Devotion and Karmic Extirpation in Late

The Journal of Hindu Studies 2016;9:2955 doi:10.
1093/jhs/hiw002
Advance Access Publication 26 February 2016
Devotion and Karmic Extirpation in Late

Ved@nta: Vibbhalan@tha and Baladeva
Vidy@bh+Xa>a on Brahmas+tra 4.1.13-19
David Buchta *
Department of Classics, Brown University
*Corresponding author: david_buchta@brown.edu
Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Abstract: According to a consensus amongst early Ved@nta traditions, elabo-
rated in commentaries on the Brahmas+tra 4.1.13-19, accumulated karman is
destroyed and no further karman accrues after the attainment of knowledge of
Brahman. The only exception is that karman which is already beginning to
manifest its results (pr@rabdha-karman), which can only be exhausted
through experiencing those results. The late VaiX>ava Ved@ntins Vibbhalan@tha
(15161586) and Baladeva Vidy@bh+Xa>a (ca. 17001793), however, insist that
there can be no limitations on the absolute will of the Lord, and argue that
some devotees can be freed of even pr@rabdha-karman without experiencing
its results by the Lords grace. Through clever exegesis, they read this theory
into the Brahmas+tra passage in question. This article examines their exegesis
and highlights the influence of Vibbhalan@tha on Baladeva, noting also the
seeds of this theory in a poem of Baladevas predecessor, R+pa Gosv@min.
The various school of Ved@nta differ greatly with respect to theology and praxis.
Nevertheless, a number of common concerns repeatedly appear, including: (i) the
attainment of knowledge of the Ultimate Reality (brahman), however variously
conceived, (ii) the eradication of entanglement with karman, worldly actions and
their attendant reactions, and ultimately (iii) the achievement of liberation from
continued rebirth within temporal, worldly existence, again, variously conceived.
The relationship among these three concerns is itself an important issue for
Ved@ntins. Does one achieve liberation immediately upon the attainment of know-
ledge of Brahman, or must one first live through the results of ones previous
actions? To what degree is knowledge of Brahman efficacious for the destruction
of karmic entanglement? This article will examine the contributions to this dis-
cussion made by two late VaiX>ava Ved@ntins, Vibbhalan@tha (15161586) and
Baladeva Vidy@bh+Xa>a (ca. 17001793), from the PuXbim@rga and Gaunaya
VaiX>ava traditions, respectively. These theologians approach the question of
The Author 2016. Oxford University Press and The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please email journals.permissions@oup.com
30 Devotion and Karmic Extirpation in Late Ved@nta
karmic extirpation from a distinctive theological perspective that emphasized the

power of bhakti and the grace of the Lord above all.
In Ved@nta traditions, commentaries on the Brahmas+tra 4.1.13-19 form a major
site of discourse regarding these aspects of karman theory. The major earlier
commentarieshere, I consider those of Sankara (7th8th century), Bh@skara
(8th9th century), R@m@nuja (11th century), Nimbarka (13th century?), and
Madhva (13th century)1show a remarkable degree of consensus regarding the
basic (generally quite straightforward) interpretation of these s+tras and the stages
of karmic extirpation, albeit with serious debate concerning the details of karman
theory. These commentators concur that pr@rabdha-karman (activities whose re-

