Interpreting the Gita

[Arun Gupta]

Dear Shri Nair :

No disrespect was intended towards D. D. Kosambi or anyone else.
I however, wish to draw attention to a problem I see in methodology
of understanding the Gita (or any other text of practical religion).

Gita is not a science, but it shares a characteristic of the hard
sciences, and that is understanding comes from practice.

A student of physics is hardly said to have understood physics if
he or she cannot successfully complete the exercises given in the
book.

Reading a scientific paper in physics is really a participatory
exercise.  The reader has to take out pen, paper, calculator,
or experimental apparatus and do something to create understanding
in himself.

The very greatest of scientists read the abstract and then attempt
to reconstruct the whole on their own, an attempt at self-discovery.


Reading Einstein's papers, figuring out that the German style dates
to the early twentieth century, placing the work in the context of
the times and of Einstein's life and circumstances, produces a lot
of value -- but not an understanding of the work itself, e.g., the theory
of General Relativity. There is only one way to do understand
General Relativity and that is to work through it yourself or
with the help of someone who has done it already, your friendly
neighborhood physics professor.

Likewise, no amount of textual analysis will give one an understanding
of the Gita. Practice the meditation described in the Gita, it will
be more enlightening.

The historicity or lack thereof of the author of the Gita should not
give you pause.  Even if historians manage to prove that Euclid never
existed, that his work is the amalgamation of many authors (e.g.,
like Bourbaki), you still have to work through geometry to understand it.

If a Doniger or Kosambi has not done the equivalent, their
pronouncements on the meaning of the Gita are not of value to
any serious student.

-Arun Gupta