A History of Commentaries
The Bhagavad Gita has inspired countless commentaries over nearly two millennia. Each commentator finds in the text support for their particular philosophical position, suggesting either the text's infinite depth or its fundamental ambiguity. Desai examines how the major modern interpreters approached the Gita, revealing patterns that inform the authorship question.
The Commentary Tradition
From Adi Shankaracharya (8th century) through Ramanuja (11th century) to the modern nationalists, the Gita has been explained, expanded, and appropriated by thinkers with vastly different agendas. This tradition of reinterpretation is itself evidence of the text’s composite character.
The Classical Commentators
Before examining modern interpreters, Desai surveys the classical tradition:
Opposing Readings from the Same Text
That two of India’s greatest philosophical minds could find opposed teachings in the same text suggests not just their interpretive creativity but possibly the text’s internal contradictions, different passages actually teaching different things because they were written by different authors with different views.
Modern Indian Interpreters
The 19th and 20th centuries brought new political urgencies to Gita interpretation:
Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920)
Karma Yoga Emphasis
Tilak’s Gita Rahasya (1915) was written largely in prison, where British authorities had confined him for sedition. His interpretation was explicitly political: the Gita teaches that action, including violent resistance, is not only permitted but required when dharma is at stake.
Key arguments:
- The entire Gita builds toward validating Arjuna’s duty to fight
- Karma yoga (selfless action) is the Gita’s central teaching
- Renunciation means renouncing the fruits of action, not action itself
- The battlefield context is not metaphorical but literal
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
Ahimsa Emphasis
Gandhi called the Gita his “spiritual dictionary.” Yet his reading differed dramatically from Tilak’s:
- The battle is allegorical: the war within between higher and lower nature
- Ahimsa (non-violence) is the supreme dharma
- The Gita’s violence is symbolic, not prescriptive
- Nishkama karma (action without attachment) supports non-violent resistance
Gandhi acknowledged that his interpretation was unconventional: “I regard the word ‘battle’ as a metaphor.” He read against the literal meaning to find the message he believed the text should contain.
Sri Aurobindo (1872-1950)
Integral Yoga
Aurobindo sought to synthesize the various paths presented in the Gita into a single “integral yoga.” For him, the text’s apparent contradictions reflected different stages of spiritual development, not different authors. His Essays on the Gita present a comprehensive spiritual vision that draws on, and claims to transcend, all partial readings.
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (1891-1956)
Critical Analysis
Ambedkar stands apart from the reverential tradition. In Riddles in Hinduism and other writings, he offered a devastating critique:
- The Gita justifies the caste system through the concept of svadharma
- Krishna’s teaching reinforces hereditary inequality
- The text was used to keep lower castes in subordination
- Its apparent philosophical sophistication masks its social function
For Ambedkar, asking “who wrote the Gita?” led to another question: “in whose interests was it written?”
What the Divergence Reveals
The radical disagreement among intelligent, sincere interpreters suggests:
- The text genuinely contains multiple, possibly contradictory messages
- These contradictions may arise from multiple authorship over time
- Each author’s agenda shaped their contribution to the text
- The “unity” of the Gita may be an imposed interpretation rather than an inherent quality
The Pattern Emerges
Desai notes a pattern: each interpreter emphasizes certain chapters and verses while downplaying others. Tilak focuses on the karma yoga passages; Gandhi on verses supporting non-attachment; Shankara on jnana yoga sections; Ramanuja on bhakti passages.
Perhaps they are not reading the same text differently but rather reading different texts within a composite whole, each finding the author whose message resonates with their own views.
“Every great commentator has found in the Gita what they sought. This is either evidence of the text’s divine comprehensiveness or of its human compilation from diverse sources. I argue for the latter.”
Meghnad Desai
Key Insights from Chapter 4
- Classical Divide: Shankara and Ramanuja found opposite philosophies in the same text
- Modern Divergence: Tilak justified action; Gandhi justified non-violence; both used the Gita
- Critical Voice: Ambedkar saw the Gita as caste apologetics
- Selective Reading: Each interpreter emphasizes different chapters and verses
- Composite Evidence: Radical divergence suggests multiple messages from multiple sources
Adi Shankaracharya (8th Century CE)
Advaita Vedanta - Non-Dualism
Shankara emphasized jnana yoga (the path of knowledge) and read the Gita as supporting his Advaita philosophy: ultimate reality is non-dual Brahman, and the appearance of diversity is maya (illusion). Liberation comes through knowledge that atman (individual self) is identical with Brahman.
Shankara had to work around the Gita’s theistic passages, treating them as preliminary teachings for those not yet ready for the highest truth.