sults have already begun to manifest in this lifetime, including ones very body)
remains as the sole category of karman that is not immediately destroyed by direct
perception of Brahman. Rather, such pr@rabdha-karman must be exhausted by
experiencing its reactions until the end of ones ordained period of life. Yet,
Vibbhala and (following his lead) Baladeva contradict this consensus and claim
that some devotees, by the Lords grace, can be freed of even pr@rabdha-karman
without experiencing its results. In other wordsalthough Vibbhala and Baladeva
do not state this quite explicitly and although other possible interpretations are
available2certain devotees, upon attaining a full realization of their relationship
with the Lord, could die immediately, or at least prematurely, rather than needing
to live out the remainder of their current lifetime. An early death in this manner
would be seen in a positive light, as it would entail immediate transferal to the
Lords eternal realm. Such a view harmonizes with the miraculous death narratives
in the hagiographical literature and can provide justification for the passing of
revered saints at a relatively young age.3
This divergence on such a crucial topic for Ved@ntic thought and the development of
a new interpretive lineage focused on bhakti (devotion) demonstrate the continuing
theological and exegetical vitality of the Ved@nta traditions up to the eve of colonial-
ism.4 As the theology of bhakti developed during this period, the exegesis of the
Ved@ntic canon followed suit. To be sure, Brahmas+tra commentaries were not the
only context for a VaiX>ava rethinking of the theory of karman; as with many innov-
ations in VaiX>ava theology during this period, the cutting edge of the theological
development regarding karman may be found in commentaries on the Bh@gavata
Pur@>a, which deserve more scholarly examination.5 My focus here instead on the
Brahmas+tra demonstrates that these theological developments did not entail an aban-
donment of an older canon, but rather a creative new engagement with it.
Although the Sanskrit commentarial tradition on the Brahmas+tra continued
into the 18th century, the bulk of scholarship to date has focused on the early
commentators and their traditions, especially Sankara with his Keval@dvaita (ab-
solute non-dualism) doctrine and R@m@nuja with his VisiXb@dvaita (non-dualism of
a qualified ultimate reality) doctrine. Until recently, late Ved@nta traditions have
received very little scholarly attention. Andrew Nicholson, whose recent book
examines the writing of the 16th-century Bhed@bheda (Difference and Non-
David Buchta 31
difference) Ved@ntin, Vijn@nabhikXu, addresses this lacuna. Highlighting a

common earlier orientalist account of Indian history that saw the so-called
Muslim period from the 11th to the 18th centuries as a period of the decline of
Indian culture, Nicholson writes,
Historians of Indian philosophy have taken this to mean that all that was
greatest in Indian philosophy was already present in the UpaniXads. The
achievement of classical Indian philosophers such as Sankara was to system-
atize the mystical insights of the UpaniXadic seers, and by the fourteenth cen-
tury, the ancient insights of the Vedic seers had been almost irrecoverably lost,
covered over by the pedantry of medieval scholasticism and the effusive super-

stitions of devotional Hindu sects (Nicholson 2010, p. 24).
There is an additional, perhaps more justifiable, reason for the relative neglect
of late Ved@nta. Ved@nta is not just a tradition of philosophy, but also centrally
one of theological exegesis. Ved@ntins presented their thoughts primarily as read-
ings of the UpaniXads and the Brahmas+tra. As newer ideas developed in late
Ved@nta schools, those ideas had to be read into a largely pre-established
canon, requiring a greater degree of interpretive license on the part of
Ved@ntas+tra commentators to achieve their purposes. This interpretive license
can certainly be seen in the commentaries of Vibbhala and Baladeva.6 Yet their
commentaries hold great value, not as keys to recovering the original meaning of
the Brahmas+tras, but as cases of innovative theological thinking. Their appeal to
the canonical authority of the Brahmas+tra, coupled with their willingness to rad-
ically reinterpret the s+tras, provides insight into the tension between tradition
and innovation that profoundly characterizes the development of Hinduism
during this period. Vibbhala and Baladeva are two of the last thinkers to offer
direct commentaries on the Brahmas+tra in the classical model, but their influence
would continue to be felt in their traditions and beyond.
Vibbhalan@tha was the second son of Vallabha (Vallabh@c@rya, 14791531) and
one of the most prominent theologians of the PuXbim@rga school of Ved@ntic
VaiX>avism. James Redington goes so far as to call Vibbhala the co-founder of
this school, together with his father (1983, p. 2). Of his many important works, one
of the most important is his completion of the A>ubh@Xya: while the work is pri-
marily associated with Vallabha, Vibbhala is credited with authoring the last ap-
proximately one and a half chapters, including the section discussed in this paper.7
The PuXbim@rga tradition has its greatest following in Gujurat and southern
Rajasthan, as well as in the Vraja region, the land associated with KPX>as earthly
manifestation. In addition to the term PuXbim@rga, it is commonly named after
Vallabha (as the V@llabha VaiX>ava tradition) or after its ontological doctrine,
suddh@dvaita or pure non-dualism. The tradition is called the PuXbim@rga (the
path of nourishment through divine grace) after one of the principle modes of
devotion taught within the school. This notion is part of a larger analysis, first
developed in Vallabhas writings, that divides life into three paths, the prav@ha-
m@rga or path of worldly flow, the mary@d@-m@rga or the path of regulation, and the
puXbi-m@rga.8 As Fred Smith shows, this typology as presented by Vallabha appears
to represent a divinely arranged form of predestination, with each individual self
being put, eternally, into one or another of these paths by the Lord himself (Smith
2011). These categories figure centrally in Vibbhalas analysis of the Brahmas+tra
section in question in the A>ubh@Xya commentary.9 Behind this conception of
religious life lies a purely non-dualistic ontology. In stark contrast to Sankaras
non-dualism which views Brahman as the only true reality and sees the world of
multiplicity as illusory, Vallabha and his tradition present the world as ultimately

