Predestination and Hierarchy: Vallabha¯ca¯rya's Discourse ...

Abstract The Pus: t:ipravahamaryadabheda (PPM) by Vallabhacarya (1479–1531?)

is a brief work (25 verses) written in Sanskrit in about the year 1500, which is

accompanied by four Sanskrit commentaries and one Hindi (Brajbhas:a: ) commen-

tary. The most important and authoritative commentary is by Purus:ottama, written

about two centuries after the original text. The article contains a translation of the

PPM with long extracts from the commentaries, particularly the one composed by

Purus:ottama. After an introduction placing the PPM’s doctrine of the hierarchy of

embodied souls (jıvas) and their eligibility to obtain states of devotion (bhakti) in a

wider context of Vais:n:ava sectarian and philosophical schools, the text is presented

along with the translation and notes to the text (including extracts from the com-

mentaries). The article concludes with reflections on the PPM’s doctrine of pre-

destination, comparing it with those of other Indian religious sects and within the

wider context of predestination in Western religions, where these discussions have

been ongoing for more than 1500 years. An extensive bibliography is included at the

end.

Keywords Vallabhacarya � Pus: t:imarga � Predestination � Hierarchies in Indian

religion � Pre-modern Sanskrit commentary � Comparative religious thought

Introduction

In his groundbreaking study, India and Europe (1988), Wilhelm Halbfass wrote the

following:

F. M. Smith (&)University of lowa,Iowa city, IA 52242, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

J Indian Philos (2011) 39:173–227

DOI 10.1007/s10781-011-9124-1

Predestination and Hierarchy: Vallabhacarya’sDiscourse on the Distinctions Between Blessed,Rule-Bound, Worldly, and Wayward Souls(the Pus: t:ipravahamaryadabheda)

Frederick M. Smith

Published online: 11 March 2011

� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Modern Indian presentations of Indian philosophy have emphasized that the

differences between the systems may be attributed to pedagogical aspects, to a

consideration of the different levels of qualification (adhikarabheda) of the

disciples: ‘Though the different schools were opposed to one another, a sort of

harmony among them was also conceived by the Indian thinkers. They

believed that all persons were not fit for all things and that in religious,

philosophical and social matters we should take into consideration these

differences and recognize consequent distinctions of natural aptitudes

(adhikarabheda)’.1

In the present work, the Pus: t:ipravahamaryada (PPM), or, as it appears in some

collections, Pus: t:ipravahamaryadabheda, ‘‘The Differences between (the Paths of)

Grace, Flow, and Limitation,’’ the author, Vallabhacarya (1479–1531[?]), founder

of the Pus: t:imarga or Path of Grace, one of the most important schools of Kr: s:n:adevotion in northern India, unambiguously addressed the topic of eligibility

(adhikara) for bhakti. In this brief tract of twenty-five verses, Vallabhacarya dis-

tinguished levels of eligibility for the attainment of the primary goal of his religious

(and philosophical) system, intense one-pointed devotion to the Supreme Lord, Srı

Kr: s:n:a. Attainment of pure, innocent, completely focused bhakti, Vallabhacarya

believed, would eventually lead the devotee to a state of nirodha (cessation [from

the world])2 in which the devotee would coexist after his or her death in the eternal

(nitya) divine play of the Lord (lıla). This nityalıla is the steady state of Kr: s:n: a’s

creative matrix, the dynamic but non-decaying and everlasting state of permanent

exaltation in the presence of the Lord. This, however, was not available to everyone;

distinct paths called pus: t:i, pravaha, and maryada are described as carefully crafted

by the Lord, and only those few with an inborn, innate capacity for the highest

bhakti are eligible for the pus: t:i path. All others are eligible for the two remaining

paths, pravaha and maryada, or for paths even lower than that.

Although the PPM primarily addresses the three eponymous paths provided in

the title of the work, through a series or subtle subdivisions Vallabhacarya estab-

lishes a nine-fold division based on the degree of purity of the individual or jıva. For

a jıva of extreme purity, bhakti becomes the instrument for realizing the grace

(pus: t:i) of Purus:ottama, the Supreme Lord. For the studious, religiously inclined, and

law-abiding jıva without this intense bhakti, the maximum achievement can only be

a state of limitation (maryada). This experience, which Vallabhacarya describes as

ordinary or common (sadharan:abhava), becomes the instrument for achieving

liberation (mukti) as described in lesser forms of Vedanta, notably (and pointedly)

that of the earlier advaitin Sa _nkaracarya. Other jıvas simply participate in the

unexamined flow of the world (pravaha), in which divisiveness (dves:a) becomes the

road to darkness (andhatamas).3

1 p. 358. The quote is from Chatterjee and Datta (1968; p. 11). Halbfass adds: ‘‘The reference to ‘natural

aptitudes’ reflects the Neo-Hindu reinterpretation of adhikara (although even traditional authors did not

always associate the concepts of adhikara/adhikarin with the caste system; cf. e.g., Abhinavagupta,

Tantraloka XXXV, 35)’’ (p. 561, n. 34).2 See Smith (1998) for an explication of this term in Vallabhacarya’s thought.3 For a clear general discussion of Vallabhacarya’s use of these terms, see Shah (1969; pp. 137–142).

174 F. M. Smith

123

Before addressing the details of these paths, however, let us briefly examine some

of the other instances of hierarchizing in Vallabhacarya’s work and at similar

thinking elsewhere, in order to see how this tallies with Halbfass’s observations

cited above. Before that, however, we should summarize Vallabhacarya’s sixteen

brief treatises (S: od:asagranthah: ) on various aspects of the practice and experience of

bhakti, of which the PPM is counted in the traditional enumeration as the fourth.

The S: od:asagranthah:

The sixteen works that constitute the S: od:asagranthah: succinctly address many of

the key issues in Vallabhacarya’s devotional and philosophical systems, known as

the pus: t:imarga and suddhadvaita, respectively, with a mix of succinct philosophical

statements, devotional hymns, eschatological notions, and proposed hierarchies of

devotion, teachers, and devotees (the latter being the PPM). In their traditional order

the sixteen works begins with a hymn consisting of several layers of meaning

addressed to the goddess Yamuna, the divinity who is the Yamuna river itself

(Yamunas: t:akam, cf. Haberman 2006; 105–107). The Yamuna, or Yamunajı, as both

the goddess and the river are called in the Pus: timarga, is one of the three pillars of

the Pus: t:imarga tradition (sam: pradaya), along with Vallabhacarya and the temple

deity Srınathjı (or Srı Govardhananatha) in Nathdwara, Rajasthan.4

This is followed by an evaluation of competing religious and soteriological

systems (Balabodha, cf. Smith 2005a); a brief account of the tenets of embodied

devotional practice (Siddhantamuktavalı); the PPM; a recounting of Vallabhacar-

ya’s revelation in Gokula regarding initiation into Pus: t:imarga devotional practice

(Siddhantarahasya); a hymn of nine verses exhorting devotees to strengthen their

practice (Navaratna); a summary description of the internal perceptual ‘‘organ’’

(Antah: karan:aprabodha); a treatise on discrimination, perseverance, and refuge, all

issues that arise in the course of a devotee’s life (Vivekadhairyasraya); a short but

potent and oft-discussed treatise on the four purus: arthas or goals of life from a

devotional perspective (Catuh: slokı); a hymn evoking the greatness of Kr:s:n:a as the

sole object of devotion (Srıkr: s:n: asraya); a summary of the stages of devotional

attainment (Bhaktivardhinı); a series of comparisons of devotional teachers with

types of waters (Jalabheda, Smith 2005b); a brief correlative tract that describes the

qualities of various listeners (srotarah: ) (Pañcapadyani); a tract on renunciation that

provides the reasons why the Pus: t:imarga has no institutionalized renunciate order

but regards it as a natural outcome of intense bhakti (Sam: nyasanirn:aya, Smith

1993); the state of devotional enlightenment, called nirodha, which achieves its

fulfillment at death (Nirodhalaks:an:a, Smith 1998); and finally a brief treatise called

Sevaphalam that has come down to us along with (and by now inseparable from)

Vallabhacarya’s own Vivaran:a on it that describes the state an individual achieves

after death if he or she maintains properly performed and emotionally realized

service (seva) to Kr: s:n: a as the Supreme Lord. Again, there is no indication at all that

4 Cf. Vaudeville (1980), Smith (2009), and note 23 below.

Predestination and Hierarchy 175

123

the sixteen works presented in this order in the Pus: t:imarga discursive tradition were

written in the order in which they were codified (and listed here).

Several translations of these works have appeared in Hindi (Caturvedı 1967;

Mukhiya 1997), Gujarati (Bhatt ND), and English (Shyam Das 2006; Redington

2000), beginning with Nr: sim: halaljı’s Hindi (Brajbhas: a) translation in the late

eighteenth or early nineteenth century. A few unremarkable and uncritical trans-

lations have appeared in the last half century. All are bare translations with little or

no commentary, intended for Pus: t:imarga devotees in Mumbai and the Indian

diaspora, particularly those who have migrated to East Africa, England, and the

U.S.A. in the last century or so. Large numbers of Gujarati merchants and others

descending from these merchant communities were Pus: t:imargıs, including, for

example, Mahatma Gandhi, who left for South Africa in the early 1890s. The first

complete critical translation of the S: od:asagranthah: into English was undertaken by

James Redington as recently as the year 2000, under the tutelage of Gosvamı Syam

Manohar of Mumbai, widely regarded as the pre-eminent Pus: t:imargı scholar (and

pan:d: it) of the last half-century. Redington’s translations, in my view, are adequate

and occasionally insightful, but too often follow Gosvamı Syam’s oral commentary

without giving sufficient attention to the nuances of the Sanskrit commentaries. Nor

is Redington sufficiently schooled in the dynamics of Pus: t:imarga culture or in the

broad range of Pus: t:imarga literature in Sanskrit or Brajbhas: a to give a composite or

contextualized account of the texts of the S: od:asagranthah: . To some extent I hope to

rectify this here, as has been part of my goal in my previous translations (and will

remain so in the future).

Hierarchization in Vallabhacarya’s Thought

The tendency to stratify and hierarchize occurs frequently in Vallabhacarya’s work,

including in other brief treatises found in the S: od:asagranthah: . It may be seen, for

example, in the Balabodha, in which Vallabhacarya depicts in broad strokes various

philosophical and religious systems current at the time, in the Jalabheda and

Pañcapadyani, which classify devotional teachers and listeners to the Vais:n:ava

texts, and in the Bhaktivardhinı, which hierarchizes types of devotional experience.

Probably the closest antecedents in other Vais:n: ava schools with a well developed

literature to what is found in the PPM are in the writings of the ‘‘qualified non-

dualist’’ (visis: t:advaita) philosopher Ramanuja (late eleventh to early twelfth

century5) and his many followers, and the dualist (dvaita) philosopher Madhva

(1238–1317). Ramanuja’s views will be dealt with later, in the conclusions, and it

will suffice to mention here that Madhva develops a theory of an eternal hierarchy

of deities (devatataratamya) and souls (jıvataratamya), for the latter particularly

based on what is seen as an innate capacity for spiritual insight (yogyatataratamya).

This hierarchy continues in the state of enlightenment (moks:a).6 It is important to

5 Ramanuja’s dates are traditionally given as 1017–1137 CE, but this is doubtful; see Carman (1974;

p. 27).6 This is explicated by Stoker (2004, 2007), and more relevantly by Sarma (2003; pp. 58, 77–83).

176 F. M. Smith

123

note here that the word ‘‘soul’’ or the more neutral term ‘‘living being’’ as trans-

lations for the Sanskrit jıva are strictly conventional. Like many Sanskrit words, it is

difficult to find an English equivalent that is not weighted with a history of pre-

suppositions in Western discourse. Thus, it will be most appropriate in this case to

proffer the Pus: t:imargı commentator Purus:ottama’s definition of jıva, namely

sarıravisis: t:as cetanah: , ‘‘consciousness particularized through a body’’.7 Even if

Vallabhacarya resolves the distinctions in his hierarchy differently than Ramanuja

or Madhva, particularly in assessing eligibility and predestination in terms of bhaktirather than moks:a, we might here ask the same question of Vallabhacarya that

Deepak Sarma has asked of Madhva: ‘‘It would seem that the individual jıva has no

kartr: tva, agency, whatsoever, given Madhvacarya’s theory of svarupatraividhya,

predestination. Does Madhvacarya actually propose such a strict determinism, or do

jıvas have some free will?’’ (Sarma 2003; p. 79). We shall return to this question

later, in our conclusions, but should note now that the idea of constructing such

hierarchies was decidedly in the air, an accepted, and probably even required, point

of philosophical systematization.

It will be much better to search for this influence from Vallabhacarya’s other

work, including the Subodhinı, his commentary on major sections of the BhagavataPuran:a, and the Sastrarthaprakaran:a section of the Tattvarthadıpanibandha (verses

45–52 and his own commentary, called Prakasa). Gosvamı Syam Manohar main-

tains in his introduction to the PPM that Vallabhacarya wrote this passage in the

Nibandha first. He argues this because the ideas expressed in the PPM are better

developed, indicating it is a later work. Furthermore, Syam Manohar attempts to

establish on other grounds that Vallabhacarya wrote the PPM while living in Adel,

near the triven: i-sangam, the meeting of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna (and the

hidden Sarasvati) just outside Allahabad (then still known as Prayag), which would

place it later than the composition of the Nibandha.

Sastrarthaprakaran:a 45–52 reads:

‘‘Absolute freedom (kaivalya) is due to knowledge of him (Kr: s:n: a) and from

the complete cessation of ignorance. The knowledge by which the wise man

enters into Hari has five subdivisions: dispassion, Sam: khya and yoga, aus-

terities, and devotion. Divine beings who have entered into a pure creation

(sattvasr: s: ti) are fit for liberation. Occasionally a person at a pilgrimage place

or another equivalent location may attain the state of liberation, but this only

happens for someone who is suitable to attain Kr: s:n: a’s grace; it is certainly not

possible otherwise. Sometime, some place, Kr:s:n:a may induce liberation in a

sevaka, one who serves him. Because they are foundational (for liberation),

hymns of praise depict such places. Thus, giving up everything, and with firm

7 See Purus:ottama’s commentaries on Balabodha, (Smith 2005a) verses 2 and 7, and Jalabheda, verse 21

(Smith 2005b).


123

faith, one should worship Hari by listening (to stories of him), etc.8 Through

such knowledge one is completely liberated (vimucyate). For those who have

entered into the bliss of brahman, unwavering joy is experienced by the self

(atman) alone. This is because of the dissolution of the aggregate of their

senses. But for devotees, the experience is special. They experience this

unwavering joy not only with the self but also with all the senses and the

‘inner organ’ (antah:karan:a) (consisting of the heart, mind, intellect, and ego9).

Thus, because of the experience (bhava) of brahman for such devotees, the

home itself is special.10 When the thicket of knowledge systems (sastra)

whose purpose is delusion is shattered by the intellect (buddhi), then confi-

dence in the Bhagavata sastra arises, and it is through this that true fruit

arises’’.11

If Syam Manohar is right that this precedes the PPM (I agree that this is likely), then

we can gain a great deal of understanding from this passage. Implicit here is the

notion that Kr: s:n:a devotion will lead to the highest knowledge and greatest

enlightenment. This appears to validate the concept of moks:a, which Vallabhacarya

later repudiates to the extent of associating it with a state of realization lower than

what is possible from the most intense forms of love for Kr: s:n:a. The latter state he

proceeds to call nirodha (Smith 1998). Although elsewhere (e.g., Nirodhalaks:an:a,

Siddhantamuktavali) he restates what he has written here, namely that the entire

body, mind, and self must be involved in this level of realization, he appears to have

developed the concept of nirodha after he wrote this passage (and probably after he

completed the PPM). The hierarchizing that is also evident in this passage also

contributes to the notion that the Sastrarthaprakaran:a preceded the PPM (as well as

the Nirodhalaks:an:a and probably most of the other texts found in the S: od:asag-ranthah: ). The hierarchy seen in these verses resembles what is found in the

Balabodha and its commentaries (Smith 2005), but adds a further category—those

who visit pilgrimage places dedicated to Kr:s:n:a, whom he then liberates. These

individuals appear to experience a slightly lower level of liberation than those who

8 This is a reference to cf. BhP 7.5.23: sravan:am: kırtanam: vis:n:oh: smaran:am: padasevanam | arcanam:vandanam: dasyam: sakhyam atmanivedanam k The devotional modes are: (1) hearing his names and

stories (sravan:am: ), (2) singing Vis:n:u’s praises (kırtanam: ), (3) meditating on him (smaran:am, lit.

remembering), (4) serving his image (padasevanam), (5) offering worship to him (arcanam), (6) pros-

trating to him (vandanam), (7) dedicating one’s actions to him (dasyam), (8) cultivating friendship with

him (sakhyam), and (9) dedicating one’s entire life and being to him (atmanivedanam).9 This is the definition of antah: karan:a in the commentaries on the Antah:karan:aprabodha, the seventh of

Vallabhacarya‘s S: od:asagranthah: .10 Thus, the Vallabha sam: pradaya has no mechanism for institutionalized renunciation. Among Indian

sectarian traditions, it is unusual in this respect. See Smith (1993, 1998), for discussions of this point.11 tasya jñanad dhi kaivalyam avidyavinivr: ttitah: | vairagyam: sam: khyayogau ca tapo bhaktis ca kesavek45k pañcaparveti vidyeyam: yaya vidvan harim: viset | sattvasr:s: t:ipravr: ttanam: daivanam: muktiyogyatak46k tırthadav api ya muktih: kadacit kasyacid bhavet | kr:s:n:aprasadayuktasya nanyasyeti viniscayah: k47ksevakam: kr:paya kr:s:n:ah: kadacin mocayet kvacit | tanmulatvat stutis tasya ks:etrasya vinirupyate k48ktasmat sarvam: parityajya dr:d:havisvasato harim | bhajeta sravan: adibhyo yad vidyato vimucyate k49kbrahmanande pravis: t:anam atmanaiva sukhaprama | sa _nghatasya vilınatvad bhaktanam: tu vises:atah: k50ksarvendriyais tatha cantah:karan:air atmanapi hi | brahmabhavat tu bhaktanam: gr:ha eva visis:yate k51kmoharthasastrakalilam: yada buddher vibhidyate | tada bhagavate sastre visvasas tena satphalam k52k

178 F. M. Smith

123

are dedicated to keeping their seva or dedicated service to the Lord at home,

attending to the kinds of devotion listed in BhP 7.5.23 (see note 7). In the PPM, the

eligibility of the spiritual practitioners to achieve the states listed in these verses

appears to have been naturalized.

This naturalization is found in the way Vallabhacarya hierarchizes exalted states

of devotion through his vision of the way the tenth skandha of the BhP is aggre-

gated. Most of the first part of this skandha describes the highest level of bhaktas,

which Vallabhacarya calls, not without irony, tamasa bhaktas. He labels this section

of the tenth skahdha the Tamasaprakaran:a (BhP 10.5–35), and describes how such

bhaktas, innocent, selfless, and spontaneous in their pure love, are exemplified by

the gopikas or svaminıs (the word preferred for the milkmaids in the Pus: t:imarga).

These are the highest types of pus: t:i bhaktas as he describes them here. The next

level comprises rajasa bhaktas, the milkmaids who experience the love-in-separa-

tion (samprayoga, viraha) that is assigned the highest value by Vallabhacarya. This,

he says, is described in the Rajasaprakaran:a (BhP 10.36–63) of the tenth skandha.

The third category of exalted devotees, sattvikı bhaktas, are, says Vallabhacarya,

described in the third section of the tenth skandha, which he calls the Sattvika-prakaran:a (BhP 10.64–84). These devotees are also pure of heart, but have a rem-

nant of pride through clinging to sastraic or other derivative knowledge (cf. Smith

1998).12

The Text of the PPM

The text of the PPM as presented here has 2512 verses. It has been the subject of five

commentaries, all by descendants of Vallabhacarya. The Pus: t:imarga is rightly called

the Vallabha sampradaya not only because the founder was Vallabhacarya but

because the sampradaya has been controlled for the five centuries since its founding

exclusively by the ‘‘Vallabh kul,’’ as it is commonly called within the Pus: t:imarga

tradition, the extended family of Vallabhacarya, particularly his male descendants.

At present about two hundred such descendants are alive and active in lineage

(sampradayika) matters. All of these are descended from the seven sons of Val-

labhacarya’s second son Vit:t:halanathajı (1516–1586), who is better known within

the tradition as Prabhucaran:a (‘‘he who exists at the feet of the Lord’’) or Srı

Gusaim: jı (‘‘the illustrious Gosvamı’’). Anyone who elects to become initiated into

the seva of Kr: s:n:a according to the Pus: t:imarga must do so under the instructions and

authority of a male member of the Vallabh kul.The commentator on the PPM who is most often cited is Purus:ottama, son of

Pıtambara, who lived from 1657 or 1668 (genealogies disagree) to 1725 and was a

12 See also Sinha (1961; 405ff., 413–417); suggestions of his may also be seen in BhG 7.16, BhP 3.29.7–

8, 11.2.45–47, and elsewhere; in the framework of lowest (adhama), middling (madhyama), and highest

(uttama) teachers in Vallabhacarya’s Jalabheda (Smith 2005b); and importantly Lalu Bhat:t:a’s Pra-meyaratnarn:ava on maryadabhakti and pus: t:ibhakti. This is an introductory text on Pus: t:imarga doctrine

that has been widely used since it was composed in the late seventeenth century.


