The Wedding She Left
Sahjo Bai, roughly 1725 to the early 1800s, of Delhi, and the principal disciple of Charandas, whom the previous entry covers.
Who she was
Of the same Dhusar family, and the tradition describes her as Charandas's niece, which is the standard account and is not independently documented.
Which is worth flagging at the start, because it is nearly everything we know about her circumstances: her family, a relationship to a famous man, and her verses.
The wedding
The story is that she was to be married and she did not go through with it.
The versions differ on the timing. In the most repeated one the marriage party had arrived, the arrangements were in progress, and Charandas came, or she went to him, and she did not return to the ceremony.
She never married. She lived the rest of her life as a renunciant in the Charandasi order.
What that cost, in 1740s Delhi
And this is the part that should not be read past.
A woman who refused a marriage in north India in the eighteenth century had almost no positions available to her.
She could not hold property in practice. She could not live alone. She had no income and no means of getting one. Her natal family's willingness to keep her was the only thing between her and destitution, and a girl who broke off a marriage humiliated two families publicly in a society where that mattered enormously.
The likely outcomes were a forced marriage, a lifetime of being the household's failure, or the street.
And the reason none of that happened to her is that the family let her go to Charandas.
Which is the single most consequential fact in her biography and is almost never stated, and it happened because the man she was going to was inside the family and had standing.
Most women in her position did not have that door.
And now, because it is still happening
Forced marriage is not history in India.
The law is clear even where the practice is not. A marriage requires the free consent of both parties, a marriage without consent is voidable, and coercing somebody into one is an offence. An adult woman has the right to choose whether and whom to marry, and the Supreme Court has treated that choice as part of the constitutional right to life and liberty.
If you or somebody you know is being forced
- Women's helpline 181, which operates in most states and can arrange shelter
- Police 112, and a woman can approach any police station regardless of where she lives
- Childline 1098 if she is under eighteen, and marriage under eighteen for a woman or twenty one for a man is separately an offence under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006
- Free legal aid 15100 through the National Legal Services Authority, and every district has an authority that will act
- One Stop Centres, which exist in most districts and provide shelter, counselling, medical help and legal aid in one place
A woman who does not want to marry is allowed not to marry. That is the law, and Sahjo Bai got there by accident of family in 1745 and it should not require an accident now.
The Verse
She wrote the Sahaj Prakash, a work of a few hundred verses, along with a body of pads and sabads in Braj Hindi.
And one verse in it is among the most famous things in the entire nirguna corpus.
Ram tajun pai guru na bisarun. Guru ke sam Hari ko na niharun.
I would give up Ram, but I will not forget the guru. I do not see Hari as the equal of the guru.
And then she argues it, line by line.
The argument
Each couplet sets Hari and the guru against each other and gives the guru the credit.
Hari gave me birth in this world. The guru ended the coming and going.
Hari sent five thieves along with me, which is the senses. The guru freed me from them.
Hari threw me into the net of family. The guru cut the chain of attachment.
Hari tangled me in sickness and enjoyment. The guru made me a yogi and released me from all of it.
Hari confused me with karma and delusion. The guru showed me my own nature.
Hari hid himself from me. The guru gave a lamp and showed him.
Hari made bondage and release. The guru wiped out every delusion.
And then the last line.
Charandas par tan man varun. Guru na tajun, Hari ko taj darun.
I offer body and mind to Charandas. I will not give up the guru. I will give up Hari.
Why this is a great verse
Because of the structure.
She does not say the guru is greater than God as a doctrinal proposition. She builds a ledger, item by item, of what each of them actually did to her, and the ledger comes out one way, and she states the conclusion without softening it.
And every item on Hari's side is a complaint. Birth, the senses, family, sickness, delusion, hiddenness. She is not being pious about the difficulty of existence. She is billing somebody for it.
Which is a note that only a very confident poet can hold, and it is the reason the verse has survived for two hundred and fifty years while a great deal of more decorous guru bhakti has not.
What she is actually saying
Two things, and the distinction matters enormously for the next section.
One. Gratitude directed at what actually happened.
Something changed for her, and it changed through a specific person she could name, in a room, over time. The abstraction did not do it. A man taught her, and she is refusing to route the credit past him to a general principle.
Two. That the teacher is where the ultimate became reachable.
Which is a technical claim in this tradition rather than a hierarchy. The guru is not a higher being than God in Sahjo's theology. The guru is the point at which God stopped being an idea, and the verse is about that transition and not about rank.