real, manifested by and ultimately inseparable from KPX>a, God.
Baladeva Vidy@bh+Xa>a was born in Orissa and trained in Ved@nta in Karnataka,
where he became affiliated with Madhvas school of radically dualistic VaiX>ava
Ved@nta. However, he eventually aligned himself with the Gaunaya VaiX>ava
school following the Bengali saint, Caitanya (14861534), and settled in the Vraja
region, the intellectual centre of the tradition. Though writing some two centuries
after Caitanyas passing, Baladeva was the first member of this tradition to com-
pose a complete commentary on the Brahmas+tra, his Govindabh@Xya.10 The Gaunaya
VaiX>ava tradition is known for its Acintya-bhed@bheda (Paradoxical11 Difference
and Non-difference) ontology. This ontology claims that the Lord and his powers
(manifest as the world and individual living beings) cannot be completely con-
ceived of as divided, nor completely conceived of as undivided, and thus it ultim-
ately affirms both difference and non-difference between them.12 The school is
most well-known, however, for the emphasis it places on the recitation of names
of KPX>a as their central religious practice. Baladeva considers this practice in
relation to the section of the Brahmas+tra discussed in this article, including a
discussion of these s+tras in his commentary to the N@m@Xbaka (Eight Verses on
the Name) of his predecessor, R+pa Gosv@min (late 15th century1564).13
The PuXbim@rga and Gaunaya VaiX>ava traditions developed in the same histor-
ical period and both cultivated a major presence in the Vraja region. The two
schools shared much in common in terms of doctrine and practice: a strong focus
specifically on KPX>a as the ultimate object of worship, an emphasis on devotion
and divine grace as the means to salvation, and the central canonicity of the
Bh@gavata Pur@>a. These features distinguish the VaiX>ava Ved@nta traditions of
the early modern period from their predecessors and inform their innovative
scriptural exegesis.
It is perhaps not surprising that there were significant tensions between these
two traditions, which competed for patronage and followers. Particularly dramatic
are the narratives portraying bitter contestation over the control and worship of
an image of KPX>a known widely as Sran@thaja (but called Gop@la in Gaunaya
VaiX>ava sources). A number of Brajbh@X@ hagiographical texts from the
PuXbim@rga tradition, called v@rt@, relate the story of the ousting of the Gaunaya
VaiX>avas, including the burning down of their huts.14 Likewise, the most
David Buchta 33
prominent hagiography of Caitanya, KPX>ad@sa Kavir@jas Caitanyacarit@mPta (2.7),

narrates a meeting between Caitanya and Vallabha, where the former chided the
latter for his ignorance, comparing him to a prostitute for his lack of fidelity to the
sv@min (the Bh@gavata commentator Sradhara Sv@min, but also, punningly,
husband).
Yet there is also evidence of more positive interaction between the two trad-
itions. R+pa Gosv@min, for example, compares his own descriptions of the rela-
tionship between vaidha (injunction-based) and r@g@nuga (following passion)
modes of bhakti with the distinction between the mary@d@-m@rga and the puXbi-
m@rga. And other citations from Vallabha can be found scattered amongst the

writings of Gaunaya VaiX>ava theologians.15 Very little scholarly attention has
been paid yet to the details of such examples of intellectual interchange between
the two traditions. A closer comparative examination of these two traditions, to
which this article contributes, will help to clarify how a new core of theological
ideas allowed these traditions to keep the exegesis of canonical texts innovative
and vibrant.
I begin the examination of these two late commentaries by setting them against
the background of the previous commentarial tradition, providing a synopsis of
the section of the Brahmas+tra in question (4.1.13-19), following the generally
agreed upon interpretation of previous commentators. I then examine the com-
mentaries of Vibbhala and Baladeva, highlighting the exegetical strategies they
employ to read their theories into the Brahmas+tra text, and analyze the relation-
ship between the two commentaries. The important influence that the A>ubh@Xya
has on Baladevas Govindabh@Xya has not yet been documented,16 with scholarship
on Baladeva tending to focus on his indebtedness to Madhva.17 Contributing to an
ongoing rectification of this distortion,18 I trace Baladevas adoption and adapta-
tion of Vibbhalas exegesis. Finally, I briefly highlight Baladevas discussion of the
s+tras in his commentary on R+pa Gosv@mins N@m@Xbaka, showing that while
Baladeva borrowed significantly from Vibbhala in his exegesis of the s+tras, the
theological claim about the extirpation of pr@rabdha-karman through bhakti can be
traced in Baladevas own tradition back to Vallabhas and Vibbhalas contemporary.
Brahmas+tra 4.1.13-19 in the earlier ved@nta traditions

