There is no need of explaining Bhagavad-gītā in a different way. Just like in the beginning of the Bhagavad-gītā we understand the statements very clearly:
- dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre
- samavetā yuyutsavaḥ
- māmakāḥ pāṇḍavāś caiva
- kim akurvata sañjaya
- (BG 1.1)
The meaning is very clear. Dharma-kṣetre: the land of pilgrimage, the holy land of pilgrimage; kuru-kṣetre: the land which is known as Kurukṣetra. It is not fictitious; it is actual fact. Still there is Kurukṣetra, and people go there to perform religious ritualistic ceremonies. And in the Vedas it is written clearly, dharma . . . kurukṣetre dharmam ācaret. That is the statement of the Vedas. So from time immemorial this Kurukṣetra, land of Kurukṣetra, is known as dharma-kṣetra. So what is the difficulty to understand dharma-kṣetre kuru-kṣetre? There is no difficulty.
Unfortunately, some unscrupulous commentator says that "Kurukṣetra means this body." Where is the chance of interpreting like that, "Kuru-kṣetre is meaning 'body' "? In no dictionary you will find that kuru-kṣetra is meant by body. Neither there is any chance. Interpretation is required when you cannot understand the word very clearly. In that case you can interpret.
Just like the example is gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣapali: "There is a neighborhood which is known as ghoṣapali on the Ganges." Now one may question how on the Ganges—Ganges is water—there can be a neighborhood? Then you can interpret that, "It is not on the Ganges water, but it is on the bank of the Ganges." There, there is chance of interpretation. But when you can clearly understand that, "The thing is like this: Kurukṣetra is a place, and that is a place of pilgrimage," why should you interpret that Kurukṣetra means the body? In this way Bhagavad-gītā is being misinterpreted.
In the Ninth Chapter, when Kṛṣṇa says, man-manā bhava mad-bhakto mad-yājī māṁ namaskuru (BG 9.34), one great commentator, very erudite scholar, he says: "It is not to Kṛṣṇa; it is to the unborn principle which is within Kṛṣṇa." But he does not know what is Kṛṣṇa, and he has the audacity to comment on the Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa is not different from within and without. Kṛṣṇa, being absolute, there is no such difference. As we have got difference, I, the spirit soul, is different from my body, but Kṛṣṇa is not like that. There is no such difference that Kṛṣṇa's soul and Kṛṣṇa's body. Kṛṣṇa is complete whole, pūrṇa. There is no such difference. The person who does not know what is Kṛṣṇa, if he tries to comment upon the transcendental knowledge imparted by Kṛṣṇa, that is simply impudent.
So in this way, if we try to understand Bhagavad-gītā as it is, then we become liberated, we become a devotee of Kṛṣṇa, we become fully Kṛṣṇa conscious. That is the objective of Bhagavad-gītā. Kṛṣṇa therefore says: "Arjuna, I am trying to deliver this knowledge of Bhagavad-gītā unto you because you are My devotee." Bhakto 'si priyo 'si me rahasyaṁ hy etad uttamam (BG 4.3). "Without you, nobody can understand what is the mystery of this Bhagavad-gītā knowledge."