledge of the atma.

“Also, one should think of the greatness of God in the following way: ‘I am the atma, while the manifest form of God whom I have attained is Paramatma. I have attained Shri Purushottam Bhagwan in person, the very Purushottam Bhagwan who is the lord of Golok, Vaikunth, Shwetdwip and Brahmapur, as well as master of Brahma and the other deities, who themselves are the lords of countless millions of brahmands. That Paramatma forever resides in my atma. I would discard all of the pleasures of the vishays of countless millions of brahmands just for one second’s darshan of that God. Moreover, if one were to gather together all of the pleasures of the vishays of countless millions of brahmands, even then it would not equal even one millionth of a fraction of the bliss which is present in just one pore of God. In fact, in the Moksh-dharma, it is said that the realms of the other deities are like narak compared to the Akshardham of God. It is that very God whom I have attained in His incarnated form. So how can I possibly discard Him and wish for the pleasures of the vishays, which are like the pits of narak? In fact, the pleasures of the vishays are nothing but the embodiment of misery.’ So, the vishays can be subdued by realizing God’s greatness in this manner.

“The vairagya generated by such knowledge of atma and Paramatma is such that it eradicates desires of the pleasures of all vishays. A person who has shunned the pleasures of the vishays by cultivating an understanding in this way never again develops affection for the vishays. Only such a person’s mind can be said to be conquered.

“Without such understanding, it may appear that a person has much affection, but when he encounters an alluring vishay, he abandons God and develops affection for that object. Or, if he develops affection for his son, wife, etc., or he suffers on account of some illness or the pleasures of the vishays disappear, then his affection for God subsides, and he becomes disoriented. Just as a dog’s puppy appears cute when it is young, the bhakti of such a person initially appears to be good, but ultimately it does not remain appealing.”

FOOTNOTES