

### Pragnya

Gnani Purush Dadashri

Shuddha Anami

Copyright 2010 by Shuddha Anami

Smashwords Edition

#  Word from the Translator:

Please note that Gnani Purush never wrote a word for any book. This book is a compilation of his spoken words in satsang, and Shuddha Anami is a translator within a collective, of the words spoken in Gujarati. Shuddha has been sharing the English translations of the satsangs of Gnani Purush Dadashri on the Internet since 1994.

Note About This Book in English

Aptavani 13 of Gnani Purush Dadashri in Gujarati language, published in July 2002, by Atmagnani Dr. Niruben Amin is in 2 volumes. The first chapter of volume 1 is on _prakruti—_ the non-Self complex _._ The first chapter of volume 2 is on _pragnya._ Both these words have relevance for the awakened One in Akram Vignan, the science that liberates directly through the grace of the Gnani Purush. In the _Gnan Vidhi_ of Gnani Purush Dadashri, the Self separates from the non-Self, and the new energy of liberation called _pragnya_ maintains and completes this liberated state of the Self.

In Self-realization, the Self that is separate form the self—the mind, speech, body complex—is experienced. This experience is beyond words. To facilitate the further experience of this separation, the reader of this book is requested to allow for the use of capital letters in the book, which have been used frequently for ease of understanding the message of the Gnani Purush. The small 's' is the self or the worldly interacting self, where the reader has to introduce one's own worldly name. The 'S' is used to denote the awakened Self after the Gnan Vidhi or the absolute Self. Similarly, the small 'y' is used for the worldly self, and the 'Y' for 'You' is for the awakened One. The small 'v' is for the vision through the worldly eyes or the physical eyes whereas the 'V' is for the Vision of the awakened One as the Self. In the same vein, the words that are meant to convey the realm and domain of the awakened Self have capital use e.g. 'Knower' or 'Seer' or 'Conduct' versus knower, seer, conduct as the self.

Many single words in Gujarati have different conveyance of meaning and a standard glossary meaning cannot be applied in this. Hence the implicit meaning in context is directly provided adjacent to the Gujarati word. Many new words in Gujarati have to be used. This is an unavoidable necessity, because this liberating Science is new to the world. It did not exist before 1958. Pragnya is one such word. This will become evident upon reading this book.

Shuddha Anami

New York  
August 2017

Word from the Translator:

Understanding Pragnya Exactly

Pragnya: Jada or Chetan?

That is not Right Intellect

State of Ugnya Shakti after Gnan

Who Follows the Five Agnas?

 That Which Keeps the Separation is Pragnya

 That Which Cautions Within is Indeed the Experience of the Self

Who Cautions the uGnani?

Who Feels Regret?

 Thoughts and Pragnya are Completely Separate

How can the Seer get Tired?

The Separated Chit is Indeed Pragnya

 Difference of Night and day Detween the two

Beware Against Listening to the Intellect

Pragnya is Independent From Buddhi

 Pragnya's Function is of Knowledge Activity Only

 Pragnya is Above Buddhi; Above Both is Vignan

Help of Buddhi in Spirituality

Intellect That Runs the Worldly Life

Are Right Buddhi and Pragnya the Same?

Owenership in Samyak Buddhi

Stithapragnya State and Manifest Pragnya

The State of Akram is Very Elevated

 The non eating- non-drinking- non-speaking Self

 Upto Ninety-nine it is Stithapragnya, and at Hundred it is Pragnya

 When Moha Leaves, One Becomes Still in the Unchangeable

Stithaugnya as Long as There is Doubt

Beyond the Stithapragnya State

 Is There a Place for ego in Stithapragnya?

 The Difference Between Stithpragnya and Vitarag

 Are These Discoveries Through Pragnya or Buddhi?

Pragnya Warns the ego

 Pragnya Helps one do Niddhidhyasan of Dada

Pure Chit is Indeed Shuddhatma

 The Unique Energy of Dada's Pragnya

 The Role of Pragnya in Settling a File With Equanimity

Decisions of Pragnya or Ugnya

How to Remain One With Pragnya?

What Part Does Pragnya Caution?

Who opposes mistakes?

Who Suffers the Results of Pragnya?

 Knower and the Sufferer, They are Both Separate

Pragnya Parishaha

Subtle Understanding of Shraddha-Pragnya

Relation Between Sooj and Pragnya

That is Darshan, not Sooj

Intellect Indeed is Ignorance?

Pragnya is Neither Real, nor Relative

 Difference between Knowledge of Separation and Pragnya

Shuddhatma, Pratisthit Atma and Pragnya

Gnayakta- Current Knowing: Whose is it?

A Perfect Couple: Jagruti and Pragnya

Dada's Meddlesome Pragnya

Significance of Grace

 Ego is Nimit in Jagatkalyan and Pragnya Makes one do it

Till Then Only Pragnya is Knower-Seer

 Who is the Meditator and What is the Meditation?

Gnan, Pragnya & Vignan

 Separation Through Intellect, Oneness through Pragnya

What Does Attaining Oneness Mean?

 I really appreciate you reading this book! Here are my social media coordinates:

#  Understanding Pragnya Exactly

**Questioner** : The constant awareness of, 'this is my state as the Self ( _swaroop_ ) and this is other' – which part has this awareness? What part is that?

**Dadashri** : It is _pragnya_ that shows [You all that]. _Pragnya_ shows You everything. It shows You everything as separate [from You-the Self].

**Questioner** : The awareness remains that the one showing these separate is also not me; I am this.

**Dadashri** : That is correct, _pragnya_ shows that.

**Questioner** : How did _pragnya_ arise and from where did it arise?

**Dadashri** : It arises along side with the _Gnan_ 'We- _Gnani Purush Dadashri and Dadabhagwan within_ ' give you. _Gnan_ gave rise to the _pragnya_. Work of the _pragnya_ begins from there on.

There are two energies within. _Pragnya_ _shakti_ (energy of the Self) arises when 'we' give you _Gnan_. Otherwise every living being always has _ugna shakti_ (energy of ignorance; intellect) within him. Therefore, when 'I' (Self)' and ' _murti'_ (non-Self complex) come together, it is called _ugnya shakti_. _Ugnya_ _shakti_ that gives rise to the worldly life ( _sansar_ ). It will not let one come out of the worldly life. _Pragnya shakti_ will not let the self remain in _sansar_. It will force the awakened One, tie 'him' up and drag 'him' to _moksha_. So this energy that has arisen continues to do the work. You (the Self) should not interfere in it. The work continues spontaneously; the work is happening naturally

_Pragnya_ arises after the _Gnani Purush_ removes one's egoism. Egoism and _mamata_ – 'my-ness' that arises out of the illusion of 'I am Chandubhai' – stand in service of _ugnya shakti_ (energy of ignorance; intellect). When _pragnya_ arises, energy by the name of _ugnya_ (ignorance); picks up all its things and leaves. Just as, when the Congress Government came to power, all the British left, did they not?

What has God said was the cause for bondage? Ignorance of the Self ( _ugnya_ ) causes bondage. Worldly life ( _sansar_ ) is being bound through _ugnya_. _Paap_ - _punyai_ (sin and merit karma effect) are created through ignorance. The opposite word to _ugnya_ is liberation ( _mukti_ ), which happens through _pragnya_. That _pragnya_ will constantly caution You. It was not there before, before there was _ugnya._ _Ugnya_ keeps on winding over and over in the wrong direction and thus giving rise to the worldly life. The worldly life is destroyed through _pragnya_. There is ego through _ugnya_ – ignorance of the Self. _Pragnya_ arises when one becomes egoless. It arises when the awareness ( _laksha_ ) of 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ becomes established.

In ignorance ( _ugnya_ ), there is, 'I did this, I suffered pain, he did it, he cursed me etc.' _Pragnya_ says, 'I am not the doer, I am not the sufferer, I am the Knower. The poor man who cursed me is just a _nimit_ (evidentiary instrument), he is also not the doer ( _karta_ ).' That is the ultimate knowledge ( _Gnan_ ). The ultimate tool for _moksha_ is the prevalence of the awareness that the other person is the non-doer _(akarta_ ) and having the awareness that You are not the doer.

**Questioner** : Is it _upyoga_ (applied awareness) of _pragnya_ to know _raag_ - _dwesh_ (attachment-abhorrence) as _raag_ - _dwesh_? Is _pragnya_ operating at that time?

**Dadashri** : The 'basement' of _pragnya_ is different. Even the one who is not Self-realised ( _uGnani_ ) understands that this person is doing _raag_ - _dwesh_. _Pragnya_ knows that _raag_ - _dwesh_ is gone. An _uGnani_ would not understand that. Even a small child understands _raag_ - _dwesh_ , does it not? If you pull a frown (angry look) on your face, the child will run away and not come back.

_Pragnya_ arises when _ugnya_ goes away. There is _ugnya_ (ignorance) as long as there is wrong belief ( _mithyatva_ ) in a living being, and when that wrong belief is removed, _pragnya_ arises.

**Questioner** : Does _pragnya_ not arise while living the worldly life, only _ugnya_ continues?

**Dadashri** : No, _Pragnya_ has arisen within You [the mahatma]. Is _pragnya_ not active within you despite you living the worldly life? Hence, wherever you have bondage in worldly life, it will always help you break that bondage forever through caution. If you are not aware, you will receive a caution from within; that is the work of _pragnya_. And when you are doing something in the worldly life, _ugnya_ _shakti_ (energy of ignorance) will tell you, 'You can get married if you do this', you are likely to find someone.' _Ugnya_ _shakti_ does caution but that will lead to wandering around in worldly life. And _pragnya_ will caution You for _moksha_.

**Questioner** : All the decisions are taken by intellect ( _buddhi_ ), aren't they?

**Dadashri** : Yes, the intellect makes the decision, but there are two kinds of decisions. Decisions for _moksha_ are made by _pragnya_ , and worldly decisions are made by _ugnya_. _Ugnya_ means _buddhi_ \- intellect. All the decisions are of _ugnya_ - _pragnya_.

The Production of Ugnya?

**Questioner** : What is the difference between _Gnan_ and _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ is an energy born out of _Gnan_.

_Pragnya_ is is indeed the direct energy, a direct light of the Self, and _ugnya_ is an indirect light. _Ugnya_ is considered a top-level intellect or even starting from the smallest level of intellect, but it is all _ugnya_. Nevertheless, it is still the energy of the Self. _Ugnya_ is the energy of the Self, and _pragnya_ is also the energy of the Self.

**Questioner** : How can it be considered the energy of the Self?

**Dadashri** : _Ugnya shakti_ arose as an extra result ( _vishesh parinam_ ).

**Questioner** : Dada, it is it not that it is the same energy. It results into _ugnya_ when it goes out, and when it is within...

**Dadahri** : No, it is not like that. _Ugnya shakti_ is different, but they are both the energies of the Self. Whereas, there is no such energy in the _pudgal_ (non-Self complex), is there?

**Questioner** : So does that mean that all the energies there are, they are of the Self?

**Dadashri** : They are all the energies of the Self, but as long as the Self is trapped within _vishesh parinam_ (extra result; the belief of 'I am Chandubhai'), it will not come out of the _ugnya shakti_ , will it? When it comes out of the _ugnya shakti_ , when it comes into its awareness of the Self, then _ugnya shakti_ will leave. That is when it results in the Self, thereafter _pragnya_ _shakti_ does the work. Then it will not let you go into the worldly life.

So, both the energies are of the Self indeed. There is no external energy in this. _Pragnya_ _shakti_ and _ugnya_ _shakti_ are both things of belief; they are beleif.

**Questioner** : Why did _ugnya shakti_ begin, what was the reason behind it?

**Dadashri** : Circumstance of coming together of the Self and the non-Self ( _jada_ ) gave rise to extra knowledge, and that is _ugnya shakti_.

**Questioner** : Between _ugnya_ and _pragnya_ , who has the dominance?

**Dadashri** : They both rule; each in its own location, both rule in their respective location.

**Questioner** : Is there a difference between _pragnya_ and _pratisthit atma_?

**Dadashri** : A tremendous difference. _Pratisthit_ _atma_ is this 'Chandubhai' and _pragnya_ is a part of the Self.

**Questioner** : From where did _pragnya_ begin?

**Dadashri** : It does not have a place of origin, it is time based. At the time when the wrong belief ( _mithyatva_ ) is fractured, _pragnya_ presents. With the demise of the intellect, it becomes present.

**Questioner** : Many times, in discussions, we say that _pragnya_ is part of the Self.

**Dadashri** : Yes, that is exactly what it is, is it not?

**Questioner** : Is it a part of the Self?

**Dadashri** : 'Part of the Self' – don't interpret it in this way. You take everything in your own language (interpretation).

That is its nature, it arises at certain time and then it ends after it takes one to _moksha_. Even this _ugnya_ that has arisen, comes to an end. _Ugnya_ comes to end when _pragnya_ arises. Just as daylight follows the darkness of the night.

#  Pragnya: Jada or Chetan?

**Questioner** : So is there some part of _vikalp_ ('I am Chandubhai') in the _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : _Vikalp_ has not connection here. _Vikalp_ is all _ugnya_. There is no _vikalp_ in it; it is _nirvikalpi_ – free from the belief of 'I am Chandubhai'; egoless state. It is _Chetan_ (the Self), not _jada_ (non-Self), but it has separated from the Self just to do this work (take the awakened One to _moksha_ ). [At that time] it will again become one with the Self.

**Questioner** : _Pragnya_ is not _pudgal_ (non-Self complex that fills and empties), is it a part in between the Self and the non-Self?

**Dadashri** : No, it is not something that is between the Self and the non-Self. It is the part of the Self that becomes separate the day 'We' give the _Gnan_. The Self does not do anything while it ( _pragnya_ ) takes one all the way to _moksha_. So as a part of the Self, it continues to work separately from the Self. Whole authority of the Self is in the hands of _pragnya_ , just like a power of attorney.

**Questioner** : So what can God do? He is a Knower-Seer. He does not interfere in anything at all; he is _vitarag_ (absolutely without attachment).

**Dadashri** : Nothing remains to meddle in, does it? _Pragnya_ is like God's representative.

#  That is not Right Intellect

**Questioner** : Dada, is _samyak_ _buddhi_ (right intellect) itself _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : No _pragnya_ is higher than that. _Pragnya_ is a representative of the Self. The Self itself does not do anything in taking you from the worldly life to _moksha_. _Pragnya_ is a part of the Self that is constantly alerting You in order to take You (the awakened One) to _moksha_.

That is _pragnya_ , and that is the main Self indeed, but for right now it is considered as _pragnya_. There is no activity of the Self itself that takes one to _moksha_.

When the work of _pragnya_ is over, it becomes still in the Self again. _Pragnya_ cannot be in every living being. _Pragnya_ arises when the _Gnani Purush_ makes one aware of his Self. In every living being, there is always _ugnya_ present if _pragnya_ is not there.

**Questioner** : _Pragnya_ does not allow _ugnya_ to come in, that is its only function, is it not?

**Dadashri** : Not letting _ugnya_ in is not even an issue. It will not only prevent _ugnya_ from entering but along with it, its function is to take You to _moksha_. If _uGnan_ (ignorance) arises, it will squash it and give one the understanding and take him to _moksha_. And the function of _ugnya_ is whatever a little light that has arisen, it will turn it into darkness, and take one into the worldly life ( _sansar_ ).

So we should not remain on the side of _ugnya shakti._ _Ugnya shakti_ has made one wander around in the worldly life. It has all the weapons; anger-pride-deceit-greed. It has a very heavy ego; that entire army is very strong. And, there is no ego in _pragnya shakti_ , which is why You have to be present. _Pragnya shakti_ cannot lose if You remain on her side. It will continue doing its work. It is _upsham bhaav_ (view-intent that temporarily prevents _kashaya_ from becoming overt; suppression) therefore close the gates immediately on any restlessness that arises within. But if one intentionally wants to be negative, saying 'I want to do _raag-_ dwesh', then that _pragnya_ will move aside.

It is solely for _pragnya shakti_ to not not have any problems, maintain service ( _sevan_ ) of the _Gnani Purish._ Thus that energy will strengthen. No hindrance should come to that energy. If it has not become firm and is new, it will go away when it faces any hindrance.

#  State of Ugnya Shakti after Gnan

**Questioner** : So both _ugnya_ and _pragnya_ are there. Is there _ugnya_ when _pragnya_ is not there, and when _pragnya_ is there, _ugnya_ is not there?

**Dadashri** : No, they both remain together. Confusion continues in that. Now that you have been given _Gnan_ , they remain together in the body. So _ugnya_ causes some suffocation. That _ugnya shakti_ will gradually perish, and _pragnya_ will increase.

