SWAMI KRITARTHANANDA
PERSPECTIVE
The Pros and Cons of Obedience
SWAMI KRITARTHANANDA
R
26
ight from our very childhood we are
more than familiar with the term
‘obedience’. There is hardly a child
who has not heard his parents hurling this
word at him on several occasions. Our elders
want us to be obedient to them, to the
teacher, to the society and what not. To be a
‘nice kid’ amounts to be an obedient child.
Yet, for good or evil, the term has led to no
less controversy. In other words, the term
‘obedience’ has come to stand as one of the
misunderstood and misrepresented concepts
in the world. So a discussion in the line may
perhaps help us clarify our misconceptions.
we come up to others’ expectations we are
praised; otherwise we are admonished. So
obedience, in a sense, is a sort of a covenant,
a contract with an authority. Conformity or
submission to the authority is extolled as
obedience, and its reverse is deplored as
disobedience. Authority is not a kind of
possession; it is an interpersonal relationship
and, depending on mental attitudes of
individuals, it has two aspects: rational
authority and inhibiting authority. Both are
exercised in the different types of
interpersonal relationships that we are going
to discuss in brief now.
Obedience and authority
Parent-child relationship
The very word ‘obedience’ raises a
question: obedience to what? ‘To an
authority,’ comes the prompt answer. The
authority may be our parents, teachers,
elders, society, government, king, powerful
persons, and so on. To complete the list,
there is the authority of our conscience
which functions in a covert way guiding,
disciplining, and shaping our character from
within through the ordeals of life. The
external, overt authority fixes for us the
types of obedience we are to undergo, and
sets certain arbitrary norms for the
continuance of a good society. These norms
are called ‘values’ of life. Our conscience is
also built up after the pattern of values set by
the group of people we live with. All of us
are bound to follow one or the other
authority if we are to live with others. When
This is chiefly a biological bond,
starting from the umbilical cord itself. The
first object outside the child’s body is the
parent. His relation to the world is also
established through them. Again, since the
child comes out of the parent’s body, the
expectations of the parents from the child
are more. The parents can foster the child
either through love or through strict
discipline. Within a reasonable limit both the
ways may imply a rational authority and
obedience under such cases also comes
unsolicited, in the normal course. But too
much pampering or stricture may even lead
to a damaging breach in the relationship.
Nowadays most parents verbally say that
they wish their child to be free to fulfil its
potentialities. However, in practice they only
want their child to achieve its potentialities
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
THE PROS AND CONS OF OBEDIENCE
by remaining under their control. The
anxiety which the parents develop at the idea
of the child’s becoming free clearly indicates
their tendency to continue their domination.
This only makes the child all the more
dependent and cripples him in facing the
world all by himself.
According
to
the
American
psychotherapist, Dr Rollo May, ‘Being
merely
obedient
undermines
the
development of an individual’s ethical
awareness and inner strength. By being
obedient to external requirements over a
long period of time, he loses his real powers
of ethical, responsible choice. Strange as it
sounds, then, the powers of these people to
achieve goodness and the joy which goes
with it are diminished.’ [Rollo May, Man’s
Search for Himself; The New American
Library, Inc, NY, 1st print, August 1967,
p. l70]
Teacher-student relationship
This relationship sets in with the school
going of the child, and is the first training
outside the loving care of the parents. Once
the student feels at home with the teacher, he
starts opening himself to the discerning
teacher who in his turn unravels the store of
his knowledge to the pupil. In such a healthy
relation obedience comes as naturally as
breathing. The authority exercised by the
teacher aims at the intellectual and psychic
development of the disciple who realizes this
truth sooner or later. Legend has it
that once a student, being disgusted by the
repeated scolding from the teacher for the
slightest lapse, decided to murder the latter
and waited in ambush for the opportunity.
He overheard the dialogue between the
teacher and his wife, who mildly protested
the teacher’s strictness toward the student.
The teacher pacified his wife by saying that
it was because he loved the disciple most
and did not want him to make a single false
step. As the enraged student heard this, he
became filled with remorse and shamefully
retreated. The next morning he met his
teacher and humbly enquired of the right
retribution for one who bears malice against
his teacher. The teacher, unable to guess the
horrible consequence of his answer, naively
replied, ‘Self-immolation.’ That was exactly
what the student did in obedience to the
teacher. This is, however, an extreme case.