123

sixth generation descendant of the founder (Shastri 1966: 28).13 Purus:ottama is

generally acknowledged as the greatest of the commentators on the work of Val-

labhacarya; indeed, the presence of a commentary by Purus:ottama is considered

within the sampradaya to be the decisive indicator of the authenticity of a work

allegedly written by Vallabhacarya. An earlier commentator is Gokulanatha

(b. 1551), the fourth of the seven son of Vit:t:halanathajı (Shastri 1966: 19), who is

better known within the sampradaya as the author of much of the Brajbhas: a varta or

quasi-historical narrative literature, including the stories of the 84 disciples of

Vallabhacarya (Caurası Vais:n:avan kı Varta) and the 252 (84 � 3) disciples of

Vit:t:halanathajı (Do Sau Bavan kı Varta).14 A third commentator is Kalyanaraya

(b. 1568), the son of Govindaraya, the second son of Vit:t:halanathajı (Shastri 1966:

19), and the fourth is Raghunatha, the fifth son of Vit:t:halanathajı.15 The arguments

and citations of these three earlier commentators are in most cases repeated,

expanded, and nuanced by Purus:ottama. It is for this reason that Purus:ottama’s

commentary is the focal point of the present work. In addition to these commen-

taries, there is an undated Brajbhas: a commentary (and translation) written between

1775 and 1825 by Nr:sim: halaljı, who was born into the lineage of Vit:t:halanathajı’s

oldest son, Giridhara.16

The text presented here has been reproduced by Gosvamı Syam Manohar (1979),

who is himself a lineage holder in the Vallabh kul, a fourteenth generation

descendant of Vallabhacarya, through Giridhara, from a carefully edited edition

published more than a half a century earlier by M. T. Teliwala (1925). It is widely

believed within the learned ranks of the sampradaya that the text of the PPM is

incomplete (Shastri 1966; 132f.). Three of the commentators have stated this:

Gokulanatha states that it is well known that the text is incomplete, and Raghunatha

acknowledges this without further explanation.17 Because both are sons of Vit:t:ha-

lanathajı, it is possible that they were informed orally, by their father, that the text

was once more elaborate but that the original copy was lost. Purus:ottama, writing a

century later, states that it is known that the text once contained more information

on the purposes, practices, and results of the pravaha path and the nature and ritual

practices of the maryada path.18 Although the text appears to end rather abruptly,

13 In his commentary on the PPM, Purus:ottama uses the name Pıtambara. There are no other extant

commentaries by Pıtambara, and stylistically it matches Purus:ottama’s writing. It is, thus a safe

assumption that the commentary is by Purus:ottama. Providing more information on his lineage,

Purus:ottama’s colophon to his Vivaran: a reads: iti srıvallabhanandana-caran: en: vekatanasrıyadupati-tanayapıtambaraviracitam: pus: t:ipravahamaryadavivaran:am: samaptam|14 This is explicated by T: an:d: an (1961).15 The Vallabha sampradaya is divided into seven houses (pıt:ha-s), with the descendants of the seven

sons of Vit:t:halanathajı in charge of them. The fourth house is located in Gokul, about 10 kms south of

Mathura, along the Yamuna river. The fifth house is located in Kamvan, Rajasthan, 55 kms west of

Mathura.16 On these lineages, known as houses or pi: t:has, see Bennett (1993: 37ff., esp. p. 52).17 Gokulanatha says in his introduction to the text: yady apy atra granthopasam: haradarsanabhavad agre’pi grantho ’stıti jñayate tathapy agrimagranthasyaprasiddhatvad yavat prasiddha eva vyakhyata itinanupapattih: kacit. Raghunatha says simply: ita urdhvam: granthatr: tih: .18 etad agre pravahamargıyaprayojanasadhana _ngphalani maryadamargıyaprayojanasvarupa _ngakriyah:sadhanam: phalam: ca yavat ajñayate tavan grantho ’peks: ita iti jñeyam.

180 F. M. Smith

123

just as the topic is changing, it is not inconceivable from the consideration of the

text making sense that it could have ended here. In any case, the manuscripts, which

do not appear to go back to the sixteenth century, do not convincingly support the

likelihood that verses are missing; indeed, the text as it stands could very well be

complete and self-contained. Furthermore, in its length it fits in well with the other

texts of the S: od:asagrahthah: ; in its 2512 verses, its redacted length, it is the longest of

the sixteen, but not by more than a few verses.19

In his introduction to the PPM, Purus:ottama makes the following inquiry: ‘‘In

this world, in which all jıvas are equal in the sense of possessing consciousness and

being a part of the Supreme Lord, some have the capacity for realization of the

Supreme Lord (purus:ottamaprapti), some the capacity for attaining the aks:ara(-brahman), some the capacity for heaven, etc., and some for blinding darkness.

How is it, moreover, that we know from the Vedas that their fruits are different, that

they have differing natures, that some, with their actions and bodies, act in a way

opposed to their natures, and that others follow their nature correctly?’’20

Purus:ottama’s answer, in short, is that the PPM, followed by the commentators,

resorts to citing a number of expected scriptural sources culturally regarded as

Vedic, including the Bhagavad-Gıta and the Bhagavata-Puran:a, to justify and

explain three different types of individuals (jıva) and their respective eligibility

(adhikara) for divine grace (anugraha). These are called (1) pus: t:i, those who are

‘‘chosen’’ by the Lord because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to the

form of Kr: s:n: a; (2) pravaha, those whose interests are purely of this world; and (3)

maryada, aspiring well-intentioned seekers, including advocates of Vedic ritual,

who have not attained the level of pus: t:i. Additional categories of those with no

adhikara at all are briefly discussed at the end, including heretics (pas:an:d:a), the

ignorant (ajña) who follow those with wrong or harmful knowledge (durjña), and

those who belong to a category called cars:an: ı, defined as wavering seekers who lack

dedication or conviction, or are, in short, unrepentant wanderers on the spiritual

path. These categories might all be construed as subdivisions of the pravaha or

maryada paths. These final verses are in fact somewhat unclear and choppy, and

although they could be genuine, they could as well serve as part of an argument that

the received text is incomplete.

Purus:ottama follows up his question, cited above, with the following, which

explains his method: ‘‘In order to do away with doubt and scepticism, as we also

know from hearing other works (of the S: od:asagrantha) up to the Vivaran:a on the

Sevaphalam, we will suggest the (endless) combinations of individual strategies,

states of existence, and paths (tadupayabhutamargatatsa _nkarye), and having cleared

our minds and hearts of these many doubts, Srımad Acarya will arrive at three paths,

19 Five others of the sixteen are 20 verses or more: Balabodha (1912), Siddhantamuktavali (21), Jalabheda

(21), Sam: nyasanirn:aya (22), Nirodhalaks:an:a (20).20 iha hi cidrupatvena bhagavadam: satvena ca tulyes:u jıves:u kes: añcit purus:ottamapraptih: kes: añcidaks:arasya kes: añcit svargadeh: kes: añcid andhantamasah: sa sruyata iti kutah: phalabhedah: kuto vasvabhavabhedah: katham: va kes: añcit svabhavaviruddhe dehakriya itares: am: ca tadanurupe. . .


123

to be explained in this work’’.21 The main point is that according to Vallabhacarya

predestination is a fact that can be borne out through textual support and reasonable

argument. The logic of Vallabhacarya’s doctrine of predestination will be addressed

below in the context of comparable doctrines found elsewhere, after the presentation

of the text and translation. Meanwhile, as we shall see, the PPM explicates just how

the Lord arranges, indeed how he has already arranged, for the most blessed pus: t:isouls, those who are referred to in the sampradaya as bhagavadıya, those belonging

to the Lord, or tadıya, those belonging to him, who are destined to take brahma-sambandha initiation into Pus: t:imarga seva,22 to realize him, to become part of his

divine lıla, in spite of their efforts rather than because of them.23

The Text and Translation of the PPM

As discussed above, in addition to the text and translation, I shall present extracts

from the commentaries, principally from Purus:ottama’s Vivaran:a, which represents

a summation and expansion of the others. As part of his commentarial enterprise,

Purus:ottama presents, with great sastraic dexterity, an array of quotations from the

BhP, the Upanis:ads, and elsewhere, as praman:a. He understands the BhP as Vedic;

thus, presenting it as a valid source for Vallabhacarya’s doctrines is, to him, a form

of sabdapraman:a, dependence on Vedic texts as the final authority for establishing

the truth of his philosophical and religious doctrines.

The first seven and a half verses answer theoretical objections through demon-

strating the validity of the three paths in question, pus: t:i, pravaha, and maryada.

Verses 1–2

pus: t:ipravahamaryada vises:en:a pr: thak pr: thak |jıvadehakriyabhedaih: pravahen:a phalena ca k1kvaks:yami sarvasandeha na bhavis:yanti yacchruteh: |bhaktimargasya kathanat pus: t:ir astıti niscayah: k2k(The three kinds of person, called) pus: t:i, pravaha, and maryada, are distin-

guished according to: (1) their respective characteristics (vises:en:a); (2) their

different forms of embodied consciousness (jıva), their bodies and their

actions; (3) the fact that they are a natural and continuous aspect of creation

21 . . . ity adiprakaren:a sevaphalavivaran: adigranthasravan: ad anyatas ca sandihananam: sande-havahanaya tadupayabhutamargatatsa _nkarye nirupayaitum: bahunam: sandehanam: bhedajñanad evanivr: ttim: hr:di kr: tva margatrayabhedanirupan:am: srımadacaryah: pratijñanate pus: t:ıty adi.22 See, on bhagavadıya, see Jalabheda 14 and Purus:ottama’s introduction to the Bhaktivardhinı, and on

the state of tadıyata my introduction to the Jalabheda (Smith 2005b).23 It might be emphasized again here that one of the principal concerns of the S: od:asagranthah: is

eligibility (adhikara) for proximity to the Lord. This concern is also expressed in the varta literature. For

example, the Srınathjıprakat:yavarta (Smith 2009), a Brajbhas: a text attributed to Vallabhacarya’s

grandson Gokulanatha (though it was finalized, if not entirely written, at least two generations after him),

voices a common concern for the declining quality of bhaktas. The text reads, in a statement put in

Gokulnathjı’s mouth, ‘‘During the times of our father Srı Gusaınjı, the pure Pus: timarga lived. At that time

Srınathjı spoke and played with all the bhaktas. Now the following of the Pus: t:imarga is a mixed group.

Srınathjı accepts all of their seva but only speaks with those who are filled with grace.’’

182 F. M. Smith

123

(pravaha); and (4) the fruits they have achieved. After hearing about these, I

will demonstrate that no doubts can ever arise. Because the path of bhakti has

been related (from authoritative texts), it is definitely established that (the path

of) pus: t:i exists.

The commentators agree that because it has been described from the Vedas to the

Bhagavata Puran:a, both pus: t:i (grace) and the Pus: t:imarga (the Path of Grace), are

established. Purus:ottama interprets vises:en:a in 1b as certain characteristics (dhar-mas) that separate one kind of jıva from another. On pravahena, he states that ‘‘they

have come down without interruption since the beginning of creation’’ (sargapa-ramparaya avicchedena), arguing for a beginningless predestination. This can be

established by resorting to finely tuned analytical knowledge (atyantavivikta-vijñana). Purus:ottama cites the following passages from BhP as proof that the path

of bhakti has been discussed in the authoritative texts (2cd): (1) BhP 10.47.34–37, a

crucial passage from the Bhramara-Gıta, the ‘‘Song of the Black Bee,’’ one of the

best-known hymns in the BhP. These four verses describe the one-pointed focus of

the milkmaids (gopı, svaminı) on sporting with Kr: s:n:a; (2) BhP 10.3.45, which

describes the constant love and stream of attention of Nanda and Yasoda on Kr: s:n: a;

(3) BhP 10.60.54, in which Kr: s:n:a praises Yasoda’s constant liberating devotion to

him; (4) 11.11.46–49 through 11.12.14, which provides examples of earthly and

ethereal beings who have contemplated the form of Kr:s:n:a with the mind fully and

constantly engaged; (5) BhP 11.11.19, which provides the opposite view, namely

that one who is inattentive to this quality of devotion becomes the most miserable of

beings (duh:khaduh:khı); and (6) BhP 3.29.13, in which Kr: s:n: a states that his devotees

would rather perform seva to him than enter into other states of divine participation.

The latter includes union with Kr: s:n: a in the form of residence in his divine realm

(salokya), enjoying the Lord along with his creative powers (sars: t:i), residing in

Kr: s:n:a’s presence (samıpya), obtaining a form similar to Kr: s:n: a’s (sarupya), and

becoming absorbed into his being (sayujya). These and other passages cited are said

to demonstrate that the path of bhakti has been explored and validated in the BhP.24

Although the central doctrine addressed here is predestination, Purus:ottama notes

that repeated statements such as this confer grace (anugraha), because they are a

form of grace (kr:pa) that exists within the Lord. Such authoritative statements, then,

are responsible for planting the seed of bhakti (bhaktibıja) within the disciple.

Without such seeds of grace, not even the Lord can speak about the path of devotion

(anyatha bhagavan evam: bhaktimargam: na vadet).The thrust of 2c is that in bhaktimarga practice (sadhana) is not necessary, but

grace (kr:pa) alone is the determining factor. Thus, bhakti is not prescribed (avihita)

for pus: t:i souls, because they are predestined to experience the fullness of Kr: s:n: a’s

grace. This is their natural birthright. Purus:ottama’s use of the word sadhana here is

a reference to the practices of the mayavadins, the followers of Sa _nkaracarya, which

he and others in the Pus:r: imarga insist, arises because of the individual’s desire for

things of the world, or even for moks:a. The practice of followers of the Pus: t:imarga,

24 The other passages cites, which do not add substantially to the ones cited above, are BhP 10.64.20,

5.6.18, 8.16; and a passage from Atharvan:opanis:ad: bhaktir asya bhajanam tadihamutropadhinairasyenaivamus:min manah: kalpanam. . .


123

however, is called seva, divine service to the Lord (in the S: od:asagranthah: , this is

most fully explicated in the Siddhantamuktavali), which Purus:ottama and all the

other authorities in the sam: pradaya distinguish from sadhana.

Purus:ottama presents an argument for the non-difference, or, perhaps more

accurately, the semantic convergences, between pus: t:i, kr:pa, and anugraha, as well

as their dissimilarity to other emotions (raga) such as anger, compassion, etc. Thus,

he defines pus: t:i as the nourishment that is his (the Lord’s) grace (pus: t:ir astipos:an:am tadanugraha iti).

He cites BhP 11.20.7 in an effort to highlight the path of bhakti, or as it is called

in this passage, the bhaktiyoga, as a middle course between the extremes of

jñanayoga and karmayoga. This chapter of the BhP (11.20) discusses the three

yogas: jñana, karma, and bhakti, stating that jñanayoga and karmayoga are inef-

fective in the kaliyuga, but bhakti is patently accessible. These three yogas are

clearly adopted from the Bhagavad-Gıta. The translation of BhP 11.20.7 reads: ‘‘I

have proclaimed three yogas with the intention of bring about the highest good of

men. They are jñanayoga, karmayoga, and bhaktiyoga. No other means for this

exists anywhere. Jñanayoga is for those who are repelled by ritual and have set it

aside. Karmayoga is for those with particular desires to fulfill and whose minds have

not become repelled by ritual. If, however, by fortuitous chance a man happens to

have strong faith in stories about me or other means of directly realizing me, and is

neither repelled by nor overly attracted to sensory pleasures, bhaktiyoga confers on

him (spiritual) perfection (siddhi)’’.25 In other words, one who does not have the

proper adhikara for either jñanayoga or karmayoga, but who has developed love for

the Lord, is selected for the path (marga) or practice (yoga) of bhakti as a result of

the Lord’s grace (kr:pa).

Purus:ottama compares the bhakta or devotee to a borrower (adhamarn:a) and the

Lord to a lender (uttamarn:a), the difference being that the Lord has inexhaustible

wealth and does not exact repayment from the borrower. The Lord’s grace, anug-raha, does not involve effort on his part, nor does it arise out of any small desire, even

the desire to remove suffering. Neither is it equal to knowledge. Rather, it is an

independent virtue that forms a part of both the Lord and the most exalted bhaktas. It

is an aspect of the Lord’s dharma (dharmantaram). Although it is causeless, it is not

unseen (adr: s: t:a); it is, Purus:ottama insists, evident. Nevertheless, bhakti cannot arise

in one who is not a recipient of the Lord’s anugraha. Purus:ottama cites BhP 5.6.18

and the Bhaktihetunirn:aya by Vit:t:halnatha to the effect that anugraha can be given

only to an individual who already has the seed of bhakti implanted. Thus, in the BhP

passage the sage Suka tells Parıks: it that Kr: s:n:a was his lord and guru, the deity of the

Yadus, beloved, the head of the clan as well as their servant.26 Such a person must be

chosen, the word for which, says Purus:ottama, is varan:a. Thus, he reasons, the word

varan:a, which is found in sruti has the same meaning and significance as bhakti in

25 In order to complete both the thought and the basis for using this as sabdapraman:a, BhP 11.20.6-8

should be cited in full: yogas trayo maya prokta nr:n: am: sreyovidhitsaya | jñanam: karma ca bhaktis canopayo ’nyo ’sti kutracit k6k nirvin:n: anam: jñanayogo nyasinam iha karmasu | tes:v anirvin:n:acittanam:karmayogas tu kaminam k7k yadr:cchaya matkathadau jatasraddhas tu yah: puman | na nirvin:n:o natisaktobhaktiyogo ’sya siddhidah: k8k26 BhP 5.16.18ab: rajan patir gurur alam: yadunam: daivam: priyah: kulapatih: kva ca ki _nkaro vah: |

184 F. M. Smith

123

later texts. He cites the following sruti passage as evidence: yam evais:a vr:n:ute tenalabhyas tasyais:a atma vivr:n:ute tanum: svam (Kat:ha Up. 2.23cd, Mun:d:aka Up.

3.2.3cd), ‘‘The self (es:a) can be grasped by the one whom it chooses. It is for him that

the self discloses its own true form’’.27 In bhakti texts, Purus:ottama says, varan:ameans espousal, Kr: s:n:a choosing one as a spouse. He espouses someone as a fellow

enjoyer (sahabhokta). Purus:ottama then adopts this as the meaning of varan:a in the

Vedas. Kr:pa and anugraha evoke, or are a means for, bhakti or varan:a.

The latter point is underscored by Purus:ottama through representing it as part of a

debate. The objector or purvapaks: in states that kr:pa can be achieved only as a result

of varan:a, by being specifically chosen by the Lord at the time of creation. Thus

varan:a is a direct means for obtaining full access to the Lord, while grace (kr:pa)

conferred on one who is living is at best only indirect. The position of the Pus: t:imarga,

however, the siddhanta, is that the person who has been espoused receives as fruit the

whole svarupa or divine form of Kr:s:n:a as part of personal revelation. Ultimately,

then, varan:a and bhakti are synonymous. Bhakti must be inferred because there is a

path of bhakti (bhaktis ca margenaiva pramıyate). And from this we must infer the

existence of a great soul, or even the Lord, who has graced the individual. Why is this

so? It is analogous to the case of an artist and a work of art; we can infer, he says, the

existence of a fine artist by seeing a beautiful work of art.

Nr: sim: halaljı largely follows Purus:otama, but his articulation is noteworthy. He

states that these three states are to be known separately. Those who follow the

different paths (Nr:sim: halaljı calls them dharmas) of the PPM and, consequently,

abide in different levels of creations, are participants in lineages (parampara) that

have been present without interruption since the moment of creation, each lineage

bearing its own fruit. Because of their differences they are viewed as separate in

spite of the fact that all lineages, and jıvas within them, are equal as particles of the

Lord’s essence (bhagavadamsa). All jıvas have their own actions, bodies, creations,

fruits, and special knowledge. When one gains knowledge of these particulars, then

all doubts will be removed; one will not be confused about this world or the other

world. The bhakti discussed here is a product of grace (anugraha). At the end of the

discussion about R: s:abhadeva in the fifth skandha of the BhP (cf. BhP 5.3–6),

Bhagavan is said to be the giver of liberation to those who perform his bhajan; he

gives mukti but not bhaktiyoga.28

This reiterates what is said in the Balabodha, that no one gives what is dearest to

them; thus, Vis:n:u grants liberation (moks:a) while Siva bestows enjoyment (bhoga),

quite against the natural and expected order of things.29 Similarly, Devakı, Kr: s:n: a’s

mother, possessed the knowledge of the Lord’s greatness, only after which she was

27 Compare the translation of this obscure verse with the ones by Olivelle (1998; p. 221) and Roebuck

(2000; p. 323). Also see Olivelle’s notes on this verse.28 See Jarow (2003; 88f). for more precise remarks on R: s:abhadeva’s doctrines of the final fruits of

worship.29 Balabodha 13c–14: bhogamoks:aphale datum: saktau dvav api yady api k13k bhogah: sivena moks:as tuvis:n:uneti viniscayah: | loke ’pi yat prabhur bhu _nkte tan na yacchati karhicit k14k ‘‘Although both (Vis:n:uand Siva) definitely have the capacity to bestow the fruits of enjoyment (bhoga) and liberation (moks:a), it

is clearly understood that Siva grants enjoyment while Vis:n:u grants liberation. Indeed, (it is) as in the

world, (where) a lordly person will never give away that which he enjoys (most).’’ Cf. Smith (2005a).


123

able to attain exalted divine love (sudr:dhasneha). Then, momentarily forgetting this

greatness (mahatmya), she became weary and could no longer resist Kam: sa, fearing

him. But Kr: s:n:a himself reminded her of it, thus bestowing on her his grace

(anugraha). It is this quality of grace that the Lord showers on an individual that is

called pus: t:i. Like Devakı forgetting the Lord, one who performs a regressive or

unproductive action (papakarma) must atone for it by performing an act of expi-

ation (prayascitta). This expiation eventually involves either entering into an

assembly of learned men or Kr: s:n: a coming to the individual and bestowing his grace.

This, says Nr: sim: halaljı, is relatively easy; such anugraha is induced, at least in part,

by mantras and prayers. At the core of this anugraha is pus: t:i. Devakı first possessed

great knowledge, and after certain trials she again recognized the Lord for who he

was. This recognition is regarded as an essential act of a pus: t:i bhakta, what is

desired most urgently is a relationship with the Lord, and, more importantly, what is

wanted by the Lord is a relationship with such a bhakta.

Another method of dividing bhaktas according to their eligibility, which is

referred to here and discussed often by Vallabhacarya and his commentators, is to

consider whether or not they lived at the time of Kr:s:n:a. Those who lived at this

time, during what is called in the texts the avataravastha, avatarakala, or avatar-adasa, which is to say during the time in which the avatara Kr: s:n:a was present on

earth, were fortunate because they had the direct experience of the Lord. These were

the highest among the pus: t:i bhaktas. This, of course, necessarily limits the number

of such highly qualified individuals to the milkmaids, the family of Kr: s:n: a, and even

to demons killed by Kr:s:n:a who are mentioned in the BhP. The latter, the demons

killed during the avatarakala, met their end in what Purus:ottama calls the asu-ravyamohalıla, the divine play of Kr: s:n:a during which the great demons were stu-

pefied. This direct participation in the Lord’s lılas is called by Vallabhacarya

prameya, because they are to be realized by bhaktas in historical time. This category

would consist, for example, of the dance described in the rasapañcadhyaya, the five

chapters in the BhP (10.29–34) that describe the circle dance in which Kr: s:n:a sports

with all sixteen thousand milkmaids (vrajasvaminıs).30 As a result of gaining

knowledge of the greatness of Kr: s:n: a through hearing stories of his praman:a lılas,

his divine play in which he kills demons, graphically demonstrating his greatness to

the devotee, the bhakta’s devotional seed (bıja) becomes planted. The devotee is

then prepared to offer tanuvittajaseva, in which one offers everything from one’s

mind, speech, and body, an all-consuming state equated with the lılas of the ava-tarakala.31 The remaining devotees, who strive to achieve this level, driven by the

illusion that striving is a valid mode of operation, must practice smaran:a, devotional

acts of remembrance, in order to insure this. Indeed, one of the conundrums of this

text, and of the notion of predestination, is that striving does appear to result in a

supreme state of devotion. As discussed in the Balabodha, and again emphasized

here, striving is acceptable for followers of the maryada path, but not for those

30 For a full explication of this important section of the BhP, see Redington (2001).31 Siddhantamuktavalı, verse 2: cetas tatpravan:am: seva tatsiddhyai tanuvittaja | tatah: sam: sara-duh: khasya nivr: ttir brahmabodhanam k2k ‘‘Service (seva) is consciousness flowing towards Kr:s:n: a. In

order to perfect it, (seva must originate from) one’s physical body and material resources. Cessation of the

suffering of sam: sara (and) the awakening of (the knowledge) of brahman result from this.’’