**Questioner** : When suffocation arises, I feel that _ugnya shakti_ is about to leave.

**Dadashri** : When one becomes confused, at that time it is _ugnya shakti_. And then, when he is not in control, he becomes confused and then it comes to an end. That _ugnya shakti_ (energy of ignorance) will remain as long as _uGnan_ (ignorance of the Self) is there. By however much _ugnya shakti_ decreases, _pragnya shakti_ becomes liberated proportionately. Suffocation causes confusion. It does not take away anything of Ours, but when it causes suffocation, it does not allow bliss that was coming to you. You are sitting with the Self and so you should experience the bliss of the Self, but it will not allow that. It will let you suffocate. It will not make you worry; it will only cause you suffocation.

First all your desires of worldly life arose, and _ugnya shakti_ is working to fulfill those desires. But now, the force of _ugnya shakti_ is not going to increase a lot. Other desires are not going to arise from it. So a [new] seed is not going to be sown from a seed. Whatever you have is what it is, and at the same time _pragnya_ _shakti_ tells you, 'I want to settle everything. I do not want to leave anything _pending_ anymore.' Settle means to bring an end to it/finish it.

#  Who Follows the Five Agnas?

'Our' _ugnya-shakti_ is gone, 'our' _buddhi_ (intellect) is gone; 'we' do not have any _buddhi_ (intellect). Even the scientists would not believe that the intellect in 'us' is finished. No one would believe that _buddhi_ can go away, would they?

**Questioner** : Do some people have more or less _ugnya_?

**Dadashri** : _Ugnya_ can vary. _Pragnya_ works immediately upon the attainment of _Gnan_. Where does 'its' endeavor ( _Purushartha_ ) lie, thereafter? _Purushartha_ means to follow the five _Agnas_. If one does not do _Purushartha_ after becoming the _Purush_ (Self), then is it not his own fault? One is said to have become _Purush_ after attaining _Gnan_. And if he follows the _Agnas_ after becoming _Purush_ , he continues to become _Purshottam_ (God). The one who becomes _Purshottam_ , becomes _Paramatma_ (absolute Self). The path is indeed a systematic highway, is it not?

**Questioner** : Who follows the _Agnas_ , the _pratisthit atma_ (Chandulal) follows them, does it not?

**Dadashri** : Where is the question for the _pratisthit atma_ to follow the _Agnas_ in this? It is the nature of Your _pragnya_ that makes You follow the _Agnas_ that you have to follow. When the energy of the Self, known as _pragnya_ is present, then what else does one need? There is no interference of anything, is there? You just have to follow the _Agnas_. _Pragnya shakti_ is letting you do what _ugnya shakti_ did not let you do. When You follow the _Agnas_ , it means that, 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ is in your conviction ( _pratiti_ ) and awareness ( _laksha_ ), but only a little in Your experience ( _anubhav_ ). You have not become that state yet. You become that when You follow the five _Agnas_. So there is nothing else to do.

So, _Agna_ is _dharma_ (religion) and _Agna_ is _tapa_ (penance). As long as there is _tapa_ , there is _pragnya_. Until then one is not the main Self state ( _swaroop_ ). The attribute of penance is not in the Self; it is _pragnya_ that makes one do the penance.

**Questioner** : The experience of separation from the body that mahatmas experience after attaining _Gnan_ , and the awareness of _Shuddhatma_ that they have and the activity of Knowing that is going on; all this happens with _pragnya_ , does it not?

**Dadashri** : All the work is of _pragnya shakti_.

**Questioner** : So then it means that Seeing through _gnan-kriya_ (activity of the Self to 'See' and 'Know') is far beyond that?

**Dadashri** : That is it, right now the Knowing activity is that of _pragnya shakti._ That true _Gnankriya_ will happen when all these files have been settled.

**Questioner** : I read in an _Aptavani_ that, that which knows the impure ( _ashuddha_ ), inauspicious ( _ashubha_ ) and auspicious ( _shubha_ ) activities is intellectual activity ( _buddhi_ _kriya_ ), and that which Knows only the pure ( _shuddha_ ) is _Gnan kriya_. That is why I thought that _pragnya_ sees everything.

**Dadashri** : Yes, through _pragnya_. That _pragnya_ is up to a certain limit, it is there as long as these files are being settled. When the files have been settled, the Self itself is the Knower.

**Questioner** : So is this _pragnya_ there to help one reach up to the gates of _moksha_?

**Dadashri** : Not till the gate, it takes one right into _moksha_. Yes, the one to help You attain the absolute state is _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : Does _pragnya shakti_ come back after one goes to _moksha_?

**Dadashri** : No, that _shakti_ (energy) remains only until it takes one to _moksha_ (until one attains _keval Gnan_ ).

#  That Which Keeps the Separation is Pragnya

**Questioner** : _Pragnya_ makes sure that we do not become one [with the self-Chandulal], does it not?

**Dadashri** : Yes, _pragnya_ maintains the separation in exactness, You have been given the _Gnan_ of not becoming one form ( _ekaakaar_ ) as the self. _Pragnya_ makes You aware when any mistake happens, that is all.

**Questioner** : To be warned and notice caution, how am I to understand that?

**Dadashri** : Remain aware. Do not become 'one' with 'that' [Chandubhai].

**Questioner** : Yes, it does not become one with _vishesh bhaav_ (view of 'I am Chandubhai'). Does that not become the activity of the Self, Dada?

**Dadashri** : It is not considered activity of the Self at all in anything.

**Questioner** : Is the activity of heeding to caution ( _chetvoo_ , _cheto_ ) activity of the Self or not?

**Dadashri** : Heeding to caution is natural activity.

**Questioner** : Is it not of the _pragnya_? Is it the Self's or _pragnya's_?

**Dadashri** : It is of _pragnya_. It is all one and the same. In fact there is nothing else there, in fact. Do we not say to be aware? Maintain _upyoga_ (applied awareness). _Upyog_ is maintaining awareness.

**Questioner** : Is it that which becomes _tanmayakar_ (one)?

**Dadashri** : Yes, that is the _ugnya shakti_ , and what does not allow you to become one, is the _pragnya shakti_.

**Questioner** : Having become _Shuddhatma_ , only 'Seeing' ( _jovaanoo_ ) is in our control, is it not?

**Dadashri** : All the energy of seeing-understanding ( _jovani-samajvani_ ) is of the _pragnya_. The energy of _Shuddhatma_ that arises, it is of the _pragnya shakti_ , and energy of ego is the _ugnya shakti_ which is in the form of intellect. It shows profit and loss wherever it goes. It will show profit and loss (benefit-loss) even sitting in a bus. It will show profit-loss even when you sit down to eat.

**Questioner** : When you explain things to us, whom does it reach? The body or the Self?

**Dadashri** : The Self, of-course. But which Self? Not the Self that is _Shuddhatma_ ; the _satsang_ continues with the energy known as _pragnya_. It reaches, not the body, but to the energy that lies between the body and the Self. It is the _pragnya shakti_ that understands this. _Pragnya shakti_ catches whatever is being explained here.

#  That Which Cautions Within is Indeed the Experience of the Self

That which cautions You, the whole day long, is indeed the _pragnya_. It is constantly separating (Self and the non-Self). All this experience, the experience of the whole day keeps us exactly separate, does it not?

**Questioner** : That is correct.

**Dadashri** : It does not allow them to become one.

**Questioner** : The experience of the Self began from the moment _pragnya_ began, did it not?

**Dadashri** : Experie _n_ ce of the Self definitely happens [in the Gnan Vidhi]. Only then will it caution you, otherwise the _laksha_ (attention or target; here the Self) of 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ will not remain at all. Whereas here it constantly remains in your _laksha_ and it will also remain constantly is your _jagruti_ (awakened awareness). That light will continue to shine indeed, but what can it do if you drift off to some other place? And that light is constantly present if you follow the _Agnas_. If one completely understands this science ( _Akram Vignan_ ) in this way, then it will be beneficial. Does it caution You from within? It will caution You the moment you deviate anyway.

**Questioner** : Yes, it cautions me immediately within. Such is my experience.

**Dadashri** : Now, from that cautioning, do You not realize that despite no activity on your part, it continues to happen in this way? It cautions You when every mistake happens , does it not? Wherever mistake happens, it cautions You, does it not? What is that? It is _pragnya_. It will caution You the moment a mistake happens. Hence, this is science of the Self – _Chetan Vignan_. And where there is scriptural knowledge, one has to 'do' everything. You have to 'do' whatever is written in scriptures, whereas in this, You do not have to do anything. It happens by itself, does it not?

**Questioner** : Now, this _pragnya_ keeps cautioning, I do experience that for sure, but at the same time my _Purusharth_ (progress as the Self) has to be there also, does it not?

**Dadashri** : What _Purushartha_?

**Questioner** : With the help of _pragnya_ I recognize that wrong has happened, so should I not clean it by doing _pratikraman_?

**Dadashri** : The _Purushartha_ of _pratikraman_ will indeed be there. _Pratikraman_ do indeed happen. For the one who does _atrikraman_ , the _Purushartha_ of _pratikraman_ constantly happens. The _Purush_ (the Self) continues to perform the function of the Self _._

_Pratikraman_ does indeed happen automatically. It happens naturally and spontaneously, and if it does not happen, then he should do it. There is no 'doing' in it, one just has to have the inner intent ( _bhaav_ ). Where there is there is unawareness ( _ajagruti_ ), there must remain aware.

Who Takes one Away From Prganya?

**Questioner** : When something does not happen according to what _pragnya_ cautions, who/what makes me do that in the wrong direction?

**Dadashri** : When things do not happen that way, it's because of obstacles ( _antarya_ ) you had created yourself. So even if it is what You desire, it will not happen.

**Questioner** : What is the solution to the obstacles that have been created?

**Dadashri** : Whatever has happened has already come into effect. [The obstacle encountered now, is the result of obstacle karma bound in past life] You become free after suffering the obstruction; there is no choice. However, new ones should not be created.

Pragnya and Divine Eyes

**Questioner:** I can see the results of anger-pride-deceit-greed ( _kashaya_ ) and sexuality ( _vishaya_ ) that arise within through the divine inner vision ( _divya chakshu_ ) you have bestowed. Is that divine vision indeed the _pragnya_ _shakti_ ?

**Dadashri:** All this is 'Seen' only through _pragnya_ _shakti_. However _divyachakshu_ does only one thing: to See _Shuddhatma_ (the Self) in others. All these other things, anger-pride-deceit-greed, results of sexuality, that are seen within, that is all the function of _pragnya_ _shakti_. _Pragnya shakti_ works as long as the worldly results remain to be settled.

Hence, divine vision ( _divyachakshu_ ) does only one thing that is all. These physical eyes, shows the relative, and the divine eyes ( _divyachakshu_ ) shows you the real. Divine vision does not do anything else.

#  Who Cautions the uGnani?

**Questioner** : Many times, having done something wrong, I feel 'this should not happen'. Who feels that way? Does the ego feel that way or is it actually happens to the Self?

**Dadashri** : 'This should not happen' does not happen to the Self. It happens to the _pragnya shakti_ that is within; therefore the oinion has changed that 'this should not happen'. The ego says, 'this should happen', and _pragnya_ says, 'this should not happen'. Both differ in their opinions. One is headed towards east and the other towards west.

**Questioner** : Now the one who has not attained _Gnan_ , he also feels that, 'I should not be doing this.' So does he also have some level of his own honesty?

**Dadashri** : It is the knowledge ( _gnan_ ) he knows that lets him know that, but that knowledge does not produce results, it is not _kriyakari_ (does not work on its own from within).

**Questioner** : Yes. I wanted to know that, it is it?

**Dadashri** : That _gnan_ (knowledge) does not grow, it is _shushka gnan_ –knowledge, which does not produce any results, whereas _Vignan_ grows. This is called _Vignan_.

#  Who Feels Regret?

Now that You know the Self, what else is there left for you to know? You know that this is the Self and this is not. It is not the Self at the time of settling with equanimity.

**Questioner** :Is it the Self or Chandubhai that is settling with equanimity?

**Dadashri** : It is _pragnya shakti_. The Self actually does not have to do anything. If Chandubhai is upset, if he is angry, You will not like that, 'Why is it like that?' This is the Self, and that other is Chandubhai.

**Questioner:** Who feels repentance after getting angry? Is it the attribute of _jada_ (matter, the non-Self matter) or _Chetan_ (the Self)?

**Dadashri** : It is not the attribute of either _jada_ or _Chetan_. It is the nature ( _swabhav_ ) of _pragnya_. _Jada_ or _Chetan_ do not have such attributes. It does not have attribute like getting angry.

**Questioner** : This repentance that happens, who makes it happen?

**Dadashri:** _Pragnya_ makes you do all that.

**Questioner** : Who makes one do _pratikraman_?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ makes you do all that.

One can become a God when the mistakes begin to be Seen. How does one start Seeing mistakes? It is with _pragnya_ _shakti_. Mistakes are seen through _pragnya_ _shakti_ , which is a part of the Self. It shows You mistakes so You immediately bring about a solution. You say, ' Brother, do _pratikraman_.'

When _pragnya_ _shakti_ shows you the 'stains', You should say, 'wash it off. Wash this one off. Wash this stain off.' So he [Chandulal] wash away all the stains. When _pratikraman_ is done, it is cleansed.

**Questioner** : Who is the 'Seer' of the past mistakes that are Seen in the _samayik_ that we do in the _Akram_ path? Is it the Self or the _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ , the energy of the Self. As long as the Self is doing work in the worldly life, it is called _pragnya._ The Self itself does not do anything.

**Questioner** : Many times, you make us sit in _samayik_ and you tell us to recite the _Trimantra_. You tell us to 'read' (visualize in the mind), ' _Namo Arihantanam_ ', so is it the Self that is reading at that time? And when we read a book in _satsang_ , when we read the Aptavani, the pure _chit_ is doing the reading whereas that other, is read by the Self; so are the two the same?

**Dadashri** : The main reading by the Self is a different kind. The intent for mentioning the Self is to put You on the path. The reason for mentioning the Self is to put you on the path; it is not the sense organs ( _indriya_ ) at work here. But this original Self ( _muda Atma_ ) 'Knows' what the intellect is doing, what the mind is doing, it Knows all that. Even then, in reality it is not the original Self, it is _pragnya_. It is referred to as the energy of the original Self. Therefore, it knows everything. It is true that it Knows, but this cannot be considered wrong. There are no senses here. Similarly, the main Self is not completely there either. We do that just to get one on the path, therefore this is considered relative-real.

#  Thoughts and Pragnya are Completely Separate

**Questioner** : Now, when a thought comes, how can one distinguish whether it arose from _pragnya_ _shakti_ or whether it came to Chandubhai?

**Dadashri** : No thought is of the _pragnya shakti_. All thoughts come to leave as discharge. Thought is a discharge. They are of the _pratisthit atma_ , and they are of Chandubhai. _Pragnya shakti_ just Sees what thoughts have come! Good or bad thoughts have come, it Sees that. it does not delve deeper into them. Hence thoughts become _gneya_ (that which is to being Known). For the _pragnya_ _shakti_ , they are in the form of _gneya_. _Gneya_ means to Know, and _drashya_ means to See. Thoughts are _gneya_ and _drashya_ , and You are now _Gnata_ (Knower) and _Drashta_ (Seer).

**Questioner** : You have said that even the mind shows us just like radar. So now right how can I differentiate whether it is the mind or the _pragnya_ showing?

**Dadashri** : Forget about what is now. There is only _pragnya_ after 'We' give You the _Gnan_. _Pragnya_ is what frees you from all the thoughts and takes you to _moksha_. And the energy known as _ugnya_ , which worked through mind, which worked through intellect, takes you deeper into the _sansar_ (worldly life). So, now You have the energy known as _pragnya_ , so it takes You towards this side ( _moksha_ ). Thoughts that are of the mind is not the work of _pragnya_. Do thoughts come or not?

**Questioner** : Yes they come. I keep Seeing them with the view as the Knower-Seer.

**Dadashri** : Keep Seeing them, that is all. The one who 'Sees' the mind, has conquered the mind, and has conquered the world. This is indeed how Lord Mahavir conquered the world. So thought is the work of the mind. You (the Self) have to keep 'Seeing' any thought that comes. Thoughts are not of the _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : Is there any inspiration from _pragnya_ in there?

**Dadashri** : No. The mind shows a thought and we understand them in our own 'language'. _Pragnya_ cannot have thoughts at all. What is a thought? Thought means _vikalp_ and thoughtlessness ( _nirvichar_ ) means _nirvikalp_ the Absolute state of the Self. This is the _nirvikalp_ state. Therefore You have to 'See' whatever thought that comes, that is all. And _pragnya_ shows You all that [the Seeing].

#  How can the Seer get Tired?

**Questioner** : Is _pragnya_ the Seer of the mind-speech-body?

**Dadashri** : Yes.

**Questioner:** By seeing the mind-speech-body complex, the whole day, I feel tired so who is the one that gets tired?

**Dadashri:** That exhaustion is the wrong effects that are felt in the mind; that effect verily gets tired, no one else is getting tired. He will not get tired at all. The 'Seer' cannot get tired. The one who works gets tired.