And the verse is very easy to misread as being about rank, which the next section is entirely about.
How That Verse Gets Used
This section exists because Sahjo Bai's verse is the single most quoted piece of guru bhakti in north India and it is quoted, constantly, by people it should not be quoting.
Where you will hear it
In every organisation built around a living teacher.
It is on posters. It is in the discourse. It is said to somebody who is having doubts. It is said to a family whose daughter has stopped calling. It is said to a person who has just asked where the money goes.
And the sentence it is being used to complete is: therefore, you do not question him.
Which Sahjo Bai did not write.
What the verse does not say
Read it again.
It is a statement about gratitude. Every line is an accounting of what was done for her. There is not one line in it about obedience, about not questioning, about surrendering property, about cutting off family at the guru's instruction, or about anything the guru is owed in future.
It is entirely about the past and entirely about what she received.
And a verse about gratitude for something already given cannot be converted into an instrument for extracting something not yet given.
The test Charandas himself supplies
And this is the argument that closes it, and it is internal to the tradition.
Sahjo Bai's guru was Charandas. Charandas gave a code. The previous entry lists it: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not use violence, do not eat meat, do not take intoxicants, do not slander.
So the guru Sahjo Bai is praising is a man who taught that.
Which means the verse, read in its own context, praises a teacher who kept a code.
And a teacher who lies, takes, coerces or assaults has stepped outside the category Sahjo Bai is writing about. The verse does not cover him. It was never about him.
The practical version
Four things, and they are the ones this series has been repeating since the first batch, applied here specifically to the guru relationship.
One. Gratitude is not obedience.
You can owe somebody a great deal and still refuse a specific instruction. These are separate faculties and a healthy teacher knows it.
Two. A real teacher can be questioned.
Ask a direct question and watch what happens. A teacher who answers it, or says they do not know, is fine. A teacher who responds with anger, with a story about your ego, with a reference to your karma, or by having somebody else speak to you afterwards, has told you something.
Three. Leaving should be free.
In a legitimate arrangement, you stop attending and nothing happens. Where leaving carries spiritual threats, social exile or the loss of money already given, the arrangement is not devotional.
Four. Watch what is asked for.
Money, property, labour, distance from your family, silence, or sexual access. A teacher who asks for none of those is in a different category from one who asks for several, and the Bhaktivinoda entry in an earlier batch sets out the full test.
And the numbers, because they belong wherever this subject appears
Police 112. Women's helpline 181. Childline 1098 for anything involving a child. Cybercrime 1930 for money taken online. Free legal aid 15100.
What to keep
The verse, actually.
Because the thing it is really about is worth having.
Something in your life changed, and it changed through a specific person. A teacher, a parent, a friend, somebody who said the right sentence at the right time and had no idea they were doing it.
And the ordinary human habit is to route the credit past them: to fate, to a general principle, to your own effort, to the way things worked out.
Sahjo Bai refuses to do that. She names him, in the last line, by name, and gives him the whole of it.
Which is the usable version, and it does not require a sampradaya.
Where to go
- Charandas ki Bagichi, Delhi, where the Charandasi seat is
- Delhi, which is where her whole life happened
- Charandasi centres in Rajasthan and Braj
What to read
- Sahaj Prakash, which is available in Hindi editions and in translation
- Her pads, which are anthologised in most collections of the Hindi sants
- And Daya Bai's Daya Bodh, which the next entry covers, because they should be read together
A daily practice from this entry
- Ram, or whatever name your household uses
- And Sahjo Bai's actual instruction, stripped of the sampradaya: name the person it came through, out loud, at least once
The Short Version
Who: Sahjo Bai, roughly 1725 to the early 1800s, of Delhi, the principal disciple of Charandas. She was of the same Dhusar family and the tradition describes her as his niece, which is the standard account and is not independently documented, and that is nearly everything we know about her circumstances: her family, a relationship to a famous man, and her verses.
The wedding: she was to be married and did not go through with it, with the versions differing on timing and the most repeated one having the marriage party already arrived when she went to Charandas and did not return to the ceremony. She never married and lived the rest of her life as a renunciant in the Charandasi order. What that cost in 1740s Delhi should not be read past: a woman who refused a marriage in eighteenth century north India had almost no positions available, could not hold property in practice, could not live alone, had no income and no means of getting one, and her natal family's willingness to keep her was the only thing between her and destitution, while breaking off a marriage humiliated two families publicly in a society where that mattered enormously. The likely outcomes were a forced marriage, a lifetime of being the household's failure, or the street, and the reason none of that happened is that the family let her go to Charandas, which is the single most consequential fact in her biography and is almost never stated, and it happened because the man she was going to was inside the family and had standing. Most women in her position did not have that door.