186 F. M. Smith

123

chosen by the Lord for the pus: t:i: path. This is the conundrum, or irony, or even mild

contradiction.

Verse 3

dvau bhutasargav ity ukteh: pravaho ’pi vyavasthitah: |vedasya vidyamanatvan maryadapi vyavastitah: k3kBecause of the statement beginning dvau bhutasargau (Bhagavad-Gıta 16.6),

the pravaha path has indeed been established. Because of the very existence of

the Veda, the maryada path is established.

Bhagavad-Gıta 16.6 states: dvau bhutasargau loke ’smin daiva asura eva ca | daivıvistarasah: prokta asuram partha me sr:n:u k ‘‘There are two kinds of created beings

in this world, divine (daiva) and demonic (asura). The divine has been explained at

length. Regarding the demonic, listen to me, Partha.’’ Purus:ottama states that

because of the Lord’s statement, it must be assumed that these two divisions

continue through the full extent of the created universe, up to the pralaya. This, he

says, explains the term pravaha in 1d, reiterated here, as a natural and continuous

aspect of the creation. He explains the maryada path, the path of limitation, with the

gloss niyamanatikramah: , that which consists of rules (niyama) that cannot be trans-

gressed (anatikramah: ). As proof of this, he briefly discusses some of the well-known

divisions of the Purvamımam: sa: vidhi, mantra, namadheya, nis:edha, and arthavada.

Similarly, he states, the three fundamental divisions of pus: t:i, pravaha, and maryadacontain many subdivisions, as well as sub-subdivisions. He adds, however, that this

kind of analysis serves little purpose here. Broad strokes, he says, are sufficient.

Nr: sim: halaljı states that having spoken about the present-day position of pus: t:i, he

now addresses the divisions called pravaha and maryada. These two, he states,

following Purus:ottama, have been in existence since the time of creation. He says to

imagine pravaha as a flow of a river. From its beginning to its end, it continues

unceasingly. Similarly, divine and demonic beings continue until the end of time. If

these two lineages (parampara) were not created in this way by Kr: s:n: a, then they

would be useless (vyartha). This is the reason why the movement of these two is

constant. The definitive characteristics of maryada beings are that they perform

prescribed ritual actions and require fixed doctrines. The Veda, he says, which is

eternal, has two parts or kan:d:as, the earlier (purva) and the later (uttara), meaning,

respectively, the karmakan:d:a, the section devoted to ritual practice, and the

jñanakan:d:a, the section devoted to abstract knowledge. Because the Veda is eternal,

these two parts are also eternal. When Bhagavan exercises anugraha, the bhak-timarga is pus: t:imargı. All the paths that foster the desire for worldly or heavenly

fruit are pravahı. All those that do not transgress the laws of the Vedas are maryada.

An unlimited number of paths, he says, fall within these three divisions.

Verses 4–5

kascid eva hi bhakto hi yo madbhakta itıran: at |na sarvo ’tah: pravahad dhi bhinno vedac ca bhedatah: k4kyada yasyeti vacanan naham: vedair itıran: at |sarvatrotkars:akathanat pus: t:ir astıti niscayah: k5k


123

Only certain people are bhaktas, not everyone. (We know this) because of the

statement (beginning) yo madbhakta (Bhagavad-Gıta 12.16). Therefore

(the path of bhakti) must be different from that of pravaha and also from that

of the Veda. (It is similarly proven) from the statement (beginning) yada yasya(Bhagavata Puran:a 4.29.46), as well as that (beginning) naham vedair(Bhagavad-Gıta 11.53–54). Because its superiority is described everywhere, it

is definitely established that pus: t:i (as a category of jıva) exists.

One of the few passages in the PPM with variant textual readings is found in these

verses. In the interest of greater sense, my reading here follows the order of verses

supplied by Purus:ottama in his commentary. The received text reads verse 5 as the

two lines that we have inserted between 4ab and 5cd. In other words, our 4cd–5ab

are read in the received text as verse 5, while our 5cd is found in the received text as

4cd. The reading here is supported not only by Purus:ottama, but by his predecessor

Raghunatha as well. Purus:ottama admits that this opposes the received text, in spite

of Raghunatha’s support.

Vallabhacarya’s first citation, BhG 12.16d, reads, yo madbhaktah: sa me priyah,‘‘one who is devoted to me is beloved to me,’’ The second citation, from BhP

4.29.46, states, yada yam anugr:hn: ati bhagavan atmabhavitah: | sa jahati matim: lokevede ca parinis: t:hitam k, ‘‘When the Lord, who constitutes the experience of the self

(within an individual), extends his grace upon that individual, the latter abandons his

views regarding the world and the Veda even if he is deeply entrenched in them.’’

The next citation is BhG 11.53–54 (Purus:ottama explains that two verses are

intended here): naham vedair na tapasa na danena na cejyaya | sakya evam: vidhodras: t:um: dr: s: t:avan asi mam: yatha k bhaktya tv ananyaya sakya aham evam: vidho’rjuna | jñatum: dras: t:um: ca tattvena praves: t:um: ca parantapa k ‘‘I cannot be seen in

the form in which you have seen me by (knowing) the Vedas, as a result of austere

practices, by gift giving, or through sacrifice. Through undistracted devotion,

Arjuna, I can be seen and known in this form, and, Scorcher of Foes (parantapa), I

can, in reality, be entered.’’ The practices mentioned here—acquisition of Vedic

knowledge, severe austerities, gift-giving, and sacrifice—are the major divisions of

practice mentioned in orthodox texts, all of which Vallabhacarya regards as

maryada, hence lower than single-minded devotion to Kr: s:n: a.

The word praves: t:um (< praRvis) in BhG 11.54d indicates that one enters into the

Lord through devotion. It may be argued that this sentiment from the Gıta is

opposite to that expressed by Vallabhacarya nearly a millennium and a half after the

composition of the Gıta. This is consistent with what I have discovered about the

general deployment of the words pravesa and avesa in contexts in which deity or

spirit possession are discussed.32 It appears that in later texts, including those of

Vallabhacarya and his commentators (Smith 2006; 347ff.), the notion of inviting the

Lord to possess a person was the prevailing manner of thinking about this.

According to the Gıta, one-pointed bhakti enables one to enter into the Lord,

whereas according to Vallabhacarya one-pointed bhakti enables the Lord to enter

into the individual. In addition, the latter is much more consistent with the notion of

32 See Smith (2006; 14, 101, 580f.), and, importantly, Chapter 9 on devotion, pp. 345–362. I stand by this

in spite of well-considered criticism by certain reviewers; cf. Hiltebeitel (2007).

188 F. M. Smith

123

predestination; it is much closer to pure theism than what is expressed in the Gıta,

which assumes a natural separation of the Lord from the individual, a gap that is

bridged through the effort of the individual. The point here, however, is that bhaktiis confirmed by the force of sabdapraman:a, by the authority of the BhG and the

BhP, to be different from and superior to the Veda, at least the parts of the Veda

rubricated as karmakan:d:a and jñanakan:d:a. That this involves ambiguity regarding

the nature and contents of the Veda is a matter that remains unaddressed here.

Purus:ottama further describes the pus: t:i state. He notes that the very existence of

pus: t:i, which we understand as a certain possibility because of the phrase pus: t:ir asti(‘‘pus: t:i exists,’’ verse 2), indicates that the pus: t:i state is a superior class of jıvas.

Furthermore, abiding in the pus: t:i state erases the effects of time (kala), personal

actions (karma) and the vagaries of one’s personality (svabhava). Mere bhajana or

community praise of Kr: s:n:a, he states, is not bhakti; rather bhakti occurs only when

the Lord loves the devotee or practitioner (sadhaka). The pus: t:i path, he says, is

different from the Veda because it is not prescribed (avihita); bhakti cannot be

achieved through the instrumentality of any sadhana, especially those mentioned in

the Veda. Bhakti is only achieved through the choice (varan:a) of the Lord. Pur-

us:ottama asks about the nature of bhakti: can one be a bhakta simply by hearing the

Lord’s teachings and through personal qualities (sravan:a), through contemplating

on these (manana), and through singing the Lord’s praises (kırtana)? Or is bhaktisimply worshipping with love? Not unexpectedly, it is the latter. He reinforces this

with several citations from sruti (at least as he deploys it). He first cites the

Gopalatapanıya Up. (1.5), a late Vais:n:ava Upanis:ad, which states: yo dhyayatirasati bhajati so ’mr: to bhavati, ‘‘One who meditates on him [Kr: s:n:a], praises him,

and worships him,’’33 becomes immortal. He cites the refrain from Br:hadaran:yakaUp. 2.4.5 and 4.5.6, atmanas tu kamaya sarvam priyam bhavati, ‘‘it is out of love for

the self that one holds everything dear,’’34 which to Purus:ottama demonstrates the

lesson of selfless love (nirupadhiprıti). The meaning of the sruti is to love the deity

with the knowledge of his greatness (mahatmyajñana), one of a number of state-

ments he makes in support of his sentiment that bhakti grounded in textual and other

traditional knowledge is a superior form of devotion. More directly, Purus:ottama

says: anugrahah: svavis:ayam pus:n: atıti pus: t:ih: . ‘‘Pus: t:i means anugraha that nourishes

its own dominion.’’ One who is the recipient of this anugraha, he concludes, will

abandon his or her involvement in the world and in rule-bound practices. To this end

he cites BhG 12.15–20, which enumerates the qualities of a bhakta who is beloved

of the Lord. These include being unagitated by this world, which is freedom from

envy, fear, and sorrow. Such a person has no desire for what is unnecessary; is pure,

clever, neutral, and untroubled. He or she renounces all new projects, does not

indulge in rejoicing or despising. Neither does such a person grieve or desire, but

renounces both good and bad, is even and just towards friend and foe, as well as in

honor and humiliation, heat and cold, pleasure and pain, and reacts in equal measure

33 Purus:ottama reads dharayati in place of dhyayati. See the edition of the Vais:n: ava Upanis:ads by

A. Mahadeva Sastri, p. 44. The shadowy and seemingly extinct sect of Kr:s:n: a devotees who followed a

thirteenth century saint named Vis:n:uvamı regarded the Gopalatapanıya Up. as authoritative.34 Roebuck (2000; pp. 40–41, 91) appears to have grasped this better than Olivelle (1998; pp. 67–69,

127–129).


123

towards censure and praise. This bhakta is, in short, free from attachment in this

world, and is fully devoted to Kr: s:n:a.35

It is only through such bhakti, says Purus:ottama, that knowledge of the Lord,

fruit of that knowledge, and immersion (sayujya) in him can manifest. If one desires

only knowledge of the Lord, this can be obtained through listening to text and

teachings (pravacana); but this is maryada, and is characteristically Vedic. This

alone, he says, can never by itself cause a person to reach the Lord. A second path,

requiring use of one’s own intelligence (medhas), is indicative of personal efforts to

obtain the Lord. This too, he says, is futile. A third futile path is to follow anything

heard outside the sacred texts of authoritative teachers. So, what works? Only

varan:a, he says, the Lord’s espousal of an individual. And only seva, divine service,

and atmasamarpan:a, complete dedication and surrender of one’s thoughts, inten-

tions, and actions to the Lord can offer even a possibility of gaining this. The

paradigmatic individuals for this are the milkmaids (gopıs) of Vraja.

Anticipating the next verse of the PPM, Nr:sim: halaljı wonders whether the three

paths mentioned are in fact distinct if we agree that all paths are created by the Lord.

He resolves this by stating that if one receives fruit appropriate to a pravaha path,

for example, then one must perforce be worshipping that type of deity. He asks,

rhetorically of course, whether any deity linked with grace must perforce be linked

with the path of grace (pus: t:imarg). Because it is the nature of a deity to bestow

grace, then are all paths pus: t:i paths? If this were the case, he argues, the pravahaand maryada paths would not be different from the pus: t:i path. This question arises,

he says, because the authoritative sources including the Vedas, Smr: tis, and Puran:as,

describe followers of all three paths without actively distinguishing them. Because

the Gıta mentions only two paths, daiva and asura, then the daiva path must include

both pus: t:i and maryada jıvas while the asura path must include pravahı jıvas.

This problem of the ancient texts not squaring with the doctrine found in the

PPM, says Nr:sim: halaljı, is resolved in these verses. A person who has mastered

contentment necessarily has his or her mind under control. Nr:sim: halaljı reiterates

that the proof of this may be found in the same verses from the BhG that

Purus:ottama cited (12.15–20) as well as in chapter 15 of the BhG. Just as there are

many different kinds of deity there are many kinds of bhakta, but only those bhaktaswho know and worship the deity as Purus:ottama, as the Supreme Lord, with their

mind, body, and speech, and are therefore beloved of him, are on the pus: t:i path. One

who knows Kr:s:n:a by all different modes of experience (bhava) is on the pus: t:i path.

Thus, when reading the authoritative texts, we must evaluate in every case the

quality of devotion it reveals. It is only through a demonstration of full, complete,

unending devotion (ananyabhakti) that pus: t:i is bestowed. Pus: t:i, then is Bhagavan’s

manifestation of grace (anugraha rup).

35 yasmannodvijate loko lokannodvijate ca yah: | hars: amars:abhayodvegair mukto yah: sa ce me priyah:k15 k anapeks:ah: sucir daks:a udasıno gatavyathah: | sarvarambhaparityagı yo madbhaktah: sa me priyah:k16 k yo na hr:s:yati na dves: t:i na socati na ka _nks:yati | subhasubhaparityagı bhaktiman yah: sa me priyah:k17k samah: satrau ca mitre ca tatha manavamanayoh: | sıtos:n:asukhaduh: khes:u samah: sa _nga vivarjitah:k18k tulyanindastutir maunı santus: t:o yenakenacit | aniketah: sthiramatir bhaktiman me priyo narah: k 19kye tu dharmyamr: tam: idam: yathoktam paryupasate | sraddadhana matparama bhaktas te ’tıva me priyah:k20k

190 F. M. Smith

123

Verse 6

margaikatve ’pi ced antyau tanu bhaktyagamau matau |na tadyuktam: sutrato hi bhinno yuktya hi vaidikah: k6kIf it is also posited that all paths are one, then the latter two paths (pravaha and

maryada) must be accepted as negligible expressions of bhakti. That is not

correct. Because of (statements from) the sutra texts as well as because of

logical argument, the Vedic path (is proven to be) different.

What this elliptical verse appears to be saying approximates what Purus:otama said

in his commentary to the two previous verses: that the maryada path must be

distanced from bhakti altogether. In his introduction to this verse, Purus:ottama

states that demonic individuals (asurı jıvas) have not been denigrated in BhG

16.5ab. The half-verse states: ‘‘Those who abide in a divine state are destined for

liberation, while the demonic are destined for bondage’’ (daivı sampad vimoks: ayanibandhayasurı mata). Purus:ottama’s formal objector (purvapaks: in) makes two

highly contentious points: (1) that pravaha jıvas may become the recipients of

bhakti, and (2) that all sadhanas explained in sastras contribute to the development

of bhakti. Thus pravaha and maryada practices are adjuncts or a _ngas to bhakti,meaning that there is one path, not three. He says that the word api (‘‘also’’)

indicates that there are two paths. He says that the word tanu indicates thinness, thus

negligibility (nyunaphalasadhanatvalpau); it does not simply mean ‘‘body.’’ If it is

suggested that tanu means a _ngabhutau, two adjunct states, then these two paths

must be taken as supporting elements on the path of bhakti. However, Purus:ottama

concludes, this cannot be, because both the Purvamımam: sasutras (PMS) and the

Brahmasutras (BS) consider them to be exclusive. This, he says, is shown in PMS

3.1.2, ‘‘an auxiliary serves the purposes of another’’ (ses:ah: pararthatvat), and 3.1.5,

‘‘a performed action [is auxiliary] because it serves the purpose of another’’ (karmapararthatvat). The ‘‘other’’ here is bhakti, the principal or ses: in, while a maryadapractice, the karma of 3.1.5, would be the ses:a or subordinate of 3.1.2.36 The

Purvamımam: sa thus makes clear that Veda cannot be the a _nga of bhakti. Themaryada path cannot, then, stand in a relationship of subordinate to principal

(a _nga _ngibhava) with bhakti.Purus:ottama also cites BS 3.3.33 to this end: ‘‘There is said to be an obstruction

in conceptualizing the absolute (aks:ara) because of similarity (samanya) [of

description] and its experience, as is found in the upasad sacrifices’’ (aks:aradhiyam:tv avarodhah: samanyatadbhavabhyam aupasadavat taduktam). What this indicates

is that different forms of knowledge that appear similar may in fact be different. The

upasad, which refers to the pravargya as well as the upasad (van Buitenen 1968;

Houben 1991), two contiguous rites performed as essential preliminary adjuncts to

36 The deployment of Purvamımam: sa by learned pan:d: itas such as Purus:ottama is not unusual or

unexpected, even if, like Purus:ottama, the author exhibits attitudes towards the Veda that are at best

ambiguous. Purvamımam: sa, a topic which has become almost entirely abandoned in contemporary

sastraic circles, was, until the last half century, regarded as a primary constituent in the process of

becoming learned. The reason for its study, as Purus:ottama demonstrates here, is because its general

principles, such as the exploration of a _nga _nibhava, can be decontextualized from the PMS and applied

with elegance and authority elsewhere.


123

the Vedic soma sacrifice. In the upasad, mantras are employed from the Samaveda(cf. Pañcavim: sa Brahman:a 21.10.1) that are, peculiarly, recited by the adhvaryu,

the chief officiant of the sacrifice, who must belong by family affiliation and edu-

cation to a branch of the Yajurveda. The point is that just as the upasad is subsidiary

to the more high profile rites in the soma sacrifice itself, it achieves an identification

with the soma sacrifice through the recitation of some of its mantras by the adhvaryurather than the udgatr: , the chief officiant of the Samaveda. In this way, practices and

philosophical perspectives that may be subsidiary to the principal doctrines of

oneness achieve an apparent identity with these doctrines through eliminating some

of their distinctions and fitting them into categories more definitively the property

these other doctrines.

Thus, Purus:ottama’s application of this sutra begins to take shape. He states that

this verse proposes a twofold scheme of liberation: one is related to Purus:ottama,

the Supreme Lord, the other to aks:arabrahman, Vallabhacarya’s designation for

brahman, the abstract absolute of the Upanis:ads and, pointedly, the Advaita

Vedanta of Sa _nkara, which Vallabhacarya and the Pus: t:imarga tradition regularly

disparages as mayavada, the ‘‘doctrine of illusion.’’ Consequently, the pus: t:i and

pravaha streams would constitute the path of the Purus:ottama, the Supreme Lord,

even if only those who are in the pus: t:i stream will eventually achieve realization

within it, while the adherents of the mayavada are representatives of the maryadapath who, for all their virtue, are ineligible for the full pus: t:i fruit. Yet all of them are

described in the Vedas, Smr: tis, and Puran: as. Purus:ottama notes that those on the

pus: t:i path, and even the pravaha path, achieve their results through the qualified

actions of the Lord (bhagavaddharma), while those on the maryada path achieve

their results through knowledge (jñana) alone. It is noteworthy that Purus:ottama

here accords a measure of divine guidance to pravahins, who are otherwise thor-

oughly disparaged. In spite of their ignorance of and disregard for divine inspiration,

their standing within the Lord’s domain of predestination remains intact.

Purus:ottama asks whether both devotion and knowledge become instruments

towards realization. His purvapaks: in suggests that bhakti loses its function once

jñana arises. This presumes a conflict between them so great that the onset of jñanaupends bhakti, a presumption that is seemingly negated in the lives of paradigmatic

pus: t:i devotees such as Vallabhacarya and Vit:t:halanatha (and many of their devotees

whose stories are found in the varta literature). In BS 3.3.33, aks:arabrahman is

assumed as a referent, while tadbhava refers to bhagavaddharma. In other words, the

experience of the Lord’s attributes contributes to the devotee’s understanding of the

nature of (aks:ara)brahman, an experience based understanding that cannot be

overturned or destroyed by the cultivation of philosophical knowledge. The conflict

between devotion and knowledge, spontaneity and control, and the spirituality of the

pure devotee and that of the philosopher, is thus shown to be a non-issue. Contrib-

uting to this interpretation is Purs:ottama’s statement that samanya in the word BS

3.3.33 indicates that bhagavaddharma is synonymous with aks:arabrahman and that

tadbhava indicates brahmabhava. In fact, says Purus:ottama, this combination of

knowledge and devotion results in full acquisition of bhakti. As in the case of the

upasad ritual, in which a ritualist from a sakha that (at first glance, at any rate) is

wrong for the role is selected for the recitation, suggesting that the Vedic ritual, the

192 F. M. Smith

123

very embodiment of rule bound activity, can also be subject to randomness, it is up to

the Lord whom to favor, and occasionally his reasons are beyond our logical

understanding. Figures such as Ajamila (cf. BhP 6.1–2), who are apparently unde-

serving of the highest place in the Lord’s lıla, may be chosen for reasons known only

to the Lord himself.37 Purus:ottama concludes that knowledge derived from the

maryada path is the subsidiary through which moks:a is achieved, but that this cannot

be considered the case for bhakti. In the same way, he says, the creation of demonic

(asuri) jıvas by the Lord at the beginning of creation is the required auxiliary to the

observed fact of bondage in the samsara. This, again, reiterates the point that the

pravaha and maryada paths function in the service of bhakti. In the same way that it

is often stated axiomatically that brahmans cannot exist without sudras, the pus: t:i path

cannot exist without the maryada and pravaha paths. In this way, the maryada and

the pravaha paths can be discussed as a _ngabhutas or auxiliaries of bhakti.Nr: sim: halaljı states in his usual succinct and forthright manner that if there were

not devotion to the Lord, then all the scriptures would be condemned. Conversely,

where bhakti exists, no scriptures are condemned. He asserts that in the Gıta the

pravaha path is condemned and asks whether pravaha jıvas can have bhakti. More

generally, he asks, are not all paths part of the bhaktimarga? This doubt, he says, is

removed by Vallabhacarya in this verse. If one argues for a uniformity of paths, that

all sastras recommend bhakti. But statements in other sastras never say that bhaktiis an a _nga or limb of maryada practices such as the soma sacrifice (jyotis: t:oma).

Therefore, the maryada path is distinct from the bhakti path. He states that the

creation of the divine realm (devasarg rup) is the cause or facilitator of moks:a,

while the creation of the demonic realm (asurasarg rup) is what generates the

pravaha path. Even if they are endowed with a certain amount of bhakti, still these

jıvas are destined for bondage. If pus: t:i were part of the pravaha marg, he says, then

Kr: s:n: a would not distinguish in the twelfth chapter of the Gıta between those created

with a divine destiny (daivi sampatti) and those destined for a demonic existence

(asur sampatti). In other words, the Gıta may be interpreted to say that pravahajıvas are condemned and maryada jıvas cannot obtain the quality of bhakti that pus: t:ijıvas receive even if they are all products of the Supreme Lord’s divine creation.

Verses 7–8b

jıvadehakr: tınam: ca bhinnatvam: nityata sruteh: |yatha tadvat pus: t:imarge dvayor api nis:edhatah: k7kpraman:abhedad bhinno hi pus: t:imargo nirupitah: |

According to sruti, (one must accept) the eternality of (pus: t:i) souls (jıva),

bodies, and actions as well as their distinction (from those of the pravaha and

maryada paths). Just as (those who follow) the two (pravaha and maryada) are

prohibited from the path of pus: t:i, those following the path of pus: t:i are

described as different (from the other two) because of different illustrations of

proof (praman:a).

