The philosophy of Bhagavad-Gita; a comparative study of classical interpretations

Book Reviewed: The Hindu Gita: Ancient and Classical Interpretations of the Bhagavadgita, by Arvind Sharma

This is a scholarly work of Professor Arvind Sharma of Sydney University, Australia who presents his work discussing the metaphysical, theological and spiritual message of Bhagavad-Gita in light of commentaries of; Bhaskaracarya, Sankaracarya, Ramanujacarya and Madhvacarya, the four pillars of Hindu thought. Each of them interpret Gita along the philosophies of; bhedabheda, advaita, visistadvaita, and dvaita respectively. For each commentator, the author describes his philosophical system and his commentary on individual verses from Gita, followed by a general discussion. The book is very well organized and the literature is well reviewed.

One of the fundamental problems in understanding Gita is that it is not a systematic work that supports one philosophical school of thought, and any attempts to systematize it will produce two fold effects. Use those verses that support one philosophical system and distort those hymns that do not support it. Historically Gita has been used as a base or as a supporting structure by various commentators to elucidate their own philosophies. Apparent contradictions of Gita are real for some scholars and for others they are apparent. Charles Wilkins, Edwin Arnold, and Dr. Radhakrishnan do not give much credence to the apparent contradictions in the Gita.

Bhagavad-Gita is not only a religious text, but also has philosophical and spiritual messages. Obviously, the question is; what does Gita say about itself, is it univalent or multivalent? Does it have a coat of many colors? Is God personal or impersonal? Is God (the Ultimate Reality), active or passive? What is the relationship of God with man? Is he as well-wisher or a chastiser or is he indifferent? Does man achieve perfect union with God while alive or only after his death? Is the world real or unreal? In some verses the ritual practice is encouraged but in some discouraged, does that mean that it is against the religion of Vedas or supportive of it? Gita also has ethical dilemma; is it moral to kill? What about the verses extolling ahimsa (non-violence). The Gita also espouses several yogas which includes; buddhi yoga, abhyasa yoga, jnana yoga, and karma yoga; are they complimentary to each other, if they are, how? Not all these questions are answered with complete satisfaction to an academic mind, but if one belongs to a specific school of thought and rely on that school's interpretation, much of the discrepancies will cease to exist. For example, Sankaracarya emphasized jnana; Yamunacarya, Ramanujacarya, Madhvacarya, and Vallabhacarya opted for bhakti. Ramakrishna and Vivekananda regarded jnana as the quintessence of the Gita. Aurobindo emphasized bhakti supported by jnana and karma as the principal message. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada suggested bhakti to Krishna as the essential message of Gita. Karma yoga was the theme for Tilak and Gandhi.

Examples of interesting verses are as follows: With regards to Gita 13:24, the issue is the interpretation of the Sankhya yoga. Sankaracarya identifies this with Kapila's Sankhya system; Ramanuja identifies dhyana with bhakti, and Sankhya yoga with jnana. For Madhva, Sankhya yoga means the knowledge of God as expounded in Vedas. He dismisses any association of this verse with Kapila's school of philosophy as erroneous. Gita 15:15 deals with Vedanta; Sankara and Ramanuja regard Krishna as Vedantkrt, the maker of Vedanta, but Madhva calls Vedantkrt is related to the meaning of the Vedas, thus expressing his belief in Vedic authority. According to him that Hari is only knowable through the Vedas. All these interpreters share the same fate of their classical exegetes of the Gita because they operate from within their philosophical system, while commenting on a text that does not belong to any particular system at all.