The general trend is that the teacher feels
elated at the success of the student, and the
latter’s failure dejects the teacher. Elements
of love, admiration, or gratitude reign
supreme in this relationship.
Master-slave relationship
In this case the relationship is mainly of
an inhibition. The master may exploit the
slave in return to the meagre food and
clothing he provides for the latter, while the
latter tries his best to derive the
minimum of happiness from his service.
This triggers off antagonism, resentment,
hostility, hatred, vengeance at first
opportunity. But as the antagonism of the
slave leads to untold suffering and misery, in
most cases the feeling of hatred gets
repressed and blind admiration takes its
place.
Employer-employee relationship
This relationship is like a contract of
obedience in the form of faithfulness of the
servant to the superior. If either party caters
to the well-being of the other and evinces
genuine human interest in the concerns of
the other, this relationship may prove to be
an ethical one. Problem accrues when the
subordinate is ordered by the superior to do
what offends the moral values of the former.
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
27
SWAMI KRITARTHANANDA
Under the circumstance, the employee is left
with two choices: a) to give up his service,
and b) to leave the responsibility to his
superior. Of course, in many instances this
type of problem can be solved by a free
discussion with the authority provided the
latter is well disposed to that.
Conjugal relationship
This is mainly based on love and
understanding between each other, and not
on domination of one over the other, in
which case divorce is the inevitable upshot.
Through many a love-hate relation leading
to bitter experience, couples are coming to
understand that in order to establish a strong
social bond through marriage and in order to
perpetuate a lineage of happy and healthy
progeny, a good amount of detachment has
to be infused into love.
Stoic obedience in the army
Nowhere else is obedience so much
demanded as in the army. It is the most
important place wherein unquestioning
obedience is the be-all and end-all of life.
Each soldier is trained or even brainwashed or indoctrinated (as in the Nazi army
camp during World War II) to follow what
the superiors command. The question of
rationality or inhibition is not allowed to
raise its head. The fate of the whole
lot depends solely on the discretion of the
commander and any question from the
subordinate is to be met with capital
punishment. The fateful picture of
unquestioning obedience has been
graphically depicted by Lord Alfred
Tennyson (1809-92) in his immortal poem
The Charge of the Light Brigade. A few
lines from the piece will drive home the
point under discussion:
28
‘Forward, the Light Brigade!’
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Some one had blundered:
Their’s not to make reply,
Their’s not to reason why,
Their’s but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Whereas in all other contexts obedience
is just the means to a goal, in the defence
army it is both. One has to either obey or
die. The soldiers are like robots—not even
slaves—in the hands of the commander.
King-subject relationship
This is one field of exercising both
authority as well as submission in a
wholesome way. The ideal of kingship is
represented by Ràma in the Ràmàyana. The
sole duty of a king is to look after the wellbeing of his subjects as if they were his own
children. Even punishment can be cracked
down on the outlaw for the good of the
many. Moreover, the authority being
conspicuous, the subjects have a voice in the
court even against the king himself. In the
normal relationship of this kind, both
authority and obedience work in such
harmony that they are hardly noticed.
According to Swami Vivekananda,
The subjects should, in every respect, look
up to the king and stick to their king with
unreserved obedience, and the king should
rule them with impartial justice and look to
their welfare and bear the same affection
towards them as he would towards his own
children. [CW 4:461]
Anonymous authority
There are many relationships like the
above, which demonstrate rational and
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
THE PROS AND CONS OF OBEDIENCE
inhibiting authority. They fall under a
common denominator, ‘external authority’.
If it is favourably inclined to your wellbeing, you naturally feel an obligation to
obey such an external authority; if it is not,
you may even raise your protest or withdraw
yourself from this overt type of authority.
However, there is another type of authority
against which man has no power, and he is
helplessly led by such queer authority. This
is called by various names like anonymous,
covert, invisible, alienated authority. In this
case nobody makes any demand on you
openly, yet you feel propelled by it. The
main factors worth mention under this
category are public opinion, the market,
economic necessities, common sense, and so
on.
The anonymous authority casts its spell
on its subject in the form of conformity or
adjustment to the common trend, which is
only another name for obedience. It implies
a helpless merging of one’s self into the
group just for his happy survival. Man
groans under its tyranny because such
conformity only strangulates his creative
urge, his genius. Man feels imprisoned in his
social mores.
