In plain words
Only at the time of the Mahābhārata war did He teach this Gītā well. Why did He keep silent so long! Only when time, action, cause and duty come together do such teachings come to us. That is why, when one wants to say anything at all, a time must arise for it.
Swami knows everything. But He stays as though He knew nothing; you must recognise the difference between men in the world and the divine feeling. What is Divinity like? Though He knows everything and has every power, He acts as though He knew nothing, as though He had no power. What is humanness like? Though he knows nothing and has no power, he imagines that he knows everything and has every power. This alone is the difference between the one and the other. Some disciple asked, so the story goes. “Swami! What is the difference between the jīva and God?” To explain this in Vedānta one would have to write a big book. The guru answered it in just two words, so the story goes. “The one who is still is God; the one who sways is the jīva,” he said, so the story goes. That is, the one who wavers is the jīva. The one who stays steady is God: that is the meaning. This humanness is always welling up. But for this too a time must come. So the first thing students must recognise is the Satya that God is all-pervading, and we must try to prove it not only in words but in deeds too. Swami knows what is happening where, in what form and in what way. But I never try to utter it, or to teach it, or to repeat it. For some time now many faults have been coming out in the very students who have stayed here a long time. Through this they have been showing the wrong path to new students and young students. Some P.hd scholars. These are all badly spoilt. Like old bandicoots they come in here and mislead the new ones. When they have to speak about Swami, they say everything, “omnitient, omnipresent”. They go on using the words. But if you really look, their hearts are not clean at all. Through such students some harm keeps coming to the new students and the innocent students. Whether this is Ajñāna or Ahaṅkāra, thinking themselves highly read, or some other kind of show, I cannot say. In My view it is not Ajñāna. Nor is it Ahaṅkāra. One can only call this ungrateful cruelty. Having stayed so long in our educational institution, having recognised in every way the inner meaning of Swami's institutions, and being class leaders besides, they must not behave like this.