**Questioner** : The 'Seer" is the _pragnya_ (the direct light of the Self, liberating energy of _Gnan_ ), isn't it?

**Dadashri** : It is indeed _pragnya_ ; it is the _pragnya_ that is working right now, is it not? As long as all these interferences exist, _pragnya_ will play a role. When there is no interference then the Self prevails.

**Questioner** : But Dada, I do get tired. Many times I feel that, when all this will stop? So when I get tired then only I will feel that way, won't I? If it is natural (sahaj) then this will not happen, will it?

**Dadashri:** You are getting tired but that too it appears that way. You cannot get tired at all! The 'Seer' cannot get tired. The one who works may feel the exhaustion. Exhaustion cannot touch to the 'Seer' at all. This is his previous familiarity of getting tired; he feels that he got exhausted.

**Questioner:** **Questioner** : Why does the mind do this? Why did the speech come out like this? May be the tiredness comes from such opinions that happen within.

**Dadashri** : Opinions. Yes, such things do happen within.

#  The Separated Chit is Indeed Pragnya

_Ugnya_ (the energy that takes one in worldly life) shows ways for profit-loss. It gives rise to dualities.

**Questioner** : You just said, 'it gives rise to dualities'. Now what part is it that makes you say, 'Gives rise to'?

**Dadashri** : That is just the words that are used.

**Questioner** : But is it the gross ( _sthool_ ) mind that says these words?

**Dadashri** : No, they arise due to the intellect ( _buddhi_ ). Arising does not mean like a man arises. They arise through the intellect.

**Questioner** : Yes. But the description you just gave is exact, is it not? You can See that it arises and You are telling us so.

**Dadashri** : Yes, but one cannot see what I see and tell. Hence, because of that, I have to say that they arise or how they arise. That [raising dualities, profit-loss] is not the mind; that is not the function of the mind.

**Questioner** : So what is the part that is Seeing ?

**Dadashri** : That part is _pragnya_ , it is the main part of the Self. Everything can be Seen [through it]. _Pragnya_ has arisen within You, but it will not work fully as long as _niralumb_ (absolute independent state) does not happen. It is still wandering within the tubers [karmic], is it not? When these tubers are destroyed, then the work will proceed. The mind can never show any such thing.

**Questioner** : Now, do we have to call it as _pragnya_ because it describes this; because it comes up to the layer of the description?

**Dadashri** : Yes, that itself is _pragnya_ , and it is the part of the Self. Hence, the _chit_ – inner component comprised of knowledge and vision, that was becoming impure, that which has separated from the Self, that itself becomes pure and works as _pragnya_. Only then one can 'See' and speak' ( _joyeeney bolaya_ ), otherwise it is not possible to speak after Seeing. And when one speaks after 'Seeing', there is no liability.

**Questioner** : The one, who speaks as he 'Sees", cannot hide it, cover it up or twist it, even if he wants to?

**Dadashri** : No he cannot. How can he? He has to say it as it is! Otherwise, on the outside, it will create a problem will it not? Instead of speaking as I See it, if I try to do something other, people will know that this is something else, this is not what it is. They may not know how to say it, but they know how to understand; that he is saying after Seeing, and this is being said without Seeing.

#  Difference of Night and day Detween the two

**Questioner** : Dada, what is the difference between common _buddhi_ (intellect) and _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : Common intellect means commonsense. It always helps you with solutions in worldly life. It opens all the locks of the worldly life, but not a single lock of _moksha_. _Pragnya_ does not arise without the attainment of _Atmagnan_ (Knowledge of the Self), or else _pragnya_ begins upon attaining _samkit_ (right beleif). How does _pragnya_ begin upon the attainment of _samkit_? It begins like the second day of the moon ( _beej chandra_ ), and here [ _Akram Gnan Vidhi_ ] full _pragnya_ arises. Then this _pragnya_ cautions you on the way to _moksha_. Who keeps cautioning You again and again? _Pragnya_ does. King Bharat had to employ someone to caution him, he had servants who would call out 'Bharat beware, beware', four times every fifteen minutes. Look, You do not have anyone else to caution you and that is why You have _pragnya_ that cautions You from within.

That which verily does clash-conflict within this body, the energy of ignorance- _ugnya shakti_ took pension a long time ago. There is no shout or scream [anymore]. There are no complaints from that side; there is no insistence from that at all. It is indeed that _ugnya shakti_ (energy of ignorance) that keeps one wandering in the worldly life.

'We' sit here having become _abuddha -_ free from intellect. Someone will say, 'You have a lot of _buddhi_ (intellect through ego)'. 'We' would tell him, 'No, 'we' are _abuddha_ (intellect sans ego) _'_. They ask, 'Do you call yourself _abuddha_?' I say, 'Yes. 'We' really are _abuddha_.' If _buddhi_ existed, then only would show profit and loss, would it not?

'We' are _abuddha_ , there is no problem, is there? 'We' called profit as a loss, and loss as a profit. No changes can be made for those with intellect and no changes can be made for those without intellect; _vyavasthit_ is such. Otherwise 'We' too would not have become free from intellect ( _abuddha_ ), had 'We' not understood _vyavasthit_. But 'we' know that everything is _vyavasthit_ , so then where is the problem? Therefore 'We' also told you that it is _vyavasthit_. So, if you don't use the intellect, you will become _abuddha,_ and it will be fine. It was when the intellect ( _buddhi_ ) went away from me, that I understood everything and what falsity was going on.

#  Beware Against Listening to the Intellect

**Questioner** : When there is interference from the _buddhi_ , I know ( _khabar padey_ ) that _buddhi_ – intellect has interfered. Who lets me know that? Is it _Shuddhatma_ or _pragnya_ _shakti_ that lets me know that?

**Dadashri** : _Shuddhatma_ does not do anything at all. _Pragnya shakti_ indeed does that. Instead of the _Shuddhatma_ , _pragnya_ as its representative, does all the work, and informs [You] ( _janavey_ ). And if you are going away from the Self, it ( _pragnya_ ) brings You back towards the Self . _Buddhi_ is called _ugnya_. _Ugnya's_ work is to [make sure] that you do not go off to _moksha_ , so it keeps pulling you back right here. The duel is between _ugnya_ and _pragnya_ , and if You blend with _ugnya_ , then that is it, _ugnya's_ work is done, [it] will become happy. Then _pragnya_ will get tired. What can be done when the main 'boss' blended in [does not stand up]?

**Questioner** : Dada for how long will the _buddhi_ , interfere in this way?

**Dadashri** : For as long as it is believed to be valuable. Say there is a crazy man in the neighborhood who comes around cursing you a few times every day. So, when he comes around, you would know that he has come to curse and so you would just continue to drink your tea and he would continue to curse. Similarly, let the _buddhi_ come and leave; You should remain as the Self. The rest is _puran-galan_ (filling-emptying non-Self complex). It will remain separate even if You do not say anything, and it will not refrain from coming even if you say anything.

**Questioner** : Are you saying that I should not listen to the _buddhi_ when it is interfering?

**Dadashri** : It is very good if you do not listen to her. But you will not refrain from listening to her. Even if you tell her [intellect] not to listen, you will not refrain from doing so, will you? There is no need for _buddhi_ if you want to go to _moksha_. _Buddhi_ is necessary if you want to wander around in the worldly life (life after life). If one has not read all sorts of things and the paper is blank, then for him it will be, 'this is Chandubhai and this is I' that is all, that is good. So all this is discharge.

**Questioner** : Dada, when we know that _buddhi_ is interfering and yet we listen to her; what can we say is happening there?

**Dadashri** : That is because you still have interest in listening to what the _buddhi_ listens, but even then _pragnya shakti_ will pull You to that [other] side.

**Questioner** : I recognize that _buddhi_ is interfering and I still continue to listen to it, is that not considered obstinacy ( _aadai_ )?

**Dadashri** : There is nothing wrong if you keep listening to her but you do not put it into practice. Otherwise You just have to keep Seeing what _buddhi_ is doing. There is no problem if You remain as the Self. You have lot of _buddhi_ , but there will not be any problem because You have attained grace of Dada.

**Questioner** : Dada, my _buddhi_ acts a lot but then I pacify it. I do not listen to her anymore.

**Dadashri** : You should not let it affect you. It was only when the _buddhi_ went away from us; that all the problems stopped! Independence – no one can interfere thereafter.

#  Pragnya is Independent From Buddhi

_Pragnya_ is the main attribute of the Self, and after the complete division of these two (elements – Self and matter, the non-Self), after they become completely disclosed, completely separate; it fits again back into the Self. Until then, it becomes separate from the Self to help take one to _moksha_.

**Questioner** : Does the unfolding of _pragnya_ happen after complete separation and this worldly intellect ( _buddhi_ ) goes away?

**Dadashri** : After the [complete] separation happens, _buddhi_ ends. The experience of _pragnya_ would have already begun, even when the separation has not happened completely. And the very meaning of the establishment of _pratiti_ (conviction) is that _pragnya_ has already begun on one side. _Buddhi_ remains in its place, and _pragnya_ arises.

#  Pragnya's Function is of Knowledge Activity Only

**Questioner** : This later state of _pragnya_ , is that considered _Gnan_?

**Dadashri** : No, _pragnya_ is indeed a form of _Gnan_ , it is a part of it. But as long as this body exists, it is considered _pragnya_ , and all the work is also the doing of _pragnya_. And when the body is not there, it is considered the Self.

**Questioner** : Because the Self does not do anything, is _pragnya_ considered its agent?

**Dadashri** : Yes, it is not as a doer; it carries out _Gnankriya_ (activity of the Self to 'See' and 'Know', and keeping separation).

#  Pragnya is Above Buddhi; Above Both is Vignan

**Questioner** : Is _ugnyaashakti_ (energy of ignorance) and _buddhi_ (intellect) the same?

**Dadashri** : Yes, that is _buddhi_ itself. But that energy manifests when _buddhi_ and the ego come together. We call it _buddhi_ when it is by itself, and _pragnya_ means _Gnan_. When the Self is involved it is _pragnyashakti_ (energy of the Self).

**Questioner** : Is _pragnya_ much higher thing than _buddhi_?

**Dadashri** : Yes, it is higher than _buddhi_ , but _Vignan –_ spiritual science is much higher than _pragnya_. The science you know of is through the _buddhi_ (intellect). So, are you talking about the science that is currently out there? You have understood that science in your own language. What you are referring to as ' _Vignan_ ', is it the same as what the world refers to as ' _Vignan_ '? That is the material science ( _Vignan_ ) whereas 'we' are talking about spiritual science ( _Vignan_ ).

**Questioner** : Ordinarily people refer to that [material] science as science.

**Dadashri** : But I do not call that science as science. The science ( _Vignan_ ) that I am talking about is a state much higher than _pragnya_. It is where there is no need for _buddhi_ at all. _Pragnya_ arises when there is the beginning of the end of the _buddhi_.

#  Help of Buddhi in Spirituality

**Questioner** : How long is there help from the intellect ( _buddhi_ )? How long is intellect helpful in spirituality?

**Dadashri** : _Buddhi_ helps up to a certain point in spirituality, but it will not let you to go towards liberation – _moksha._

**Questioner** : Yes, but to what spiritual stage does it take one?

**Dadashri** : Only up to the stage of understanding. Except for understanding, it will not go in the direction of the pull towards liberation. It will immediately pull one towards the worldly life again. The moment 'one' is pulled towards liberation, _buddhi_ will immediately pull him towards the worldly life. Therefore the intellect is only helpful in understanding spirituality.

**Questioner** : But it does not help one go towards _moksha_.

**Dadashri** : It will not work at all, will it? _Buddhi_ does not work; on the contrary _buddhi_ will lead him astray. On the contrary, it will teach him the wrong things.

**Questioner** : Any person who comes to Dada, he has to first understand this Dada's _Gnan_ through his intellect, does he not? Does one transcend the intellect after taking Dada's _Gnan_?

**Dadashri** : After that the control of intellect stops. Thereafter, _pragnya_ (liberating energy and the light of the Self) takes control. It is the nature of _pragnya_ to take You to liberation ( _moksha_ ); _pragnya_ keeps cautioning You.

The one, who comes here to understand spirituality, does not understand through the intellect. No one can understand through intellect from Me at all. This is because the words that I speak, touches your Soul (Self) after breaking the veils and then You understand. Otherwise, whatever I speak, the intellect cannot analyze at all. On the contrary, the intellect gets tired. The intellect ends up harassing you. You should not use that intellect in this. There is no need for it.

Whatever I speak, they are words that destroy the veils. So these words reach the Self after shattering the veil, and what I am saying is that accept them only if your Self agrees. And your Self does agree to this. So now intellect remains far away from this.

**Questioner** : So after taking Dada's _Gnan_ , _mahatmas_ (those who are Self-realized through the _Gnan Vidhi_ ) want to come to Dada again and again; is it because of _pragnya_ or the intellect?

**Dadashri** : It is not the function of either the intellect or _pragnya_. The functions of _pragnya_ and intellect ( _buddhi_ ) are different. _Pragnya_ does play a certain role. The rest, that brings one here is his merit karma effect– _punyai._

**Questioner** : Yes, that is correct but again will happen only if _pragnya_ plays the role, will it not?

**Dadashri** : If _pragnya_ plays the role, then all the _mahatmas_ should come here, shouldn't they? However, not everyone can. Do they not say, 'My merit karma effect ( _punyai_ ) falls short?' If _pragnya_ is responsible then everyone should be able to come, shouldn't they?

#  Intellect That Runs the Worldly Life

**Questioner** : The intellect that we use to run the worldly life, that is called _ugnya_ , is it not?

**Dadashri** : That is all _ugnya_.

**Questioner** : Dada this tug-of-war that takes place between _ugnya_ and _pragnya,_ only the _pragnya_ of those with merit karma effect, will win; is that not so?

**Dadashri** : No. Now only the _pragnya_ will win because _Gnan_ given by Dada will break _buddhi's_ 'legs'. So it cripples the _buddhi_. And it is certain that the strong _pragnya_ cautions one repeatedly; does it not?

And people ask me, 'Will I experience the Self?' I tell them that it is happening every day, what other experience do You want? When we give you a little 'beating', does it not happen? Should we 'beat' you on the back?

**Questioner** : Even _ugnya_ keeps working just as forcefully even with the broken leg.

**Dadashri** : Yes, that is how the work of that crippled one is. It jumps around more. You should tell her, 'Be quiet and settle down, now that you have become crippled. You have obliged us for a long time, it is enough now. You sit down now.'

**Questioner** : Dada, I experience suffocation when all these _nikali_ things (that are being settled), such as thoughts and everything come. Is _ugnya_ trying to take over at that time?

**Dadashri** : Of course, _ugnya_ will show its force.

**Questioner** : Is that why suffocation arises?

**Dadashri** : No, it's not just _ugnya_ that will do this. The mind too will do so if such things happen. On the most part it is the intellect that swells with force.

**Questioner** : Is _jignasa_ (inquisitiveness; curiosity) considered a part of _pragnya_ , or of _buddhi_?

**Dadashri** : Of the _buddhi_. It cannot be the _pragnya_ , can it? One is considered to have become a _Gnani_ if _pragnya_ stands up. But what is the _buddhi_ of _jignasa_ like? It is wise intellect, it is developed and the right kind.

#  Are Right Buddhi and Pragnya the Same?

However many hours, the intellect ( _buddhi_ ) becomes right ( _samyak_ ); however _pragnya_ cannot arise. It cannot arise without _Gnan_. What one considers as _stitha-pragnya_ state, it is a state in which after certain time, the _Gnan_ (Knowledge of or as the Self) reaches a certain level when one sees the light. That is in the _Kramic_ path. And here (in the _Akram_ path), _pragnya_ arises the moment 'we' give the _Gnan_. Even if one has not attained the _Gnan_ , he attains the right _buddhi_ ( _samyak buddhi_ ) by just sitting with 'us'.

_Pragnya_ is the direct light (of the Self) and _samyak buddhi_ is an indirect light. Therefore, _pragnya_ is directly a part of the Self. _Samyak buddhi_ is not like that. Nevertheless it too will have to be settled with.

**Questioner** : But _samyak buddhi_ is beneficial, is it not?

**Dadashri** : It is beneficial as long as one has not reached the 'station' ( _Gnan_ of the Self). Once having reached the station, it is not needed to proceed forward.

**Questioner** : But _samyak buddhi_ does not remain after attaining _Gnan_ or does it?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ arises after _Gnan_ is attained. Thereafter, _pragnya_ helps to settle it with equanimity. Hence, there is tremendous difference between _samyak buddhi_ and _pragnya_. _Samyak buddhi_ is just intellect, whereas _pragnya_ is a part of a permanent thing ( the Self).

**Questioner** : Can _samyak buddhi_ be considered _paudgalik_ (non-Self complex that fills and empties)? That indeed is one part, is it not?

**Dadashri** : It cannot be considered part of the _pudgal_ (non-Self complex), because _pudgal_ does not have any light. However dim light there is; it is light after all. But it is neither of the _Chetan_ (the Self) nor the _pudgal_.