On the opposite pole stands the internal
authority of conscience, sense of values,
power of judgement, strength of character,
individual creative urge, etc. When the
inhibitions of authority—external or
anonymous—assail man, the only antidote is
to obey the internal authority, that is, to
listen to the ‘still small voice’ of one’s
conscience.
Obedience in religious context
In the religious sphere, obedience has
more dimensions than in worldly level.
Religious obedience implies a voluntary
submission to a specifically religious
authority—be it a principle, law, a divine
being, or God. Unconditional obedience to
an ancient custom, priestly enactment, or the
ordinances of some sacred books is
emphasized in almost all world religions.
This obedience may originate from fear,
religious convention, hope of reward, belief
in the real excellence of the law, or trust in
the authority. The important point to note
here is that obedience in religious context
always implies that the person in question is
either spiritually dependent or immature. A
person is free to obey or disobey a particular
principle or deity; but he cannot question its
authority which is taken for granted as a
matter of fact.
In Hinduism, the word obedience is
replaced by shraddhà, which is explained as
a deep faith in both the words of the
scripture and the guru. Besides, obedience or
adherence to set rules applies only to
the novitiate and not to the spiritually
advanced souls. Obedience in the Hindu
context may act as a means of spiritual
discipline.
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the
importance of obedience is demonstrated by
condemning Adam and Eve for disobeying
the commandment of God in the Genesis.
The very fact that disobedience is sin points
to the covenant of God imposed on
humanity. In recent time, a part of the
Christian world consisting of eminent
psychologists, sociologists, etc, and even an
elevated
personality
like
Swami
Vivekananda has started asserting that the
very fact of original disobedience need not
be called sin. On the contrary, disobedience
is the condition for man’s self-awareness,
for his capacity to choose for himself instead
of helplessly depending on another being
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
29
SWAMI KRITARTHANANDA
called God. The fall of Adam and Eve from
Eden did not corrupt man in the least; rather,
it paved the way for man’s progress toward
freedom. Some scholars go to the extent of
saying that it was only because man was
expelled from Eden that he was able to make
his own history, to develop his human
powers, and to attain a new harmony. [Vide
Erich Fromm, The Heart of Man, Harper &
Row Publishers, Inc, 1st Perennial Library
edition, 1971, pp. 10-11]
By obedience, the New Testament
means to follow in the footsteps of Jesus
Christ, His Sermon on the Mount, to
recognize Him as Master, and to submit to
those who represent Him here below.
Obedience finds expression in letters of the
apostle St. Paul to the Romans and
Corinthians, but nowhere in the teachings of
Jesus Christ himself—the preacher of love.
The Nazarene, with his mature sense of
life, preached: ‘Blessed are the meek,’
‘Blessed are the peace-makers,’ ‘Do unto
others as ye would that others do unto you,’
‘The kingdom of heaven is within you.’
These sermons do not, in the least, remind
man of his first ancestor’s disobedience.
much less the helplessness of modern man.
On the contrary, these words point to the
fact that man can save himself only by
growing into the fullness of his powers and
knowledge.
In Buddhism obedience means the
observance of the corporate rules of the
Sangha (monastic organization). Here the
master-disciple relation has been less
emphasized; but each of the new recruit is
put under the care and tutelage of an elder
monk. As a reason to the establishment of
the Sangha, the Buddha pointed out: ‘A man
that stands alone, having decided to obey the
truth, may be weak and slip back into his old
30
ways. Therefore, stand ye together, assist
one another, and strengthen one another’s
efforts.’ [Paul Carus, The Gospel of Buddha,
National Book Trust, India, New Delhi, 3rd
Indian edition, October 1971, p. 51] He also
insisted on the obedience to the laws of
righteousness. [Ibid. p. 136] At the same
time, he bade his disciples in his farewell
address to be lamps unto themselves; to rely
on themselves and not on external help.
[Ibid. p. 211]
The
Islamic
dictum
requires
unquestioning obedience to the Quran; but
simultaneously it leaves enough room for the
exercise of reasoning, known as ijtihdd,
which means exerting oneself. Here also,
provision is kept for obedience to one’s
spiritual mentor called pir.
Confucianism makes filial relationship
a paradigm for obedience of all kinds.