37 See Vallabhacarya’s Srıkr:s:n: asraya, the tenth of the S: od:asagranthah: , verse 7: ajamiladidos: an: am:nasako ’nubhave sthitah: | jñapitakhilamahatmyah: kr: s:n:a eva gatir mama k7k, ‘‘He has destroyed the

impurities of Ajamila and others and established them in his experience. Kr: s:n: a, whose complete greatness

has been taught, is my only path’’.


123

According to Purus:ottama, this verse and a half answers a further objection along

the same lines: that there should be one path rather than three. The present objection

is based on the samyogapr: thaktvanyaya, the coming together of two disparate no-

tions. This axiom (nyaya), from Purvamımam: sa (PMS 4.3.5–7; Kane HDh V.1: 86,

V.2: 1350; Kurota 1980), says that two injunctive statements may prescribe pur-us: arthata, that which acts for the sake of the agent, and kratvarthata, that which acts

for the sake of the sacrifice. They would then come together without contradiction.

As an example, Purus:ottama notes that the statement khadiram vıryakamasya yaj-eta, ‘‘for one who desires power, one should sacrifice khadira wood,’’ prescribes

purus: arthata. This means that the sacrificer experiences the greatest spiritual benefit

if wood from the khadira tree is used to carve the sacrificial post to which animals

are bound before they are sacrificed. The statement khadiram yupo bhavati, ‘‘the

sacrificial post should be constructed of khadira wood’’ is kratvarthata, meaning

that it expresses the requirements of the sacrifice without reference to the agent.

Regardless, however, of whether the statements are purus: arthata or kratvarthata,

the point is that the most ideal choice of wood for constructing the yupa is khadira.

Thus, both statements come together as subsidiary (ses:a) to the principal (ses: in).

The argument, then, is that all statements cited in support of three paths may be seen

as subsidiary (ses:a) to bhakti (the ses: in), and thus included within its purview, thus

negating the existence of three separate paths. This argument is then countered by

Purus:ottama.

The jıva or life essence of pus: t:i individuals, along with their bodies and actions,

he asserts, are eternal because they participate in the Lord’s eternal lılas. This

ontological condition expresses a qualitative difference between the bhakti of pus: t:ijıvas and that of others. The practices of maryadamarga bhakti lead to aks:ara-brahman, the realization of identity with the abstract absolute. These practices,

however, are very difficult because indirect bhakti leaves the individual without a

true focus. Bhakti with a focus on a deity requires relationship, while dialogue or

reciprocity with aks:arabrahman is impossible and contradictory. The sacred texts,

including the Vedas and the BhP, he says, express bhakti-marga sadhanas, not

maryadamarga sadhanas. That this bespeaks a blurring of the classifications of

textuality, especially noteworthy for an author writing from a tradition in which the

Vedas are regularly derided (for example BhG ch. 2). Purus:ottama quickly adds,

however, that puja, arcana, and other standard forms of domestic ritual must be

performed with devotion, otherwise they become maryada.

In defense of his assertion that the Vedas articulate bhaktimarga sadhanas,

Purus:ottama engages in the proven practice of Vedic interpretation according to

bhakti principles. This fine art of interpretative prestidigitation is not unprecedented

in the Pus: t:imarga; Vit:t:halanatha used it more than a century earlier.38 In the present

case, Purus:ottama offers an interpretation of R: gveda 7.100.4cd (a passage repeated

in Maitrayan: i Sam: hita 4.14.5 and Taittirıya Brahman:a 2.4.3.5), as an explanation

for the compound jıvadehakr: tınam: in PPM 7a. This half verse from a hymn that

38 See Smith (2009; pp. 30–32). This is part of the genre of mantrarahasya, for which see Minkowski

(2005, in press), on Nl: akan: t:ha’s engagement of the same phenomenon (although more strictly Advaita

Vedanta than bhakti theology) in his commentary on the Mahabharata.

194 F. M. Smith

123

praises the greatness of Vis:n:u (appropriate for this context) reads: dhruvaso asyakıráyo jánasa uruks: itím: sujánima cakara. The probable translation of this is: ‘‘His

people, scattered about, are settled; this well-born one (viz., the mighty striding

Vis:n:u) creates (for them) a spacious dwelling’’.39 Purus:ottama links the lexeme kr: ti,the third element in the compound jıvadehakr: tınam: with the word kıráyah: (stem

kıri-) in the R:V passage. He then glosses Vallabhacarya’s kr: ti- and the R: V’s kıráyah:(nom. pl. of kıri-) as stutikriyavatam, ‘‘those whose occupation is (composing or

reciting) hymns of praise,’’ which is to say those who are devoted to kırtana, the act

of singing the praises of the Lord, particularly Kr: s:n: a. Thus Purus:ottama derives

kıráyah: from the same verbal root as the word kırtana. Whatever might be the

meaning of kıráyah: , it cannot be derived from the root Rkırt (cl. 10), from which

kırtana is derived. It might, however, be derived from Rkr: , to praise (cl. 3), bringing

it closer to Purus:ottama’s interpretation. This would then be rendered, ‘‘His people,

praisers (poets), are settled.’’ This, however, is doubtful. Purus:ottama equates the

second element in the compound, deha (body), with jánasah: from R:V 7.100.4c,

then glosses both with jananasalinam, ‘‘those who are endowed with the capacity

for being born.’’ He then equates jıva in the PPM compound with dhruvasah: of the

R:V, and interprets them as cetananam, ‘‘those who possess consciousness’’.40 Thus,

Purus:ottama’s final rendering of this half verse from the R:V would be along the

lines of the following: ‘‘The well-born Vis:n:u creates a spacious dwelling for those

whose occupation, from their very birth, involve singing the praises of the Lord’’.

This, then, indicates that the R:V supports the notion that the birthright of pus: t:i jıvas

is to earn a place in the eternal lıla of Kr: s:n:a. Purus:ottama states, finally, that if the

eternality of all souls (jıvah: ), bodies (dehah: ), and individual functions (kr: tayah: ) is

accepted, then the sruti would never have emphasized the eternality of those de-

voted to kırtana (kıráyah: ). He concludes this discussion by noting that all the

praman:as agree that the path of pus: t:i is different from the maryada and pravahapaths. Thus, the independent existence of three paths is proven.

Nr: sim: halaljı states more pointedly that those who follow the pravahamarga are

asuras. Their bodies are contrary to bhagavat seva and they give pain to others.

They perform agnihotra and other karmas of sruti and smr: ti, and they may enter

states of institutionalized ascetic renunciation. They may be divine (daiva), but they

are not pus: t:i. He notes that the sruti states that the jıva that praises Bhagavan is

eternal. For the pus: t:i soul the paths of pravaha and maryada are not allowed. Thus

scripture supports the differences between the three. Even in the idealized original

creation they were different. Anticipating the next verses of the PPM, he states that

the janmasthana or birthplace of pravaha jıvas is in the mind of Bhagavan, the

origin of maryada jıvas is in the speech of Bhagavan, and the source of pus: t:i jıvas is

the body of Bhagavan. He states that the Veda is created in the mind of Bhagavan,

that it is a creation of asurik maya. Thus he does not go as far as Purus:ottama in his

interpretation of the R:V. However, Nr: sim: halaljı’s commentary does not carry the

39 Following Geldner’s translation: ‘‘Ansassig wurden dessen besitzlose Leute. Er, der gute Geburt gibt,

schuf weite Wohnstatt’’ (1951.2; p. 270). Geldner derives kıráyah: from Rkr: , to scatter, which makes

contextual sense, although he admits that the word is uncertain.40 dhruvaso asya kırayo janasa iti srutau stutikriyavatam: jananasalinam: cetananam: nityatvasravan: adyatha pus: t:imarge bhinnatvam itaravailaks:an: yam. . .


123

intellectual weight of Purus:ottama’s; it is important and noteworthy especially in

passages such as this because it is in Brajbhas: a, and because it spoke directly to

large numbers of Pus: t:imarga devotees to whom it was more immediately accessible.

Verses 8c–9

sargabhedam: pravaks:yami svarupa _ngakriyayutam k8kicchamatren:a manasa pravaham: sr: s: t:avan harih: |vacasa vedamargam: hi pus: t:im: kayena niscayah: k9kI will now explain the divisions of creation according to their links with the

essential form (svarupa), the limbs (a _nga), and the functions (kriya) (of the

Lord). As a result of his independent desire alone, it is certain that Hari created

the pravaha path with (his) mind, the path of the Veda with (his) speech, and

the pus: t:i path with (his) body.

The most immediately outstanding aspect of this verse is its view that the body of

the Lord is more fundamental and important than his mind and speech. This view

stands opposed to the views of other ‘‘orthodox’’ schools, which prioritize the power

of speech or valorize intentionality as more fundamental aspects of nature and

divinity. These include, particularly in the Pus: t:imarga manner of thinking, the

mayavada of Sa _nkara and schools that advocate the performance of Vedic srautaritual in order to achieve primary religious or spiritual objectives. The importance to

Vallabhacarya of the avatara, especially the view that Kr: s:n: a is higher than Vis:n:u,

cannot be underestimated. Vallabhacarya’s concept of brahman is, as we have seen,

aks:arabrahman, the absolute in the form of the imperishable Lord, from which all

beings, regardless of whether they are inert, pus: t:i, pravaha, or maryada, are

inalienable parts. As such, pus: t:i jıvas emerge from the Lord’s beautiful limbs

(Purus:ottama: srı a _nga) and are parts of his essential nature (svarupa). Similarly,

pravaha jıvas, those who subsist within the flow of the world, are products of the

Lord’s mind, while maryada jıvas, those whose lives and occupations are intimately

associated with the Vedas and the power of speech alone, emerge from the Lord’s

speech. Thus, in these lines Vallabhacarya’s priorities are, in order, body, speech,

and mind, contrary to what is found in other discursive areas of orthodox thought, as

mentioned above. Thus, according to Vallabhacarya, the body is the most complete

expression of the Lord, containing within him speech then thought, in a descending

order of power, while certain other schools maintain the opposite position, that

intention and thought are the most subtle and powerful, speech rather less so, while

the body is gross, transient, subject to disease, decay, and whim, and altogether

lacking the concentrated energy and power of speech and thought.41

To Vallabhacarya, these three lines emphasize that one should comprehend the

essential form of the Lord prescribed for different jıvas, as well as the practices they

should perform. For Vallabhacarya, as for virtually all founders (and especially

schools) of Indian religious and philosophical thought, prescription is fundamental,

even if he provides considerable scope for personal experience (bhava) during

performance of seva.

41 This radical valorization of the body is found most notably in the Siddhantamuktavali.

196 F. M. Smith

123

Purus:ottama, in turn, regards this verse and a half as of the utmost importance;

his longest commentary on any individual passage in the entire S: os:asagranthah: ,coming to six pages, occurs here. By the word vacasa in 9c, ‘‘through speech,’’

Vallabhacarya explains that the path of the Veda (vedamargam) is created by Hari.

Purus:ottama states that the Lord created name and form through the words of the

Veda. The Veda, however, was an instrumental cause; the primary or direct cause

was the Lord in the form of van: i, the divine word itself detatched from the Veda.

Purus:ottama points out that the maryada path was created through the agencies of

both mind and speech, while the pus: t:i path was created out of all three: the Lord’s

mind, speech, and body.

Purus:ottama resorts to BhP 3.12.52 in support of his argument that pus: t:i jıvas

were created from the body of the Lord. This verse interprets the word kaya (body,

kayena in verse 9d) as deriving from the interrogative pronoun ka (who?), which is

famously interpreted in R: V 10.129.1 as shorthand for the creator deity Prajapati, or,

says Purus:ottama, Vis:n:u. The BhP passage states: ‘‘That which is called the body

took the form of ka and divided in two. Through these two parts, it resolved into a

(gendered) couple’’ (kasya rupam abhud dvedha yat kayam abhicaks:ate | tabhyam:rupavibhagabhyam: mithunam: samapadyata k).

According to Purus:ottama, the creation of the mind (manas), through which Hari

created pravaha jıvas, is discussed in sruti, namely in Taittirıya Brahman:a 2.2.9.5:

‘‘Mind was created from non-being, mind created Prajapati, Prajapati created

beings. Indeed, this highest one is established in the mind alone’’ (asato ’dhi mano’sr: jata, manah: prajapatim asr: jata, prajapatih: praja asr: jata, tad va idam manasyeva paramam pratis: t:hitam). This passage is reminiscent of R: V 10.129.1-3, in which

existence and non-existence are questioned.42 And, like his interpretation of the

earlier passage, Purus:otama here equates Prajapati with the Lord (Purus:ottama),

which is to say with Kr: s:n: a. The general interpretative principle appears to be that

any reference in the Vedas to a supreme deity, by whatever name, is ultimately

equated with the Supreme Lord, Kr:s:n:a. This in principle injects the Vedas into the

Puran:as, establishing the latter as sruti. However, because manas is created from

asat or non-being, it is considered external to the svarupa or essential form of the

Lord. Thus the beings that emerge from it are outside the Lord’s most intimate

chosen circle and cannot participate directly in the divine lıla.

Purus:ottama glosses the word niscaya in 9d as nitaram: cayah: , a complete or

absolute assemblage, which is to say that the Lord became completely aware of his

own svarupa. This svarupa is constituted entirely of bliss (ananda eva). It is

aks:arabrahman, the efficient cause of the maryadamarga.

The commentator then commences a long discussion of the word icchamatren:a,

‘‘through independent desire alone’’ (9a). There is, he says, no difference between

the form and function of the lord, the dharma and the dharmı. Thus the Lord’s wish

is itself svarupatmaka, an essential part of his very form. The Lord’s body or kaya,

out of which flows pus: ti jıvas, is thus the dharmı itself. Mind and speech, manas and

vacas, are less powerful than the body, the whole composite reality, the actual form.

42 For the TB passage see Levı (1898; p. 14); for a mention of the TB passage in relation to R: V 10.129,

see Long (1977; p. 39).


123

The authority of another sruti passage, Chandogya Upanis:ad 2.2.3 (also TaittirıyaUpanis:ad 2.6), bahu syam prajayeyeti (‘‘May I be many, may I procreate’’), indi-

cates the creative will of the Lord.43 On manasa (9a), Purus:ottama refutes the idea

of the mayavadins that the mind operates through maya, indicating that he disagrees

with the notion of Sa _nkara and his followers that maya is a self-generating filter

between the absolute principle, brahman, and the mind or self that renders the world

an illusion. Thus, advaitins of the Sa _nkara or mayavada school treat maya as an

independent potency, operating to create illusion of the phenomenal world by

separating it from the absolute. Vallabhacarya would never agree that the world is

an illusion. Rather, he states, the mind of the Lord creates directly. Taking his

authority from BhP 10.39.55, which lists the powers of the Lord through his

attendant goddesses, including Saktı and Maya, Vallabhacarya sees maya as a

power intimately related, indeed inseparable, from the Lord.44 Maya is, then, a

derivative phenomenon generated by the Lord, although individuals, as fragments of

the aks:arabrahman, also have the capacity to generate these potencies in limited

degrees. In this way the phenomenal world is real, even if dreams or mistaken

perceptions are to be counted as maya. In this way Maya, personified as a sakti or

divine capacity (if not fully identical with Sakti herself), is the creatrix of both

Vidya and Avidya, the personified potencies of knowledge and ignorance, or, better,

correct knowledge and mistaken or absent knowledge.

Lest one be misled by all the possibilities of the Lord’s saktis, one must recall

that brahman has within it all contrary things (viruddhadharmasraya). Yet in its

guise as aks:arabrahman (rather than Bhagavan) it has within it only the

maryadasr: s: t:i, the creation of individuals observant of dharma and ritual, and living

through the Vedas. This, emphatically, excludes the pus: t:isr: s: t:i, the exemplars of

whom are the Vrajabhaktas (the residents of Vraja extolled in the tenth skandha of

the BhP) or those devotees who imitate them.

Purus:ottama’s final position is that maryada and pus: t:i jıvas are real, as speech

and the Lord’s body are real. But the mind can have many different attributes,

43 Cf. Sastrarthaprakaran:am 27: bahu syam: prajayeyeti vıks: a tasya hy abhut satı | tad icchamatratastasmad brahmabhutam: sacetana k ‘‘May I be many, may I procreate’’. Thus, existence arose through his

deep vision. From this, then, arose desire alone. And from this came forth conscious beings who were

fragments of brahman’s existence.’’ The word iccha here represents the upadanakaran:a, because jıvas

here are said to arise from brahman, which in Vallabhacarya’s terminology means aks:arabrahman, the

body of the Lord. For the phrase bahu syam: prajayeyeti, see van Buitenen (1964).44 The verse reads: sriya pus: tya gira kantya, kırtya tus: t:yelayorjaya | vidyayavidyaya saktya mayaya canives: itam k ‘‘He was attended by Srı, Pus: t:ı, Gır, Kantı, Tus: t:ı, Ila, Urja, Vidya, Avidya, Saktı, and Maya’’.

This is a list of goddesses or feminine principles that are identified with and preside over different aspects

of life: Srı as or over beauty and wealth, Pus: t:ı as or over nutrition or expansion, Gır as or over speech,

Kantı as or over splendor, Tus: t:ı as or over contentment, Ila as or over the earth, Urja as or over fluid

essences, Vidya as or over knowledge, Avidya as or over impermanence, Saktı as or over celestial energy,

and Maya as or over illusion. Vallabhacarya does not comment extensively on these saktis in the

Subodhinı, but explains maya as sarvabhavanasamarthyam: vyamohika ca, that it has the capacity to

manifest everything and can be fully deluding. He also does not comment on this verse, or refer to it

directly, in the Bhagavatarthaprakaran:a section of the Tattvarthadıpanibandha; his objective there being

quite different from what is ordinarily found in commentaries. The topic of the relationship between

various named saktis in Bengali Vais:n: avism was cogently addressed by S. K. De many years ago (1942;

pp. 275–284). Addressing this issue more fully remains a desideratum in Vallabha studies.

198 F. M. Smith

123

including maya. Thus, after much disputation, Purus:ottama accepts the position that

pravahı jıvas are twofold: sahajasura (‘‘whose demonic nature is inherent’’), whom

Vallabhacarya later calls durjña (24d below), and asuravesin (‘‘those who are

possessed by demons’’), whom Vallabhacarya later calls ajña (24d below). The

former are those who are born with no chance of entering into the Lord, whose

asura or demonic nature is inborn (sahaja). These asurı jıvas are mayika, the

products of mental error in the form of illusion. The latter are possessed or

empowered by asuras or by those with an asura nature. Their inborn essential

nature is not corrupted, however, and are thus am: sas or fragments of Bhagavan. As

an aside aimed at the mayavadins, Purus:ottama says that those who maintain that

the prapañca or practical world is mayika, the product of maya, are asuras.

With respect to asuras, Purus:ottama’s doctrine is that the Lord created enemies,

all of whom are asuras, thus pravahıns, in order to experience vırarasa, the mood of

militant heroism. The fact of this creation, however, does not sully the Lord, who is

sarvarasabhokta, the enjoyer of all moods (rasa). Purus:ottama thus defines Bha-

gavan as ‘‘the creator of the objective world, the enjoyer or experiencer of all

moods, whose aim is regal enjoyment, who resides in his own true essence’’

(bhagavan hi sarvarasabhokta rajavadraman: artham svasvarupatmakam pra-pañcam kr: tavan). The authority of sruti is invoked here in the form of the oft-cited

statement from the Taittirıya Upanis:ad (2.7.1) raso vai sah: . Contextually, this

should be translated, ‘‘This [world] which is well-made (sukr: tam), is the [funda-

mental] essence (rasa)’’.45 However, in Vais:n: ava bhakti traditions rasa is regarded

(even in this sruti statement) as mood or emotion, with the implicit point that Kr: s:n:a(which is the interpretation of sah: in the sruti) is the producer, enjoyer, and

experiencer (bhokta) of all emotions, especially as they are constructed in the

classical texts on Sanskrit poetics (alam: karasastra). Thus, pravahika jıvas were

created by the Lord for his enjoyment (raman:eccha). Enemies of the Lord, whom he

created, are asuravesins such as Prahlada or Hiran:yakasipu (cf. BhP 7.2– 7), thus

ultimately eligible for sayujya, merging into the Lord’s lıla or into his manifestation

as aks:arabrahman.46

A question arises here: why would the Lord create imperfection and ignorance?

The answer, according to Purus:ottama, can be sought in sabdpraman:a, in the words

of sruti. He cites the phrase mam aprapya, from BhG 16.20: asurım: yonim: apannamud:ha janmani janmani | mam aprapyaiva kaunteya tato yanty adhamam: gatim k‘‘Those who attain birth in demonic wombs are bewildered in birth after birth. They

can never approach me (mam aprapya), O son of Kuntı; thus they seek the lowest

level of existence’’. In other words, ‘‘lower’’ (adhamam) humans who have no

chance of reaching Kr: s:n:a, yet are created by him, may attain to lower births. Thus,

what is real to us, such as war, may be created by the Lord for his own enjoyment.

Purus:ottama is consistent in construing icchamatren:a only with pravaham, when

in fact it could be construed with all three. All the commentaries are consistent in

45 See Olivelle’s notes on the word rasa, 1998; p. 576.46 This is discussed most copiously in Vallabhacarya’s autocommentary (Vivrtti) on the final work in the

S: od:asagranthah: , the Sevaphalam (and, of course, on commentaries on the Vivrtti). But see Smith 1998,

introduction and discussion on verse 8 of the Nirodhalaks:an:a.


123

interpreting iccha as the instrumental cause (nimittakaran:a) of pravahı jıvas. Their

efficient cause (upadanakaran:a) is manas (Purus:ottama’s first siddhanta) or

mayasakti (a further siddhanta). In considering manas as the upadanakaran:a,

Purus:ottama regards the nimittakaran:a, the Lord’s wish (iccha), as subsidiary. He

employs an image that Vallabhacaarya has used before (Sastrarthaprakaran:am 28,

which itself was inspired by Br:hadaran:yaka Upanis:ad 2.1.20) the relationship of

living beings to brahman as one of jıvas emerging from the Lord as sparks from a

fire.47 The comparative unreality or qualified reality of the pravahı creation is, then,

accounted for by vikara, impure transformation.48

Purus:ottama presents several arguments with respect to the position of the pra-vahı creation (sr: s: t:i). First, the sr:s: t:i is not unreal, only certain aspects of it are, as in a

dream. For this argument he depends on BS 3.2.1–5, which states that only certain

aspects of dreams are real or reliable. This is consistent with the Vedantic position

that dreams are apraman:ya, they cannot be employed as formal proof of a propo-

sition. Although they may occasionally contain useful suggestions or omens

(sucaka, BS 3.1.4), a dream creation is, in the final analysis, mere maya (maya-matram) because it is not a full manifestation or reflection of the Lord’s creation

(BS 3.2.3: mayamatram: tu kartsnyenanabhivyaktasvarupatvat). Purus:ottama

emphasizes the word kartsnyena, ‘‘fully, completely’’. By this, he appears to be

saying that pravahı jıvas are inherently flawed (recall the term sahajasura above),

just as a dream does not inherently reflect objective reality, even if it contains

references to that reality. The Lord’s mayasakti or capacity to create illusion,

ignorance, error, or demonic personality, is responsible for this dreamlike incom-

pleteness. Purus:ottama cites as an example of the Lord’s use of his mayasakti the

tale from the BhP in which the Lord created the universe from his mouth when

Yasoda looked into it (10.7.33–37). In this way mayasakti produces a substance,

namely maya, which mimics the created world. The resultant mayasr: s: t:i is con-

structed in the image of the satyasr: s: t:i, the true creation, but is at least partially

vyamoha, illusion. Because the Lord’s ability (samarthya) is no less than his

svarupa or essential form, which is infinite in its potentiality, he can create anything

through his mayasakti, including pravahika jıvas. It is important to understand that

these jıvas are in a sense no less real than maryada or pus: t:i jıvas, but they are at a

distance from the Lord, they are not a part of his body, but, as the PPM states here,

they are a potency of his mind. Thus the pravahika jıvas are like actors on a stage:

their power to evoke is real, but their actions and characters are invented.

