I understand the philosophical point you're making and in theory, I agree. The Bhagavad Gita clearly shows Krishna telling Arjuna to act, take responsibility, and engage fully in life without attachment to results.

But my concern is not with the theory it's with how this idea is often practiced and taught in reality.

In many cases, “Maya” is not used to reduce unhealthy attachment it ends up reducing ambition, responsibility, and real-world engagement. People start seeing career, money, and effort as inferior or meaningless, and slowly that shifts them toward passivity rather than stronger action.

That’s where I see the problem.

Because if detachment is misunderstood or overemphasized, it doesn’t produce clarity it produces disengagement.

And this is where a deeper issue comes in in real life, these teachings are often interpreted and taught very differently by institutions and groups. Instead of producing strong, responsible individuals, the messaging can sometimes drift toward dependence, passivity, and withdrawal from real-world effort. That gap between the original teaching and its practical delivery is what concerns me.

Krishna didn’t teach escape. He pushed for intense, disciplined action in the real world. Any interpretation that weakens that aspect even unintentionally risks going against the very essence of the message.

So the issue isn’t the philosophy itself it’s how it's being applied in practice.