Now, with the advent of democracy, our lives are full of constant turmoil. The king reigned over a kingdom that was subject to rule by a single ruler. Democracy, on the other hand, has many leaders. It is difficult to achieve consensus with multiple leaders - more so about wealth and its distribution. So, what is theoretically thought to be a multi-leader system practically results in anarchy.
But then, what is the use of lamenting over that? There is another side to this topic. We see this kind of admixture only among the rarefied urban population. Those who are wealthy or in prestigious positions or in seats of power are into mixed relationships for many reasons. These are the urban nouveau riche. If we leave them aside and look at populations of tribesmen and categories of poor people, we see resistance to the idea of this admixture. Such people have maintained the differences in clans and categories that have come to them from time immemorial.
Having now reflected upon the steps to attain the right level of eligibility, let us think once again about the four problems due to changing times.
What about the jñānī? He too has to perform karma but instructing him is not necessary. He performs karma without any guidance. Karma is imperative as long as the body exists. Life in the physical plane implies contact with the world. Even the most knowledgeable cannot escape it. If that is the case, what is so unique about a jñānī’s knowledge? The answer is that a jñānī’s karma does not result in individual results for him.
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.
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.