To Ram Bansal's points: a. I don't believe that you need Vedic Sanskrit to understand the Gita. b. Yes, only an idiot would do something without consideration of the consequences. Ram Bansal hints at the right interpretation - which is do not be attached to the consequences. i.e., you determine to the best of your ability what is the right thing to do, and you do it with as much energy and enthusiasm as you can, and then you are not unduly elated nor unduly disappointed if you meet with success or failure. To Eliana Cardoso's points: Yes, a rich text can live with many interpretations - but then don't claim that this is what the text says - always say, this is how I interpret it. In in this case, Amartya Sen converts everyone who uses the Gita into a moral cretin. Let me try to explain the problem I see with Amartya Sen this way: I could go about making claims that the Quran requires non-believers to be fought and killed; surely the Quran is a rich text that can live with many interpretations, and this is certainly a conclusion I can draw and logically defend. But then by doing so, I convert every peaceful Muslim into someone who is not following the tenets of his/her religion. Is that acceptable? I don't care what use Amartya Sen makes of a flawed interpretation, it can be very beautiful.