The boss asks subordinates to do something, the teacher asks students to do something, and parents ask their children to do something. In society, there are many things called commands.

However, does a person truly have the right to use another person's will as their own?

In company regulations, superiors are given the authority to give commands and instructions. On a ship, the captain decides the course. In a country, there are laws, and violating them can result in punishment.

Here, what we want to consider is not whether such a system exists or not. Even if there is authority within the system, the question goes deeper: can one person possess another person's free will?

In this article, we will consider based on the following premises:

All beings are, ultimately, manifestations of divine existence.

If that is the case, even if there are differences in social roles, there is no distinction between master and property at the root of existence. No one has the fundamental right to own another person's inner will or make them subservient.

In that sense, commands are ultimately not commands.

Even if you have authority, it is ultimately a request.

In society, even commands are requests at their core.

If a superior tells a subordinate, "Please complete this task by today," it is usually treated as an instruction related to work. This is a socially and institutionally recognized expression.

However, it is the person who receives the command that transforms it into actual action.

The superior does not enter the other person's body or directly move their limbs. The person who receives the words understands, judges, and acts accordingly. Whether to comply, object, refuse, end the relationship, or remain with that person is up to them.

Of course, refusing something may have consequences. If you do not fulfill the role that was assigned to you, actions will be taken in accordance with contracts and regulations.

Even so, being able to set results and being able to possess other people's wills are not the same thing.

Even if something is an instruction that carries a strong obligation in society, at its root, it is a request directed towards a free individual.

Social appearance: A superior gives commands to a subordinate.

The ultimate appearance: One entity requests an action from another free-willed entity.

These two perspectives do not negate each other; rather, they function as commands on a social level while ultimately being requests. It is about seeing both layers simultaneously.

Roles do not create ownership of personality.

Let's consider a scene where the captain instructs, "Please change course to the right."

During navigation, if a single decision cannot be quickly shared, the entire ship becomes dangerous. Therefore, crew members participate in a relationship where they follow the captain's decisions. Socially, the captain has strong authority.

However, the captain does not own the crew members who are employees.

The captain's authority operates within the shared goal of safely navigating the ship. It does not extend to deciding a crew member's marriage partner, dictating their worldview, or controlling their innermost thoughts.

The role is a placement that enables collaborative activities. It does not determine superiority or inferiority in personality, nor is it an ownership right that receives the free will of others.

If we consider that commands in a role-based context are ultimately requests, then the attitude of the person giving the command also changes.

The other person is not your own hands and feet. Like you, they are beings who make judgments, choices, and take actions from within themselves. Therefore, even when giving necessary instructions, it is important to explain the purpose, adhere to the scope, and listen to the other person's response.

Things that can be forced are not things that possess meaning.

Nations and organizations have systems in place to enforce rules. They may impose consequences for violations, which can include effects on qualifications, contracts, affiliations, property, and personal freedom.

Then, you might think that it is not a request but rather a forced action in the end.

Indeed, real systems have coercive power. We should not try to hide that with gentle language. We cannot simply rephrase pressure or violence, even those without escape routes, as mere requests.

Here, when I say "ultimately it is a request," this does not negate the actual power dynamics.

Even if one has coercive power, one cannot make the other party's innermost will into one's own possession.

Even if you can restrict someone's actions from the outside, you cannot possess the freedom that lies at the root of their existence. Therefore, those who have coercive power are responsible for minimizing it to the necessary minimum, explaining the reasons, and leaving avenues for objection and reconsideration.

"It is not because you have authority that you can do anything." Because we cannot take away the freedom of others, exercising authority must be done with caution.

Thinking of others does not give you the right to command.

"I'm saying this because I'm thinking about you."

This word can come from good intentions. It may also be advice given by someone with knowledge and experience, in order to avoid danger.

However, having good intentions is different from having the right to decide someone else's life.

Knowledge improves the quality of advice. Experience helps to convey dangers that the other person has not yet seen. However, in the end, it is the other person who lives. The responsibility for the results also lies with them.

Therefore, no matter how confident the advice is, ultimately it is a request.

It looks like this to me.

I want you to do it like this.

However, the person who chooses is still you.

If this last sentence is lost, the advice will become closer to domination.

Mental maturity does not qualify one to control others.

In the spiritual world, a hierarchy may be created that is separate from social titles.

"I am awake."

"I have let go of my attachment."

"I had a mystical experience."

"I am looking at things from a higher perspective than you."

Even if that experience is true for the person themselves, it does not grant them authority to give commands to others based on it.

The experience itself, how one interprets that experience, and how one communicates that interpretation to others are separate stages. It is not possible to go from experiencing a sense of unity directly to the conclusion that "therefore, others should follow me."

Rather, if all beings are ultimately God, then it is impossible for only oneself to monopolize God's will.

If you see a god within yourself, then you must also see a god within others. Even when the other person's judgment differs from your own, you cannot simply dismiss that freedom as immaturity.

"I understand" may create a responsibility to explain, but it does not give one the right to deprive someone of their freedom.

Considering it from the perspective of Advaita Vedanta:

In Advaita Vedanta, Atman and Brahman, which are considered the underlying principles of all existence, are ultimately not two.

From this perspective, the person in front of you is not a completely detached "other." At the same time, your personal self does not become the ruler of the universe.

The fact that Atman and Brahman are not two does not mean, "Only I am God, and you should follow me." It means seeing the fundamental essence of myself and the other person as the same divine existence.

What happens there is not an enhancement of one's authority, but rather the opposite.

I will no longer have any basis for possessing the other person.

You will no longer be able to treat the other person's free will as a part of your own will.

Your own words, ultimately, become a request to another divine being.

While talking about non-duality, if one shifts to a position of commanding only oneself and fixing others as the subordinate side, then it is replacing the unity of existence with personal domination.

The fact that everything is ultimately one does not mean that I am justified in controlling others. Rather, it means that I should treat others as beings who possess the same fundamental freedom as myself.

Rewording commands as requests.

It is not necessary to eliminate all social roles. In collaborative work, there are situations where someone makes a decision and someone else executes it. In emergencies, there may not be time for lengthy discussions.

Even so, the internal understanding can be changed.

You should obey me because you are inferior to me. ↓ We share this goal. ↓ I have the responsibility to make decisions within this scope. ↓ Therefore, I am asking you to perform this action.

Viewing a command as a request does not obscure responsibility. Rather, it is necessary to clarify who makes what decisions and who takes responsibility for the results.

The difference is that you don't treat the other person as your property.

The party issuing the command knows that their words may be rejected. The party receiving the command can understand that, even when complying, they have not lost their own will, but are responding based on a shared purpose, agreement, and circumstances.

That response includes agreement, questions, objections, negotiation, rejection, and withdrawal. In reality, each choice has consequences, but the entity making the choice does not disappear.

I decide myself, and you decide yourself.

There are authorities in society. There are roles, promises, rules, and enforcement power.

However, those are mechanisms that make human co-existence possible. They do not prove that one being owns another from the very root.

If all beings are ultimately God, then no one can take away another's divinity. No one can claim another person's free will as their own possession.

Therefore, even if you have authority, it is ultimately a request.

The person making the request will explain the reason. They acknowledge the other party's freedom. They do not exceed their own role and responsibilities.

The party receiving the request will respond on their own. Even when agreeing, they have not relinquished their freedom to someone else; rather, based on their own judgment, they are participating in a joint action.

At its core, it is based on a simple principle.

I decide who I am. You decide who you are. And we ask each other for what is necessary, without erasing each other's freedom.