However, the scriptures have called it _Chetan,_ but there can be no _Chetan_ in it. If you call this (the _pudgal_ ) _Chetan_ , then that other (real) _Chetan_ \- the Self, will not be found. Now, it is so written with a relative perspective. People cannot understand the relative perspective. People do not have the capacity to understand to this level. I can understand that it is written from the relative view.

#  Owenership in Samyak Buddhi

**Questioner** : What is the main difference between _samyak buddhi_ and _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : That _buddhi_ means _buddhi_. As long as the _buddhi_ (intellect) is there, its owner is there. _Buddhi_ comes with ownership. _Pragnya_ does not have any owner. Even wrong ( _viparit_ ) _buddhi_ has an owner. Even _samyak buddhi –_ right intellect - has an owner.

**Questioner** : One may have _samyak buddhi –_ the right intellect with an owner, can that intellect cause harm or would it show only the right things?

**Dadashri** : Definitely, it will cause harm too. There is no telling when the _buddhi_ would turn. Being devoted to the right ( _samyak_ ), there is no telling when it will turn and be devoted to the wrong ( _viparit_ ). And what does _samyak buddhi_ mean? _Samyak buddhi_ cannot arise in the worldly life. When one hears the words from the _Gnani Purush_ , his _buddhi_ becomes right ( _samyak_ ). Yes, after that such _buddhi_ does not do any attacking or any such thing. _Buddhi_ that does not attack is called _samyak buddhi_ ), and _buddhi_ that attacks in every situation is called _viparit buddhi_.

This attack (of _buddhi_ ) comes like the attack of the heart. Does _buddhi_ not have an attack? Chandubhai (File one) used to be hardheaded, had You not seen that?

**Questioner** : I did. Attacks did come, but I could not see them. It wasn't till I came to you that an 'Xray' was taken and I realized what it is all like within.

**Dadashri** : Yes, that is true. Only then can one come to Know. Until it is Seen ( _joyoon_ ), he would only believe the non-Self to be of the Self and under the ownership of the Self. What difference can there be between the two? What's wrong with it? The way it is everywhere, is the same here. Furthermore, divisions of 'this is good' and 'this is bad' have been made. Here (in _Akram_ ) there is no such thing as right or wrong, is there? Here there are things that take You towards the eternal ( _sanatan_ ). From that which is useless ( _mithya_ ), the talks here, all worldly interaction ( _vyavahar_ ) here, takes You towards the eternal. When You See this, You will realize that this is something different; it is not like that other.

**Questioner** : Does _samyak buddhi_ not make one make mistakes?

**Dadashri** : It will not incite one to attack.

**Questioner** : And awakened awareness ( _jagruti_ ) shows mistakes?

**Dadashri** : _Jagruti_ will show everything. It will show anything that comes and goes within. It is a part of absolute Knowledge ( _keval Gnan_ ). Until _jagruti_ arises, the world is sleeping with open eyes.

**Questioner** : _Pragnya_ cautions, so how does _samyak buddhi_ help?

**Dadashri** : It works in the same way, but it itself is destructible ( _vinashi_ ), is it not? Therefore, it cannot give any significant caution.

**Questioner** : It simply keeps the awareness of the beneficial and the harmful; that is all.

**Dadashri** : It is that same _buddhi_ , like the worldly _buddhi_. Nevertheless, if you continue to sit with the _Gnani Purush_ , that _buddhi_ will become right ( _samyak_ ). The _buddhi_ will continue to become right. Otherwise only _Gnan_ can be _samyak_ – but this intellect will become right. _Avyabhicharini buddhi –_ right intellect [intellect that does not take the wrong path] can even make a non-peaceful situation into a peaceful one; a stage before the coming of _pragnya._

#  Stithapragnya State and Manifest Pragnya

**Questioner** : There is _pragnya_ and _stithapragnya –_ please explain _stithapragnya_?

**Dadashri** : To become still in the understanding in what one believes the right way of knowing the Self, is called _Stithapragnya._

**Questioner** : Through the word ' _pragnya_ ', I am led to the scriptures that give knowledge about the Self, and to acquire that knowledge, and then _pragnya_ will arise. But you just said that ' _pragnya_ ' is a natural attribute.

**Dadashri** : That _pragnya_ is natural, is it not? This _stithapragnya_ is a different thing.

**Questioner** : With 'I am Chandubhai' ignorant state has happened. And then when I come to you and you tell me, 'You are _Shuddhatma'_ , that causes _stithapragnya_.

**Dadashri** : Not even _stithapragnya_ , it is something beyond the state of _stithapragnya_. _Stithapragnya_ is a state that arises when it comes closer to _pragnya_. It is a state, which is a witnessing state (in _sakshibhaav_ ) in the worldly life.

_Pragnya_ arises only after attaining the Self. And _stithapragyna_ state happens before becoming the Self. In worldly interaction it is present with ego. But is it is a very good worldly interaction.

**Questioner** In the _Kramic_ path, they refer to _pragnya_ as the intellect – _buddhi_ – becoming still in the Self, but does that _pragnya_ mean 'Knowing-Seeing – _Gnata-Drashta –_ in our _Akram_ path?

**Dadashri** : It is indeed the Self. It is a part of the Self, and on the outside, that stilled _buddhi_ is the state of _stithpragnya,_ not _pragnya._ So it is a state where one's intellect becomes still.

When _stithapragnya_ happens, _ugnyashakti_ (energy of intellect and ego) can sometimes take over. It can also go away with the help of _stithapragnya_ , but in _stithapragnya_ state, there is also the danger of it [ _ugnyashakti_ ] taking over. There is no fear after _pragnashakti_ arises.

**Questioner** : Therefore, does this state of _stithapragnya_ arise when one comes out of the _stithaugnya_ state?

**Dadashri** : No, it is the _buddhi_ that has become still. _Ugnya_ (energy of intellect and ego) is restless. Hence, the one whose _buddhi_ has become still, such is _stithapragnya_. Otherwise, _pragnya_ is not there at all, it is a _stithapragnya_ state. However, they will call it _pragnya_ , but it is relevant to the _Kramic_ path. This _pragnya_ \- it is a pure part of the Self that becomes separate.

**Questioner** : The Self and the self ( _pratisthit atma_ ) cannot be divided into parts, can they?

**Dadashri** : On the contrary, one will get confused. When there is the energy to hold and retain everything, then it is known through its parts. That much awareness is necessary, is it not? Awareness should be maintained from all sides. 'We' know every fraction of it.

**Questioner** : Can you please still explain this _stithapragnya_ in more details?

**Dadashri** : When a human being studies all the scriptures a lot, serves saints, works very hard in his business and incurs a loss, he rises through all kinds of experiences, wanders around and then when his _buddhi_ becomes still, it is called _stithapragnya_. His _buddhi_ becomes still. It is not affected no matter from which side the wind blows. When the _buddhi_ becomes still like that, it is called _stithapragnya_.

_Stithapragna_ is a state of awareness of extreme right discretion ( _sadvivek_ ). One progresses higher as he experiences through this state. The state of King Janakvidehi was even higher than _stithapragnya_.

_Pragnashakti_ is much higher than _stithapragnya_. In _stithapragnya_ , worldly interactions are ideal. Secondly, there is no criticism by others – such a one can consider his state to be one of _stithapragnya._ But this _pragnya,_ it will indeed take one to _moksha,_ whereas _stithapragna_ will still need a path ahead to go to _moksha._

#  The State of Akram is Very Elevated

**Questioner** : So, is the _stithapragnya_ state, a state before _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : It is a state before _pragnya_ , but people have elevated it ( _stithapragnya_ ) to a much higher level. It is a lower state. _Pragnya_ arises thereafter. First _stithapragnya_ keeps arising, and then _pragnya_ arises afterwards.

**Questioner** : So then a question arises for me that, after developing _pragnya_ and becoming still in it is called _stithapragnya_ , is it ( _stithapragnya_ ) a state after that ( _pragnya_ )?

**Dadashri** : No, it is not a state after that. It is a state before that (before _pragnya_ ). When _stithapragnya_ happens, it means that one has become still for sure. This _stithapragnya_ means that _pragnya_ arises fractionally at a time and one becomes still in it. But when 'we' give _Gnan_ , complete _pragnya_ arises.

Against the _stithapragnya_ state, there is a _stithaugnya_ state. 'I am Chandubhai. I am his uncle etc.', that is all a _stithaugnya_ state. When _stithaugnya_ leaves and _pragnya_ arises, there is no pain in _pragnya_ because one becomes the sufferer of his own eternal bliss.

**Questioner** : Is this the same state referred to as _stithapragnya_ in the Geeta?

**Dadashri** : This state is much higher than _stithapragnya_.

**Questioner** : Higher than that?

**Dadashri** : This is much higher state. It is a wonderful state. It is the same state as Lord Krishna had. This is a _kshayak samkit_ state (permanent attainment of 'I am the Soul'; permanent conviction of the right belief, 'I am pure Soul') state. Lord Krishna had the _kshayak samkit_ state, so his whole _mithyatva_ (deluded; wrong belief, 'I am Krishna') vision was gone. _Samyak drashti_ means the vision of the Self only, had arisen.

Hence, all this is higher. _Stithapragnya_ is a much lower state. But people never understood _stithaspragnya_.

Even _stithapragnya_ has not happened. People think it is _stithapragnya_ because they feel, 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , they become still in that for a short while and then it goes away, that is _stithapragnya._ One tries to become still in _pragnya_ and then he wanders off. He cannot constantly remain still in _pragnya_ , can he? He cannot grasp the whole science, can he? Because, it is after learning all the four _Vedas_ , the _Vedas_ themselves say, 'This is not that, this is not that'. If this is not that, then what is it? They will tell you, 'Go to a _Gnani'_. Because how can you put in words that which is inexpressible ( _avaktavya_ ) and indescribable ( _avarnaniya_ )? How can the Self (Soul) be put in words? That is why it is considered inexpressible and indescribable.

#  The non eating- non-drinking- non-speaking Self

**Questioner** : What is the language of a _stithapragnya_? What does he eat and drink?

**Dadashri** : This _stithapragnya_ is a high state, higher language, and just look; one even says wrong things about it! What does one eat? What has eating and drinking got to do with this state? Because the eater ( _khanaar_ ) is completely separate. The eater is completely separate from the One who has become free, and is completely separate from the one who is bound. The eater is also separate form the one who desires to be free; so then what does the one who is _stithapragnya_ have to do with the eater? Who would disclose such subtle and profound talks? Would anyone do so? What do you think? Is he separate or not?

**Questioner** : He is separate.

**Dadashri** : The 'eater' is indeed separate. That is why 'We-Gnani Purush Dadashri and Dada Bhagwan' made the separation. So there is no problem. 'We' do not have problem with what you eat. Then, one will ask, 'Can we wear clothes?' Wear first class clothes if you want. It is the body that wears them, does it not? 'Can we wear earrings?' Wear what you want to, even earrings. 'We' say this after Seeing that 'we' are separate like that, otherwise 'We' would not disclose this fact, would 'We'?' This is so because this body is separate from the One who has become free. The one eating, drinking, taking tea, sipping tastefully, stroking the moustache, all are separate. They are all separate also from the one who is bound. The one who is bound would not do all these things, would he? The bound one knows the bondage. The one who knows bondage and experiences bondage is called bound. All these people cannot be called bound, can they? They do not even know that they are bound.

_Stithapragnya_ is a word of worldly interaction.

When one does not feel fear in any situation – that is how still the _buddhi_ ( _intellect_ ) becomes. It is a part of the _buddhi_. _Buddhi_ has reached to the level of _stithapragnya_ ; [but] _pragnya_ has not arisen yet. Every living being is in the _ugnya_ (absence of Knowledge of the Self) state.

#  Upto Ninety-nine it is Stithapragnya, and at Hundred it is Pragnya

When Lord Krishna referred to the _stithapragnya_ state is a state lower than _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : Is _stithapragnya_ a lower state?

**Dadashri** : It is a state lower than _pragnya_. _Stithapragnya_ state means it is gradually attained through _buddhi_. Now which _buddhi_ is that? It is _avyabhicharini buddhi_ (virtuous, decent). Lord Krishna has referred to two kinds of intellects ( _buddhis_ ). _Vyabhicharini_ (adulterous, indecent) and _avyabhicharini_. _Avyabhicharini_ _buddhi_ begins to become still; presently it is indeed unsteady. Not still means emotional. It starts to become still, day by day. Just as when 97, 98, 99 percent becomes 100 percent, it is considered the main thing; completion happens. It is called hundred percent. This _stithapragnya_ state is hundred percent-total stillness of the _buddhi_ , and _pragnya_ is the absolute thing, the main thing indeed.

**Questioner** : Please explain that _stithapragnya_ state is not a state of the experience of the Self.

**Dadashri** : When _pragnya_ arises completely, then experience of the Self happens. As long as the adjective of _stitha_ (still) is there, the experience cannot be there. But when the adjective goes away and _pragnya_ remains; that is the state of the experience [of the Self].

_Buddhi_ (intellect) that becomes still is called _stithapragnya_. Such a person, is not moved by effects. And when the adjective goes away, it is called _pragnya_ , and in that final stage there is the experience of the Self. Till ninety-nine percent it is _stithapragnya_ , and when it becomes one hundred percent; it is _pragnya_.

#  When Moha Leaves, One Becomes Still in the Unchangeable

**Questioner** : Arjun says, " _Nashto moha, smrutilabdha, sthitosmi_ – I am now steady, because my illusory attachment is destroyed, and the awareness has been attianed".

**Dadashri** : Yes. But he has become still, has he not?

**Questioner** : Yes, so what I want to know is how?

**Dadashri** : For the one in whom when these following attributes happen; the one whose _moha_ (illusory attachment) is destroyed, that is the sign of becoming still. The other thing that helps within is that, _smrutilabdha_ – becoming aware of the Self, happened. That is the second help. It is becoming still due to all these reasons, and will remain at least somewhat still. From that point on it is called a _stithapragnya_ state, if it can remain still like that. However, he says that his _moha_ is gone. That is considered a high state.

**Questioner** : Here, ordinarily, everyone's situation is like a spinning top, and Arjun too was a human being and he is saying ' _stithosmi_ ' _._ It is said in there that he tells Lord Krisha, 'Oh infallible ( _achyuta_ ) One, I have become still through Your grace'. So is this a contradiction for human beings?

**Dadashri** : He became free from being the spinning top and came into the real (the Self), in spite of having the _prakruti_. That is because his belief was that, 'This is I', he was in _dehadhyas_ (false belief, 'I am this body'). That belief was completely destroyed. It is because _moha_ was destroyed and the belief came into, 'I am This (the Self)'. _Prakruti_ – the non-Self complex is restless and the Self is still. Therefore, the belief that was in the 'restless' (non-Self) is gone and the belief has arisen in that which is 'still' (the Self), and so he has become still.

#  Stithaugnya as Long as There is Doubt

How many mistakes of their own, can people see?

**Questioner** : One cannot see his own mistake if _pragnya_ is absent.

**Dadashri** : Yes. And then some one also asks, 'Is my state that of _stithapragnya_?' I said, 'Why did you have to ask? Do you have any doubt in it? If you have a doubt, then know that yours is a _stithaugnya_ state.' So there is no falsehood regarding the other side. He is already gone to the north. Just because he has not reached the North Pole, does that mean that South Pole is gone?

**Questioner** : Please explain what is _stithaugnya_.

**Dadashri** : One believes and derives happiness and joy in only that which is _uGnan_ – ignorance of the Self. He is still in only that. If he becomes restless in _uGnan_ , then we can say that he has made progress. What has he made progress in if he becomes unstill in ignorance? He is considered to have advanced towards _pragnya._

#  Beyond the Stithapragnya State

**Questioner** : There is something that is way beyond the _stithapragnya_ state, please explain that.

**Dadashri** : _Stithapragnya_ is such a state that on the way to _Vaikuntha_ (a state where all wandering chit tendencies end. Traditional meaning: heavenly abode of Lord Vishnu). Lord Krishna's _Vaikunth_ is – as one listens to Lord Krishna's talk, as one progress in his study of the Gita, the intellect ( _buddhi_ ) becomes still, and the one whose intellect becomes still, the Lord calls them _stithapragnya._ There is a lot more to be known beyond that. Here, [as _stithapragna_ ] he becomes eligible to receive the visa.

**Questioner** : Hence, is it _shuddha samkit_ (pure right vision) and _paramartha samkit_ (absolute right vision) ?

**Dadashri** : No. It is not _shuddha samkit_. It is _samkit_ that is lower than the _shuddha samkit_. One may even do negative if he encounters negative circumstances. But because his intellect has become still, he will not be swayed.

Yes, so when is it considered to be _samkit_? It is when the negative does not enter. No circumstance can shake him; that is when it is called _samkit_. Whereas the one in _stithapragnya_ state, can be shaken up by circumstances. Therefore, he has fear. Wisdom comes after the intellect becomes still; wisdom of a very high level comes. Presently, there are few people whose intellect has become still; very few indeed. There can be one or two such people in India, but alas otherwise not even that.