Obedience should be held fast to as if the
master-disciple relation is a spiritual
parentage. The disciple is supposed to
undergo a period of religious tutelage and
this requires the unquestioning obedience of
a child.
Thus far we have discussed the place of
obedience in some of the world religions.
We now proceed to focus our attention on
the implication of obedience in monastic
organizations and in monastic life.
Obedience in monastic organization
The very words ‘monastic organization’
point to a spiritual abbey of renunciates who
work for the same ideal. As already shown,
in various religious contexts obedience
forms the very foundation of all religious
communities, lay or monastic alike. But
whereas in some religious contexts
unquestioning obedience is demanded, some
of the religions also advocate the
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
THE PROS AND CONS OF OBEDIENCE
coexistence of obedience and freedom.
This point is noteworthy for, it is due to the
wrong understanding of these two
apparently contradictory terms that most of
the problems relating to obedience crop up.
First of all, one point needs clarification
here. Obedience and slavery or bondage are
not synonymous terms. One can be as free
within his own world as sky while being
obedient to his superiors or certain laws,
injunctions, values, or authority. A monastic
organization is established with the aim of
standing as a bulwark for its members to
attain a spiritual goal, enlightenment, or
freedom. The disciplines of obedience,
chastity, etc imposed on its members are
means to attain that goal. No member can
claim himself to be an exception to those
impositions which are rather selfdisciplinary. Conflicts come only when the
seniors in power assert themselves in
exploiting others by using various
chicaneries in the name of religion or its
proponent, and more often than not with the
help of casuistry. Such attempts are chiefly
aimed at making robots of the juniors and
subordinates. In such attempts the superiors
reduce themselves to the level of company
bosses who like to have slaves rather than
employees. To use a fitting simile of a
renowned satiric-humorist poet of Bengal,
those seniors want ‘a couple of snakes
without fangs, claws, eyes, horns, with
simple food habits (no extravagance) and no
trouble.’ As a matter of fact, far from
struggling for the welfare of the
organization, such people run after the petty
aims of their individual life like name, fame,
power, money, etc.
Another point is that in a spiritual
organization obedience is imposed on those
who are supposed to be spiritually in their
nonage. There need not be any restriction for
the advanced soul, or precisely, the
spiritually mature soul. Still they
punctiliously hold fast to the injunctions of
obedience as a blazing example for the
novitiates. In an organization where the
elders or the persons wielding the wand of
authority live up to their sermons
themselves, obedience for the juniors
becomes as smooth as the flow of
the southern wind. Disobedience raises its
ugly head due to several reasons. For one
thing, it happens when the confidence of the
youngsters on the elders wanes due to laxity
on the latter’s side in regard to adherence to
discipline. For another thing, purposeful
disobedience is indicative of a strong protest
on the part of the junior against the authority
due to some desideratum in the management
or policy. For yet another thing,
disobedience is caused by a deep sense of
guilt feeling within one’s being due to a
conflict between an ideal and conscience. A
fitting example of it, though not related to
monastic organizations, is Claude Eatherly,
the person who gave the signal to drop the
bomb at Hiroshima. He was not told
beforehand what the bomb would do. But
after witnessing the whole episode he was
cut to the quick with contrition. As an
atonement for this sinful act, he started
committing all sorts of civil disobedience
with a view to drawing attention of the
authority and to be sent behind the bar. [Cf.
Bertrand Russell, Has Man A Future?
Penguin Books Ltd, Middlesex, 1st edition
1961, p. 4l] In a less dramatic way, the
monastic members, after realizing their
inability to hold on to a high ideal which
they chose in the flower of youth in a fit of
inchoate inspiration, start disobeying the
authority on various pretexts. Also, when
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
31
SWAMI KRITARTHANANDA
they observe their respected superior
preaching high ideal in public while
committing the most wretched, unmonastic,
heinous crimes in private, the sense of
values ingrained in the juniors gets shattered
and they start deliberately disobeying the
authority.
The problem of conformity to the
majority is much relevant in this context.