Now: forced marriage is not history in India, and the law is clear even where the practice is not. A marriage requires the free consent of both parties, a marriage without consent is voidable, coercing somebody into one is an offence, an adult woman has the right to choose whether and whom to marry, and the Supreme Court has treated that choice as part of the constitutional right to life and liberty. Women's helpline 181, police 112, Childline 1098 if she is under eighteen with the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006 applying separately, free legal aid 15100, and One Stop Centres in most districts providing shelter, counselling, medical help and legal aid in one place.
The verse: she wrote the Sahaj Prakash and a body of pads and sabads in Braj Hindi, and one verse is among the most famous in the entire nirguna corpus. Ram tajun pai guru na bisarun, guru ke sam Hari ko na niharun: I would give up Ram but will not forget the guru, and I do not see Hari as the guru's equal. Then she argues it couplet by couplet, setting Hari and the guru against each other and giving the guru the credit each time. Hari gave me birth in this world, the guru ended the coming and going. Hari sent five thieves with me, meaning the senses, the guru freed me from them. Hari threw me into the net of family, the guru cut the chain of attachment. Hari tangled me in sickness and enjoyment, the guru made me a yogi and released me. Hari confused me with karma and delusion, the guru showed me my own nature. Hari hid himself, the guru gave a lamp and showed him. And the last line: Charandas par tan man varun, guru na tajun, Hari ko taj darun. I offer body and mind to Charandas, I will not give up the guru, I will give up Hari.
Why it is great: because of the structure. She does not assert as doctrine that the guru is greater than God: she builds a ledger, item by item, of what each of them actually did to her, and every item on Hari's side is a complaint, birth, the senses, family, sickness, delusion, hiddenness. She is not being pious about the difficulty of existence, she is billing somebody for it, which is a note only a very confident poet can hold. What she is actually saying is gratitude directed at what actually happened, since something changed for her through a specific person she could name rather than through an abstraction, and that the teacher is the point at which God stopped being an idea, which is a technical claim rather than a hierarchy.
How it gets used: it is the single most quoted piece of guru bhakti in north India, and it is quoted constantly by organisations built around a living teacher, on posters, in discourses, to somebody having doubts, to a family whose daughter has stopped calling, and to a person who has just asked where the money goes, in order to complete the sentence therefore you do not question him. Sahjo Bai did not write that. Read again: every line is an accounting of what was done for her, and there is not one line about obedience, about not questioning, about surrendering property, about cutting off family, or about anything the guru is owed in future. A verse about gratitude for something already given cannot be converted into an instrument for extracting something not yet given. And the closing argument is internal: her guru was Charandas, Charandas gave a code of no lying, stealing, adultery, violence, meat, intoxicants or slander, so the verse praises a teacher who kept a code, and a teacher who lies, takes, coerces or assaults has stepped outside the category she is writing about.
Four practical things: gratitude is not obedience, and you can owe somebody a great deal and still refuse a specific instruction. A real teacher can be questioned, so ask a direct question and watch what happens, since a teacher who answers or says they do not know is fine while one who responds with anger, a story about your ego, a reference to your karma, or by having somebody else speak to you afterwards has told you something. Leaving should be free. And watch what is asked for: money, property, labour, distance from your family, silence or sexual access. Police 112, women's helpline 181, Childline 1098, cybercrime 1930, free legal aid 15100.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was Sahjo Bai?+
A Hindi sant poet of roughly 1725 to the early 1800s, from Delhi, and the principal disciple of Charandas. She was of the same Dhusar family and the tradition describes her as his niece, which is the standard account and is not independently documented. She was to be married and did not go through with it, in the most repeated version leaving when the marriage party had already arrived, and she never married, living the rest of her life as a renunciant in the Charandasi order. Her works are the Sahaj Prakash, a few hundred verses, along with a body of pads and sabads in Braj Hindi, and one of her verses is among the most famous things in the entire nirguna corpus.