The Brahmas+tra is a collection of about 55019 s+tras divided of four adhy@yas
(chapters), each subdivided into four p@das (quarters). The first adhy@ya focuses
primarily on establishing that the UpaniXads consistently describe Brahman as the
cause of the world, not PrakPti (primordial matter), the java (individual self), space,
etc. The second adhy@ya then defends this fundamental ontology against chal-
lenges from other schools of thought. From the ontological concerns of the first
two adhy@yas, the third adhy@ya moves on to matters of praxis, discussing the types
of meditation that lead to knowledge of Brahman and ultimately liberation. The
fourth and final adhy@ya describes the state of liberation. However, the first 12
s+tras of the first p@da segue from the third adhy@ya, forming what Sankara and
Bh@skara call the tPtaya-seXa (remainder of the third adhy@ya). A central concern of
this section is the seated posture in which meditation should be performed. The
12th s+tra is commonly interpreted (with the exception of Sankara) to mean that
meditation aiming at knowledge of Brahman and liberation should be continued
up until the point of death.20
The discussion of the extirpation of karman then begins in the 13th s+tra and
continues through the end of the p@da (s+tra 19). The analysis in this section is
grounded upon a differentiation of various types of karman that becomes a stand-
ard aspect of Ved@ntic discourse. Karman is divided into two main categories:

sancita-karman, accumulated prior actions which result in corresponding reactions
for their agents, and kriyam@>a-karman, actions being performed in this lifetime
which will bear fruit in a future life. The former category likewise has two major
divisions: apr@rabdha, not yet begun to manifest its reaction, and pr@rabdha, already
begun to manifest its reaction. Pr@rabdha-karman is understood broadly to include
the very body one inhabits during ones entire fated lifetime. And each of these
types may be either meritorious (pu>ya) or demeritorious (p@pa).21 The Brahmas+tra
(4.1.13-19) had been commonly understood by the earlier commentarial tradition
to teach that knowledge of Brahma causes kriyam@>a-karman (currently performed
action) not to accrue and brings about the destruction of apr@rabdha-karman
(action not yet manifesting results). Pr@rabdha-karman (action manifesting results)
is not similarly destroyed, but must be exterminated through experiencing its
results, whereafter one attains ultimate liberation upon the passing away of the
body. This categorization of karman is helpful for those like Sankara who would
appeal to the ever-important, but ever-controversial category of the javan-mukta,
the self who is liberated while still living in an embodied state.22 The Table given
below presents these s+tras with a translation based on the predominant line of
their interpretation, together with the primary proof text cited for each s+tra.23
Vibbhalan@thas A>ubh@Xya
Vibbhalan@tha, interpreting this section of the Brahmas+tra in the 16th century in
light of the unique bhakti theology of the PuXbim@rga tradition with its hierarchy of
predestined paths, makes a significant departure from the above line of interpret-
ation, a lead that Baladeva would later follow. The A>ubh@Xya, particularly this
section, is framed by the above-mentioned scheme of three types of selves: those
on the prav@ha-m@rga (the path of the flow, i.e. life without religious regulation),
those on the mary@d@-m@rga (the path of regulation), and those on the puXbi-m@rga
(the path of nourishment through divine grace). Vibbhala divides the section into
two sub-sections: the first (4.1.13-16) addresses the eradication of karman for those
on the mary@d@-m@rga, while the second (4.1.17-19) speaks of those of the puXbi-
m@rga.
David Buchta 35
Brahmas+tra text, and translation Commonly cited proof texts
4.1.13: Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 4.14.324

tad-adhigama uttara-p+rv@ghayor yath@ puXkara-pal@sa @po na sliXyanta evam
asleXa-vin@sau tad-vyapades@t. eva:vidi p@pa: karma na sliXyate.
When [knowledge of Brahman] is at- As water does not cling to a lotus petal,
tained, there are the non-clinging of so a demeritorious act does not cling to
future demeritorious acts and the de- one who knows this.
struction of previous demeritorious Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 5.24.3

acts, because there is such a teaching tad yatheXak@-t+lam agnau prota:
[in the UpaniXads]. prad+yetaiva: h@sya sarve p@pm@na$
prad+yante ya etad eva8 vidv@n
agnihotra8 juhoti.
Thus, just as a bundle of reeds, placed in
a fire, is burnt up, so all the demeritori-
ous acts of a person who performs this
fire sacrifice with such knowledge are
burnt up.