Those who are too weak to follow the voice
of their conscience generally give up the
struggle sooner and continue with their
‘unconditional obedience’ to the commands
of the authority, however whimsical it may
appear. This is known as conformity to the
group or majority. Such people choose their
personal comfort and ambition in
preference to a life of rigorous selfdiscipline. Their idea of freedom is the
ability to enjoy as they like. But in such
cases they remain obedient to the authority
at the cost of their real freedom. Real
freedom is the ability to choose between the
opposite poles like the better and the worse,
between the preferable (shreyah) and the
pleasurable (preyah), between independence
and dependence, at the critical moment of
need. This ability, again, comes from an
awareness of what constitutes good or evil,
of the unconscious desires, of the
consequences of the choice. One who wants
freedom while continuing in an organization
must be careful to keep himself aloof from
the opinion of the majority and tread the
path—though thorny—of conscientious
judgement. Only then can one remain as free
as sky while being as faithful as a dog. In
this context, Swami Turiyananda, a disciple
of Sri Ramakrishna, made a signal comment:
‘In matters of opinion, float with the current;
in matters of principle, stand as firm as a
rock.’
32
Holy Mother on obedience
Obedience to a principle or one’s
spiritual teacher (guru) can be made
unconditional without much trouble. The
problem comes when authorized superiors
other than the spiritual teacher come inbetween with all their casuistry to make a
slave of the innocent aspirant. Even
sometimes the spiritual teacher also, out of
his earthly, base desires, exploits the
innocent disciple. One has to be on guard
against such atrocities.
Once two American ladies approached
the Holy Mother, Sri Sarada Devi, with the
question that when the spiritual teacher
belongs to the opposite sex, how far one
should obey him in all matters. Now,
as a matter of fact, the spiritual teacher of
the Holy Mother was none other than her
own husband, Sri Ramakrishna. Hence she
was never assailed by such a problem in her
life. Yet she gave a bold answer: ‘In spiritual
matters alone you should follow your
teacher’s instructions unconditionally, but
not in worldly matters.’ This was an epochal
answer that set at naught all chances of
exploitation or manipulation in the name of
spiritual ministration. As we gather from her
life story, she would straightaway disobey,
refuse, or at least express disapproval of
some of the instructions of Sri
Ramakrishna on worldly matters which
seemed unjustified to her. Once Sri
Ramakrishna, a great taskmaster to his
monastic disciples in the making, came to
know that a disciple had taken two or three
extra pieces of bread at supper. This being
far beyond what he had stipulated for the
latter earlier, he forbade the Holy Mother
Sarada Devi to do so in future. But she was
not a person to be ordered around
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
THE PROS AND CONS OF OBEDIENCE
concerning such matters and replied to the
Master sharply: ‘Why are you worrying just
because he has eaten two extra pieces of
bread? I am looking after these children. I do
not want you to criticize them about food.’
Reminiscing about such incidents at
Dakshineswar, the Holy Mother once said to
Yogin-Ma: ‘Can a person obey every word
of another human being?’ She never
hesitated to speak the blunt truth to her
husband when the occasion demanded it. At
one time the kitchen at Kamarpukur badly
needed repair and the Master was asked to
pay the expense. But he said, ‘We do not
live there; let them somehow manage it.’
‘How selfish!’, Sarada Devi said at once.
[Nikhilananda, Holy Mother, RamakrishnaVivekananda Centre, New York, 2nd
printing, 1982, pp. 72-3] On another
occasion, when she was asked by Sri
Ramakrishna to be a little parsimonious in
the matter of giving away things to the
devotees, her motherly feeling of charity got
hurt. She abruptly left the room, leaving Sri
Ramakrishna in great distress at her rigid
silence. Another incident from her life also
stands out to show how uncompromising she
was in points of crisis. Shy as she was, she
always advocated direct, clear discussion
in preference to hearsay or false perception.
At the time Sri Ramakrishna was
severely ill with cancer and had to be shifted
temporarily to a rented house at
Shyampukur, Calcutta, for the facility of
treatment and nursing. The Holy Mother
continued to live at Dakshineswar. One day,
Golap-Ma, the loquacious and tactless lady
devotee of Sri Ramakrishna passed a
flippant remark that the Master had probably
left Dakshineswar because he was
annoyed with his wife. This greatly upset the
Holy Mother so much so that she at once
walked all the distance from Dakshineswar
to Shyampukur to ask the Master with tears
in her eyes if she had really offended him.
Sri Ramakrishna understood the gravity of
the situation, nullified the baseless
complaint, and sent her back after duly
pacifying her.
Many tragedies take place in our life due
to misconceptions caused by outside agents.