47 Sastrarthaprakaran:am 28: sr:s: t:yadau nirgatah: sarve nirakaras tad icchaya | visphuli _nga ivagnes tusadam: sena jad: a api k ‘‘At the beginning of creation all beings, formless, emerged from his will (iccha),

like sparks from a fire. Insentient beings came forth from his teeth (sadam: sa)’’. In his autocommentary on

this verse, Vallabhacarya glosses sadam: sena (by means of his beak) with satpradhanyena (from the

primacy of his being). Disregarding this curious locution, note Vallabhacarya’s indebtedness to BAU

2.1.20, which reads (in part): sa yathorn:avabhis tantunoccared yathagneh: ks:udra visphuli _nga vyucca-ranty evam evasmad atmanah: sarve pran: ah: sarve lokah: sarve devah: sarvan: i bhutani vyuccaranti |Olivelle translates: ‘‘As a spider sends forth its thread, as tiny sparks spring forth from a fire, so indeed do

all the vital functions (pran: ah: ), all the worlds, all the gods, and all beings spring from this self (atman)’’

(1998; p. 63).48 A good summary of Vallabhacarya’s views on n the evolution of jıvas may be found in Lalu Bhat:t:a’s

Prameyaratnarn:ava (Ocean of Jewels), ch. 2.

200 F. M. Smith

123

Purus:ottama asks why we fail to experience brahman all the time? The answer,

he says, is because our minds regularly absorb the partialness of objects

(padarthah: ). This is how mayasakti affects us. We feel qualities such as good, bad,

living, dying, taking birth, hard, soft, flowering, etc. The flower is a padartha, but

we experience it in terms of its qualities rather than as brahman. This is due to

mayasakti. Because of this habit the manas becomes covered by the substance

created by maya, regardless of the state of grace into which one is born.

Verse 10

mulecchatah: phalam: loke vedoktam: vaidike ’pi ca |kayena tu phalam: pus: t:au bhinnecchato ’pi naikata k10kFruit arises in the world (for those following the pravaha path) because of

primal desire. And, again, the fruit for one who follows the Veda (those on the

maryada path) is described in the Veda (svarga or moks:a). But for one who

follows the pus: t:i path, the fruit is obtained with the body. Thus (the various

creations and paths) can never be uniform because desires are different.

Purus:ottama cites Chandogya Upanis:ad 5.10.8, which mentions two paths, arca and

dhuma, light and smoke. Both of these, he says, are maryada paths. The path of light

is the path of the gods (uttarayana), which indicates heaven (svarga) or liberation

(moks:a). The path of smoke is the path of the ancestors (daks: in: ayana), in which the

deceased becomes fit for receiving regular offerings to ancestors (pitr: ) as a result of

the performance of post-mortem rituals by one’s descendants. In the reckoning of

Vallabhacarya and virtually all other bhakti theologians, svarga is enunciated in the

ritualistically oriented Vedic texts and the Pu: rvamımam: sa, while moks:a is articulated

in the Upanis:ads. Residence in svarga would, then, be the culmination of the path of

smoke, while moks:a would be the soteriological outcome of the path of the gods.

However, pravahins, those who follow the pravaha path, cannot achieve either of

these states after death, excepting those who are possessed by deities (daivavesin),

who might eventually be eligible for either of them. For the vast majority of pra-vahins, the fruit that is realizable is exclusively worldly (laukika), the product of

desire (sisr:ks: a). Fundamental desire (muleccha, emphatically different from ‘‘ori-

ginal sin,’’ a concept that does not appear in Indian religious thought) here indicates

that the fruit is always laukika. This primary desire is surely intended to indicate

both the Loird’s desire that the pravahin remain in this state and the pravahin’s

insuperable desire for fruits of the world.49 The higher fruit of the maryadamarga is

most often the desire to uplift (unninıs: a),50 although Purus:ottama allows the pos-

sibility that the maryadamargı can have lower intentions (adhoninıs: a). Another

desire on this path, he says, might be to bring about liberation in another person

(mumocayis: a). Purus:ottama glosses kayena (10c, ‘‘with the body’’) as anandamatra,

49 Compare this with Navaratnam (the sixth in the series of sixteen works) 2cd: sarvesvaras ca sarvatmanijecchatah: karis:yati, ‘‘The Lord of All, who is the true self of all, will act according to his own desires.’’50 See Barz (1976; 61f.) on the term uddhara, upliftment by Kr:s:n: a through an act of grace (anugraha)

brought about solely through his will (iccha). Barz draws his material largely from the varta literature. It

is of note that Purus:ottama uses the term unninıs: a here, seemingly because he is referring to human desire

to uplit rather than the Lord’s.


123

‘‘pure bliss,’’ which is the svarupa or essential form of Bhagavan’s divinity and

embodiment. One experiences bliss through one’s body and experiences lıla dif-

ferently when entering into the svarupa, or, as stated here, the body of the Lord.

Thus, for the pus: t:i jıva, fulfillment is achieved with one’s body, through the body of

the Lord. The sense of a new body is echoed elsewhere the S: od:asagranthah: , See

Yamunas: t:akam, verse 7, which uses the word tanunavatvam, referring to the bodily

attainment of ‘‘newness’’ (navatvam) that allows one to receive and express the

experience (anubhava) of anugraha. This idea also appears in Vallabhacarya’s

Vivaran:a on the first verse of the Sevaphalam, in which the important and much

discussed term sevopayogideha occurs, indicating a body granted by the Lord in the

afterlife, after the death of the physical body, for the purpose of performing seva in

Vaikun: t:ha or other realms. Purus:ottama provides several citations to show that the

fruit of pus: t:i bhaktas arises because of their own desire, e.g. BhP 10.11.7 where the

Lord as an infant danced because the milkmaids commanded him to do so, as well a

because of the Lord’s own desire (BhP 10.28.12, 10.29.1).

Verse 11

tan aham: dvis:ato vakyad bhinna jıvah: pravahin:ah: |ata evetarau bhinnau santau moks:apravesatah: k11kThe statement beginning tan aham dvis:ato (Bhagavad Gıta 16.19) (demon-

strates that) pravahins are different. The other two (maryada and pus: t:i jıvas)

achieve ends different from those (following the pravaha path); they achieve

liberation and entrance into the Lord, respectively.

BhG 16.19 reads: tan aham dvis:atah: kruran samsares:u naradhaman | ks: ipamyajasram asubhan asurıs:v eva yonis:u k ‘‘I cast the lowest among men, those who are

hateful and cruel, into the cycle of rebirth, into inauspicious demonic wombs.’’

Thus, the preponderance of pravaha jıvas are not daivavesin, they are not possessed

by divine personalities that can eventually allow them to achieve svarga, moks:a, or

true bhakti. They are demonic jıvas created as such by the Lord. Purus:ottama

identifies three kinds of pravaha jıva: (1) those who hate the lord or his avataras

(mularupavataradves:ah: ); (2) those who hate any of his other manifestations, such as

Siva, or his devotees (vibhıtyadidves:ah: ); and (3) those who hate the world, which is

none other than his created form (jagadrupadves:ah: ). The first two are asuravesins

(possessed by demons), the last is andhatamas (abiding in deep darkness).

Purus:ottama cites several passages from the BhP that he regards as proof that

extreme emotional engagement can lead to the Lord’s grace even when the emo-

tions are directed against him. Most of these cases may be classified as daivavesa or

fortuitous (if not completely accidental) instances of a demonic being witnessing the

Lord’s salvific actions. Examples given are the demoness Putana who was granted

salvation even after she attempted to kill Kr: s:n:a (BhP 3.2.23–24); the gopıs, who felt

extreme passion, anger, fear, affection, or kinship with the Lord but were his

favored devotees despite occasional negative emotions directed towards him (BhP

10.29.15); and Kam: sa, who was eventually granted salvation even as he tried to kill

the Lord (BhP 10.44.32). Pravahins are considered separate from such pus: t:i and

202 F. M. Smith

123

maryada jıvas because their ill feelings are not mitigated by love or sense of

proximity to the Lord; they are inexorably selfish (BhP 10.49.23).

Purus:ottama feels, as discussed above, that the text is incomplete here. Thus he says

he must complete Vallabhacarya’s missing passages through his commentary. He feels

that there is material missing from the accounts of pravaha and maryada creations.

Purus:ottama here defines the pus: t:i jıva: ‘‘The defining characteristic of pus: t:i jıvas

is abiding in a state of devotion that is instrumental in acquiring the love of the

Lord’’ (bhagavatpriyatvasadhakabhaktimattvam: pus: t:ijıvanam: laks:an:am). Never-

theless, he states that both pus: t:i and maryada jıvas fully traverse jıva-hood, neither

returning again to the sam: sara; the pus: t:i jıva is conjoined with the Lord while the

maryada jıva attains union with aks:arabarhman. The latter is disembodied and

lacks the rasa of the Lord’s presence, but nevertheless enjoys a state of liberation.

Verse 12

tasmaj jıvah: pus: t:imarge bhinna eva na sam: sayah: |bhagavadrupasevartham: tatsr: s: t:ir nanyatha bhavet k12kTherefore, souls who are on the pus: t:i path are different from others. Of this

there is no doubt. Their creation has no purpose other than that of performing

seva on the form of the Lord.

The question of agency arises here: Are jıvas independent (nirupadhika) agents or

does their condition as embodied beings (sadeha) render them bound and therefore

fully dependent in their actions? The commentators come down on the side of the

former. The jıva is the actor (kartr: ) that functions through the buddhi, manas, etc.

Conversely, the fact of being an independent actor (kartr: tvam) belongs to the jıvabut is expressed through the buddhi, manas, and other parts of the antah:karan:a. The

jıva is, thus, the kartr: of all three kinds. This independence may be expressed in the

following table:

jıva means fruit

pus:t:i — bhakti — purus:ottamamaryada — sadharan:abhava — muktipravaha — dves:a — andhatamas

Thus, the pus: t:i jıva realizes the Supreme Lord through devotion, the maryada jıvarealizes liberation through experience that is consistent with the prescriptions of

dharma available to all people, and the pravaha jıva realizes blinding darkness

through hatred. Purus:ottama cites BhP 4.29.46, which states that Bhagavan’s grace,

when meditated upon deep within the self, causes an individual to abandon pre-

conceived and long established notions of the world and the Veda (yada yamanugr:hn: ati bhagavan atmabhavitah: | sa jahati matim: loke vede ca parinis: t:hitam k).Thus, the experience of bhakti, when reflected upon seriously, can redirect an

individual to the pus: t:i path from the pravaha or maryada paths. However, in

keeping with the doctrine of predestination presented in the PPM, it would be more

consistent to interpret this to mean that an individual will realize his or her ongoing

status a as pus: t:i jıva rather than such a realization leading to a change of heart or

change of status. This is an example of the kind of challenge that confronts the


123

commentator when turning for support to a foundational text that is accorded the

status of sruti, then discovering that the doctrine recorded there might not quite tally

with the doctrine espoused in the later school. This statement from the BhP (many

others can be found) does not appear to espouse the procrustean predestination

found here. The BhP appears to grant more leeway to human agency.

The commentator gives two possible interpretations of bhagavadrupaseva (12c):

(1) as a s:as: t:hı-tatpurus:a (a dependent determinative compound in which the referent is

in the genitive), as translated above, indicating seva of the bhagavadrupa; and (2) as a

tr: tıya-tatpurus:a (a dependent determinative compound in which the referent is in the

instrumental), or seva by means of the bhagavadrupa. Both, it appears, describe the

personality of pus: t:i jıvas, expressing their divine intentionality. Only pus: t:i bhaktas

can perform rupaseva (rupen:a svasaundaryen:a va ya sevartham: tatsr: s: t:ih: ).Purus:ottama returns to a topic he addressed at length earlier, that although the

BhG speaks of only two categories of jıva, daivı and asurı, in fact there are three.

This, he says, is reiterated in other srutis, and cites the passage, trayah: prajapatyadeva manus:ya asuras ca, ‘‘The three categories of Prajapati’s descendants are

deities, humans, and demons. Purus:ottama states that this is in the BAU, but it is in

fact summarized from BAU 5.2.1.51 Nevertheless, there are two kinds of daivı jıva.

One practices for their own enjoyment, namely the maryadamargıs, while the other,

the pus: t:imargıs, practices for the Lord’s enjoyment. The Lord’s play (krıd: a) with

pravaha jıvas is very distant, with maryada souls it is indirect, but there is no

distance from pus: t:i jıvas. The enlightenment (jıvanmukti) of a liberated individual

(jıvanmukta) is not an experience of abhedatmakamukti, an indivisible state of union

with the Lord; it is merely jıvanmukti, a state of living liberation in which the jıva is

free to leave the samsara without misery. This jıva, however, must still be the

recipient of the Lord’s anugraha in order to become a pus: t:i jıva, and that this status

is solely within the Lord province (varan:a). Maryada jıvas or jıvanmuktas can

perform namaseva, that is they can serve the Lord through recitation of his name,

but they do not have the innate adhikara or eligibility to perform rupaseva, divine

service on the form of the Lord. Purus:ottama’s point is that jıvas created for seva are

pus: t:imargı only, thus they do not allow other lifestyle choices to distract them from

this seva. This is why pus: t:i jıvas are different from others.

Verses 13–14b

svarupen: avataren:a li _ngena ca gun: ena ca |taratamyam: na svarupe dehe va tatkriyasu va k13ktathapi yavata karyam: tavat tasya karoti hi |

With respect to their essential natures (svarupa), their incarnation as living

beings (avatara), their physical bodies (li _nga), and their individual attributes

(gun:a), there is no natural hierarchy (among these three kinds of jıva). Nev-

ertheless, (the Lord) creates these distinctions in essential nature, body, and

their respective actions in accordance with his own purpose.

51 The BAU passage reads: trayah: prajapatyah: prajapatau pitari brahmacaryam us:ur deva manus:yaasurah: , ‘‘The three kinds of descendants of Prajapati who lived with Prajapati as Vedic students were

deities, men, and demons.’’

204 F. M. Smith

123

Tathapi (‘‘nevertheless’’) in 14a suggests that there may be differences in the

abilities and qualities of pus: t:i jıvas in spite of the assertion here that there is no

natural hierarchy (taratamyam). This curious assertion of differences, which one

might think opposes much of the doctrine stated here, is, rather, a factor of the

Lord’s lıla, states Purus:ottama. Karya, he says, indicates lıla, as tasya must be

interpreted as pus: t:ijıvasya. Each of the innumerable possible lılas possesses its own

instrumentality through which actualization as a pus: t:i jıva is achieved. To achieve

his or her predestined position, every jıva must be unique in terms of its jıva, body,

and action. Lıla does not assume conformity; rather it assumes diversity and dif-

ference. Regardless, the controller of the lıla is always the Lord. He controls who or

what exists in the lıla, as well as its innumerable simultaneous arrangements. Thus,

the different aspects of lıla are played by different jıvas. One jıva might exist in this

tableau as a blade of grass, another as a leaf on a tree, another as a stone. All share in

the Lord’s qualities and nature; in this way they are non-different. They are like the

Lord, but they are not the Lord. The tree is a tree, a stone is a stone, a utensil is a

utensil; but the Lord is the Lord, and he derives his pleasure in moving them around.

There are no substantial differences, but practical ones. Because of their differences

in jıva, deha and kriya, beings, particularly pus: t:i jıvas, experience lıla in different

ways. But they do not hold the strings.

For a slightly different vision of this, Purus:ottama directs the reader to BS 3.3.26,

hanau tupayanasabdases:atvat kusac chandah: stutyupaganavat taduktam. In order to

understand this sutra contextually, it must be translated in the light of Mun:d:aka Up.

3.1.3cd, cited by Vallabhacarya in his An:ubhas:ya (and Sa _nkara in his Brah-masutrabhas:ya): tada vidvan pun:yapape vidhuya nirañjanah: paramam: samyamupaiti, ‘‘Then the wise man, shaking off virtue and vice, becomes stainless and

achieves the highest sense of identity,’’ the paramam: samyam being brahman. This

upanis:adic statement is regarded by Purus:ottama (and Sa _nkara) as filling in the

lacunae in the sutra, which then must be translated, ‘‘In the absence (of virtue and

vice), it must be spoken of, in spite of the secondary nature of associated termi-

nology. This is based on the model provided (in Samavedic chant in the Vedic

sacrificial ritual), in which kusa (grass or sticks laid on the ground to count the

numbers of verse variations and repetitions), the metrics, the hymns themselves, and

the secondary chanting (are not mentioned when speaking of the recitations in

general terms).’’ In the present context, hanau indicates the absence of mention of

the traits or dharmas (or associated terminology [upayanasabda-]) such as ananda,

yasas, vırya, etc., which indicate that the devotee has assumed union with the Lord

because the Lord’s dharmas appear in him. Although this sutra from the BS is not

mentioned by the other commentators, all of them, especially Gokulanatha and

Raghunatha (both grandsons of Vallabhacarya and sons of Vit:t:halanathajı),

emphasize the alaukika or transcendental nature of the lılas in which devotees

assume these divine qualities.

Purus:ottama elaborates on the four categories—svarupa, avatara, li _nga, and

gun:a — that define the pus: t:ijıva (or, for that matter, all beings). For the pus: t:ijıva,

these four, cast in the most positive possible light, constitute their inherent sac-cidanandaghana, the entirety of their being, consciousness, and blissfulness.

Purus:ottama describes the quality of their avatara, their incarnation, as bhagavato


123

’laukikarıtya sattvadhis: t:hane: they are established in purity as a result of having

been placed in the transcendent realm of the Lord. Purus:ottama glosses li _nga as

bhagavato dhvajavajradıni: the pus: t:ijıva has characteristic physical marks,

including a dhvaja on the chest and a vajra on the foot. With respect to gun:a, he

says bhagavata aisvaryadayah: saukumaryadayas ca: the pus: t:ijıva possesses the six

gun:as of the lord, namely majesty (aisvarya), potency (vırya), glory (yasas), beauty

(srı), knowledge (jñana), and indifference to the world (vairagya) (cf. BhP 10.85–

90, Nirodhalaks:an:a 15). All of this results in kaivalya, the pure play of sac-cidananda in oneself, enjoyment of one’s own bliss. This, he says, is not the bliss of

nirgun:avada, the experience of the attributeless brahman of the mayavadins; it is,

rather, dvaitasapeks:alıla or lıla not separate from form. When lıla is the reason for

the creation (sr: s: t:i), then the inherent nature (svarupa) of the lıla must be manifestly

described. It is interesting that Purus:ottama here uses the term kaivalya (rather than

mukti), which in Vedanta bears the sense of realization of a pure self separate from

all else (cf. Sa _nkara on Chandogya Up. 8.3.1).52

Verses 14c–15b

te hi dvidha suddhamisrabhedan misras tridha punah: k14kpravahadivibhedena bhagavatkaryasiddhaye |

These (pus: t:ijıvas) are of two kinds, pure and mixed. In order to fulfill the

intentions of the Lord, the mixed (jıvas) are in turn of three kinds according to

a (further) division of pravaha, etc.

Vallabhacarya nuances his categories by adding subdivisions within the category of

pus: t:ijıva. Because of the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the PPM is

incomplete as it stands, it is possible that Vallabhacarya assigned subdivisions to the

other major categories as well. In any event, the subdivisions within the primary

category of pus: t:ijıva are pravaha-pus: ti, maryada-pus: t:i, and pus: ti-pus: t:i. They have

slightly different constitutions and attributes, as well as separate designated roles in

the lılas, which, again, are manifestations of the Lord’s activities. For the sake of

consistency of the theology expressed here, we must assume that the subdivisions

named in PPM 14c–16b were constructed by the Lord to serve the purposes of his

various lılas. Indeed, Purus:ottama operates under the assumption that these varia-

tions are not simply according to category or subcategory of bhakta; he states,

rather, that pus: t:ijıvas on the bhakti path have an active choice in their roles in the

lılas, a statement that to some extent contravenes the strict predestination that forms

the backdrop of the text. Some bhaktas within these subdivisions, he says, opt

purely for the svarupa, meaning they have particularly strong devotion for the

svarupa or form of the Lord. In this case the lıla becomes an instrument for gaining

knowledge of the Lord. Others have particularly strong devotion equally distributed

between the svarupa and the lıla, indicating that the devotee is not dedicated simply

to the lord as the central matrix of his creative and majestic power. Rather, this

devotee has it in his or her heart to see the svarupa and the lıla as equal, not

52 Purus:ottama does not here draw the word kaivalya from Yogsasastra (cf. Yogasutras 2.25, etc.), but is

doubtless influenced by the Jaina use of the word. The textual and lineage mechanisms through which the

term kaivalya in this sense entered orthodox discourse remain understudied. See also below, n. 59.

206 F. M. Smith

123

prioritizing the svarupa over the lıla. Some other pus: t:i jıvas, says Purus:ottama, are

self-motivated, and yet others are motivated by the guidance and commands of the

bhagavadıyas, those devotees who are dearest to the Lord. Others, again, exist

simply in order to become attached to the Lord. Some of these pus: t:i jıvas have

developed divine qualities within their bodies and senses that are completely in tune

with their divine natures. Yet occasionally there are contradictions. This, says

Purus:ottama, is why we must recognize further subdivisions.

Verses 15c–16b

pus: t:ya vimisrah: sarvajñah: pravahen:a kriyarata k15kmaryadaya gun:ajñas te suddhah: premnatidurlabhah: |

Among the mixed jıvas, those who are pus: t:i-pus: ti are characterized as all-

knowing; those who are pravaha-pus: t:i enjoy the ritual (of the Lord’s seva);

maryada-pus: t:i (jıvas) know the Lord’s attributes (such as majesty, valor, etc.);

(while) pure (suddha) pus: t:i jıvas, who are extremely rare, have undiluted love

for the Lord.

This verse further elaborates the propensities of jıvas whose dominant pus: t:i qualities

are mixed with those of the other major categories, although the concluding quarter

verse provides perspective by stating that the pure pus: t:i jıva experiences love

(preman) for the Lord that is implicitly unmixed and complete in all respects.

