Is Tilaka’s Gita commentary focusing on karma yoga a misinterpretation of the Gita?

I spoke about what the Bhagavad Gita is. The Gita is a text rich in metaphysics, soteriology (the study of liberation), and ontology (the nature of being). While it is all of that, we often primarily engage with it as a book of ethics, using it to guide how we live.

The Gita is both historically specific and philosophically universal. It begins within a very particular context—Arjuna’s moral dilemma on the battlefield—but quickly rises far above that context.

Arjuna is torn between his kula-dharma (duty to his family) and kshatriya-dharma (duty as a warrior). However, he doesn’t just ask Krishna, “What is my duty?” (mama dharma?). He asks, “What is dharma?”—a question of universal significance. Krishna, in turn, refers to the battlefield only occasionally, indicating that his intention is not merely to make Arjuna fight.

If Krishna’s only goal was to get Arjuna to fight, he could have simply reminded him of the injustices the Kauravas had committed. Instead, the Gita adopts a remarkably dispassionate tone. It’s not about inciting passion to fight; it’s about helping Arjuna align with a higher purpose. Though Arjuna does end up fighting, the Gita’s core message lies elsewhere—it’s about harmonizing with the ultimate reality or divine will.

Arjuna eventually says, “I will do your will.” Thus, the Gita’s emphasis is not merely on what happens, but on what we do in response to whatever happens. In modern terms, it helps us discover purpose, even when meaning is elusive.

For example, when a firefighter arrives at a burning building, they may not know the cause of the fire, but they still know what they need to do in that moment. Similarly, the Gita doesn’t delve deeply into why Arjuna has to fight such a terrible war or why bad things happen to good people. Instead, it focuses on what good people should do when bad things happen.

In that sense, the Gita is both descriptive and prescriptive—it describes how great souls have acted and prescribes how we should act. Many verses carry both kinds of significance.

Due to this centrality of ethics and dharma, the Gita’s core message is universal.

Gaudiya Vaishnava Perspective

Then, I discussed the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition’s perspective on the Gita. Among the six orthodox schools of Indian philosophy, Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a Vedantic, personalist, and Vaishnava tradition. It acknowledges oneness with difference (achintya-bheda-abheda)—a unity that retains diversity.

For example, Krishna and Arjuna do not merge into one after enlightenment, as stated clearly in Bhagavad Gita 2.12. Within the Gaudiya tradition, the goal (sādhya) is Bhagavan, Krishna himself, and the practice (sādhana) is bhakti, especially in the mood of Radha.

All sacred texts studied in this tradition are interpreted through this lens of sādhya and sādhana. The Bhagavata Purana is considered the central text, while the Gita is also honored and commented upon by acharyas in the tradition.

• Baladeva Vidyabhushan focused on the tattva (truth or ontological aspect).
• Vishvanatha Chakravarti Thakura focused on the rasa (aesthetic and emotional aspect).
• Srila Prabhupada, whose English commentary is widely known, emphasized Bhakti and Bhagavan, and that theme is consistently highlighted throughout his Gita commentary.

Reading the Gita: From and Into

This raises an important question: If someone emphasizes a particular aspect of the Gita, are they being biased?

To explore this, I discussed three modes of engaging with a book:

1. Reading a book – Ideally objective, but practically rare.
2. Reading from a book – Drawing meanings that resonate with our worldview.
3. Reading into a book – Superimposing ideas onto the text that may not actually be there.

None of us read in a vacuum. We all have prior conceptions. When we read from a book, we highlight themes that speak to us. This is natural and often constructive, especially in a text like the Gita, which is elastic—it accommodates multiple valid readings.

However, when we read into a book, we risk distorting its message. For example, nonviolence is a noble virtue and is mentioned in the Gita, but making it the central teaching of the Gita ignores its actual context. In doing so, the battlefield setting is reduced to a metaphor—and not just any metaphor, but a regrettable one.

But the Gita is not metaphorical, it’s metonymical—it speaks of a specific event that stands for a larger reality. Just as “The White House” can stand for the U.S. government, the Kurukshetra battlefield stands for the battlefield of life.

Valid Interpretation Tools

So how do we ensure we’re reading from the Gita and not into it?

I discussed two interpretive methods:

1. SAR approach – Study verses that are seen as the essence (sāra) by spiritual traditions.
2. Analytical approach – Examine the text’s:
   • Beginning
   • End
   • Unique features
   • Repetition
   • Emphasis

This helps identify the core message of a text.

In summary, the Gita’s relevance is both timeless and timely. In tomorrow’s class, we will dive into the actual contents of the Gita.