**Questioner** : Had the _pragnya_ of the ones with _stithapragnya_ not become established?

**Dadashri** : No. It is not possible to attain _stithapragnya_ state in this current time era. It happens in _Satyug_ (era of the time cycle of unity in thoughts, speech and activities). In the current era of the time cycle, when one's daughter goes to college and does not come home at night, one would think that she got married and that is why she did not come home. So tell me, how can the intellect become still? Whereas in those days [ _Satyug_ ]; they would not get married. It didn't used to be like this. No problems would come. How can the intellect become still nowadays? The daughter may get married any time [without notice]. Any time the young wife may ask for divorce. How can man's intellect remain still in such times? It cannot. It is the magnificent fortune of _Akram Vignan_ that has blessed everyone. Fifty thousand people have been blessed. There may be more or less, but they have been tremendously blessed for sure.

#  Is There a Place for ego in Stithapragnya?

**Questioner** : Is _stithapragnya_ an attribute of the ego?

**Dadashri** : There can be ego and _stithapragnya_ also arises; both can be present together.

**Questioner** : Or it may not even be there?

**Dadashri** : No, it is not like that; it would indeed be there.

**Questioner** : Please tell us about the line of demarcation between _stithapragnya_ and _vitarag_ (absolutely without abhorrence and therefore without attachment).

**Dadashri** : _Stithapragnya_ means, in the presence of the ego, the intellect has extracted the essence and non-essence of the worldly life and has becomes still; that is _stithapragnya._ _Stithprgagna_ state is considered a state of discretion ( _vivek_ ). It understands the distinction between the essence and non-essence.

**Questioner** : And is there no presence of the ego in the state of _vitaragata_?

**Dadashri** : No. Once the essence and non-essence is realized, then one is on his way towards _vitaragata –_ state beyond any abhorrence or attachment. So one has made the bottom line assessment that there is no pleasure in this worldly life, but it is in the presence of the ego. He has now found the path ahead; it has already begun.

Now, we, here, do not have _stithapragnya_ ; we have _pragnya_. So _stithapragnya_ is with ego, and _pragnya_ is without the ego. Therefore, one attains the Self a long time after he attains the _stithapragnya_ state, whereas _pragnya,_ in a very few life times, in one or two lifetimes will take one to _moksha_.

#  The Difference Between Stithpragnya and Vitarag

**Questioner** : So then what is the difference between _stithapragnya_ and _vitarag_?

**Dadashri** : Tremendous difference. _Stithapragnya_ means that one becomes still by thinking everything through his _buddhi_. And when it becomes still, one can bring about solutions to his problems. But that is called _stithapragnya_. So _stithapragnya_ is nothing but stillness of the intellect.

**Questioner** : But in that too, it is said that there is just as much lack of attachment-abhorrence ( _raag-dwesh_ ) as there is in a _vitarag._

**Dadashri** : No, it is not a state without _raag_ - _dwesh_. But it will bring about solution to every question. So it will not do any _raag_ - _dwesh_ towards anyone _._ Who would do _raag_ - _dwesh_ when he finds a solution? It is all through _buddhi_. Stillness of _avyabhicharini buddhi_ (virtuous intellect) is called _stithapragnya_. It is the one whose _buddhi_ has become still; people's _buddhi_ is not still. _Buddhi_ that has become still is called _stithapragnya_ , because it has increased further and further from the state of _ugnya_ and proceeds to reach all the way to _pragnya._

He still needs to study _vitaragata_ ; he has to study the path of the _vitarag_. When he attains the _vitarag_ path, _vitaragata_ will slowly increase. Hence after coming to the station of _stithapragnya_ , the attribute of _vitaragata_ keeps increasing.

**Questioner** : And is _stithapragna_ associated with kindness ( _daya_ ) or compassion ( _karuna_ )?

**Dadashri** : Yes, it is associated with kindness. There is no compassion. No one except the _vitarag_ Lord has compassion ( _karuna_ ). What does _karuna_ mean? It means there is neither _raag_ (attachment), nor _dwesh_ (abhorrence). There is no _raag_ towards a mouse to save it, or _dwesh_ towards the cat, that is called _karuna_.

#  Are These Discoveries Through Pragnya or Buddhi?

**Questioner** : The discoveries the scientists make, are they done through _pragnya_ or the intellect ( _buddhi_ )?

**Dadashri** : No, they have the vision ( _darshan_ ). There can never be a scientist without a vision. It is a natural vision. Help from nature is indeed his vision.

**Questioner** : All the saints like Akha Bhagat in the past, did they have _pragnya_ or not?

**Dadashri** : No. That is called vision ( _darshan_ ). It is not called _pragnya_. It can be called _pragnya_ only after one attains the Self. In the worldly terms they refer to it as _pragnya_ , but worldly will not do here, will it? What good is worldly? No one will pay for anything worldly there.

#  Pragnya Warns the ego

**Questioner** : When certain thoughts come, I respond with ' all this is wrong on your part'. Now who is the one saying this? There was nothing there before meeting you, so then who is the one guiding us like this? Is it _pragnya_ or the _buddhi_?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ warns You, because You have now attained the visa to _moksha_. Then if one suppresses that _pragnya_ through the ego, he will act crazy again.

**Questioner** : When this _pragnya_ warns from within, does it do so through the mind, the intellect, the chit or through the ego?

**Dadashri** : When _pragnya_ cautions, it cautions the ego, nothing else.

**Questioner** : But does it warn directly or what?

**Dadashri** : Directly. Nothing else has the right to do so, does it? There is no one above the ego. Even though the ego does not have a superior over it, it still does what the intellect says, all day long.

**Questioner** : What does the _buddhi_ do when _pragnya_ warns the ego? Does the _buddhi_ then remains aloof?

**Dadashri** : What does the _buddhi_ have to do with it? _Buddhi_ does not arise at all.

**Questioner** : Nothing then?

**Dadashri** : It is not the work of _buddhi_ , is it?

**Questioner** : Existence of _buddhi_ does not remain when _pragnya_ arises, does it?

**Dadashri** : So the _buddhi_ will help him later, depending upon what the ego tells it.

**Questioner** : Oh! So does the _buddhi_ also make everything right?

**Dadashri** : Thereafter they all get together and make things right. Not just the intellect ( _buddhi_ ); all of them.

#  Pragnya Helps one do Niddhidhyasan of Dada

**Questioner** : In the _samayik_ this morning, your _niddhidhyasan_ (contemplation with visualization) was happening everywhere, what is that? I understand that as the _shuddha chit_ ( pure chit).

**Dadashri** : No, that is all the work of _pragnashakti_. Pure chit is the Self itself. _Shuddhatma_ is indeed _shuddha_ _chidrupa_ (pure Knowledge and pure Vision ) _Pragnya_ is doing all that.

**Questioner** : I see Dada sitting everywhere, what is that?

**Dadashri** : That indeed is the _pragnya_. _Ugnyashakti_ (energy of ignorance) will show you other things; it will show you money, women etc. _Ugnyashakti_ gives you _niddhidhyasan_ of women, and _pragnya_ will give you _niddhidhyasan_ of the _Gnani Purush_. _Gnain Purush_ means _niddhidhyasan_ of the Self.

**Questioner** : Now, is it _ugnya_ department if the _niddhidhyasan_ of a woman arises after attaining the _Gnan_?

**Dadashri** : It is the part of that Chandubhai, what have You to give or take with it?

**Questioner** : No, so where is the function of the chit in this?

**Dadashri** : That is the part of Chandubhai; it is impure chit ( _ashuddha chit_ ).

**Questioner** : So where is the function of the chit in the _niddhidhyasan_ of _Gnani Purush_ that _pragnya_ gives us?

**Dadashri** : There is no need for the chit in that. _Pragnashakti_ itself can See.

**Questioner** : Are we talking about this as exact photography?

**Dadashri** : Yes, exact. Better than photography. Photography cannot capture so beautifully. Dreams are even better than photographs, and even better than the direct presence, it comes even better in dreams.

**Questioner** : There is no need for the chit at all.

**Dadashri** : Pure chit that was there, it became one with the Self. It merged into the Self.

#  Pure Chit is Indeed Shuddhatma

**Questioner** : Then who is the Seer of _niddhidhyasan_?

**Dadashri** : That is _pragnashakti_.

**Questioner:** It is the One indeed that Sees, and verily the One that holds ( _dharan_ ) it?

**Dadashri** : It indeed is everything. All the activities are hers [ _pragnya_ ]. There is no need of chit there at all. As long as the chit is impure ( _ashuddha_ ), it can see everything of the worldly life. Impure chit is not able to see anything related to the pure ( _shuddha_ ). Hence, when the chit becomes pure, it becomes one with the Self. Then what remains? Then nothing remains in the middle. _Pragnashakti_ continues to work, that is all. If there is interference, even the pure chit will start deteriorating. If there is darkness (ignorance of the Self), then it will continue to deteriorate. So where can we get it repaired again? There are no factories for it. And we will not have to repair _pragnashakti._ When that, which is not [eternal], if left alone, spoils, it has to be repaired. If that which is not, spoils, then it will need to be repaired. Therefore, there is no need for anything in the middle. All the activities are carried out by _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : Does _pragnya_ arise when the chit becomes pure?

**Dadashri** : When chit becomes pure, that is when it merges with _Shuddhatma_. Thereafter begins the energy of _pragnya_. _Shuddha_ (pure) _chit_ is itself _shuddha chidrupa atma_ – the pure Vision and Knowledge Self.

**Questioner** : This _niddhidhyasan_ of the _Gnani Purush_ which prevails, you call it _pragnya_. So then you also say that however much one can maintain the _niddhidhyasan_ , that much purer the chit becomes, do you not?

**Dadashri** : _Chitshuddhi_ (purification of chit) has already happened, has it not?

**Questioner** : It has become complete at its core, but what becomes of that impure ( _ashuddha_ ) _chit_?

**Dadashri** : Impure _chit_ will take care of all the worldly activities. Do mind-intellect- _chit_ and ego interfere in the pure _chit_ any day? They will interfere if the _chit_ is impure, not if it is pure. If there is a third person, interference will happen. Is there any interference? Go ahead and do the _niddhidhyasan_ some day and [tell me].

**Questioner** : Whose interference is there in the process of the _niddhidhyasan_?

**Dadashri** : That is the unfolding karma ( _udaya karma_ ).

**Questioner** : Because, if _pragnya_ has its own independent department, then _pragnya_ has arisen within all the mahatmas, and yet for our mahatmas after _Gnan_ ...

**Dadashri** : _Gnan_ does not arise equally in all. It all depends on one's capacity. Then he can follow the Five _Agnas_ accordingly.

**Questioner** : So you say that it expresses according to one's capacity? Why is that?

**Dadashri** : But of course. His _nischayabada_ (the energy as the Self that is different from the power of the decision of the self) etc, should be there, no? Is it not different for everyone? It is different for everyone. It is different for him, it is different for you; it is different for everyone, is it not?

**Questioner** : But, complete pure ( _shuddha_ ) _chit_ has happened in all these people ( _Mahatmas-_ recipients of the _Gnan Vidhi_ ); is that what you are saying?

**Dadashri** : Yes, only then will one attain the Self !

**Questioner** : So then if pure chit became completely pure, then will that much _pragnya_ arise?

**Dadashri** : Yes. The Self becomes pure ( _shuddha_ ) when 'We' give _Gnan_ , and so _pragnya_ will indeed arise. Thereafter, in the energy of the Self [awakened Self] for following the five _Agnas_ ; to whatever level there exists interference ( _bhanjghad_ ) by that much will be his loss of benefit.

**Questioner** : So, to whatever extent the following of the _Agnas_ happens, that much corresponding blossoming of the energy of _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : Yes, that _nischayabada_ ( the driving energy of the awakened Self that is different from the ego based strength of the separated self ) etc, should be there.

**Questioner** : But whose _nischayabada_ is in that?

**Dadashri** : Everything is of the Self [awakened Self] indeed .

**Questioner** : One makes the _nischaya_ (firm decision) himself, and then he himself becomes strong in it, is it like that? I did not understand that.

**Dadashri** : When impure chit ( _ashuddha chit_ ) and mind ( _mana_ ) and such else, exercise dominance _nischaybada_ ceases. In this level, the lesser of the one, the stronger of the other, prevails. All these will interfere (do _dakho_ ), no? If you are sitting in _dhyan_ (meditating as the Self) in solitude, what happens if people create a ruckus and a commotion ( _ho ho_ ) outside? Similarly when external noise and commotion happens, for the one for whom there is greater interference, that one will not succeed.

**Questioner** : That is very correct. If the external commotion becomes less, then...

**Dadashri** : 'We' do not have any external commotion, so do 'We' have any problem? And you will become restless even if there were commotion from just three people. Nothing like 'they are doing it to me' touches me at all. That is how I sit; I would not sit on the outside, would I? And I do not even have the desire to do so. If you have the desire to sit outside, then go ahead and sit outside with three people and join in the commotion ( _Ho ho_ ) 'I' sit in my own 'room' and [join dramatically] doing ' _ho ho'_. When would I ever be done with so many people?

**Questioner** : You skillfully slip into your own 'room'.

**Dadashri** : Indeed 'I' remain seated within. 'I' do not come out at all. It is indeed a mistake if you feel that 'I' come out, if at times you see a shadow. In reality, it is not 'I'.

**Questioner** : That is true. You do not come out even when we pull you.

#  The Unique Energy of Dada's Pragnya

**Dadashri** : If I were to come out [of the Self], then who would go this man's house? Does he [Dada] not come to your house at five in the morning? So that is for always, isn't it? Even those in America will say 'Dada comes to my house too'. It is a fact that Dada goes there, is it not?

**Questioner** : Yes, but who is it that goes there?

**Dadashri** : But it is a fact that he goes there, is it not?

**Questioner** : People do experience that. I don't know whether he goes from here or not, but they feel that he does. What is that?

**Dadashri** : It is all energy; it is a tremendous energy of _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : We remember (do _smaran_ of) Dada, and Dada comes to our home and blesses us, what is that? What is that phenomenon? Is it some kind of a process?

**Dadashri** : All that goes into the process of _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : We think of Dada and Dada comes, is it a part or the whole of you that comes?

**Dadashri** : It is all the work of _pragnya._ The Dada that comes within memory is the same as the Self. It is indeed your own Self that becomes Dada and does the work. So that is dependent upon one's own _bhaav_ (deep inner view-devotion), and that _bhaav_ has to be of _pragnya._ Someone will say that even _uGnani_ (non-Self-realised) can see his Guru. That is purity of the chit.

**Questioner** : So is it the _pragnya shakti_ that is doing the work from your side? When one experiences that Dada has come to him, is it of your _pragnya shakti_ or is it his _pragnya shakti_?

**Dadashri** : It is from this very _pragnashakti_. It is the _pragnashakti_ of the one 'going'.

**Questioner** : What does 'the one going' mean?

**Dadashri** : It is the _pragnashakti_ of the 'one' who goes to his house; it is his.

**Questioner** : The one whose house he goes to, it is his imagination otherwise that is how it appears to him – so then it is his own, is it not? It is when he informed you that we knew that you had gone there.

**Dadashri** : He must have such inner intent-devotion ( _bhaav_ ) that is why it all comes together. It does not take long for that energy; if the other person has the _bhaav_ , then the energy will reach, it can even reach all the way to America from here.

**Questioner** : So this _pragnashakti_ of Yours is _vitarag_. It is pulled towards the one who does the _bhaav_.

**Dadashri** : It will be pulled. What else? It will be pulled towards the one whose _bhaav_ is strong.

**Questioner** : Would you know when it is pulled?

**Dadashri** : Why would I keep a track of it?

**Questioner** : No, but would you know even if you didn't pay attention?

**Dadashri** : No.

**Questioner** : Would it not reflect in your _Gnan_?

**Dadashri** : It would reflect provided 'We' paid attention to it. But why would we pay attention on that side? There are films of so many people, when would I [have the time to] pay attention to them and when would my work be done?

**Questioner** : There is no need to do that; it just needs to be 'Seen'.

**Dadashri** : On the contrary, it will arouse interest in it. It will create a habit. There is no need for 'us' to See that film. If a film had to be seen, would I not go to the movie theatre and see it? At least the movie would be over in three hours but this movie would never let go of me.

#  The Role of Pragnya in Settling a File With Equanimity

**Questioner** : Does _pragnashakti_ have any control over file number one?

**Dadashri** : No, no control.

**Questioner** : Now, when I say, 'Chandubhai, pay more attention in this', who says that to Chandubhai? At that time when this worldly interaction happens, is that of intellect ( _buddhi_ ), of the ego, or of _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : It is worldly interaction activity; it is of both: the ego and the intellect.

**Questioner** : Is there any _pragnya_ in it?

**Dadashri** : No _pragnya_. _Pragnya_ is the One that says that settlement with equanimity needs to be done, that is _pragnya._

**Questioner** : But the intellect and the ego play a role in it, then that activity ( _kriya_ ) is under the control of _vyavasthit_ , is it not?

