31.1 In the Samvat year 1876, on the evening of Posh vad 2 [2nd January, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a mattress with a large, cylindrical pillow that had been placed on the east-facing veranda outside His residence in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes.
31.2 At that time, Yogãnand Muni asked, “Mahãrãj, suppose there are two bhaktas of Bhagvãn. One bhakta follows nivrutti and does not hurt anyone verbally. The other, is constantly serving Bhagvãn and His bhaktas, by offering food, clothes, and flowers. However, in doing so, he may occasionally hurt someone verbally. Of these two bhaktas, who is better?”
31.3 Shreeji Mahãrãj did not answer the question. Instead, He called for Muktãnand Swãmi and Brahmãnand Swãmi. He had them listen to the question, and then requested, “Please answer this question.”
31.4 Both Muktãnand Swãmi and Brahmãnand Swãmi then answered. “The bhakta who may verbally hurt someone, but serves Bhagvãn and His sant, is better. The bhakta who follows nivrutti and does not hurt anyone, and is therefore unable to serve Bhagvãn and His sant, should therefore be known to be feeble. The bhakta who serves others can be described as having bhakti. Therefore, the bhakta with bhakti is the better of the two.”
31.5 Shreeji Mahãrãj confirmed, “The answer you have given is correct.” He then added, “It is a major weakness if a person notices a small avgun in someone who possesses this bhakti and completely abides by Bhagvãn’s ãgnã, and then develops hatred for him. A person who perceives avgun in this way may also perceive avgun in Bhagvãn, who has assumed a human form for the purpose of granting kalyãn to the jeevs. He may also perceive avgun in the profoundly great bhaktas of Bhagvãn.
31.6 “Moreover, just because such a person alleges such faults in Bhagvãn or His sant, does that mean the avatãrs of Bhagvãn or sant are incapable of granting kalyãn? They are indeed capable of granting kalyãn. However, a person whose intellect is distorted, always negatively misinterprets things. For example, Shishupãl always said, ‘The Pãndavs are from a different cast. They are immoral because all five of them have the same wife. Krishna is also a scoundrel, because from the moment He was born, He first killed a woman, then He killed a crane, and then He killed a calf. He is known as Madhusudan not because He killed a demon named Madhu, but because he destroyed honeycombs. Just because those Pãndavs worship Him, does that make Him Bhagvãn?’ In this way, Shishupãl, with his demonic intellect, identified avgun in Bhagvãn and His bhaktas. However, the bhaktas of Bhagvãn did not do so in any way. Therefore, a person who perceives avgun should be known to have a demonic intellect.”
31.7 Hearing this, Yogãnand Muni said, “Mahãrãj, we do not perceive avgun in the great bhaktas of Bhagvãn, but we do perceive avgun in ordinary bhaktas.”
31.8 Shreeji Mahãrãj replied, “A bhakta’s greatness or smallness is not measured the way you seem to understand it. Greatness is due to a person’s nishchay in the pratyaksha svarup of Bhagvãn and by following His ãgnãs. However great a person may be in worldly matters, if he lacks these two characteristics, then he is still ordinary.
31.9 “The greatness which I have just described is present today in all the bhaktas in our satsang. This is because all the bhaktas here realise, ‘We have found pratyaksha Purushottam Bhagvãn, who is greater than even Akshar. Therefore, we are completely happy’. Realising this, they offer bhakti to pratyaksha Bhagvãn, while following His ãgnãs. Therefore, on seeing some irrelevant personal abnormality in such a bhakta, a person should not perceive avgun in him. If a person does have a habit of doing so, then his intellect becomes demonic.”
End of Vachanãmrut Gadhadã I || 31 || 31 ||