ABSTRACT

In the last chapter I argued that at least one of the standard arguments for a non-literal interpretation of the Bhagavadgı¯ta¯’s advice to act without desire is not convincing. The truth of the claim that action entails desire – if it is indeed true – is not obvious enough to justify the assumption that the Gı¯ta¯ must be consistent with it. Hence any argument that claims that Kr.s.n. a’s advice should not be taken literally because it is an obvious contradiction is unconvincing.