What does Sahjo Bai's famous verse say?+
Ram tajun pai guru na bisarun, guru ke sam Hari ko na niharun: I would give up Ram, but I will not forget the guru, and I do not see Hari as the guru's equal. Then she argues it couplet by couplet, setting Hari and the guru against each other and giving the guru the credit each time. Hari gave me birth in this world, the guru ended the coming and going. Hari sent five thieves along with me, meaning the senses, and the guru freed me from them. Hari threw me into the net of family, the guru cut the chain of attachment. Hari tangled me in sickness and enjoyment, the guru made me a yogi and released me from all of it. Hari confused me with karma and delusion, the guru showed me my own nature. Hari hid himself from me, the guru gave a lamp and showed him. And the last line: Charandas par tan man varun, guru na tajun, Hari ko taj darun. I offer body and mind to Charandas, I will not give up the guru, I will give up Hari.
Does that verse mean a guru must never be questioned?+
No, and this is where it is most often misused. It is the single most quoted piece of guru bhakti in north India, and organisations built around a living teacher quote it constantly, on posters, in discourses, to somebody having doubts, to a family whose daughter has stopped calling, and to a person who has just asked where the money goes, in order to complete the sentence therefore you do not question him. Sahjo Bai did not write that. Read the verse again: every line is an accounting of what was done for her, and there is not one line in it about obedience, about not questioning, about surrendering property, about cutting off family at the guru's instruction, or about anything the guru is owed in future. It is entirely about the past and entirely about what she received, and a verse about gratitude for something already given cannot be converted into an instrument for extracting something not yet given. The closing argument is internal to the tradition: her guru was Charandas, who gave a code of no lying, stealing, adultery, violence, meat, intoxicants or slander, so the verse praises a teacher who kept a code, and a teacher who lies, takes, coerces or assaults has stepped outside the category she is writing about.
How do I tell a genuine teacher from a controlling one?+
Four things. Gratitude is not obedience: you can owe somebody a great deal and still refuse a specific instruction, since these are separate faculties and a healthy teacher knows it. A real teacher can be questioned, so ask a direct question and watch what happens, because a teacher who answers it or says they do not know is fine, while one who responds with anger, with a story about your ego, with a reference to your karma, or by having somebody else speak to you afterwards has told you something. Leaving should be free, since in a legitimate arrangement you stop attending and nothing happens, while an arrangement where leaving carries spiritual threats, social exile or the loss of money already given is not devotional. And watch what is asked for: money, property, labour, distance from your family, silence, or sexual access, since a teacher who asks for none of those is in a different category from one who asks for several. Police 112, women's helpline 181, Childline 1098 for anything involving a child, cybercrime 1930 for money taken online, free legal aid 15100.
What happened to women who refused marriage in her period?+
Very little that was good, which is why Sahjo Bai's case is exceptional rather than typical. A woman who refused a marriage in eighteenth century north India had almost no positions available to her: she could not hold property in practice, could not live alone, had no income and no means of getting one, and her natal family's willingness to keep her was the only thing between her and destitution, while breaking off a marriage humiliated two families publicly in a society where that mattered enormously. The likely outcomes were a forced marriage, a lifetime of being the household's failure, or the street. The reason none of that happened to her is that the family let her go to Charandas, which is the single most consequential fact in her biography and is almost never stated, and it happened because the man she was going to was inside the family and had standing. Most women in her position did not have that door.
What can somebody being forced into marriage do now?+
The law is clear even where the practice is not. A marriage requires the free consent of both parties, a marriage without consent is voidable, and coercing somebody into one is an offence. An adult woman has the right to choose whether and whom to marry, and the Supreme Court has treated that choice as part of the constitutional right to life and liberty. The practical routes are the women's helpline 181, which operates in most states and can arrange shelter; police 112, and a woman can approach any police station regardless of where she lives; Childline 1098 if she is under eighteen, with marriage under eighteen for a woman or twenty one for a man separately an offence under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act 2006; free legal aid on 15100 through the National Legal Services Authority, with an authority in every district that will act; and One Stop Centres, which exist in most districts and provide shelter, counselling, medical help and legal aid in one place. A woman who does not want to marry is allowed not to marry, and that is the law.
About the author
Pandit Ravindra Sharma · Vedic Rituals & Bhakti, 22+ years
Pandit Ravindra is the Vandnaa editorial team's resident specialist on aarti, chalisa, and daily devotion. He has performed home and temple pujas across Varanasi and Delhi for over two decades and contributes the bhakti-focused articles on this site.
Meet the Vandnaa editorial team →