Bhaktas whose pus: t:i qualities are stated, ironically, to be mixed with other pus: t:iqualities, apparently a step below those of a ‘‘pure’’ (suddha) pus: t:i state, are

omniscient (sarvajña), because, we must assume, they do not have the highest

appreciation for the seva, the lılas, or the attributes of the Lord. Those with dom-

inant pus: t:i personalities but mixed with pravaha qualities have appreciation for the

seva (and, say the commentators, other laukika or desire driven rituals), presumably

because of their interest in actions in the world, but lack the omniscience of the

pus: t:i-pus: t:i jıva and the maximum appreciation of the Lord’s qualities that the

maryada-pus: t:i and suddha-pus: t:i jıvas possess. Similarly, the maryada-pus: t:i jıvas

understand and manifest the Lord’s personality characteristics (gun:a), but pre-

sumably due to their more philosophical tendencies, do not show equal enthusiasm

for seva and do not exhibit omniscience.

Purus:ottama notes that it is through the Lord’s effort that all of this is determined.

The Lord’s choosing (varan:a) of the individual is the pus: t:i aspect of these com-

binations. Purus:ottama again makes the point that these classes are nih: sadhana, that

their natures render their religiosity a function of their being rather than a result of

any kind of ‘‘practice’’ (sadhana). All-knowing (sarvajña), he says, means that the

svarupa or inherent form of the Lord is known in its entirety. The Lord chooses

these jıvas, but he also desires that the jıva should know him. They know the

svarupa of the Lord as he really is. Their defining feature is their sarvajñapakatva:

the cognizance and knowledge of the form of the Lord is an inherent constituent of

their bhakti. This jñana, he emphasizes, has nothing to do with the jñanamarga, the

path of knowledge that is the primary province of the much-derided mayavadins.

What distinguishes these mixed pus: t:i jıvas from the suddhapus: ti-jıvas is the former

are not the Vrajabhaktas described in the tenth skandha of the BhP, and must resort


123

to singing and other forms of (nih: sadhana) devotional activity. Nevertheless, among

enlightened beings and siddhas these great, albeit mixed, pus: t:ijıvas who are dedi-

cated to Narayan:a are extremely rare, even among tens of millions of beings.

Narada, he says, is an example.

Purus:ottama explains that the basic nature of a pravahin is to have a strong

inclination towards worldly action and ritual (karma). Enjoyment of the actions

(kriyaratah: ), he specifies, refers to ritual prescribed in the Pancaratra, etc. He lists

Nimi and Srutadeva as examples. Nimi was an ancient king of Mithila (and the

bodiless [videha] father of king Janaka) who was cursed by the sage Vasis: t:ha to lose

his body after Nimi faithlessly failed to wait for Vasis: t:ha to perform his sacrifice

until the latter had completed performing a sacrifice for Indra (BhP 9.13.1–13

[doubtless Purus:ottama’s source]; cp. Vis:n:upuran:a 4.5.1–23). Srutadeva was a

learned and righteous Brahman from Mithila who lived, according to the BhP, after

Nimi. Along with Bahulasva, the king of Mithila at the time, he received Kr: s:n:a as a

guest, and was taught that brahmans, who are the very embodiment of the Vedas,

hence of ritual action, are identical with himself, the Supreme Lord, the embodiment

of all the gods (BhP 10.86.13–5953). Thus, pravahapus: t:i jıvas enjoy puja or seva;

they busy themselves with ritual. The Lord, then, has chosen them to be the ones

who should perform the rituals. In this way their nature is mixed.

Maryadapus: t:i jıvas are characterized by knowledge of those divine qualities such

as sattva (clarity), aisvarya (majesty), etc. The Lord wishes that certain individuals

should know and indulge in his attributes. That they are chosen by the Lord renders

them pus: t:i, but he has also determined that they must perform rule driven ritual and

express their knowledge of the Lord’s qualities through the filter of texts, thus

conferring on them maryada qualities as well. Some jıvas are simply not attracted to

these attributes, but concentrate their energy only on the svarupa of the Lord.

Purus:ottama emphasizes that none of these three are superior or inferior; they are

simply created for their roles.

Regarding the final category in this verse, Purus:ottama states that those who are

suddha-pus: t:i have unconditional love (nirupadhiprema) for the Lord, who never

abandons them. He cites several passages from BhP as evidence for this. In the first,

the child Kr: s:n:a rescues his father Nanda from fear instilled by Varun:a’s noose.

Furthermore, he rescues cowherds imprisoned in a cave by a demon named Vyoma,

and finally, under the cover of nocturnal darkness, he ferries the hardworking

citizens of Vraja to his sacred realm of Gokula (BhP 2.7.31). Purus:ottama then cites

a passage which states that the recitation of the Lord’s name while under duress

destroys all manner of transgression (BhP 11.2.55). A third passage states that

through the exhibition of divine love alone (kevalena hi bhavena), cowherds, cows,

deer, serpents, and other lower creatures can attain him (BhP 11.12.8).

Finally, Purus:ottama provides slightly different explanation for the individual’s

experience and their roles in the lıla: individuals of any of the four categories may

have pure undiluted devotion (suddha-jıvas) but the mind may be mixed, as in the

case of the milkmaids of Vraja; or they may have be of pure being and have with

53 Cf. BhP 10.86.54c–55: sarvedamayo viprah: sarvedevamayo hy aham k dus:prajña aviditvaivamavajananty asuyavah: | gurum: mam: vipram atmanam arcadav ijyadr:s: t:ayah: k.

208 F. M. Smith

123

pure minds, but their bodies may be inadequate to carry out proper seva; or their

jıvas, minds, and bodies (jıva, manas, deha) may be suited for the task but their

actions (kriya) somewhat doubtful. In these cases teachers of different qualities are

prepared to serve them (cf. Jalabheda; Smith 2005b).

Verses 16c–17

evam: sargas tu tes: am: hi phalam: tv atra nirupyate k16kbhagavan eva hi phalam: sa yatha vibhaved bhuvi |gun:asvarupabhedena tatha tes: am: phalam: bhavet k17kThus, the creation (of these jıvas) as well as their fruit has been duly described.

Indeed, Bhagavan is the only fruit. (For these pus: t:i jıvas) the Lord will

manifest with different attributes and forms on the earth. The fruit of these

manifestations will arise accordingly.

Purus:ottama comments that for pus: t:i jıvas whose practice is nih: sadhana, the svarupaof the Lord is (in a manner of speaking) the sadhana just as it is the phala; the Lord

is achieved through the Lord. The Lord will appear to each bhakta in accordance

with his or her inherent nature (svabhava) and degree of eligibility (adhikara). Each

bhakta is capable of manifesting different divine attributes (gun:a), such as majesty

(aisvarya), etc. This occurs during periods of separation from the Lord (viprayoga).

During times of union with the Lord (sam: yoga), however, bhaktas have the capacity

(adhikara) to become devoted to different svarupas of the Lord that appear to

them, including the infant, adolescent or youthful Kr: s:n: a (balyapaugan:d:akisoraru-pen: avirbhavati). Interestingly, Purus:ottama also admits the possibility that other

avataras of Vis:n:u, including Narasim: ha, Rama, and Vamana, can also generate this

paramount fruit (yadarthe yadgun:arupen: avirbhavati nr: sim: haramavamanadirupen:ates: am: muktvapi tena rupen:a phalati). Such rupas can be seen by devotees in the

space in their hearts, in the lıla, or in the (divine archetypal) Vr:ndavana (hr:day-abhumau lılasthane vr:ndavanadau). This occurs, he notes, because this fruit induces

different rasas, devotional moods that are the true measure of exalted devotional

states.

Verses 18–19

asaktau bhagavan eva sapam: dapayati kvacit |aha _nkare ’thava loke tanmargasthapanaya hi k18kna te pas:an:d:atam: yati na ca rogadyupadravah: |mahanubhavah: prayen:a sastram: suddhatvahetave k19kWhen (a pus: t:i jıva becomes) attached (to samsara, or to a different deity, fruit

or sadhana) (or if such a jıva) becomes overtaken by ego, the Lord will

sometimes cause him or her to be cursed. (If such a curse occurs) otherwise

(and a cause is not apparent,) it is for the purpose of establishing (any of) the

(three) paths in the world. These (cursed pus: t:i jıvas) cannot become heretics,

nor, generally being individuals who undergo great spiritual experience, are

they subject to disease and other calamities. Such directives (in this case

curses) serve the purpose of purification.


123

Anyone following the pus: t:i path can still fall, although not totally out of the cate-

gory. A pus: t:ijıva has been chosen for this position by the Lord and must retain that

pus: t:i nature and identity, irrespective of the imposition of a curse. Thus, the Lord is

obliged to look after and rescue a cursed pus: t:i jıva. Such a curse is, ultimately, only

for the betterment of the pus: t:i jıva and in the end serves as expiation rather than

punishment. More specifically, such curses are only articulated by powerful beings

in order to force the bhakta to realize his or her true love for the Lord. The Lord

causes upliftment (uddhara), even if the jıvas are pus: t:imisra, of mixed pus: t:i char-

acter. Purus:ottama glosses sastram as sapadapanam, (causing a curse to be con-

ferred; cp. Mahanarayan: ıya Up. 1.5, Nr: sim: hatapanıya Up. 5.8). Regardless of the

source or power of the curse, pus: t:i jıvas cannot descend to lower paths, even if they

must endure a period of suffering. Examples of such curses, always administered by

sages or by deities other than Kr: s:n: a that are mentioned by the commentators are

Parvatı’s curse of Citraketu (BhP 6.14–17) and the curse placed on the sons of

Kubera by Narada (BhP 10.10).

Citraketu was a semidivine king of the Vidyadharas, a class of ‘‘knowledge

bearing’’ celestial beings, who had innumerable wives but only one son, granted to

him as a gift by the gods after many years of infertility. However, this child was

killed mysteriously, presumably out of jealousy, by Citraketu’s childless wives.

After more or less recovering from this catastrophe and gaining knowledge of the

self, Citraketu, a great devotee of Vis:n:u, was out enjoying a ride one day in his

aerial chariot (vimana), and came upon Siva and Parvatı sitting in their eternal

embrace atop the Kailasa mountain, surrounded by their legions of divine and

semidivine devotees. Citraketu laughed derisively at the sight, insulting Parvatı,

who in turn reviled Citraketu as a low-born unworthy warrior (ks:atrabandhu) and

cursed him to be reborn in a sinful demoniac womb in which he would be unable to

exercise such offensive behavior (atah: papıyasım: yonim asurım: yahi durmate |yatheha bhuyo mahatam: na karta putra kilbis:am k BhP 6.17.15). Citraketu

immediately became apologetic. His contrition, together with conciliatory words

from Siva, pacified Parvatı. Nevertheless, curses cannot be revoked, and Citraketu

was reborn as the great serpent demon Vr: tra, albeit endowed with practical and

spiritual knowledge, springing from the southern (ancestral) fire of the creator deity

Tvas: t:r: , after finding his way to the womb of the demoness Danu (jajñe tvas: t:urdaks: in: agnau danavım: yonim asritya | vr: tra uty abhivikhyato jñanavijñanasam: yutah:k BhP 6.17.38). Eventually, as the well-known ancient story goes (cf. R: gveda 1.32),

he (along with his mother) was killed by Indra, thus releasing the cosmic waters that

Vr: tra kept in the darkness of his tightly wound coils. However, in keeping with

Bhagavata theology, as a demon of great power he was also a great devotee and was

liberated by Vis:n:u.

In the second story, Nalakubara and Man: igrıva, the two sons of the yaks:a king

Kubera, the god of wealth, were drunk on wine (madiramattau, BhP 10.10.7),

chasing girls (albeit celestial maidens), and bathing naked in the Man:d: akinı, a major

tributary of the Ga _nga in the Himalayas (which originates at the sacred site

Kedaranatha), when the divine enforcer Narada happened by and noticed their

disreputable conduct. Because of their selfish and slovenly behavior, Narada cursed

them to become trees. Immediately they were transformed into twin arjuna trees

210 F. M. Smith

123

(which resemble poplars) that grew large and lived for eons. Eventually the baby

Kr: s:n:a was in the neighborhood, and pulled the trees down, freeing the boys. Kr:s:n:aemphasized to them that the curse was for their own good, for the sake of bestowing

grace upon them (anugraharthaya sapam, BhP 10.10.7). Because the two boys were

liberated from their confinement by Kr: s:n: a himself, Vallabhacarya and the

Pus: t:imarga tradition regarded them as pus: t:i jıvas whose natural state of devotion

was worthy of the Lord’s direct intervention.

These and other similar stories demonstrate that pus: t:i jıvas who experience

Kr: s:n:a’s grace may experience periods in netherworlds or be reborn as demons or

beings with lesser sentience, but must eventually receive the grace that is the

birthright of pus: t:i jıvas. Thus, the commentators point out that all three primary

paths—pus: t:i, pravaha, and maryada—are necessary for the creation to operate

smoothly. Occasionally, then, a curse will occur in the form of a holocaust, such as

the elimination of the Yadus (cf. book 16, the Mausalaparvan, of the Mahabhar-ata), which will serve to re-establish the balance of the paths. Regardless, because

they have the Lord looking after them, pus: t:i jıvas, even if mixed, say the com-

mentators, are eventually carried beyond the binding range of the influences of their

own past actions in this lifetime (karma) as well as in previous births (prarabdha-karma).

Verses 20–21b

bhagavattaratamyena taratamyam: bhajanti hi |vaidikatvam: laukikatvam: kapat:yat tes:u nanyatha k20kvais:n:avatvam: hi sahajam: tato ’nyatra viparyayah: |

In accordance with the requirements of Lord’s hierarchical creation, (cursed or

mixed pus: t:i jıvas) experience lower or higher (life situations and fruits). Both

Vedic rules and lifestyles and those current in society (are perforce observed

among pus: t:i jıvas), regardless of whether an apparent disjunction (kapat:ya)

appears between them. This cannot be otherwise. Indeed, their true nature as

Vais:n:avas is inborn (and must inevitably be borne out). Anything other than

that is incompatible (with that Vais:n: ava nature).

This somewhat elliptical passage reaffirms Vallabhacarya’s previous line of

thought, that pus: t:i jıvas, whether mixed (as most are) or pure (very few, a category

that rarely extends beyond the archetypal svaminıs or gopıkas of the tenth skandhaof the BhP), may also perform Vedic sacrifices (as did Vallabhacarya and many of

his descendants) or be deeply engaged in worldly activities and sufferings (lauki-katvam). The word vaidikatvam is understood by the commentators (here and in all

of Vallabhacarya’s works) to mean varn: asramadharma, following of the codices of

the classical Hindu lawbooks with respect to normative behavior prescribed for

caste and stage of life. Nevertheless, as pus: t:ibhaktas their nature will stand them in

good stead; they will eventually secure the Lord’s maximum grace. The word

‘‘Vais:n:ava’’ (vais:n:avatvam as it appears here) is always construed by the com-

mentators on Vallabhacarya’s work as an initiated disciple in the Pus: t:imarga.

Gokulanatha confirm corroborates this, stating: vais:n:avatvam: nama pus: t:imaryada-margapravartakacaryopadesapurvakam: , that being a Vais:n:ava is predicated on the


123

teachings of the acaryas who promulgate the paths of pus: t:i and maryada.

Purus:ottama explains vais:n:avatvam as bhagavadajñakaritvam, following the com-

mandments of the Lord. On the ablative kapat:yat (20d), the commentators have

varied opinions. Gokulanatha glosses kapat:ya as lokasa _ngraha, a comparatively

sanguine term indicating simply engagement with the world. Raghunatha glosses it

as ajñana, ignorance. Kalyanaraya explains it as attachment to possessions in the

world, while Purus:ottama explains it as antarbahirvisam: vadah: , a conflict between

inner feelings and external life. Redington translates it rather severely as ‘‘pious

duplicity’’ (2000; p. 47), a translation is difficult to support contextually. Purus:ot-

tama cites the kratunyaya, that akin to the intention (sam: kalpa) stated at the

commencement of a sacrifice, a pus: t:ijıva, who has in his or her mind the intention to

achieve Kr:s:n:a’s grace, will achieve it in spite of distractions, curses, and worldly

activities that threaten to derail this trajectory. One of the basic principles of the

Pus: t:imarga lifestyle, related to me by Gosvamı Devakınandanacarya of Gokul, is

that one should always keep his or her most priceless gems hidden. Just as a

businessman never wants to make his financial records public, one should not shout

one’s love for the Lord too loudly. One should not behave disrespectfully; it creates

a loss of credibility. Impeccability in bhakti resides in anonymity. The point is that a

mixed or cursed pus: t:ibhakta is destined to overcome such obstacles if he or she

maintains humility in the face of such obstacles.

Verses 21c–23b

sambandhinas tu ye jıvah: pravahasthas tatha ’pare k21kcars: an: ısabdavacyas te te sarve sarvavartmasu |ks:an: at sarvatvam ayanti rucis tes: am: na kutracit k22ktes: am: kriyanusaren:a sarvatra sakalam: phalam: |

Besides all of these, there is another category of jıvas established on the

pravaha path who may be seen congregating with (individuals on any of the

three primary paths). They are known by the word cars:an: ı, ‘‘wanderers.’’

They all move about on all the different paths (vartmasu). They remain in all

these places for hardly a moment and never develop any true satisfaction. By

following such activities, their fruit is everywhere piecemeal.

These are the inconstant spiritual seekers that have been found in all ages, and

characterize the fluidity of spiritual movement everywhere. It is remarkable that

Vallabhacarya speaks of them so succinctly, illustrating the openness and fluidity of

devotional movements in the early sixteenth century. Purus:ottama derives cars:an: ıfrom Rcr:s: , a verbal root with the meanings prajanana and svatantrya, indicating

that they are always on the move and of independent mind.54 They are to be seen

with devotees of many different sects and teachers, but have no adhikara of their

own. Although their fate is to remain in sam: sara, it is slightly better than other

pravahins who lack even this association with others on legitimate devotional paths.

Vais:n:ava sectarianism was very active at the time, exemplified by the presence of

the followers of Caitanya, Vallabhacarya, Haridas, and others in Braj at the time.

Purus:ottama cites a passage from the Brahmasutras that discusses the fate of those

54 This verbal root is not otherwise attested. I am unable to locate it in the available Dhatupat:has.

212 F. M. Smith

123

who are neither devotees nor engaged in sacrificial ritual. BS 3.1.14 reads: sam: yamanetv anubhuyetares: am arohavarohau tadgatidarsanat; ‘‘As for others who have expe-

rienced the realm of Yama, (they experience) ascent and descent. (We know) of this

fate because it is seen (in the Vedas).’’ In other words, those who wander on no fixed

path are destined for a future strictly within the realms of birth and death (sam: sara).

Purus:ottama also cites the Taittarıya Aran:yaka 6.5:55 vaivasvate vivicyante yamerajani te janah: | ye ceha satyenecchante ya u canr: tavadinah: k; ‘‘Men who speak truth

and who speak untruth are separated by king Yama, son of Vivasvant’’ (trans. by

Kashikar 1964.II: 494; Bharadvaja-Pitr:medhasutra 2.7.8). This verse bears the same

message within the bhakti context, that the processes of death and rebirth embed moral

causality, and carry forth the fate of those who are predestined to move through lower

(as well as higher) realms.56 It should be noted that this verse is part of a series that is to

be used in the performance of the yamayajña, the monthly offerings to Yama, the king

of the dead, after a person dies. At the very least, this demonstrates that Purus:ottama

was familiar with the mantras (and probably the performance) of the post-cremation

rituals of the Taittirıya school.57

The word cars:an: ı appears in BhP 10.26.2, at the outset of the rasapañcadhyayasection, the five chapters that describe Kr: s:n:a’s ‘‘circle dance’’ with the svaminis or

gopıkas. (The edition Vallabhacarya was working with had three fewer chapters,

thus this verse corresponds to 10.29.2 in the edition normally used.) The verse reads:

tadod:urajah: kakubhah: karair mukham: pracya vilimpann arun:ena sam: tamaih: | sacars:an: ınam: udagac chuco mr: jan priyah: priyaya iva dırghadarsanah: k; ‘‘Then the

king of stars, the full moon, rose, caressing the mouth of the eastern quarter with his

hands, with pacifying coolness, with a red glow. It came forth, removing the sorrow

of the wandering wayward women (cars:an: ınam), as a lover does towards his

beloved, seeing her after a long absence.’’ The word cars:an: ı is usually translated

here simply as ‘‘people,’’58 although here I have taken the cue from Vallabhacarya

and translated it as ‘‘wandering wayward women,’’ in part because of its feminine

gender and in part because the svaminıs were indeed wandering and wayward, a

sense that can be read into the word itself. This is not, I think, backreading into the

text; if the author of this verse intended the rather lackluster ‘‘people’’ as his object,

other, more accessible and ordinary, other words would have been readily available.

In his Subodhinı on this verse, Vallabhacarya writes cars:an:yah: sarvatra paribh-raman:asaktayah: , ‘‘the cars:an: ıs are the saktis that have wandered about every-

where.’’ To translate Vallabhacarya’s word sakti here as simply ‘‘powers,’’ as

Redington and Ramanan do (see note 58 below), makes no contextual sense and

misses Vallabhacarya’s point. The word sakti here was surely used in its conventional

55 Vallabhacarya and his descendants, including Purus:ottama, were learned brahmans descended from a

family of Vedic ritualists belonging to the Taittirıya sakha of the Kr:s:n: ayajurveda.56 For more on the use of Vedic mantras employed in bhakti contexts, see Smith (2009), Minkowski

(forthcoming).57 See Kashikar (1964.II; pp. 460–501 for a full and lucid translation of the Bharadvaja Pitr:medhasutra,

which is virtually identical with the ritual performed by the family of Vallabhacarya, who were followers

of the Apastamba ritual sub-school of the Taittirıya sakha.58 See, for example, the translation by C. L. Goswami (1971 [vol. 2]; p. 1174) and T. K. Ramanan (2004

[vol. 7]; pp. 2841, 2844). More opaque is Redington’s translation ‘‘Cars:an: ı-powers’’ (1983; p. 51).


123

sense of ‘‘consort.’’ Even if the svaminıs were spiritual itinerants, as the BhP verse

suggests, they were nevertheless devotees of the highest level whose personal

association with the Supreme Lord confers proof to Vallabhacarya that they were

pus: t:ibhaktas of the highest level, rather than star-crossed spiritual wanderers.

Verses 23c–25b

pravahasthan pravaks: ami svarupa _ngakriyayutan k23kjıvas te hy asurah: sarve pravr: ttim: ceti varn: itah: |te ca dvidha prakırtyate hy ajñadurjñavibhedatah: k24kdurjñas te bhagavatprokta hy ajñas tan anu ye punah: |

I will now explain the position of pravaha jıvas in relation to the forms, limbs,

and functions (of the Lord). All such demonic personalities (asura jıvas) are

described (in Bhagavad-Gıta 16.7) as not even having the ability to distinguish

the path of quietude (nivr: tti) from the path of action (pravr: tti). These (pravahıjıvas) are said to be divided into those who are merely ignorant (ajña) and

those whose knowledge is destructive (durjña). Those whose knowledge is

destructive have been spoken about by the Lord, while those who are merely

ignorant follow them.