**Dadashri** : It is indeed based on _vyavasthit_ , You do not any responsibility.

**Questioner** : When 'I' tell 'Chandubhai', is this 'I' not the _pragnya_ telling 'Chandubhai'?

**Dadashri** : Yes it is indeed the _pragnya_ saying that. 'I' is _pragnya._

**Questioner** : Then, does the rest of the activity happen based on _vyavasthit_?

**Dadashri** : Yes, based on _vyavasthit_. But when done by _vyavasthit_ , if the hand ends up hitting someone, You have to say, 'Chandubhai, you did _atikraman_ (did aggression), so do _pratikraman_ , that is all'. And that remains on the safe side. If he is hurt slightly, there is no problem. But, when he does _pratikraman_ , then You do not have anything to give or take with it.

**Questioner** : Who settles a file with equanimity?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnashakti_. That is what cautions, it settles the files; it does all that.

**Questioner** : I asked because there is also the file of Chandubhai. Otherwise, is it not that Chandubhai sees all the files?

**Dadashri** : That cannot happen, can it? Chandubhai does not have any give or take in it. _Pragnashakti_ keep settling the files with equanimity, and it also cautions. If any mistake happens, it cautions. It is not Chandubhai that cautions. Chandubhai is the one with mistakes. Even the Self does not caution. The Self will not get in the business of cautioning. Hence _pragnya_ is doing all this work; it settles files with equanimity.

#  Decisions of Pragnya or Ugnya

**Questioner** : Who makes the decision ( _nischaya_ )? Does file number one make that decision?

**Dadashri** : Only You will have to make the decision! 'You' (the awakened Self) have to make the decision.

**Questioner** : So is it the _Shuddhatma_ (pure Soul; the Self) that makes the decision?

**Dadashri** : No, no, not the pure Soul, it is its _pragnashakti_. _Pragnashakti_ (the liberating energy of the Self) will not refrain from making You make the decision. One makes the decision at the very time he attains _Gnan_.

**Questioner** : Dada says that, 'There is nothing about following the _Agna_ in this. You make a firm decision that You want to stay in _Agna_ , that's it, leave everything else to me.' This is what You are saying, isn't it?

**Dadashri** : You just have to follow the _Agna_. You don't need to see whether it happened according to the _Agna_ or not. You just decide that You want to follow the _Agnas_ , that is all.

**Questioner** : So with regards to making a decision ( _nischaya_ ), You are saying that we are not to do anything. And then You are saying that we should do the _nischaya_.

**Dadashri** : Those are only words; such are words. Dramatic words; there is no doer ship in that.

**Questioner** : Yes, it is just for the sake of communication. But this decision, who makes that decision?

**Questioner** : But when _Gnan_ did not exist, it was the ego making the decision; _pragnya_ was not making decision at the time.

**Dadashri** : That is correct. It was not the ego, but rather _ugnya_ (energy of ignorance) was doing it. And now _pragnya_ is making the decision. _Ugnya -_ ignorance makes all the decisions for the _uGnani_ (the one without _Gnan_ ), and _pragnya_ makes decision for the one who has attained this _Gnan_. _Ugnya_ and _pragnya_ , they are both energies. _Ugnya_ is the wrong belief and _pragnya_ is the right belief.

**Questioner** : Is it more correct to say that one should maintain _nischaya_ rather than say one should do the _nischaya_?

**Dadashri** : To do or maintain, whichever is used, You are to do follow that which accomplishes Your goal. It is not a question of using the word 'do' or 'maintain'; that is not the question.

**Questioner** : Does _pragnya_ make the decision, or does it make one do the decision?

**Dadashri** : It makes the decision ( _nischaya_ ), it makes You make the decision; it is the same thing. There is no difference.

**Questioner** : So then we can also say that it makes one make the _nischaya_ , makes one maintain the _nischaya_.

**Dadashri** : Yes, you can say that. It is all the same. By over analyzing, by doing the postmortem, it will get spoiled unnecessarily. You will lose the intent behind what we are trying to tell you. Do not over analyze. Simply understand that this is done by _pragnya_ and this is done by _ugnya_. That is all. [Otherwise] the intellect ( _buddhi_ ) will show you all kinds of disguises.

#  How to Remain One With Pragnya?

**Questioner** : Who maintains the awareness of what is trustworthy and what is not?

**Dadashri** : It is all the work of _pragnashakti_ (energy of the Self), but when the _pragnashakti_ is not active, then that discharge ego is doing all the work. So when it is doing that, You (the awakened Self) have to 'See' what he is absorbed ( _tanmayakar_ ) in! Instead of remaining one with _pragnya_ , he becomes absorbed in that other, the non-Self, he slips. If the _jagruti –_ awakened awareness as the Self is there, One will remain in _pragnya._ Having entered into that other (the non-Self), _ajagruti -_ unawareness prevails.

**Questioner** : Having received this _Gnan_ form You, he does want to remain in _jagruti_ (awakened and aware).

**Dadashri:** He would have such a desire, but the _jagruti_ will not remain, because of the old habit. That old habit makes him slip into that other side (the non-Self). But the one who has strong inner intent-view ( _bhaav_ ), will call him back, even if he slips, 'Hey, don't you go there.' He (the awakened one) will know that, will he not?

**Questioner** : Please explain more clearly about being absorbed in the _pragnya_.

**Dadashri** : To remain sincere. Who are You sincere to? Now, remain sincere to _pragnya_ if You want to attain _moksha_ (final liberation). If you want to stroll around for pleasure-pain then go there – the non-Self world -for a little while. Right now, it is a different matter if unfolding of karma takes you there. Even when the force of the unfolding karma drags you there, You should stay on this side—the Self. You should maintain your efforts to reach the shore, even if the river current pulls you on that other side. Should You not attempt to reach the shore? Or should you get pulled in whichever way it pulls you?

**Questioner:** So if one's _nischaya_ (decision) is strong then he will remain sincere, will he not?

**Dadashri:** If it is firm decision then only he will be able to hold on. But what about the one who does not have the _nischaya_? He will go wherever the river pulls him, and the shore will be left behind. And you should make an effort to reach the shore. The river will pull you away, and you should make a strong effort towards the shore. Whatever little you move towards the shore is good. You will reach the ground.

So through this science ( _Vignan_ ), the _pragnashakti_ that cautions in _moksha_ (the liberated State); arises. After this, one should remain positive. He should not harbor any negativity. Positive means that you should be happy with it. Everyone maintains positivity and they do not let any worldly difficulties affect them. If one remains proper, everything within will get settled in such a way that it will not touch him. This is because in the ignorant state, when one had not attained the Self, one had not really attained God, even then the worldly life was going on fine, so then will it be ruined after attaining of the Self? Of course, it will not ruin.

#  What Part Does Pragnya Caution?

**Questioner** : Thereafter, does _pragnya_ caution the _pratisthit atma_ (relative self)?

**Dadashri** : Yes, it cautions the part that is the ego in the relative self ( _pratishtit atma_ ). It is the part that wants to become free. There is the ego of becoming bound, and the ego of wanting to become free. It cautions the ego that wants to be free.

**Questioner** : So, that means that it is actually cautioning Chandubhai, does it not?

**Dadashri** : No, it cautions the ego. The owner of the name 'Chandubhai'; the ego. There are two kinds of egos. One is the ego that gave rise to all this, and that ego is gone. The ego that is trying to become free...

**Questioner** : It ( _pragnya_ ) cautions that one.

**Dadashri** : Yes. So it helps the ego that is trying to become free. However everyone indeed has the ego of wanting to be free, but until _pragnya_ arises, who will caution? Therefore he remain entangled.

#  Who opposes mistakes?

**Questioner** : The _pragnya_ within cautions us whenever a mistake is being made. The opposing intent, 'this should not happen' that arises within towards a mistake, who shows that? Is that also _pragnya_ doing it? Are _pragnya_ and the opposing intent present together?

**Dadashri** : The light is that of the _pragnya_ , and the _chit_ whose tendency ( _chit_ _vruti_ ) has become pure within, does that. But the light is of the _pragnya_ , and that is why one can say that _pragnya_ is doing it. It shows all the mistakes.

**Questioner** : But then the visible gestures and inner intents ( _haavbhaav_ ) of _pragnya_ that arises in opposition to what happens, do they happen at the same time?

**Dadashri** : That is not considered an opposing intent.

**Questioner** : Is, 'This should not happen', not an opposing intent? Does this not arise against any negative intent-view that happens?

**Dadashri** : 'This should not happen', is _Atma bhaav -_ view of the Self, and what is happening is _dehadhyas bhaav_ (view-intent of the non-Self, the body complex). Intent- view of both are different, are they not? That is the _swabhav bhaav_ (of the Self), and the other is _vibhaav bhaav_ (of the non-Self).

**Questioner** : So is _pragnashakti_ itself _vishesh bhaav_?

**Dadashri** : No. Anger-pride-deceit-greed is called _vishesh bhaav_. I- ego and all that is _vishesh bhaav_.

**Questioner** : The movement and progress towards ( _Purushartha_ ) the Self ( _Atma dharma_ ), whose activity is that?

**Dadashri** : That is all _pragnashakti_. How long does this _pragnashakti_ remain? By attaining this _Gnan_ , You have become the Self, but the Self is still as in faith ( _shraddha_ ), in conviction ( _pratiti_ ), it is in _Darshan_ (Vision), but it has not come into Knowledge ( _Gnan_ ). It has not come into Conduct as the Self ( _Charitra_ ), and so until then _pragnashakti_ continues to do the work.

#  Who Suffers the Results of Pragnya?

**Questioner** : Whatever work is being done by the _pragnya_ , even if _pragnashakti_ does the work, who suffers ( _bhogavey_ ) those results?

**Dadashri** : What is there to suffer? There is no suffering in what is done by _pragnashakti_. There is just the bliss ( _anand_ ), and bliss is one's own nature. The one who did not have that bliss is the one in it.

**Questioner** : Who experiences that bliss? Does the relative (non-Self) or the Real (the Self) experiences that?

**Dadashri** : No, no. It is the relative that experiences it. The Real is already in bliss, is it not? The one who was missing such bliss is the one experiencing it. Tell me yourself, before you used to be this and now it is your ego that is experiencing it. Now that You have become the pure Soul ( _Shuddhatma_ ), You have come into _pragnya-swaroop –_ state of _pragnya_. The ego is the one experiencing it. Hence, the dejection it was experiencing, that which it was lacking, all goes away by experiencing this bliss. Plus minus happens.

#  Knower and the Sufferer, They are Both Separate

**Questioner** : Who suffers at the time of unfolding of _vedaniya_ _karma_ (karma that brings suffering of pain), and at the same time, who is the knower of that suffering?

**Dadashri** : The ego suffers, and _pragnya_ Knows. _Pragnya_ also Knows the sufferer, and the sufferer suffers the pain. You can say the sufferer ( _vedak_ ) is the ego. Everything comes into ego.

Ego believes 'I am indeed the one suffering'. And so it suffers. That is why it is called the sufferer – _vedak._ And _pragnashakti_ is the Knower in all that. Now, for many of our mahatmas, _pragnashakti_ gets left behind, and they come into suffering view – _vedak bhaav._ This increases the pain, but they don't incur any loss. If one becomes the body-mind form ( _tanmayakar_ ) then the pain ( _dukha_ ) will increase.

When I give _prasad_ (scolding or even slapping the back, sometimes) to these youngsters; I give it to them with love and so they do not feel any pain, but they would feel pain if I were to do that with the slightest frown on my face. That is because there is ego involved in it. When given with love, the ego of neither the one taking the beating, nor the one giving the beating is involved, and that is why they feel good.

So if you become one with the sufferer ( _vedak, ego_ ) you will suffer a lot of pain. Pain will be reduced a lot if You remain the Knower ( _Gnayak_ ). Remaining as the Knower, makes it possible to give harsh treatment with love.

#  Pragnya Parishaha

**Questioner** : Does speech become unveiled when a fraction of _Gnan_ [Experience as the Self] happens?

**Dadashri** : Yes, it happens. Speech will unfold. And when speech [that which liberates] unfolds, if one is not allowed to speak, _pragnya parishaha_ (inner burning where one is able but unable to share enlightened words) arises but cannot say anything. It will have to be suffered with equanimity. This [liberating] speech unfolds on its own. Later, that speech will become speech of Knowledge ( _Gnanvani_ ). This means a speech that will make others understand, such a speech will come out. But when You are explaining to someone and he is not listening, at that time _pragnya parishaha_ will arise for you.

**Questioner** : Is it possible that I may have a desire to speak, desire to explain [this] to someone, but I cannot express in words. Can that happen?

**Dadashri** : Yes, it can. Expression through words is a very great thing. When you keep listening, then _shrutgnan_ (spoken knowledge that is heard) will express spontaneously ( _pragamey_ ). And then it will become _matignan_ (experiential knowledge through the 5 senses and mind). And then it will be spoken through speech. So you have to keep listening for a long time. Then it gels into yogurt, and later the 'cream' will express, and then it will turn into 'ghee' (final useful product, clarified butter). That is how it is in details.

And even if you want to point out someone's mistake, if you want to talk about what you know, and you do not get the opportunity to do so, even then _parishaha_ – inner burning will arise. 'When can I say something? When can I tell him? When will I be able to speak?' that is _pragnya parishaha_.

When the Lord talked about _parishaha_ – different forms of suffering, he even referred to _pragnya_ as _parishaha_ in it. In the _Kramic_ path, absolute Vision ( _samkit_ ) arises after _pragnya parishaha_ arises. There (in the _Kramic_ path), absolute Vision only arises after that. And here (in the _Akram_ path), all this comes out after one attains _Gnan_ , and the ' _khichadee'_ ( rice and lentil mixture dish) begins to cook.

If you were to go to _upasharaya –_ Jain monastery, and talk, would anyone listen to you? Even if you were to tell the clear turths, they would not listen, would they? That is why _pragnya_ _parishaha_ would arise for you _._ You will feel irritation that, 'No one wants to listen to my truth that I am speaking.' And that is called _parishaha_. _Pragnya_ becomes strong after You settle that _parishaha_ with equanimity.

#  Subtle Understanding of Shraddha-Pragnya

**Questioner** : Tell us something about _shraddha_ (faith or belief), _pragnya_ (light of the Self), _drashta_ (Seer) and _Chetan_ (the Self).

**Dadashri** : _Drashta_ and _Chetan_ are the same. There are two kinds of _shraddha_ (faith; belief). _Shraddha_ \- faith kept in worldly interaction, is all illusory faith - _mithyatva_ _shraddha_. And on this side it is faith with absolute Vision \- _samyaktva_ _shraddha_ , which is called _pratiti_ (conviction). It is a part of the _Chetan_ (Self). Even _pragnya_ is a part of _Chetan_ , but _pragnya_ is a separate part, different from _shraddha_ which is the _pratiti_ part, and then it [ pragnya]becomes one (with the Self). Whereas this _shraddha_ , _pratiti_ will remain separate forever. They are same by nature ( _swabhaav_ ) and separate by attributes ( _guna_ ).

**Questioner** : There are three English words for them: faith ( _shraddha_ ), reason ( _pragnya_ ) and consciousness ( _Chetan_ ).

**Dadashri** : What is called a 'meaning'? It is when it is when both balance the scale. Meaning if there are ten pounds on this side, then there must also be ten pounds on the other side. Whereas here there is ten pounds of faith, _pragnya_ and Self and over there all three weigh one and a half pound.

**Questioner** : So an imbalance happens.

**Dadashri** : Hence, a pound and a half means it is gross. The other is the exact ( _yathartha_ ) thing. So this is a pound and a half and the other is ten pounds.

**Questioner** : But you said that _shraddha_ and _pragnya_ are indeed two parts of _Chetan_ (the Self)

**Dadashri** : No. _Shraddha_ is its main nature. When it comes into _pratiti_ (conviction) it is in the form of _shraddha_ , and _pragnya_ becomes separate [from the Self]. And the _pragnya_ does its own work and then it becomes one with the Self again. _Pragnya_ is there to destroy the _ugnya_ (ignorance). _Pragnya_ has the attribute of destroying _ugnya_ , but after destroying _ugnya_ , it immediately becomes one with the Self. So _pragnya_ is itself the Self, but it is called _pragnya_ because it separates from the Self.

**Questioner** : So then _shraddha_ is the base here. It is what you call _pratiti_.

**Dadashri** : _Pratiti_ is the base, yes. Hence, things go on based on whether _pratiti_ of the world [people] is positive or it is negative. Negative _pratiti_ will make one wander in the worldly life, and _pratiti_ (conviction) that is set right will take him to _moksha_. It just needs a _nimit_ – someone instrumental in establishing that _pratiti._

#  Relation Between Sooj and Pragnya

**Questioner** : So this natural _sooj_ (insight; intuition) that one has, what relation does it have with _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : That _sooj_ itself takes one towards _pragnya_. Yes, it is that _sooj_ that is working. If something is working naturally in this, it is the _sooj_. It is indeed the _sooj_ _that_ is working in the _ugnya_ (ignorant) stage.

**Questioner** : Is it not a part of _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : No, _sooj_ is the opening up of veils ( _avaran_ ).

**Questioner** : But does it take one towards _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : It indeed takes towards the permanent.

**Questioner** : So where does _bhaav_ (inner intent) come into this?

**Dadashri** : That _bhaav_ that one does, that verily happens from that _sooj_ (understanding). Ego is a different thing. But the understanding that is there, it keeps increasing and increasing and goes all the way to _pragnya_. And when _pragnya_ arises, it becomes one with the Self. But _sooj_ is the part of understanding; one does _bhaav_ according to that understanding, according to that knowledge.

#  That is Darshan, not Sooj

**Questioner** : Can _sooj_ be called _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : No. _Pragnya_ is _Gnan_ (Knowledge), and _sooj_ is _darshan_ (vision). And _ugnya_ is considered _buddhi_ (intellect). So 'We' can see everything. We can see everything that is happening in front-behind, we can even see what is happening in the back. So that person will say, 'I am standing behind [you], is my hand raised or not?' That we cannot see; 'we' cannot see gross ( _sthool_ ) and overt things. We can see subtle things. Any part, which is subtle ( _sookshma_ ), 'we' can see all that. All that can be seen due to understanding. The gross is seen when _keval Gnan_ becomes complete.

I have seen it all, from the 'basement' to the 'ceiling'. I have seen what it is like at the bottom, what it is like at the top. What is the perspective? Because I have 'seen' from every direction, I discovered, these are the facts. Very few people can see from the "perspective view" [total panoramic view and outlook]. To see while standing in front of something and to see the "perspective view", both cannot happen simultaneously. 'We' know how to do that.

**Questioner** : Dada, is that called _sooj_?

**Dadashri** : No. That is _darshan_. Everyone has _sooj_. _Sooj_ is based on each individual's capacity. Vision ( _Darshan_ ) is that which is spread out; Vision is that which encompasses vastness. That is something very unique. Yes, despite all the bitter experiences, it keeps You in bliss; that is something very unique, is it not?

**Questioner** : This tape record speaks and I am listening. Then, 'this is a taped record and I am Seeing it', so is the part that Sees a part of _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : That part is _pragnya._

**Questioner** : That is why you say that, 'I am speaking after Seeing ', right?

**Dadashri** : I am speaking after Seeing. What used to be a state of ignorance ( _ugnyasthiti_ ), that has now become a state of _pragnya_ ( _pragnyasthiti_ ). With what have 'we' seen this _Akram_ _Vignan_? Through _pragnashakti_. Knowledge seen through _buddhi_ is helpful in worldly life, but 'here' [for liberation] pure _Gnan_ will be needed.

#  Intellect Indeed is Ignorance?

**Questioner** : _Ugnya_ (intellect) means _uGnan_ (ignorance), is that not so? That is how we derive the meaning of _uGnan._ But _ugnya_ means who? Where does _ugnya_ begin? The boundry upto the beginning of _pragnya_ is that of the _buddhi_. That is all considered as _ugnya_ indeed. So, is _ugnya_ lower than the _buddhi_ , or is it a level the same as the _buddhi_?

**Dadashri** : It is considered _ugnya_ from the time _buddhi_ begins. As _buddhi_ increases, so does the _ugnya_.

**Questioner** : Is _uGnan_ (ignorance) considered a stage lower than the _buddhi_?

**Dadashri:** _uGnan_ (ignorance) is a different thing and _ugnya_ (intellect) is a different thing.

**Questioner:** Yes, that is indeed what I want to understand. Please explain the difference between _uGnan and ugnya._

**Dadashri:** _uGnan_ is a form of knowledge ( _gnan_ ) and _ugnya_ is no knowledge of any kind. It is just _buddhi_ , so if one says that this is true, then the other person will say that this other is true. It will not allow any agreement. Profit and loss is from one's own view-vision. Both will have a different view in regards to profit, in everything. _Ugnya_ is always looking at only profit and loss. That is its whole business, whereas _uGnan_ is not like that.

**Questioner** : 'There is a kind of knowledge in _uGnan_ ' – please explain this.

**Dadashri** : _uGnan_ means to know all the worldly knowledge, and to know about the Self is called _Gnan_. _Ugnya_ arises to attain _uGnan_ , and _pragnya_ arises to attain _Gnan_.

**Questioner** : Yes, _uGnan_ means right or wrong, but is it _gnan_ (knowledge)?

**Dadashri** : No, _uGnan_ means _gnan_ of one kind, but it is _vishesha gnan_ \- extra knowledge. It is not wrong. It is an extra _gnan_ (knowledge) of the Self. It is a knowledge that is in addition to the knowledge of the Self. It is extra knowledge but it generates pain ( _dukhadayi_ ), it is does not generate bliss like the knowledge of the Self. Which is why it is called _uGnan._

Extra means knowledge in addition to the knowledge of the Self arises, but because it is relative knowledge, it is destructible. Therefore it is of no use to us. We [Self] are the enjoyer ( _bhokta_ ) of the permanent bliss; we are enjoyer of eternal bliss. The one who abandons the eternal happiness and wanders like this, there is no telling where he will end up (in his next life). Today he is in the human form. Tomorrow he will become awkward with four legs! How can this be called respectable? But it is good that one is not aware of this. If he did, he would stop showing arrogance; he would become very docile.

#  Pragnya is Neither Real, nor Relative

**Questioner** : Who separates the real and the relative?

**Dadashri** : Would You not recognize everything that is destructive (temporary)? Everything that is seen through the mind-body-speech, that is through the eyes, that is heard through the ears; it is all relative. And the real means indestructible ( _avinashi_ ). There is _pragnashakti_ within. It separates the two. It separates that which is of the relative (non-Self) and it separates that which is of the Real (the Self).

**Questioner** : So does that mean that there are three: relative, Real and _pragnya_ , Dada? Is _pragnya_ separate from the Real?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ is actually energy ( _shakti_ ) of the Real, but it is the energy that has separated from the Self. In the absence of the relative, it becomes one with the Self.

**Questioner** : Is _pragnya_ relative or Real?

**Dadashri** : It is relative- Real. It goes back to its main location when its work is done; it goes back into the Self. _Pragnya_ is 'relative- Real'. If it were Real, then it would be called indestructible.

**Questioner** : When that 'relative- Real' becomes Real ', there is no relative, is there?

**Dadashri** : There cannot be relative in the Real. Relative is indeed destructible. So _pragnya_ is destructible for sure but it is Real. So it goes back into its own nature (the Self). It is not completely destructible.

**Questioner** : Is there any control of _pragnya_ over the relative?

**Dadashri** : No one has any control whatsoever. On the contrary the relative had control over the Real. So one used to scream, 'I am bound. I am bound. Free me, free'. So it's when the _Gnani Purush_ liberates him that he feels relief of 'aah! Now I am free!'

#  Difference between Knowledge of Separation and Pragnya

**Questioner** : What is the relation between _bhedaGnan_ (Knowledge that separates the Self from the non-Self) that is constantly keeping the separation within and _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : _Gnani Purush_ makes that separation for You, and then _pragnya_ will arise thereafter. _Pragnya_ will not arise until then. And until that separation is made, there is _ugnya_ for sure.

**Questioner** : What is the difference between that _pragnya_ and _bhedaGnan_ (knowledge that separates the Self from the non-Self)?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ arises only when _bhedaGnan_ happens. _Pragnya_ is light. _BhedaGnan_ is also a light, but it is a light only to separate the two (Self and the non-Self).

**Questioner** : And is _pragnya's_ light permanent?

**Dadashri** : And the light of _pragnya_ is temporary-permanent. It gives You full light from all sides until it takes You to _moksha_ (final liberation). It will not leave You, once it arises.

**Questioner** : What should one do to bring on the force of the _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ will arise when you follow the five _Agnas_ , nothing else. If you ask who causes the attraction that You have of remaining in the five _Agnas_? The answer is _pragnya_ does that. That which gives You light, is called _pragnya_.

Buddhi will die if you do 'that'

**Questioner** : 'I am _Shuddhatma_ and not the body'; does _buddhi_ say that also?

**Dadashri** : _Buddhi_ does not say that. _Buddhi_ will not let you say 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , at all, because if it were to let you say 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , then that would cause its own destruction. Its existence would go away. Hence it will never take that position. If it were to say 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , then the entire existence of the mind- _buddhi_ - _chit_ -ego would go away. Whole existence of the mind- _buddhi_ - _chit_ and ego will go away if it said that. So even the mind will not accept that (after attaining _Gnan_ ). They all do understand but when the force of discharge comes, they will not accept it. The _buddhi_ will always be on the side of the worldly life; it will never be on the side of _Shuddhatma_ (pure Soul). It is on the opposite side.

**Questioner** : Does _pratisthit_ _atma_ (relative self) say, 'I am _Shuddhatma'_?

**Dadashri** : It does not say it. _Pragnya_ that separates from the Self says, 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , and it 'Sees" the _pratisthit_ _atma_ , it 'Sees" what that 'top' is doing. It becomes _Shhuddhatma_ and Sees that.

**Questioner** : _Pragnya_ 'Sees" that?

**Dadashri:** _Pragnya_ indeed will take over all the work until final liberation— _moksha. Pragnya_ will unite with _Shuddhatma_ as soon as this stock—discharging karma is finished.

**Questioner** : When one says 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , is that also Seen by _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : 'Taped record' says that and the _bhaav_ (view) is of _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : So then, is that considered _sahaj_ (natural) activity of _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : Every activity of _pragnya_ is _sahaj_ ; it is indeed natural.

#  Shuddhatma, Pratisthit Atma and Pragnya

**Questioner** : Is there any relation between _Shuddhatma_ and _pratisthit_ _atma_ through _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : A relation between the two? 'You' have relation with _pragnya_. Those other people (without _Gnan_ ) do not even have _pragnya_. They have relation with _ugnya_.

**Questioner** : Is there any relation with the Self through ignorance ( _uGnan_ )?

**Dadashri** : _uGnan_ cannot touch the Self, and how can darkness touch light? It is considered baseless and without support, whereas the other stands on its own.

**Questioner** : What do you mean by its own?

**Dadashri** : Its own natural attributes ( _gunadharma_ ). _Pudgal_ (non-Self complex) is on its attributes. _Pratisthit_ _atma_ means power. The one with power [charged in the presence of the Self in the past life] comes to an end and nothing happens to the main thing [the Self]. That is it; there is nothing else.

**Questioner** : Did _pratisthit_ _atma_ arise from the main thing?

**Dadashri** : Yes. But it is circumstance dependent.

**Questioner** : Who is it that 'knows' the _prakruti_ , and functions according to the _prakruti_?

**Dadashri** : That is the ego ( _ahamkar_ ); that is all. It knows the _prakruti_. When it sits down to think; it knows everything.

It knows all about how the mistakes happened. There is only a certain part, that it does not know, otherwise it knows everything. It can know up to 99, not 100.If one trains the intellect ( _buddhi_ ) to that extent, it can know up to 99. But even then the work [salvation] cannot be accomplished by the ego. [For that] only _shuddha_ (the pure) is needed.

**Questioner** : Who is the one that knows the Self and functions on its own support?

**Dadashri** : That is Your _pragnashakti_ (energy of the Self). It Knows through its own light. To function means not in the language of 'to function'. It spreads!

#  Gnayakta- Current Knowing: Whose is it?

**Questioner** : Is everything not illuminated in the State of the Self? The State of the Self ( _swaroop_ ) is like that of a mirror; the mirror does not come out to see. But everything is reflected [illuminated] in [through] the mirror.

**Dadashri** : That which is illuminated is a different thing. But this is _Gnayak_ (Knower). So right now, whose activity of Knowing ( _Gnayakta_ ) is it? It is of _pragnashakti._ Yes, because right now _pragnashakti_ is 'doing the work' ( _karyakari_ ). The original Self cannot be _karyakari_. As long as the worldly life is there, this active energy of _pragnashakti_ has arisen. This _pragnya_ , after all the work is done, after winding everything up, goes to _moksha_.

#  A Perfect Couple: Jagruti and Pragnya

**Questioner** : Is there any difference between _pragnashakti_ and awakened awareness ( _jagruti_ )?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnashakti_ , is the pure energy ( _shakti_ ) of the Self and [in] awareness there is purity as well as impurity. Awareness gradually and incrementally becomes pure, and when it is becomes completely pure, it is called absolute Knowledge ( _keval Gnan_ ).

**Questioner** : Now that we are sitting in the ship to _moksha_ , will the _pragnashakti_ go away, later on?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnyashakti_ will help until You reach _moksha_ , and then _pragnashakti_ will leave.

**Questioner** : Does awareness ( _jagruti_ ) do any work after reaching _moksha_? Does _jagruti_ become dim?

**Dadashri** : No, no, nothing, it becomes separated. _Jagruti_ is not there at all. There is only the Light ( _Prakash_ ) there, thereafter.

**Questioner** : So then, is _jagruti_ needed till one attains _moksha_ ; or is _pragnya shakti_ needed?

**Dadashri** : Yes. _Pragnashakti_ and _jagruti_ run concurrently. _Pragnashakti_ keeps guiding and turning Him, and awareness grabs on to it.

Root of Ugnyashakti

**Questioner** : _Ugnyashakti_ arises from an imagination energy ( _kalpshakti_ ) of the main Soul (the Self). Is _kalpshakti_ the nature ( _swabhaav_ ) of the Soul?

**Dadashri** : No. _Ugnyashakti_ arises scientifically. These six (eternal) elements are constantly moving. In that, when Self ( _Chetan_ ) and non-Self ( _pudgal_ ) become mixed, _ugnashakti_ arises. And when 'We' separate the two, _ugnashakti_ goes away; ego ( _ahamkar_ )-myness ( _mamata_ ) both go away.

Just as the ignorance ( _uGnan_ ) that increased from the pressure from circumstances external (to the Self) that gave rise to the state of ignorance ( _uGnan pada_ ); similarly; the state of Knowledge ( _Gnan pada_ ) arose through this other pressure [through the evidentiary _nimit_ of _Gnani Purush_ ].

That Cannot be Pragnya

**Questioner** : Whatever state of the Self ( _swabhaav_ ) that arises, do we call that part _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : That is not the _pragnya_ part. The One that even knows view of the state of the Self ( _swabhaav_ - _bhaav_ ) that has arisen is _pragnya_. The One that Knows how much of the _vishesh_ - _bhaav_ (identification with the non-Self; the belief of 'I am Chandubhai') decreased and how much _swabhaav_ - _bhaav_ (view of the state of the Self) increases, is _pragnya_. And at that time, the one that Knows what the Self is; is _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : Even _pragnya_ increases and decreases, does it not?

**Dadashri** : Of-course, even _pragnya_ increases and decreases. It increases ( _guru_ ) and decreases ( _laghu_ ). It is because till the view of the state of the Self ( _swabhaav_ - _bhaav_ ) ultimately comes to completion and the view of the state of the ego ( _aham-bhaav_ ) ends, that is when _pragnya_ itself comes to an end. Up until then, this _pragnya_ continues working.

#  Dada's Meddlesome Pragnya

**Questioner** : Does Dada have _pragnya_? Dada, it is about you.

**Dadashri** : Everyone; one cannot do without _pragnya,_ can one?

**Queastioner** : The _satsang_ that Dada does, all the worldly interaction that goes on, is that all through _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : Yes.

**Questioner** : But _pragnya_ is for us, not for You, is it?

**Dadashri** : Of-course it is. There is _pragnya_ within Me too. _Pragnya_ ends when _keval Gnan_ happens, and it becomes one with the Self.

**Questioner** : It becomes one (with the Self).

**Dadashri** : It becomes one. Until then it remains separate, otherwise how would there be meddling [on Dada's part] of, 'Come here, I will give _Gnan_ to you?' Is that not meddling? That meddling is due to _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : _Pragnya_ makes you meddle.

**Dadashri** : Yes, and the one who does not have _pragnya_ , will not meddle. If you are going to be harmed, he will not say anything even when you do his _darshan_. 'We' do not become emotional at that time, because 'we' do not have _buddhi_. _Buddhi_ does not make us emotional. _Pragnya_ makes 'us' meddle. When 'we' talk about your benefit-harm, 'we' are considered meddlesome ( _khapatia_ ). 'Our' meddling is so that you all attain the happiness that 'we' have attained. This is 'our' meddling. And if you do not come to attain it, 'we' would ask, 'Dear fellow, why did you not come yesterday?' One may ask, 'What do you get out of it?' 'We' would tell him, 'This is 'our' meddling, not self-interest.' People tell me, 'Why don't you get rid of the word 'meddle' ( _khatpat_ )? It sounds bad.' I tell them, 'No, no, only this word is befitting. It itself is a beautiful word.' Just you wait, one day you will realize its value. You will find value for the word ' _khatpat'_ one day. People have developed aversion towards this word, but they will be pleased with the word ' _khatpat'_ – meddling. Meddling can also be like this, it can be like that other, but it can also be like this.

