Gandhi was aware that there were very great differences between his teachings and those of Hinduism in general.

Other reformers, including such notable ones as Rammohan Roy and Dayananda Saraswati, had argued that the original religion had been corrupted, and that the true teachings of Hinduism could be recovered by a return to the great scriptures. But Gandhi, with the frankness that was part of the secret of his power, admitted that his teachings were reinterpretations of the past.

"I have endeavored," he once wrote, "in the light of prayerful study of the other faiths of the world, and what is more, in the light of my own experiences in trying to live the teachings of Hinduism, ... to give an extended but by no means strained meaning to Hinduism, not as buried in its ample scriptures, but as a living faith speaking like a mother to her aching children."

In his interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita, one of the two religious books of the Hindus that he claimed to know (the other was the Ramayan of Tulsidas), he expounded his central idea of nonviolence, although admitting that the Gita apparently approves of war. His explanation was that the great stories of Hinduism are allegories, not historical accounts, and that each age must read them in the light of their spiritual knowledge. For him, therefore, the Gita becomes above all a book of ethics, emphasizing selfless devotion in the cause of human brotherhood.

In Hinduism, 'incarnation' is ascribed to one who has performed some extraordinary service of mankind. All embodied life is in reality an incarnation of God, but it is not usual to consider every living being an incarnation. Future generations pay this homage to one who, in his own generation, has been extraordinarily religious in his conduct. I can see nothing wrong in this procedure. It takes nothing from God's greatness, and there is no violence done to the Truth. There is an Urdu saying which means "Adam is not God but he is a spark of the Divine." And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has most of the divine spark in him. It is in accordance with this train of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism, the status of the most perfect incarnation.

 

This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man's lofty spiritual ambition. Man is not at piece with himself till he has become like unto God. The endeavor to reach this state is the supreme, the only ambition worth having. And this is self-realization. This self-realization is the subject of the Gita, as it is of all scriptures. But its author surely did not write it to establish that doctrine. The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing the most excellent way to attain self-realization. That which is to be found, more or less clearly, spread out here and there in Hindu religious books, has been brought out in the clearest possible language in the Gita even at the risk of repetition.

 

That matchless remedy is renunciation of fruits of action. This is the center around which the Gita is woven. This renunciation is the central sun, around which devotion, knowledge and the rest revolve like planets. The body has been likened to a prison. There must be action where there is body. Not one embodied being is exempted from labor. And yet all religions proclaim that it is possible for man, by treating the body as the temple of God, to attain freedom. Every action is tainted, be it ever so trivial. How can the body be made the temple of God? In other words, how can one be free from action, i.e. from the taint of sin? The Gita has answered the question in decisive language:

 

"By desireless action; by renouncing fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God, i.e., by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul."