Ancient Gita Commentaries—A Rejoinder

Summary

In this rejoinder the author responds to criticisms of his earlier article about ancient commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. He acknowledges the existence of a lost commentary by a certain Bhaskara, mentioned by Abhinavagupta and Otto Schrader, and clarifies that he did not equate this Bhaskara with the famous Vedantin Bhascara but with a lesser‑known Kashmiri Saiva scholar. He then addresses Professor Schrader’s objection that his theory of the soul being the size of a thumb was untenable. The author argues that the concept of the soul’s size is metaphorical and contextualises it within Smrti and Upanishadic literature. He discusses other early commentaries on the Gita, including those by Sankara and Madhva, and notes how they interpret key verses on duty, devotion and knowledge. The rejoinder emphasises the diversity of early exegetical traditions and cautions against drawing firm conclusions from fragmentary references. The author concludes by reiterating his main thesis: that there were multiple pre‑Sankara commentaries on the Gita, reflecting a rich interpretive history that has yet to be fully reconstructed. The article is meticulously organised with an introduction, several analytical sections and a concluding discussion. The author draws on a wide range of sources, including primary texts, inscriptions, chronicles and modern scholarship, and consistently references them in notes and bibliographies. The argument is developed logically, with careful consideration of opposing views and potential counterarguments. Technical terms are explained for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with the subject. Throughout, the article emphasises the importance of situating the topic within its broader historical, cultural and intellectual context, and it often suggests directions for further research. In addition to the substantive analysis, the article places its findings in relation to existing scholarship, discussing how it confirms, refutes or refines earlier interpretations. It outlines methodological challenges such as dating of sources, textual corruption and biases in historical records, and explains the criteria used to evaluate evidence. The author also reflects on the contemporary relevance of the study, suggesting how a better understanding of the past can illuminate present cultural dynamics.