Ancient Gita Commentaries

Summary

This article reviews and expands upon N. Krishnamurti Sharma’s paper on Bhaskara, a little‑known commentator on the Bhagavad Gita. Scholarly attention has long focused on Sankara’s Advaita commentary, but evidence indicates the existence of earlier Gita commentaries. Bhaskara, often confused with later scholars bearing the same name, wrote a Brahmasutra Bhashya that is preserved, yet his Gita commentary is lostfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=Bralumasitra,Sadkara%E2%80%99s%20and%20before%20the%20%E0%AA%9B%E0%AB%87%E0%AA%9F%E0%AA%BE. The article discusses the chronology: Bhaskara’s Brahmasutra commentary recasts Sankara’s work, suggesting that he wrote after Sankara but before Vacaspatifile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=the%20Nal%C2%ABwampq,imply%20the%20possibility%20of%20DBhiskara. However, Jayatirtha’s commentary on Madhva’s Gita Bhashya cites six passages polemically criticising Bhaskara’s Gita interpretation, implying that a Gita commentary by Bhaskara once existedfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=Now%2C%20a%20Gita%20Blidsya%20by,vulgate%20test%20of%20Bhag%2C%20Gita. The article argues against Krishnamurti’s claim that Bhaskara was earlier than Vacaspati or even a contemporary of Sankara. It points out that doctrinal concepts like the bondage and liberation of the Atman appear in earlier Upanisads and Agamas and are not unique to Bhaskarafile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=irrelevant,taught%20just%20by%20Blhiaskara%20only. It is therefore unwarranted to date Bhaskara solely on the assumption that he introduced certain ideas. The author contends that early Gita commentaries were likely produced by Vaisnava communities who revered the Gita as scripture. Evidence suggests that pre‑Sankara commentators interpreted the Gita from a theistic, rather than Advaita, standpointfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=is%20an%20altogether%20arhitrary%20hypothesis,3itd%20commentaries%27%20were%20Vaisnavite. Vacaspati’s Bhāmati criticizes Bhaskara, indicating that Bhaskara wrote before Vacaspati, but the absence of surviving manuscripts makes precise dating difficultfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=349%20having%20heen%200%20contemporary,This. The paper emphasises that Bhaskara’s commentary is important for understanding the reception of the Gita before Sankara. Jayatirtha’s citations show that Bhaskara preferred the Kashmiri recension of certain versesfile:///home/oai/share/split_pdfs/352-361-ancient_gita_commentaries.pdf#:~:text=Now%2C%20a%20Gita%20Blidsya%20by,vulgate%20test%20of%20Bhag%2C%20Gita. The author calls for careful analysis of quotations in later commentaries to reconstruct Bhaskara’s views. He concludes that ancient Gita commentaries were diverse; some were Vaisnavite, others perhaps influenced by Sankhya or Yoga, and none established the Gita as an Advaita text before Sankara. The article thus broadens the historical perspective on Gita exegesis and underscores the need for further textual research.