Steve Bruce in his book Fundamentalism writes:
Hinduism might be better described not as a religion but as a loose collection of religions—that of the Shaivites, the Vaishnavas, the Shaktas, the Smartas and others—that share some common themes but that tolerate a huge variety of expressions of those themes. Unlike the Abrahamic traditions, each of which has a canonical scripture that can function as a rallying point for defence, the Hindu tradition contains such an abundance of scriptures, laws, and philosophies that ‘it becomes very difficult to single out any one specific item’ as being basic or ‘fundamental’.
However, in the Western Reception of Hinduism, The Bhagavad Gita is central - perhaps much more central than it is in Hinduism itself. There are standard commentaries within a number of Indian philosophical schools that discuss its metaphysical & moral philosophy.
Malise Ruthven in his book also named Fundamentalisms writes:
It may be argued, of course, that all the major religions are fundamentally patriarchal since they came into being at historical periods distant from our own when human survival was predicated on a strict division of male and female realms. As the hero Arjuna tells the God Krishna in the Baghavad Gita,
‘In overwhelming chaos, Krishna
Women of the family are corrupted,
And when women are corrupted,
Disorder is born in society’
One is tempted to read corruption as sexually fallen, but is this the correct meaning(s) of the word here? For example, in modern medical terminology could it mean mentally ill? Perhaps it covers both of these - or more. Drug addition, bad parenting etc. Is perhaps moral corruption the best view?
Is this justified by a closer look at the semantic values of the word in Sanskrit that has been translated by the word corruption.
What are the views of the standard commentaries in classical and modern ie Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan.
In The Bhagavad Gita & its message Aurobindo writes:
There is a method in explaining the Gita in which not only this episode [the entire Gita] but the whole Mahabharata is turned into an allegory of the inner life...but the Gita is written in plain terms and professes to solve the great ethical and spiritual difficulties that the life of man raises.
Aurobindo here is gesturing to other ways of interpreting the Gita although he doesn't accept them. Both he and Sri Prabhupada are both in the Bhakti tradition. Its clear that this tradition, which is devotional is dominant in at least the Western reception of Hinduism. What I'm interested in is the other traditions, in particular (moral) philosophical exegesis.