#  Significance of Grace

**Questioner** : Dada Bhagwan's grace ( _krupa_ ) and _Gnani Purush's_ grace, are they different? What is the difference?

**Dadashri** : I would know that Dada Bhagwan's grace on this person is good but for the _Gnani_ , grace or no grace, he does not have anything to do with. He does not have much to do with it.

**Questioner** : Why does the _Gnani_ not have anything to do with the grace?

**Dadashri** : No, when Dada Bhagwan's graces one, the _Gnani_ does not have to do anything, does he?

**Questioner** : But generally it is said ' _Gnani's_ _rajipo, Gnani's_ grace?

**Dadashri** : You have to say that in the worldly interaction. That is God itself, and that is everything. Here 'we' are making the distinction, but elsewhere, they do not make such distinction, do they? The reason 'we' make such distinction is so that people would feel that this is correct, that it is a clear thing. And 'we' do not have any desire to become God.

**Questioner** : But Dada Bhagwan within is _vitarag_ , is he not?

**Dadashri** : Yes _vitarag_.

**Questioner** : Then where is the question of Him gracing someone more or less?

**Dadashri** : No, it's not like that. Aside of Him, we _Gnanis_ do not have a desire that it would be nice if people called us God. We do not need to taste that sweetness. All hunger is gone.

**Questioner** : No, that is correct, but our Dada Bhagwan...

**Dadashri** : He is complete _vitarag_ , is he not!

**Questioner** : Is the flowing down of grace that happens, is it not automatic? Is that not independent? Or is it Dada Bhagwan's grace ( _krupa_ )?

**Dadashri** : Dada Bhagwan, he is a _vitarag_ Lord, but grace comes through _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : But the _Gnani Purush_ is the Atma, the Self Himself, so where does _pragnya_ come in?

**Dadashri** : No, grace descends through it. _Pragnya_ will be everywhere. As long as he does not attain _moksha_ , _pragnya_ will continue to work from the outside [in interactions of the world].

**Questioner** : So grace flows upon us through _pragnya._

**Dadashri** : Yes, grace is through _pragnya_ , therefore 'we' will know that man has been graced.

**Questioner** : But is there not a problem with _vitaragta_ as far as _pragnya_ is concerned?

**Dadashri** : _Pragnya_ is never _vitarag_.

**Questioner** : Is _pragnya_ not _vitarag_?

**Dadashri** : It is never _vitarag_. _Pragnya_ has come solely for the problem of settling everything. It's job is to settle everything by any means and take one to _moksha._

**Questioner** : But Your _pragnya_ is much higher.

**Dadashri** : It is very highly developed, but the function is just the same, is it not? 'We' would even tell him, 'dear man, the Lord's grace upon you has diminished'.

**Questioner** : So it is about _pragnya_ indeed.

**Dadashri** : Yes, but 'we' even tell him the reason for the decrease in grace; when he turns the causes [makes a correction], grace flows again.

**Questioner** : But all that talk is about _pragnya_.

**Dadashri** : That 'Dada Bhagwan' is indeed _vitarag_ , is he not? A _Vitarag_ does not have anything to do with it.

**Questioner** : Hence _pragnya_ remains until one attains _keval Gnan_ , right?

**Dadashri** : Until then, it is _pragnya_ all the way. Not after one attains _keval Gnan_.

**Questioner** : One becomes _Tirthankar_ or _kevli_ after attaining _keval Gnan_ ; then there is no question about his grace because there is no _pragnya_.

**Dadashri** : Everything is finished, is it not? Everything ends. As long as there is _pragnya_ , there is some give and take with the body. Thereafter there is complete separation from the body. 'We' have not attained _keval Gnan_. Nevertheless, yes, 'We' have Seen ( _Darshan_ ) what _keval Gnan_ is.

#  Ego is Nimit in Jagatkalyan and Pragnya Makes one do it

**Questioner** : Who makes us instrumental in doing the work of _jagat kalyan_ (salvation of the world)?

**Dadashri** : All this work is of the _pragnya shakti_. The Self does not make you do any of it. The Self does not have any energy at all to make you do that. Egoism is a _nimit_.

**Questioner** : Egoism is a _nimit_. 'I am doing' – is that the _nimit_?

**Dadashri** : Yes, who makes it do it? The answer is ' _pragnya shakti'_. Everything is the work of _pragnya shakti._

**Questioner** : Now, all this that is 'seen', is 'seen' within the Self, but the 'Seer" is another entity, is it not?

**Dadashri** : It seems that it is within the Self. What is seen is separate.

**Questioner** : Yes, but the one who describes it, that Seer is separate, is he not?

**Dadashri** : Describing is the work of _pragnya_. _Ugnya shakti_ (energy of ignorance) used to describe through energy of intellect ( _buddhi_ ). And _pragnya_ does it through the energy of _Gnan_ ; through the natural energy of the Self.

**Questioner** : _Ugnya_ says it with acquisitiveness ( _parigraha_ ), and _pragnya_ speaks without acquisitiveness ( _parigraha_ ) _._

**Dadashri** : Not even a trace of _parigraha._ No _parigraha_!

#  Till Then Only Pragnya is Knower-Seer

**Questioner** : When we remain in the Knower-Seer view ( _Gnata-Drashta bhaav_ ), is it _pragnya_ that remains so or is it the Self ( _Atma_ )?

**Dadashri** : No, right now _pragnya_ is the Knower-Seer. _Pragnya_ itself is a part of the Self. Right now, all the work is being done by _pragnya_. When that _pragnya_ becomes one with the Self, _keval Gnan_ happens, and soon after attaining _keval Gnan,_ the Self goes to _moksha_.

**Questioner** : Right now, the Self of You- the _Gnani Purush_ is the Knower-Seer ( _Gnata-Drashta_ ). For us _pragnya_ is the Knower-Seer _._

**Dadashri** : For me too, it is the _pragnya._ Until _keval Gnan_ happens, it is _pragnya._

**Questioner** : So then, the Self Knows and Sees everything, the Knower-Seer is the Self itself, is it not?

**Dadashri** : Yes, but it is the part that is called _pragnya_.

**Questioner** : So then, after attaining _Gnan_ , who is the one that Sees his own _prakruti_ (relative self, the non-Self complex)?

**Dadashri** : The Self itself, who else? Everything is on the Self. But then, the Self means _pragnya_ (here). Here, you cannot directly consider the Self. The Self ( _Atma_ ) means _pragnya_ is doing all the work but we say the _Atma –_ the Self. We simply call it the Self – that is all.

**Questioner** : Before, my understanding was that after attaining _Gnan_ , for us _mahatmas, pragnya_ maintains proper awakened awareness ( _jagruti_ ). The moment any mistake ( _dosh_ ) happens, it cautions me right away, 'these are all the mistakes being made'.

**Dadashri** : Yes, it cautions.

**Questioner** : But I was not quite aware who the Knower-Seer was.

**Dadashri** : No, _pragnya_ is indeed the Knower-Seer everywhere. The Self can only See _keval Gnan_.

**Questioner** : Therefore, the Self becomes Knower-Seer only when _keval Gnan_ happens, until then only _pragnya_ does all the work.

**Dadashri** : Even this can be called the Self. Do not separate the two. If you try to do so, then you will not understand.

**Questioner** : Then why are you calling it _pragnya_? Why not just call it the Self.

**Dadashri** : Yes. That is what 'we' say, but then people bring it up again. Details are given for the purpose of understanding. But do not interpret the details to be that it is this way...

**Questioner** : If one were to look at it minutely, then it is _pragnya_ , and at a gross level it is the Self. So then does the main Self not caution us?

**Dadashri** : Yes, the main Self does not caution you. Right now, _pragnya_ is cautioning you. It then becomes one with the Self. At that time our whole 'Ramayan' (tale of our karma) comes to end, it [ _Pragnya_ ] too becomes one.

The _Gnan_ through which one becomes free from the worldly life is called _Atma Gnan_ – knowledge of the Self, and when that _Gnan_ is being used, it is called _pragnya_.

That which keeps one in Conduct as the Self ( _vartana_ ) is the Self, and that which keeps on in conviction based faith ( _shraddha_ ) is _pragnya_. _Vartan_ means Conduct as the Self ( _Charitra_ ) _._

**Questioner** : The Seer within You, is it called _pragnya_ or the Self? In Your case, can it be called _pragnya_ or not?

**Dadashri** : It is indeed called _pragnya_. You cannot call it anything but _pragnya_. You cannot call it the Self at all. In the state of worldly life, only _pragnya_ keeps working. It cautions You within.

#  Who is the Meditator and What is the Meditation?

Scp note to Shrutiben---keep this 3 defination before the matter starts as done by vinodbhai.will help the reader ubderstand this complex matter

[ _dhyata –_ the meditator.

_dhyeya –_ the object/goal of meditation.

_dhyan -_ meditation/ that links _dhyata_ to _dhyeya_ ]

**Questioner** : What are _dhyata_ , _dhyeya_ and _dhyan_? Is _dhyata_ the pure Self or is it the relative self ( _pratishthit atma –_ the one with the belief of 'I am Chandubhai')?

**Dadashri** : After attaining _Gnan_ , _pragnya_ (direct light of the Self) is the _dhyata_ (meditator), not _pratishthit_ _atma_. _Pragnya_ is _dhyata_ , and _dhyeya_ is the 'Self'; 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ that is the goal. When _dhyata_ and _dhyeya_ unite, it gives rise to _dhyan_ (meditation).

**Questioner** : Right now, can _Shuddhatma_ not be considered _dhyata_ (meditator)?

**Dadashri** : _Shuddhatma_ is our _dhyeya_ (goal). To become _Shuddhatma_ is our goal. _Shuddhatma_ is indeed the _Paramatma_ (absolute Self), whatever you call it, that is what it is. Meditator ( _dhyata_ ) is _pragnya_ , goal ( _dhyeya_ ) is _Shuddhatma_. This is so because this state of _Shuddhatma_ that 'we' have granted You, is the state of conviction ( _pratiti pada_ ). You have not completely become _Shuddhatma_ yet. However, if unacceptable conduct unfolds, then do not feel guilty and ruined that my state is spoiled. That is why 'We' say _Shuddhatma_.

For now, You may take _Shuddhatma_ either in the form of _pragnya_ , or the state of _antaratma_ (interim Self; awakened Self). This state of _antaratma_ or _pragnya_ exists only as far as files have to be settled. When all the files are settled, it is 'full government'; it is _Paramatma_.

#  Gnan, Pragnya & Vignan

**Questioner** : Then what is the difference between the _Gnan_ , _Vignan_ and _pragnya_?

**Dadashri** : Gnan means that one has to do it. Whatever he knows, he has to do all that. And _Vignan_ means it happens on its own. You do not have to do anything. And _pragnya_ is a state between these two. Once you understand scientifically that one can die by taking certain medicine, you will never take that medicine ever again. Provided you understand that scientifically. And if someone is informed (and he does not understand the scientific) that this is something poisonous and taking it as medicine will kill; then he may even take that medicine. So, any knowledge that has its own activity ( _kriyakari_ ) is considered _Vignanik Gnan_. Knowledge that itself is _kriyakari_ is _Vignan_. And the knowledge that is not _kriyakari_ , knowledge that leads one to do, that is called _gnan_ (knowledge). To keep kindness, to keep peace, all that has to be 'done'. That which cannot be done by the Self (potey-the I) is called _gnan_ (knowledge).

Therefore in scriptures, there is _gnan_ – knowledge, but not _Vignan –_ that which happens on its own. Scriptures contain scriptural knowledge. And 'this' is _Vignan_ , so Knowledge as the Self ( _Chetan Gnan_ ), continues to work within; the _Gnan_ itself continues to do the work within. And, no matter how much scriptural knowledge you read, or memorize, it does not do the work. You have to do it yourself. And _Vignan_ continues to work by itself. It gives awareness within, everything happens by itself. It continues to work for You within, does it not? That is called _Vignan_. What is _Vignan_? It is _Chetan_ _Gnan_ –Knowledge of the Knower-Seer, is Knowledge that has awakened, it is indeed _Vignan_ , and that indeed is the _Atma –_ the Self. Right now it is in the state of _pragnya_. When _pragnya_ has finished doing its work, when the files will have been settled, then _pragnya_ will revert back to its own Self-state as the absolute Self ( _Paramatma_ ).

**Questioner** : When is _pragnya_ one with the Self?

**Dadashri** : Right now it is not one with the Self, but what does that mean? _Pragnya_ is the Self state. As long as the Self has not [fully] manifested, immediate cautioning of any faults is the work of _pragnya._ When _vitaragata_ (state of absolute absence of attachment or abhorrence) is attained, when mistakes do not happen externally, _pragnya_ itself is the ' _swaroop'_ (the absolute Self).

#  Separation Through Intellect, Oneness through Pragnya

**Questioner:** This oneness ( _abhedata_ ) that happens, can it be called the highest level of intellect or not?

**Dadashri:** No, that oneness means absence of intellect; that is _Gnanbhaav._ Through _Gnan_ we are all one, and through the intellect we are all separate.

**Questioner:** Does _pragnya_ come into this or not?

**Dadashri:** That is indeed it! We all are indeed 'one' through _pragnya_ , but separate through intellect. 'We' had destroyed intellect in 'us'. 'We' had removed it in whichever way 'we' could. 'We' had brought closure whenever intellect unfolded. 'We' did not support unfolding of intellect. Most of the intellect was removed in the past life, which is why we did not have to get rid of much in this life. This is because we did so previously. Does _buddhi_ not bother you much now?

#  What Does Attaining Oneness Mean?

**Questioner:** What does oneness mean? 'May I attain complete oneness', do we not ask for this in the _Charan Vidhi_?

**Dadashri:** Oneness means to become _tanmayakar –_ to become engrossed in the Self. We become one with God. Right now how much separation you and _Shuddhatma_ have? You have become _Shuddhatma_ at the conviction level ( _pratiti_ ). You have complete faith that 'I am _Shuddhatma'_ , You have assurance of this. You have attained some experience ( _anubhav_ ) but You have not become That (the absolute Self). So You are telling the Lord within, 'let me become That'. That is oneness.

**Questioner:** So there is no separation whatsoever.

**Dadashri:** There is separation; you still have separation. I still have to make you _Shuddhatma_. Afterwards I do not have to: afterwards You become one ( _abheda_ ) with the Self.

**Questioner:** Ego becomes 'one' with _Shuddhatma_ , does it not?

**Dadashri:** No, not the ego. This _pragnya,_ which has separated [from the Self] for the purpose of settling ( _nikaal_ ) worldly interaction ( _vyavahar_ ), that _pragnya_ when it becomes one [with the Self], then the work is done.

**Questioner:** Who becomes _abheda_ (one) with whom?

**Dadashri:** _Pragnya_ and _Shuddhatma_. These two which are separate, they become one. Right now, the 'I-ness ( _hoon panu_ ) is prevailing in _pragnya._ That in which we are currently prevailing is in _pragnya,_ we no longer prevail in ego ('I am Chandubhai'). So when 'I' was being in 'Chandubhai', it is called being in ego. Now the 'I' is being as _pragnya_ , therefore it is as the interim Self ( _antar Atma_ ), not as _Shuddhatma_.

'Our' _pragnya_ on the most part is almost like being still in the Self ( _Atma_ ). Therefore 'we' do not have to say ' _Shuddhatma'_ or 'we' do not have to think about it. And in that state 'we' experience the oneness ( _abhedata_ ). It is a little short by four degrees. And You have yet to become _abheda_ (one with the Self). Gradually as the files are being slowly settled, one gradually begins to become _abheda_. Once the files are completely settled, one becomes _abheda._ All these problems are indeed due to the files. But right now You (the awakened Self) are in the state of _pragnya_ , and _pragnya_ is a certain part of God (the absolute Self). When the work is completed, _pragnya_ will become one with the Self again. God and the absolute Self are indeed one. When the self ( _jivatma_ ) becomes free from the worldly life and remains only as the Self, it is then called _Paramatma_. Constant absorption as the Self ( _swaroop_ _ni_ _ramanata_ ) is indeed the absolute Self ( _Paramatma_ ). And when there is absorption in the absolute Self but also the absorption in the self, it is called _antaratma_ ; that verily is _pragnya_!

JAI SAT CHIT ANAND

The Awareness of the Eternal is Bliss

#  I really appreciate you reading this book! Here are my social media coordinates:

Friend me on Facebook:

<http://facebook.com/shuddha.dadashri>

Follow me on Twitter:

<http://twitter.com/shuddha>

Favorite my Smashwords author page:

<https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/shuddha>

Follow some live translations of the Books of Gnani Purush Dadashri on

You Tube:

<https://www.youtube.com/user/VISHUDDHATMA>

Visit my website:

http://www.dadashri.org