Durjña jıvas, those whose knowledge is wrong, misguided, or destructive, are not

destined to enjoy spiritual rewards. They are inimical towards the Lord as well as

towards prescribed dharma. This is what is meant by demonic (asura) individuals.

Gokulanatha notes that among divinely inspired individuals, some are learned while

others are not. In the same way, among demonic individuals, some have destructive

knowledge while others are merely ignorant (yatha daivajıves:v api kecana pan:d: itah:kecana na | tadvat kecana asures:v api durjñah: kecanajn: ah: |). These individuals are

somewhat akin to the cars:an: ı jıvas on the spiritual path. They are both pravahins in

that they are thoroughly worldly in their outlook and activity. Thus, it is to be

expected that durjña individuals inspire ajña ones to mimic or follow them.

Nevertheless, some of these asura jıvas, a category that includes demons (or their

offspring) are granted moks:a, notably the demons Bali, Prahlada, Ban: asura, and

Vr: tra. Purus:ottama notes that this is sometimes possible atter they have abandoned

their enmity towards the Lord (kvacid dves:atyage ’pi mucyante). These demons

have committed grave offenses in previous births. They commit transgressions

against the Lord (bhagavadaparadha) and against the devotees of the Lord

(bhaktaparadha), they castigate the Vedas (vedaninda), and they commit actions

against the spirit of dharma (adharmakaran:am). It should be emphasized that these

enlightened demons cannot escape their category of pravaha jıvas; thus they can at

most achieve moks:a, not a permanent place in the Lord’s lıla (nityalıla).

The verse in the BhG to which Vallabhacarya refers in 24ab, reads: pravr: ttim: canivr: ttim: ca jana na vidyur asurah: | na saucam: napi cacaro na satyam: tes:u vidyate k(BhG 16.7); ‘‘Demonic people do not understand (the paths of) action or nonaction.

One does not find in them purity, proper behavior, or truth.’’

Verses 25c–26b

pravahe ’pi samagatya pus: t:isthas tair na yujyate k25kso ’pi tais tatkule jatah: karman: a jayate yatah: k26k

214 F. M. Smith

123

One who is established on the pus: t:i path, however, cannot actually join the

pravaha path, even if he or she associates with people on the pravaha path.

This is the case even if a pus: t:i jıva is born into a (pravaha) family as a result of

action (from a previous birth).

Purus:ottama states that the action or karma that leads a pus: t:i jıva into a pravahıwomb may be any of the four offenses mentioned above (bhagavadaparadha,

bhaktaparadha, vedaninda, adharmakaran:am). The vasanas or subtle substantial

remnants of these actions (as well as of positive actions) remain in the subtle body

of the jıva, which the Lord subsequently removes by forcing the jıva to atone for the

offense. The well-known case of Ajamila (BhP 6.1–2, see above on verse 6), who

committed several of these transgressions, is once again cited (tatha ca tatkar-mavasanaya tadr:kkriyakaran:e ’pi jıvasya pus: t:isthatvad bhagavata tatkarma nivaryaphalam: dıyate yathajamilasya ato na dos:a iti bhavah: ). Purus:ottama mentions once

again that the text is broken here, that more details about maryada and pravahajıvas, including their aims, spiritual practices, rituals, and fruits of their actions,

were provided by Vallabhacarya in an earlier version of the text that is now lost

(etad agre pravahamargıyaprayojanasadhana _ngakriyaphalani maryadamargıyap-rayojanasvarupa _ngakriyah: sadhanan: phalam: ca yavata jñayate tavan grantho’peks: ita iti jñeyam).

Colophon

iti srıvallabhacaryaviracitah: pus: t:ipravahamaryadabhedah: samaptah: |

Thus ends the Pus: t:ipravahamaryadabheda, composed by Srı Vallabhacarya.

Summary

At this point it will help clarify matters by reproducing the chart of bhakta cate-

gories and subtypes presented by Gosvamı Syam Manohar in his Hindi introduction

to the text of the PPM. Gosvamı Syam offers three possible arrangements:


123

All three possible arrangements fall under the general category of jıva or embodied

living individual, at the top of each chart. The first possible arrangement (prathamasambhavita vargıkaran:a) is divided into two major categories: divine (daivı) and

demonic (asurı). Those in the category of daivı are divided into those whose path is

administered by divine forces (margadhikr: ta) and those who are not, namely the

spiritual wanderers (cars:an: ı jıvas). The latter have no further subgrouping in this

arrangement. The former, those who are margadhikr: ta, entitled to a place on a

legitimate path, are divided into two subgroups, those who are on the pus: t:i path and

those who fall on the maryada path. The pus: t:i jıvas are divided into pure (suddha)

and mixed (misra). The misrajıvas are further subdivided into the three categories

called pus: t:ipus: t:i, maryadapus: t:i and pravahapus: t:i. Similarly, the major category of

maryada jıvas are subdivided into pus: t:imaryada, maryadamaryada, and pravaha-maryada, subcategories that Gosvamı Syam suspects that Vallabhacarya explained

in parts of the text that are now missing. The asurı or demonic jıvas are divided into

cars:an: ı jıvas, who fall outside the main categories because their affiliation is con-

stantly shifting, and those who are administered within a primary category. We must

assume this because they are labeled margadhikr: ta. Although Gosvamı does not

state this explicitly here, he surely intends the marga here to be the primary category

of pravaha jıvas. It is these individuals, labeled durjña because they are intransigent

in their incorrect knowledge, who have as their followers the cars:an: ı individuals or

wanderers who elect, for the moment at least, to follow the durjña individuals and

their teachings.

The second possible arrangement (dvitıya sambhavita vargıkaran:a) is more

straightforward, symmetrical, and obvious than the first arrangement. It contains the

three major categories of the title, pus: t:i, maryada, and pravaha, as the primary

divisions of jıva. The category pus: t:i is arrayed identically to its appearance in the

216 F. M. Smith

123

first arrangement, which is to say with immediate subcategories of suddha and

misra, then under the subcategory of misrajıva are further subdivisions consisting of

pus: t:ipus: t:i, maryadapus: t:i and pravahapus: t:i jıvas. The major category of maryadajıva includes under it subcategories of pus: t:imaryada, maryadamaryada and

pravahamaryada, as is found in the first arrangement. What is dropped from this

arrangement are the two major categories of daivı and asurı, the latter replaced by

the major category of pravaha jıva, which is then subdivided into pus: t:ipravaha,

maryadapravaha and pravahapravaha jıvas. The floating category of cars:an: ı jıvaand its subtypes consisting of ajña and durjña jıvas has also been dropped.

Gosvamı Syam’s third possible arrangement (tr: tıya sambhavita vargıkaran:a)

replicates location and hierarchical structure of the pus: t:i jıva category, extending it

symmetrically to the categories of maryada and pravaha jıvas. Thus, the categories

of maryada jıva and pravaha jıva are, like the category of pus: t:i jıva, primary, with

no intercession of the categories of daivı jıva and asurı jıva, as found in the first

arrangement. And, like the representation of pus: t:i jıva in the first and second

arrangements, the categories of maryada and pravaha jıvas are subdivided into

suddha and misra. Thus, there are pure and mixed maryada and pravaha jıvas. The

categories of pure maryada and pravaha jıvas, like that of pus: t:i jıvas are of course

not subdivided further; it is impossible for this category to be split into more

specified divisions. The categories of mixed (misra) maryada and pravaha jıvas are

identical with the subcategories in the second arrangement, namely pus: t:imaryada,

maryadamaryada and pravahamaryada under the category of misra maryada, while

pus: t:ipravaha, maryadapravaha and pravahapravaha jıvas are found under the

category of misra pravaha.

Gosvamı Syam, the best known and most widely published commentator on

Vallabhacarya’s work since about 1970, has in common with Purus:ottama and other

Pus: t:imargı commentators the conviction that part of the text of the PPM is missing,

as has been explained above. Indeed, Gosvamı Syam’s classifications here are

predicated on the facticity of the text being incomplete because the manuscript

transmission was broken at an early date. With respect to this, however, we must

consider the possibility that Gosvamı Syam and his predecessors in Pus: t:imargı

commentarial writing uniformly sought an elegance and symmetry of explanation

that Vallabhacarya simply may not have provided in the PPM. If this is the case, it

could indicate that the text as we have it is not due to a defective tradition of

manuscript transmission, but that the text as it presently stands, unsatisfying though

it might be in certain places and aspects, is as complete as it ever was.

Predestination in Indian Thought and Comparative Perspective

The concept of predestination was present in Indian religious thought well before it

is found in Vallabhacarya’s writing. We have seen above that it is recorded in the

writing of Madhva, several centuries before Vallabhacarya. It would be difficult to

find it unambiguously in the Vedas or Upanis:ads, the Sanskrit epics, or in the

earlier, non-Vais:n: ava Puran:as, even if the notion of destiny and predestination can

be read into the theme of prophecy in the epics (cf. Hill 2001) and elsewhere,


123

including in the first millennium Puran:as and the Buddhist Jataka stories.59 Yet

prophecy, such as that found in the Mahabharata, in which the war is prophesied

and the fate of many of the characters announced in advance of their actions, attests

to a sense of predetermined outcomes (cf. Long 1980).60 The same can be said of

the story at the beginning of the tenth skandha of the BhP in which the demonic

Kam: sa slaughters the elder siblings of Kr: s:n: a. It is possible to credibly argue that

these are unambiguous literary framing devices that cannot be considered identical

with the more sophisticated and abstract Vais:n:ava theologies that appear later,

beginning with Ramanuja in the eleventh century. The story of how these narratives

transmigrated into important elements of systematic theologies remains to be told;

but it cannot be told here, and certainly cannot be told without considerably more

theorizing and use of alam: kara texts, which helped catalyze heroic or notably

infamous or destructive events (and paradigmatic tales) into desired moods, espe-

cially those bearing on devotional sentiment.

What can be mentioned is that the Srıvais:n:ava and Madhva theologies also contain

tripartite divisions. These divisions are not identical with Vallabhacarya’s, nor does

Vallabhacarya credit them as his influences, even if it appears that they are. In short,

these schools, as well as certain Saiva schools, agree that Bhagavan or Isvara is

responsible for the creation of jıvas. But none of them, so far as I am able to deter-

mine, go to the extent that Vallabhacarya does in stating that individuals belonging to

one specific category of jıva are exclusively predestined to achieve the ideally situ-

ated soteriological objective of the school, or that the status and capacity of anyone

not in that category cannot be substantially altered as a result of continued earnest

religious or spiritual practice. Ramanuja, in spite of his dvaita stance, states in the

Vedaarthasam: graha that all jıvas are created equally, but that anyone can achieve the

highest place in the divine order (paramapadam) through attentive devotion.61

However, this appears to be nuanced or somewhat muted in the Srıra _ngagadyam, a

hymn that is cited throughout the Srıvais:n:ava tradition (but may be [not mistakenly]

misattributed to Ramanuja), where he declares that jıvas are of three types: nitya,

59 Buddhism and, especially, Jainism are insufficiently discussed with respect to their influence on bhaktitraditions. Jainism influenced the Vallabha sam: pradaya particularly strongly, quite likely in the area that

we are discussing here, notions of destiny and predestination. One book that attempts to bring this out this

influence is Mıtal (1968) (in Hindi).60 For the Ramayan:a, see Satyavrat Sastrı (1963). Also see, more recently, Goldman et al. (2009, 551f.,

1169ff., and infra), who note the differences between daiva and vihita, begging a distinction between fate,

destiny, and predistination. For example, Ramayan:a 6.6.7–8 reads: mantribhir hitasam: yuktaih: samarthairmantranirn:aye | mitrair vapi samanarthair bandhavair api va hitaih: || sahito mantrayitva yah:karmarambhan pravartayet | daive ca kurute yatnam: tam ahuh: purus:ottamam ||. This is well translated:

‘‘The highest type of man, they say, is he who first takes counsel with those counselors intent upon his

welfare and competent in counsel, with those friends who share his goals, or with those kinsmen who

wish him well, and only then initiates undertakings such that his efforts are in harmony with the will of

the gods’’ (Goldman et al., 2009, pp. 135–136). This and other passages in the Ramayan:a presage issues

that are more centrally addressed in later bhakti traditions. To correlate them all would constitute another

essay altogether.61 See van Buitenen (1956, 46ff., 116f., 238f). The comparable hierarchization within the Srıvais:n: ava

school operates much more fully within the realm of the doctrines of karma than does Vallabhacarya; see

Vedantadesika’s Nyayasiddhañjanam, p. 215ff.

218 F. M. Smith

123

those who are eternally free and never subject to the sam: sara; mukta, those who have

been in sam: sara but are now liberated (have gained moks:a); and baddha, those who

are eternally bound in sam: sara.62 However, their status does not appear to be pre-

destined and fixed, may be altered according to practice, unlike the doctrine found in

Vallabhacarya’s PPM. Madhva’s hierarchy is somewhat different. Sarma explains

jıvatraividhya as a threefold classification consisting of muktiyogyah: , those innately

suited for liberation; nityabaddhah: , those who are eternally bound; and tamoyogyah: ,those who are ‘‘destined to reside for eternity in Hell’’ (andhatamah: , blind darkness)

(Sarma 2003, p. 77). Sarma also notes that Ramanuja and the Jainas propose such

hierarchies (2003, p. 58). It strikes me that these categories are both more severe and

not as nuanced as Vallabhacarya’s primary categories, even if a predisposition to

predestinarian thinking guides all of these hierarchies.

What is more difficult to ascertain is the degree to which, or even whether, the

concept of predestination, which appears to be a product of theistic discourse,

differs from cognate notions found in Christian and Islamic thought, which are

equally theistic in orientation. In spite of its presence in the PPM and elsewhere in

Vallabhacarya’s thought, predestination is barely theorized in Hindu texts, except

passively in the context of rebirths as a result of past actions, in discussions of

predetermined fate and assured destiny, and implicitly in the theory of yugas, the

systematic decline of dharma.63 On the other hand, predestination has been theo-

rized at length in Christian thought.

The following may be found on the web site called The Calvinist Corner, by

Matthew J. Slick: ‘‘Predestination is the doctrine that God alone chooses (elects)

who is saved. He makes His choice independent of any quality or condition in sinful

man. He does not look into a person and recognize something good nor does He

62 See Ramanujam (1994, pp. 89–109). This brief text of Ramanuja is not unlike Vallabhacarya’s brief

treatises in tone and composition, except that the Srıra _ngagadyam is in prose. Just as some of the texts of

the S: od:asagranthah: are known, studied, and recited within the Pus: t:imarga community, this (and the other

two gadya texts in Ramanujam 1994) are known and cited within the Srıvais:n: ava community. See

Carman’s comments on the three works that constitute the Gadyatrayam, including this one (1974, 62ff,

212ff). He presents both sides of the debate over the authenticity of these works, remaining unconvinced

of the objections that Ramanuja composed them. He states: ‘‘It is not impossible for a ‘hymn’ to serve as a

doctrinal work’’ (1974, p. 234). This can very well be said for Vallabhacarya’s work, including, par-

ticularly, the Yamunas: t:akam.63 For the Dharmasastra context see Rocher (1980), also Smith (2006, 514ff). (on the Madana-maharn:ava). One can build a strong case that this sort of predestination grew out of early notions of

karma (for which, see Tull 1989). One can also argue that epic characters of mixed heritage, deity and

man, also predisposed later religious sectarianism towards this thinking. Arjuna was sired by Pan:d:u but

was also an incarnation of Indra; hence, he was a great warrior. Asvatthaman was a son of Dron: a, but was

a partial incarnation of Siva; hence he was raudra, ferocious. Perhaps more germane, Hanuman, cele-

brated in the Ramayan:a as the archetypal devotee, was the son of the god of the Wind (Vayuputra). With

respect to the theory of yugas, Purus:ottama mentions in his commentary on PPM verse 9 that at the time

of cosmic dissolution (pralaya), those in deep darkness (andhatamas) are destined to attain a state of

irretrievable ignorance, avidya, and from there migrate to illusion (maya), and from there to the

aks:arabrahman, from which point the creation begins anew. These jıvas, however, maintain their con-

dition as pravahins and never reach the Lord.


123

look into the future to see who would choose Him. He elects people to salvation

purely on the basis of His good pleasure. Those not elected are not saved. He does

this because He is sovereign; that is, He has the absolute authority, right, and ability

to do with His creation as He pleases. He has the right to elect some to salvation and

let all the rest go their natural way: to hell. This is predestination.’’64 This severe

Calvinist (and Jansenist) theological position is considered ‘‘double predestination,’’

that some are predestined to attain heaven while others are predestined to con-

signment to hell. We shall return to this shortly, but it must be stated emphatically

that there is no single universally accepted doctrine of predestination in Christian

thought—it is in fact multivocal,65 as is the case in South Asian religions. Some of

what we find in this and other Christian doctrines is recognizable in Vallabhacarya’s

writing and in some of the ensuing Pus: t:imarga commentaries (as well as in other

Vais:n:ava schools). What is not generally found in the Indian systems are, first, the

notion of the fatality, finality, and ultimate weightiness of sin, and, second, the

irrevocable condemnation to hell of those who are not ‘‘saved,’’ as one must assume

from certain statements in the New Testament. For example, the book of Ephesians

(2:3) speaks of the ‘‘children of wrath,’’ who must be punished eternally for minor

departures from correct belief and practice. Proximate to this is 1 John, also in the

New Testament, which states that God is love, but notes equally that those who are

disobedient are condemned. In fairness, the counter to this perspective is also

presented in the New Testament—that damnation is not irrevocable because Christ

restores the fallen (e.g., Colossians 1.15–20, 1 Corinthians 15.20–28, Romans 5.15–

21, Romans 11.25–36, Philippians 2.9–11, 1 Timothy 2.1–7).66 The impression left

by these biblical passages is that one can benefit spiritually from hope for eternal

life if one’s behavior is unerring while at the same time one calls upon Christ to be

one’s personal savior. In this way the Bible appears to provide greater scope for free

will than Vallabhacarya does (it appears that the Srıvais:n:ava system also provides

greater scope for individual agency), but at the same time some of its statements

appear to be much more harsh than Vallabhacarya’s (although we have seen that the

Madhva system adheres to a form of irrevocable condemnation). In sum, there is no

consistent doctrine of absolute predestination vis-a-vis human agency in the New

Testament, although the positions in Vais:n: ava denominations or schools appear to

be consistent within themselves, even if they disagree with others. The biblically

based denominations, then, may be viewed as not dissimilar to the multivocality

found in Vais:n:ava thought.

Unlike the moral positionings in Christianity, individual transgressiveness (or

sinfulness) is rarely a definitive signifier of position in spiritual hierarchies in

64 http://www.calvinistcorner.com/predestination.htm. This is probably not the most authoritative source,

but it does appear to be representative of the Calvinist position. Wikipedia also has a very good article on

predestination: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination.65 An excellent sourcebook for this is Dupuis (1997, 84–109), who discusses the possibility within

Christianity of members of other religions obtaining salvation. Thanks to P. J. Johnston for bringing this

volume to my attention and in general helping to clarify and demystify much of my own thinking on

predestination in Christian thought.66 Also see Romans 5, which states that all beings, including Satan and his deputies, will achieve

salvation.

220 F. M. Smith

123

Vais:n:ava thought. Vais:n: ava theologians often cite the story of Ajamila as testimony

of this (see the discussion above on verse 6). How, then, does the doctrine of

predestination expressed in the PPM approximate predestination as found in the

Judeo-Christian Bible, as well as in the two authors who are primarily responsible

for developing the doctrine in post-Biblical thought, Augustine of Hippo (354–430

CE) and John Calvin (1509–1564). Both of these thinkers accept that God alone

determines the ontological destinies of individuals, that individuals will follow

God’s choice regardless of their personal predilections. It is impossible to dismiss

with certainty the possibility that the notion of predestination in Indian sectarian

thought was not influenced by Augustine through a long series of interreligious

interactions, because it is possible that through Islam his views affected Indian

thought as early as Madhva (or even before him). However, in the absence of a

mechanism through which this can be conclusively traced, it is prudent to deflect the

question with the convenient if unsatisfying assertion that the present state of our

knowledge does not permit us to offer a definitive answer to the question of

influence from the West.

What we can say is that the God of the Bible, whether in the Old Testament or in

the New Testament, is regarded as omniscient and eternal, as is Kr: s:n:a in the BhP

and in Vais:n:ava thought, including that of Vallabhacarya, and that in Islam, which

was much more proximate to Indic religion than biblical Christianity, Allah ordains

all that comes to pass. Although this view is not stated forthrightly by Vallabhacarya

(indeed, Islam is almost uniformly ignored in Vais:n: ava thought, except in a few

negative references in the varta literature; cf. Smith 2009), the unmistakable sense

conveyed by a large number of Vais:n: ava texts of approximately 800–1600 CE is

that Kr: s:n:a, the Supreme Lord, is omniscient and omnipotent. This doctrine inscribes

basic guidelines for individual (especially devotional) behavior, and contains within

it the notion of a steady-state ever-existent universe within the body of the Lord

(e.g., BhP 10.29–33, and chapter 11 of the BhG, featuring the visvarupadarsana).

All of this, then, is sufficient to grasp the outlines of predestination in Valla-

bhacarya’s thought.

Vallabhacarya, like most sectarian founders in India, past and present (Madhva

perhaps being the most prominent exception), does not harbor a notion of eternal

irrevocable damnation, which is to say that there is little articulation of the notion of

predestination as an eternal birth or retributional consignment into a torturous hell

world, a doctrinal point that distinguishes the Indian view from some of its western

counterparts, as noted above. In both systems, proximity to God or Kr: s:n: a is reserved

for the very few, for a tiny fraction of elite devotees. A complementary Vais:n:ava

doctrine to the Christian and Islamic doctrine that God is a creator thoroughly

complicit in every aspect and particle of his creation is not articulated unambigu-

ously in the Vais:n:ava texts’ descriptions of Kr:s:n:a as the exclusive creator and

orchestrator of the universe over which he presides, even if it appears to be an article

of faith assumed by propagators of sectarian Vais:n: ava practice.67 Vais:n: ava texts do

67 This is in fact a debatable point. Certain Christian Gnostic movements as well as orthodox Indian

mythic narratives recorded in the Vedas and Puran: as speak of creation as the work of demons as well as

of God or gods. But we cannot elaborate this point here.


123

not speak of eternal punishment for those who do not believe in Kr:s:n:a or accept his

ultimacy. In Christian thought, this is not quite the case. The Roman Catholic

sponsored Council of Florence in 1442, for example, denied pagans and Jews the

possibility of salvation. This was likely a popular notion in much of Europe at the

time, but was rescinded by Pope Pius IX’s Singulari Quadum in 1854. During most

of those intervening centuries, Protestants and Catholics debated the notion that

non-believers were predestined for hell, as did Protestants with other Protestants.

