________________
Dadashri: The layers of 'I-ness' and all other coverings over the Self. One not only has the 'I-ness' but it is an 'I-ness with an attacking nature. "I-ness' with protection rakshan is different from the 'I-ness' with an attack.
Questioner: Very important information has just arisen, Dada. You said that there are two types of potapanu 'I-ness. One kind of 'I-ness' is with protection and the other is associated with a tendency to attack.
Dadashri: Yes. When the 'I-ness' associated with attacks goes away, then the 'I-ness' with protection remains. That is the proper 'I-ness', until then all the 'I-ness' is regarded as himsak bhaav—violence-laden intent. Only after the 'I-ness' associated with the attacking nature leaves, the dissolution of 'Iness' associated with protection will begin.
Questioner: Would you please explain further what this attacking 'I-ness? is?
Dadashri: What good is any 'I-ness' that hurts anyone else? It is a different matter if that 'I-ness' is for the protection of ones' prakruti; that is called 'Iness' but the 'I-ness' that hurts others, cannot even be considered 'I-ness.'
What is the 'I-ness' in people like? Protection of their prakruti is definitely there, but they also attack others. They strike (verbal and nonverbal) others too. So will this not need to be eradicated? Protecting one's prakruti is 'I-ness'. Are our mahatmas doing that? Alas, that is precisely why it, the non-Self, does not become sahaj natural. Here, the moment one is faced with the slightest insult, one protects the prakruti. This indeed will prevent the process of sahajata naturalness from happening, will it not?
The potapanu with protection may remain, but any other kind of potapanu must leave. Upon hearing, 'you don't have any sense', there should not be any protection of the prakruti. Who is the sole authority swami in this? It is the ego ahamkar. The one who reacts, takes up the challenge and responds is the ego ahamkar. Who is taking up the challenge pratikar? It is the ego. But the ego is gone. So the protection is being done wrongly, no?
So whatever happens is correct. Such talks will not be found in any scriptures. The talk about protection of the prakruti is not to be found