As we are not, by any stretch, experts in the history or theology of Hinduism, we spend a fair bit of time just trying to find our footing in this beguiling and mysterious book. We discuss what to make of the seeming paradox that a text which encourages readers to abandon all attachments to the material world is also a dialogue taking place in a specific time and place, with a material and historical setting and, not only this, while encouraging non-attachment, also encourages direct, violent engagement with that concrete world. Is this a paradox? We discuss the ethical and political implications of a religious philosophy of non-attachment. Finally, we consider how the centrality of non-attachment to the material world of desires and change ends up also making ritual, habit, social duty, and most importantly, direct experience, equally central or perhaps even more so. Is this a paradox?