These ideas have fallen into desuetude in mainstream denominations since then,

even if the position within evangelical denominations remains diverse. In the PPM

and the Balabodha (Smith 2005a), Vallabhacarya states assuredly that Saivas in the

form of followers of Advaita Vedanta (mayavadins) cannot achieve the highest

states of bhakti. But he does not condemn them to the horrors of hell worlds. It is

easy to state that passages depicting these horrors can be found in certain Buddhist

texts, and occasionally in Puran: ic narratives, but Vallabhacarya, at least, does not

refer to them in defining his position on predestination, except to cite chapter 16 of

the Bhagavad-Gıta, which states that some beings are demonic (asura). Rather, he

posits different, if in his view lower, states of liberation for those whose devotion

lacks the intensity of those deemed tadıya or bhagavadıya, those who ‘‘belong to

him.’’ Vallabhacarya does not deny freedom of action, a point also granted in

Christian and Islamic forms of predestination, asserting instead that one predestined

to achieve the highest levels of bhakti will do so regardless of his or her other self-

interested actions in life. Among pus: t:i jıvas these other actions perforce bear within

them a sense of surrender to the Lord, even if it is not always obvious. This theme is

repeated throughout the S: od:asagranthah: . Kr:s:n:a does not withhold his grace from

the devotee, but neither does he condemn the sinful to an eternity in hell. The

assumption of rebirth and an eternity in sam: sara for those who are not pu: s: t:i jıvas

perhaps replaces this notion. This is verified in Vallabhacarya’s interpretation of the

actions and circumstances of the milkmaids in the tenth skandha of the BhP and in

the tales of the devotion of the exemplary disciples of Vallabhacarya and Vit:t:ha-

lanathajı found in the Brajbhas: a varta literature (T: am: d:an 1961). Nearly all of the

figures in the vartas are historicized exemplars whose devotion is resonant with the

archetypes glorified in the BhP.

It is important to mention that in practice most Pus: t:imargıs, like nearly all

Christians today, highly value personal responsibility in their religious or spiritual

practices and adhere to certain beliefs in the value of personal agency. In both cases,

nearly all adherence to beliefs in predestinational hierarchies have been set aside,

except as they are used pedagogically. Sometimes this abandonment has been

accomplished delicately and sometimes assertively, set aside as products of earlier

eras in which the world was more closed and local than it is now, in which threats of

extra-religious encroachment were generally taken more seriously, in which one’s

own efforts and practice would be considered valueless, and in which top down

institutional hierarchies held unquestioned authority. In other words, rigid accep-

tance of these hierarchies and of ideas of pre-emptive damnation are now widely

regarded as spiritually self-defeating by Pus: t:imargıs as well as by Christians, and

are usually read as exhortations to sharpen one’s practice rather than as teleological

fact.

222 F. M. Smith

123

It is also relevant to mention in this context Max Weber’s classic work, TheProtestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, published in German as a series of

essays in 1904, and translated into English for the first time in 1930 by the well-

known Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons. Somewhat akin to Protestants in six-

teenth and seventeenth century Europe in their reaction to Papal Catholicism,

adherents of Vallabhacarya’s Pus: t:imarga were drawn preponderantly from the

business classes, as they still are today. Thus, most Pus: t:imargıs have historically

possessed a high degree of literacy (including in the intricacies of music; cf. Ho

2006). Indeed, a majority of Pus: t:imargıs have historically descended from middle

class educated vaisya families from Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Bombay. Of course, the

Pus: t:imarga includes adherents from other backgrounds as well, including several

local castes of brahmans.68 Among the elements it shares with Protestant

Christianity in the centuries after Martin Luther are a strong work ethic and a

de-emphasis on magic, astrology, and other similar phenomenological features

(including Tantra) that are found at all levels of Indian society. Approximate

cognates of these can be easily located in European society of the same period, as

can the Protestant reaction against them.69 For these and other reasons, the

Pus: t:imarga may be regarded as a conservative movement driven by both a deep

intellectual history and a complementary emphasis on direct experience of the

Lord’s grace. The guiding forces behind this have been the male descendants of

Vallabhacarya, who are not only the brahman inheritors of learned intellectual and

devotional traditions, but who also retain the sole authority to grant initiation into

Pus: t:imarga seva.70 One of the similarities that what we might here guardedly label

Protestant Vais:n:avism71 has with Protestant Christianity is a strong notion of pre-

destination. As discussed above, one might argue that Vallabhacarya is a double

predestinarian because of the inevitability that some people are destined for sal-

vation in the form of nirodha and nityalıla while others are predestined for eternal

residence in sam: sara, in spite of (and because of) their self-effort. Their efforts are

paradoxically lost or misguided, as they are destined to be (see PPM verses 18 and

19), and as they have been in previous births. Even if they were cursed in past births

68 Bennett describes caste representation in the Pus: t:imarga (1993, 34). Several brahman castes as well as

service castes are involved, but most Pus: t:imargıs are from Gujarati business communities (bania).69 The classic work on this is Thomas (1977). I might also mention in passing the Jansenists of sev-

enteenth century France, whose views of predestination largely conformed with those of Augustinian

Christianity, standing, during the Counter-Reformation, at least, in opposition to the more orthodox

Catholic position of Thomas Aquinas. On the general topic of predestination in Christianity, see Thuesen

(2009); on the orthodox Thomist position, see Garrigou-Lagrange (1998); on the Jansenists, see Strayer

(2008); for an excellent study of Christian eschatologies, see Griffiths (2008).70 This initiation, called brahmasambandha, is articulated in the text and commentaries of the Sid-dhantarahasya, the fifth in the S: od:asagranthah: . On the Pus: t:imargı distinction between puja and seva, see

Smith (2005a) and Bennett (1993, 74ff).

71 With a slight nod to the controversial designation Protestant Buddhism by Obeyesekere (1970) andGombrich and Obeyesekere (1988). That said, any further elaboration of Protestant Vais:n: avism must bereserved for future work.


123

or led dissolute lives in the present birth, however, they might still be eligible to

achieve the highest fruits of bhakti if for no other reason than because they were

destined to do so.72

Acknowledgments I would like to thank Gosvamı Devakınandanacarya of Gokul for his insights intothis text when I first read it in 1995, Shyamdas for many fruitful discussions of it, and P.J. Johnston forher many lucid comments on the topic of predestination.

Bibliography

Texts by Vallabhacarya

All of Vallabhacarya’s compositions, along with the commentaries on his work, were edited by

Mulacandra Tulasıdasa Telıvala (usually in collaboration with Dhairyalala Vrajadasa Sam: kalıya)

beginning in 1915 and ending with his death at the age of 39 in 1927 (see Telivala 1980). These

works have been reprinted, with occasional minor re-editing, and most with learned and extensive

Hindi introductions by Gosvamı Syam Manohar.The S: od:asagranthah: (all originally edited by Telivala and Sam: kalıya and published by the Nirnaya

Sagara Press, Bombay, between 1921 and 1925), in their traditionally presented order:1. Yamunas: t:akam with six Sanskrit commentaries, Hindi translation and explanations, with an

appendix of other Yamuna stotras. Ed. by Kedarnath Misra. Varan: ası: Ananda Prakasan Sam: sthan.

Sam: . 2037 (1980).2. Balabodha with three Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Mathura: Girdhar

Nivas, Sam: . 2036 (1979).3. Siddhantamuktavalı with nine Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Kolhapur:

Srı Vallabhavidyapıt:ha - Srıvit:t:halesaprabhucaran: asrama Trust, Sam: . 2036 (1979).4. Pus: t:ipravahamaryadabheda with four Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar.

Baroda: Bait:hak Mandir, Sam: . 2036 (1979).5. Siddhantarahasya with eleven Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Gokul:

Caturthapıt:ha, Sam: . 2036 (1979).6. Navaratna with five Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Kamam: , Bharatpur:

Pancamapıt:ha, Sam: . 2036 (1979).7. Antah: karan:aprabodha with five Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Baroda:

Srı Kalyan: arayajı kı Havelı, Sam. 2036 (1979).8. Vivekadhairyasraya with four Sanskrit commentaries Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Bombay,

Sam: . 2036 (1979).9. Kr:s:n: asrayastotram with six Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Surat: Mot:um:

Mandir (S: as: t:hıpıt:ha), Sam: . 2036 (1979).10. Catuh: slokı with seven Sanskrit commentaries and Vit:t:halesa’s appendix (parisis: t:am) called

Srıvr: trasuracatuh: slokı Vivr: tih: with three Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar.

Bhulesvar, Bombay: Bad: a Mandir, Sam: . 2036 (1979).11. Bhaktivardhinı with fourteen Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Bhulesvar,

Bombay: Bad: a Mandir, Sam: . 2036 (1979).12. Jalabheda with four Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Mot:ı Havelı, Mandvı,

Kacch: Sam: . 2037 (1980).13. Pañcapadyani with one Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Mot:ı Havelı,

Mandvı, Kacch: Sam: . 2037 (1980).

72 Based on the evidence of the varta literature as well as on my own observations in present-dayPus: t:imarga interaction in Braj and elsewhere, I must contend that adhikara for the status of pus: t:i jıva isnot based on caste in spite of the fact that the Vallabha kul is brahman and has a familial, institutional, andhierarchical interest in maintaining its status as undisputed leaders of the Pus: t:imarga, and that until thetwentieth century virtually all of the Sanskrit and Brajbhas: a Pus: t:imarga literature was composed bySanskritically trained members of the ‘‘Vallabh kul’’ (M. T. Telivala was the most prominent exception tothis in the early twentieth century).

224 F. M. Smith

123

14. Sam: nyasanirn:aya, with eight Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Mot:ı Havelı,

Mandvı, Kacch: Sam: . 2037 (1980).15. Nirodhalaks:an:am with six Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Kota, Rajas-

than: Srımahaprabhujı ka Bad: a Mandir, Sam: . 2037 (1980).16. Sevaphalam (inclouding Vallabhacarya’s Vivaran:a) with fourteen Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by

Gosvamı Syam Manohar. Porbandar: Bhat:iya Bajar, Sam: . 2037 (1980).

Other Texts by Vallabhacarya

Srımad-Brahmasutran: ubhas:ya of Srımad-Vallabhacarya with the commentary Pradıpa of Srı IccharamaBhat:t:ajı of Petlad. Ed. by Maganlal Gan: apatiram Sastrı. Ahmedabad: Suddhadvaita Sam: sad, 1980.

Subodhinı: Srımaccaturthaprasthanasrımadbhagavatasastradasamaskandhasubodhinyam: prathamajan-maprakaran: adhyayacatus: t:ayı with five Sanskrit commentaries. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar.

Kolhapur: Srıvallabhavidyapıt:ha-Srıvit:t:halesaprabhucaran: asrama Trust, Sam. 2046 (1989).Tattvarthadıpanibandha (saprakasah: ): Bhagavatarthaprakaran:am. Ed. by Gosvamı Syam Manohar.

Kolhapur: Srı Vallabhavidyapıt:ha-Srıvit:t:halesaprabhucaran: asrama Trust, Sam: . 2040 (1983), Sam: .

2042 (1985).Tattvarthadıpanibandha (saprakasah: ): Sastrarthasarvanirn:ayarupaprakaran:advayopetah: . Ed. by Gos-

vamı Syam Manohar. Kolhapur: Srı Vallabhavidyapıt:ha-Srıvit:t:halesaprabhucaran: asrama Trust, Sam: .

2039 (1982).

Other Sanskrit Texts

Chandogya Upanis:ad, with the bhas:ya of Sa _nkaracarya and the t:ıka of Anandagiri. Ed. by Kasınath

Sastrı Agase: Pun: e: Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, no. 14. 21934.Mahabharata, Mausalaparvan. Critical edition, vol. 19. Ed. by S. K. Belvalkar. Poona: Bhandarkar

Oriental Research Institute, 1959.Mımam: sa-darsanam: Mahars: i-Jaimini-pravartitasya vicarasastrasya samalocanatmakam adhyayanam.

Ed. by Man:d: ana Misra. New Delhi: Lal Bahadur Sastri Kendriya-Sam: skr�

ta-Vidyapıt:ham, 1983.Nyayasiddhañjanam. By Srımad Vedantadesika, with the commentaries ‘‘Saralavisada’’ by

Srıra _ngaramanujasvamin and ‘‘Ratnapet:ika’’ by Srıkancıkr:s:n: a Tatacarya. Ed. by Srınivasatatadasa

(?). Madras: Ubhayavedantagranthamala, 1976.Prameyaratnarn:ava, by Srıbalakr:s:n: a (Lalu) Bhat:t:a. Ed. by Kedarnath Misra. Varan: ası: Ananda Prakasan,

1971.Ramayan:a. The Yuddhakan:d:a — The Sixth Book of the Valmıki-Ramayan:a. Critically edited by P. L.

Vaidya. Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1971.R: gveda-Sam: hita with the Commentary of Sayan: acarya. Vols. 1–5. Ed. C. G. Kashikar and N. S. Son-

takke. Poona: Vaidika Sam: sodhana Man:d: ala, 1933–1951.Taittirıyabrahman:am with the Bhas:ya of Sayan: acarya. Vols. 1–3. Ed. by Narayan: a Bal: akr: s:n: a God:bol: e.

Anandasrama Sanskrit Series, no. 37. Pun: e: Anandasrama, 1898.Vais:n:ava Upanis:ads with the commentary of Srı Upanis:ad Brahmayogin. Ed. by Pt. A. Mahadeva Sastri

Madras: Adyar Library, 1979 [1923].Vis:n:upuran:a (critical edition). Ed. by M. M. Pathak. Vadodara: Oriental Institute, 1997.

Secondary Sources

Barz, R. (1976). The bhakti sect of Vallabhacarya. Faridabad: Thomson Press.Bennett, P. (1993). The path of grace: Social organization and temple worship in Vaishnava sect. Delhi:

Hindustan Publishing Corporation.Bhatt, G. H. ND. S: od:asagranthah: . M. G. Shastri Smaraka-Mala, No. 10.Carman, J. B. (1974). The theology of Ramanuja. An essay on interreligious understanding. New Haven

& London: Yale University Press.Caturvedı, S. (1967). Mahaprabhu Srımadvallabhacarya aur Pus: t:imarga. Varanasi: Hindı Sahitya Kut:ır.Chatterjee, S. C., & Datta, D. M. (1968). [1st ed. 1939]. Introduction to Indian philosophy. Calcutta:

University of Calcutta.De, S. K. (1942). [rep. 1961]. Early history of the Vaishnava faith and movement in Bengal. Calcutta:

Firma KLM Pvt. Ltd.


123

Dupuis, J. (1997). Toward a Christian theology of religious pluralism. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.Garrigou-LaGrange, R. (1998). Predestination. Charlotte NC: TAN Books and Publishers.Geldner, K. F. (1951). Der Rig-Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins, Deutsche Übersetzt und mit Einem Laufenden

Kommentar Versehen. Zweiter Teil. Harvard Oriental Series (Vol. 34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Goldman, R. P., Sutherland Goldman, S. J., & van Nooten, B. A. (2009). The Ramayan:a of Valmıki: An

epic of ancient India. Volume VI: Yuddhakan:d:a. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Gombrich, R., & Obeyesekere G. (1988). Buddhism transformed. Religious change in Sri Lanka.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Goswami. C. L. (1971). Srımad Bhagavata Mahapuran:a (with Sanskrit text and English translation)

(Vols. I & II). Gorakhpur: Gita Press.Griffiths, P. J. (2008). Self-annihilation or damnation?: A disputable question in Christian eschatology. In

P. L. Quinn & P. J. Weithman (Eds.), Liberal faith: Essays in honor of Philip Quinn. Notre Dame:

University of Notre Dame Press.Haberman, D. (1988). Acting as a way of salvation: A study of Raganuga Bhakti Sadhana. New York,

Oxford: Oxford University Press.Haberman, D. (2006) River of love in an age of pollution: The Yamuna river of northern India. California

University of California Press.Halbfass, W. (1988). India and Europe: An essay in understanding. Albany: State University of New

York Press.Hill, P. (2001). Fate, predestination and human action in the Mahabharta: A study in the history of ideas.

New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Hiltebeitel, A. (2007). Review of Smith 2006. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 127(3), 360–363.Ho, M. (2006). The liturgical music of the Pus: t:i Marg of India—An embryonic form of the classical

tradition. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.Houben, J. E. M. (1991). The Pravargya Brahman:a of the Taittirıya Aran: yaka: An ancient commentary

on the Pravargya ritual. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Jarow, E. H. R. (2003). Tales for the dying: The death narrative of the Bhagavata-Puran:a. Albany: State

University of New York Press.Kane, P. V. (1974, 1975). [HDh] History of Dharmasastra (Vol. 5, Part 1, Vol. V, Part 2). Poona:

Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.Kashikar, C. G. (1964). The Srauta, Paitr:medhika and Parises:a Sutras of Bharadvaja. (Part II). Poona:

Vaidika Sa _msodhana Man:d: ala.Kurata, H. (1980). Samyogapr: thaktvanyaya as a basis of the theory of moks:a. Journal of Indian and

Buddhist Studies Tokyo, 28(2), 13–18.Levi, S. (1898). La doctrine du sâcrifice dans les brahmanas. Paris: Ernest Leroux.Long, J. B. (1980). The concepts of human action and rebirth in the Mahabharata. In W. D. O’Flaherty

(Ed.), Karma and rebirth in classical indian traditions, (pp. 38–60). Berkeley: University of Cali-

fornia Press.Long, J. B. (1977). Daks:a: Divine embodiment of creative skill. History of Religions 17, 29–60.Minkowski, C. Z. (In press). Nılakan: t:ha Caturdhara and the Genre of Mantrarahasyaprakasika. In

Y. Ikari (Ed.), Proceedings of the second international vedic workshop. Kyoto. http://www.

columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pollock/sks/papers/index.html#papers.Minkowski, C. Z. (2005). Nılakan: t:ha’s vedic readings in the Harivam: sa commentary. In P. Koskikallio

(Ed.), Epics, khilas and puran:as: Continuities and ruptures. Proceedings of the third Dubrovnik

International conference on the Epics and puran: as, September 2002 (pp. 411–433). Zagreb: Croatian

Academy of Sciences and Arts.Mıtal, P. (1968) (Sam: . 2025). Braj ke dharma-sam: pradayom: ka itihas. Delhi: National Publishing House.Mukhiya, G. (1997). (Sam: 2054). S: od:asagrantha, Hindı anuvada sahita. Indore: Vais:n: av Mitra Man:d: al.Obeyesekere, G. (1970). Religious symbolism and political change in Ceylon. Modern Ceylon Studies

1(1), 43–63.Olivelle, P. (1998). The early Upanis:ads: Annotated text and translation. New York, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Ramanan. T. K. (2004). Srısubodhinı. Commentary on Srimad Bhagavata Puran:a by Mahaprabhu Shri

Vallabhacharya. Text and english translation (Vol. VII). Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.Ramanujam, V. V. (trans.) (1994). Gadyatrayam of Bhagavad Ramanuja (text in Sanskrit with the

commentary of Periya Accan Pil: l:ai). Milk Colony, Subramanyanagar, Bangalore: Srı Parampara

Sabha.

226 F. M. Smith

123

Redington, J. D. (2000). The grace of Lord Krishna: The sixteen verse-treatises [S: od:asagranthah: ] ofVallabhacharya. Delhi: Sri Satguru Publications.

Redington, J. D. (1983). Vallabhacarya on the love games of Kr:s:n:a. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Rocher, L. (1980). Karma and Rebirth in the Dharmasastras. In W. D. O’Flaherty (Ed.), Karma and

rebirth in classical Indian traditions, (pp. 61—89). Berkeley: University of California Press.Roebuck, V. (2000). The Upanis:ads. New Delhi: Penguin Books.Sarma, D. (2003). An introduction to Madhva Vedanta. London: Ashgate.Satyavrat Sastrı. (Ed.). (1963). Conception of daiva and purus:akara in the Valmıki and Vasis: t:ha

Ramayanas. In Essays on indology (pp. 216–236). Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.Shah, J. G. (1969). Shri Vallabhacharya. His philosophy and religion. Nadiad, Guj.: Pushtimargiya

Pustakalaya.Shastri, A. D. (1966). Purus:ottamajı: A study. Surat: Chunilal Gandhi Vidyabhavan.Shyam Das. (2006). The teachings of Shri Vallabhacharya. Mumbai: Pratham Peeth Publications.Sinha, J. (1961). Indian psychology: Emotion and will. Calcutta: Sinha Publishing House.Smith, F. M. (1993). The Sam: nyasanirn:aya, a Suddhadvaita text on renunciation by Vallabhacarya.

Journal of Vais:n:ava Studies, 1(4), 135–156.Smith, F. M (1998). Nirodha and the Nirodhalaks:an:a of Vallabhacarya. Journal of Indian Philosophy,

26(6), 589–651.Smith, F. M. (2005a). The hierarchy of philosophical systems according to Vallabhacarya. Journal of

Indian Philosophy, 33(4), 421–453.Smith, F. M (2005b). Vedic and devotional waters: The Jalabheda of Vallabhacarya. International

Journal of Hindu Studies, 10(1), 107–136.Smith, F. M. (2006). The self possessed: Deity and spirit possession in South Asian literature and

civilization. New York: Columbia University Press.Smith, F. M. (2009). Dark matter in Vartaland: On the enterprise of history in early Pus: t:imarga discourse.

Journal of Hindu Studies, 2(1), 27–47.Stoker, V. (2000). The Hierarchy of deities in Madhva’s R: gbhas:ya. Journal of Vais:n:ava Studies, 9(1),

39–68.Stoker, V. (2004). Conceiving the canon in Dvaita Vedanta: Madhva’s doctrine of all sacred lore. Numen,

51(1), 47–77.Stoker, V. (2007). Vedic language and Vais:n: ava theology: Madhva’s use of Nirukta in his R: gbhas:ya.

Journal of Indian Philosophy, 35(2), 169–199.Strayer, B. E. (2008). Suffering saints: Jansenists and convulsionnaires in France, 1640–1799. Sussex,

UK: Sussex Academic Press.T: am: d: an, H. (1961). Varta sahitya: Ek br:hat adhyayan. Aligarh: Bharat Prakashan Mandir.Telivala, M. T. (1980). Suddhadvaita Brahmavada: The complete works of M. T. Telivala. K. N. Mishra

(Ed.). Varanasi: Anand Prakashan Sanstha.Thuesen, P. J. (2009). Predestination: The American career of a contentious doctrine. New York: Oxford

University Press.Thomas, K. (1977). Religion and the decline of magic: Studies in popular beliefs in sixteenth- and

seventeenth-century England. London: Penguin.Tull, H. W. (1989). The vedic origins of karma: Cosmos as man in ancient Indian myth and ritual.

Albany: SUNY Press.van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1956). Ramanuja’s Vedarthasam: graha. Deccan College Monograph Series: (Vol.

16). Poona: Deccan College.van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1964). The large atman. History of Religions, 4(1), 103–114.van Buitenen, J. A. B. (1968). The pravargya: An ancient Indian iconic ritual. Building Centenary and

Silver Jubilee Series (Vol. 58). Poona: Deccan College.Vaudeville, C. (1980). The Govardhan Myth in Northern India. Indo-Aryan Journal, 22, 1–45.Weber, M. (2001). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (S. Kalberg, Trans.). Chicago,

London: Fitzroy Dearborn. [Orig: Die protestantische Ethik und der ‘Geist’ des Kapitalismus, 1904.]


123

Predestination and Hierarchy: Vallabha¯ca¯rya's Discourse ...

Documents

Transcript of Predestination and Hierarchy: Vallabha¯ca¯rya's Discourse ...