Instead of going for a clarification through
direct discussion, we withdraw ourselves out
of deep hatred toward the person; or we
exercise studied neglect in order to ‘teach
him a lesson’, thus paving the way for a
wide breach in relationship.
Sri Ramakrishna on obedience
Besides many other sterling qualities of
head and heart, Sri Ramakrishna was a
spiritual teacher nonpareil. He was capable
of moulding the lives of his disciples at will
like a lump of clay. He could easily demand
unquestioning obedience from his disciples.
The disciples also placed their full trust and
confidence on the Master, and there never
was any hitch in the master-disciple
relationship. Yet Sri Ramakrishna always
put spirituality head and shoulders above
obedience. In this context he gave his
view citing from the pages of our hoary
legends. The words bear mention here:
There is no harm in disobeying your elders
for the sake of God. For Ràma’s sake Bharat
did not obey his mother Kaikeyi, The gopis
did not obey their husbands when they were
forbidden to visit Krishna. Prahlàda disobeyed his father for God. Vali disregarded
the words of Shukràchàrya, his teacher, in
order to please God. Bibhishana went against
the wishes of Ràvana, his elder brother, to
please Ràma. But you must obey your elders
in all other things. [‘M’, The Gospel of Sri
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016
33
SWAMI KRITARTHANANDA
Ramakrishna, Red Letter Edition, R. K.
Math, Chennai, 2000, pp. 722-23.]
This is nothing but an endorsement of
the statement of the Holy Mother in her brief
reply to the foreign ladies as mentioned
above.
Swami Vivekananda on obedience
The keen readership of Swamiji’s life
clearly knows how passionate Swamiji was
with the idea of organization. It was because
his study of India revealed the only way to
her regeneration as organized way of doing
work. Quoting a popular Sanskrit saying,
Swamiji used to say, when blades of grass
are twined into a rope, the latter is strong
enough to hold back even a wild elephant.
[CW 9:99] During his first visit to America
once Swamiji expressed to his host Mrs
Lyon that he had had the greatest
temptation of his life in America. On being
teased by the lady, Swamiji said it was the
organizing acumen of America that
fascinated him. Now, the secret of success in
organized work is unwavering obedience to
the ideal. So he wrote to his brother disciple
Swami Shivananda after his return from
America: ‘The work cannot succeed unless
there is perfect obedience to the authority of
the Order and sacrifice of individual
views for the sake of the Order.’ [CW 9:99]
Again: ‘In India the one thing we lack is the
power of combination, organization, the first
secret of which is obedience.’ [CW 5:107]
He also emphasized the necessity of loyalty
to the work undertaken, loyalty to the leader,
and loyalty to the organization. ‘But,’ at
the same time Swamiji also warned, ‘the
leader must command respect and obedience
by his character.’ [Swami Nikhilananda,
Vivekananda : A Biography, p. 165] In this
regard he said in an unequivocal tone:
‘Obedience and respect cannot be enforced
by word of command; neither can they be
exacted. It depends upon the man, upon his
loving nature and exalted character. None
can resist true love and greatness.’ [His
Eastern and Western Disciples, The Life of
Swami Vivekananda, Vol. 2, p. 569]
All this discussion opens our eyes to the
truth inherent in the idea of obedience. It
also enjoins on us to harmonize the
apparently conflicting ideas, namely
freedom and obedience. One can be
outwardly obedient while maintaining an
inward freedom and poise. Moreover, man’s
freedom has to be realized not by breaking
away from an established order but rather by
exercising his inherent right. Should there
be antagonism between the convictions of an
individual and the course of action
demanded of him, he must be at liberty to
state his views openly. Similarly, the
authority claiming his obedience must be
prepared to set forth the other side, and must
not fall back upon any arbitrary dictum or
ancient convention.
In conclusion let us repeatedly remind
ourselves of the alarm raised by Swamiji: ‘I
disagree with the idea that freedom is
obedience to the laws of nature. According
to the history of human progress, it is
disobedience to nature that has constituted
that progress. This life is a tremendous
assertion of freedom; and this obedience to
law, carried far enough, would make us
simply matter—either in society, or in
politics, or in religion.’ [CW 5:286]
„
* Swami Kritarthananda is a monk of the Ramakrishna Order, Belur Math.
34
Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture  August 2016