The Relevance of the Bhagavadgita to Humanity : (The First Six Chapters of the Bhagavadgita): 1.2 - Swami Krishnananda

Swami Chinmayananda

Is it necessary to agree with your guru always? A devotee asked Gurudev Swami Chinmayananda! Find out his response here!

Do you have any other doubts that you need to sort out? Comment below!

=======================================================================================================

Tuesday,  11  March 2025, 10:30.
The Relevance of the Bhagavadgita to Humanity : 
(The First Six Chapters of the Bhagavadgita): 1.2.
1.Introduction - 2,
Swami Krishnananda.

========================================================================================================

Now, inasmuch as everyone is aware that the welfare of each person is, to a large extent, determined by the welfare of other people also – we are sure that the welfare of other people is also, in some way, a deciding factor in our welfare – it follows from this that there is limitation on the freedom that we exercise by the mere fact of the existence of other people who also are free, as we are. The freedom of another is the limitation on our freedom. This is simple to understand. If another person is free, that freedom of that person is a limitation set on our freedom. Now, we cannot complain that this is a bad state of affairs. It is good to limit our freedom because, in a very strange way, we will be able to appreciate that the freedom, even apparently limited in that manner sanctioned to all people, will bring about a larger security of all. Actually, cooperation or coordination of people is nothing but a sacrifice, on each one's part, of one's freedom to the extent that it is necessary to allow that kind of freedom to other people also. This is a generous way of thinking, a liberal way of thought, and a charitableness of feeling, which is not merely a niggardly concession that we are giving to other people, but it is essential for our own welfare also.

When we are good to another person, we are not showing a high-handed, royal gesture of charitableness. It is not a superior attitude that we are assuming by our charity to other people. It is a necessity on our part, because we also expect charity from other people, so we cannot assume an air of importance in this world of coordination and cooperation. There is no one important in this world and, therefore, there is also no one unimportant. The world is a community of ingredients, components, who are equally essential for the working of the machinery of this largely pervasive law of the cosmos. Some modern thinkers consider the whole administration of creation as a kind of management of a cosmic society.

I saw an advertisement of a book written by an American scholar. The name of the book is Cosmic Society. I was very much happy to hear that there is such a thing called cosmic society. The whole of God's creation is a society, or we may call it a family, to make it more intelligible. It is easy to understand the way in which we have to live in this world if we can compare the whole universe to a family. We need not be too philosophical and metaphysical or abstract here. We can be simple, homely, and matter of fact in the understanding of what these things are.

We know how happy we are to be members in a single family of brothers, sisters, father, mother, and so on. We feel happy by our coordination with other members in the family, notwithstanding the fact each one has an independence. It does not mean that any member of the family will subjugate another. There is no such intention of any member in a house. One brother will not consider another brother as a subordinate. Yet, the very fact of there being cooperation, which gives them so much satisfaction and security, is an automatic restriction on each one's freedom. Each one is ready to sacrifice his or her freedom for the sake of giving that very kind of freedom to another member in the family, by which act of limitation of one's freedom, one does not feel unhappy, but more happy. We are one. So, there is a larger integration and a wider form of security and a sense of welfare sanctioned to each member in this coordinated family. By the very fact of the limitation we set upon our freedom in the family, we become more happy than we would be if we granted infinite freedom to ourselves, to the exclusion of everybody else's welfare. This is a little homely illustration of the way in which we may be able to live in this world.

*****

Continued

=============================================================================================