36.1 In the Samvat year 1876, on Posh vad 13 [13th January, 1820], Shreeji Mahãrãj was sitting on a decorated bedstead on the platform under the neem tree in front of the mandir of Shree Vãsudev-Nãrãyan in Dãdã Khãchar’s darbãr in Gadhadã. He was dressed entirely in white clothes, with garlands of white and yellow flowers adorning His neck. Bunches of white flowers were placed on both of His ears, and a tassel of yellow flowers was hanging from His pãgh. A chhoglu made from red karnikãr flowers had also been placed in His pãgh. Also, He was playing with a ball of white flowers with His right hand. To the joy of His bhaktas, He was sitting in a charming fashion. A sabhã of munis, as well as haribhaktas from various places, had gathered before Him.
36.2 Shreeji Mahãrãj then said, “How should a person view a person who has abandoned worldly life and accepted the clothing of a tyãgi, yet still has affection for useless objects? He should be viewed to be like a poor person beside a wealthy person. Suppose there is a poor person who has no clothes to wear and feeds himself by scavenging for scraps of food from piles of waste, not only does he consider himself to be a sinner, but other wealthy people also consider him to be a sinner. They presume, ‘He must have committed many sins, which is why he has no food or clothes’.
When one has already renounced the world, why should one have affection for useless objects? When one is poor, he sometimes feels that he must have sinned to deserve such poverty, such is the attitude towards a person who has already renounced the world, but still has affection for useless objects.
36.3 “Similarly, after becoming a tyãgi, a person who collects nice clothes and other pleasant objects with a strong craving for them, but does not have affection for dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti, is considered by the great ekãntik sant to be a sinner just like the poor person. As he is a sinner, he does not have love for dharma, gnãn, vairãgya, and bhakti. Instead, he has affection for objects other than Bhagvãn.
After renouncing the world, one should have affection of divine qualities like dharma, gnãn, vairãgya and bhakti but not for worldly objects. If he wanted worldly objects, then what was the point of renouncing the world? He should’ve stayed in the world affairs and worked for all that he wanted instead of lazing around and taking advantage of the renounced order.
36.4 “However, for a true tyãgi both dirt and gold are equal. Also, a tyãgi never makes distinctions by thinking, ‘This object is pleasant, and this object is unpleasant’. He never has such an understanding. Instead, he has love only towards Bhagvãn. Only such a person is a true tyãgi.”
For a renounced person, dirt and gold should be same, as he has no use of both, as all he craves of and cares for is God. Such should be the attitude of a saint, who has love only for God, who does not like or dislike any object for him, he just maintains his body with bare minimum objects, food etc. Thereby not overusing and abusing the resources.
|| End of Vachanãmrut Gadhadã I || 36 || 36 ||