Let us now remember and discuss these in some detail.
The Gītā is not a treatise with a limited outlook for one set of people. It is beneficial to the entire humankind. We firmly believe that the principles taught by the Gītā ought to be honoured by people of all countries, whatever stage they may be in. Their lives too would benefit from an application of the teachings of the Gītā. This treatise is for all humankind. This was not born only for the brāhmaṇas or the country of Bhārata.
Section 20 / Conclusion
We had a second look at the Gītā. What did we gain for our own use?
2. Universal self-hood (Atmaupamya): is the perfection of knowledge; its ripe fruit. Intellectual conviction is achieved via reflection upon the śāstras and refined by life’s training. This conviction is then transformed into experience through contemplation. Such a knower sees himself everywhere. He looks upon the world with the same affection as a mother would her children. All lives are his own. Just as a mother’s life mingles with her children’s lives, the knower of the Self becomes one with the welfare of all beings.
How can there be adharma for one established in the origin of dharma? For such a person, there is no other object or being than Brahma. Whence pāpa for him? The ocean wipes out the many colours, tastes, and characteristics of the waters of the rivers that meet it - merging them all together into an indivisible oneness. The ocean of Brahma similarly extinguishes the individual characteristics of those who take refuge in it, transforming them into an indivisible unity.
A doubt here. "sarvadharmān parityajya" (having given up all dharmas), "māmekaṃ śaraṇaṃ vraja" (surrender unto Bhagavān alone) - is the instruction. Fine. What is the intent behind - “surrender after having given up all dharmas”? Isn’t surrender a dharma too? Or is surrender an adharma? If the verse had "anya-dharmān" (giving up other dharmas) instead of "sarva-dharmān" (giving up all dharmas), this doubt would not have arisen.
There was a rich man I knew. When all members of his household were asleep, he would enter his room with a small lantern, open his iron safe, noiselessly remove the bundles of currency notes and jewellery one by one from it, caress them fondly, count them again and again, exult at owning all of it, put all of it back again into the safe, lock it, and tie the key to his yajñopavīta. He experienced happiness in looking upon his wealth by himself.
There is a set of rules for the riders on the merry-go-round. The rider should proceed in his path and not collide with those ahead of him and those who follow him. Dharma is such a set of rules. If any of those rules is violated - say, the front rider does not leave way for the rider behind him or if a following rider drags the one ahead of him down - it is a sign that the rider has forgotten about the machine operator and that he has to be reminded of it. The behaviour of not troubling others is dharma. It is a kind of conduct.
Let us now look at a story.
In the phrase, īśvaraḥ sarvabhūtānām, īśvara is not to be taken as the same as the absolute aspect of Parabrahma. Īśvaratva is an aspect or a state of Parabrahma’s līlā. It is normally referred to as kārya-Brahma (Brahma as an effect). Supreme Brahma is without activity. When it appears to be active in the world, it is known as kārya-Brahma or īśvara. Whenever we consider either activity or the world, an element of māyā is involved.