itarasy@py evam asa:sleXa$ p@te tu. naita: setum aho-r@tre tarato. . . na
There are likewise the non-clinging sukPta: na duXkPtam. sarve p@pm@noto
[and destruction] of meritorious nivartante.
acts. Then, upon the death of the Day and night do not cross this bridge,
body [one attains liberation].25 not meritorious act, nor demeritorious
acts. All sins desist from it.

an@rabdha-k@rye eva tu p+rve tad- tasya t@vad eva ciram y@van na
avadhe$. vimokXyetha sa:patsya iti.
Only previous [meritorious and de- For such a person [it is true to say,
meritorious] acts whose result has There is] only [a delay] so long as I
not begun to manifest [are des- am not freed [from this body]. Then, I
troyed], because of [a scriptural state- will attain [liberation].
ment declaring the remainder of the
current lifetime to be] the term.
(continued)
Continued
Brahmas+tra text, and translation Commonly cited proof texts
4.1.16: BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 4.4.2227

agni-hotr@di tu tat-k@ry@yaiva tad- tam eta: ved@nuvacanena br@hma>@ vivi-
darsan@t. diXanti yajnena d@nena tapas@n@sakena.
Fire sacrifices and the like, however, Br@hma>as endeavor to know him by
lead only to knowledge as their means of repeated recitation of the
result, for that is seen [in the Veda, by sacrifice, by charity, by pen-
scriptures]. ance, and by fasting.
S@by@yanis@kh@ (Attributed)29

4.1.17:
atony@pi hy ekeX@m ubhayo$. tasya putr@ d@yam upayanti suhPda$
[The claim that meritorious deeds are s@dhu-kPty@: dviXanta$ p@pakPty@m.
destroyed still has scope] because His sons attain the inheritance: the
there is a type of act other than friendly, the good deeds; the inimical,
these [fire sacrifices which lead to the sinful deeds.
knowledge] spoken of in the state-
ment of some. This is the opinion of
both [Jaimini, author of the Mam@:s@-
s+tras, and myself, i.e. B@dar@ya>a].28

yad eva vidyayeti hi. yad eva vidyay@ karoti sraddhayopaniXad@
[Acts performed with knowledge are tad eva varyavattara: bhavati.
superior to those performed without Only that which one performs with
knowledge], because of [the scrip- knowledge, with faith, and with the
tural statement]: Only that [which secret teaching becomes more powerful.
one performs] with knowledge. . .30

bhogena tv itare kXapayitv@tha tasya t@vad eva ciram y@van na
sampadyate. vimokXyetha sa:patsya iti.
However, after destroying the results For such a person [it is true to say,
of the other meritorious and demeri- There is] only [a delay] so long as I
torious deeds [i.e. those whose results am not freed [from this body]. Then, I
have begun to manifest] by means of will attain [liberation].
experiencing them, one then attains
[liberation].
David Buchta 37
In the first subsection, while Vibbhalas interpretation of the s+tras differs from
that of his predecessors in significant ways, the overall thrust of his theory of
karmic eradication for those on the mary@d@-m@rga generally concurs with the
mainstream interpretation: For one who develops knowledge of Brahman, accu-
mulated past meritorious and demeritorious acts are eradicated, except those
whose result is currently being experienced, and there is no connection with
new karmanthat is, such a person performs no actions that entail the accrual
of karman.32
In commenting on the second s+tra of the section (4.1.14), Vibbhala reconstrues
the phrasing (itarasy@py evam; asa:sleXa$ p@te tu, rather than itarasy@py evam

asa:sleXa$; p@te tu) and offers a distinct interpretation of the second half of the
s+tra. Previous commentaries take the word p@te (on the falling) to refer to the
death of the body. Sankara, Bh@skara, and Nimb@rka all take the phrase to indicate
that, upon the death of the body, ultimate liberation will certainly be reached,33
while R@m@nuja takes it to mean that, since the results of meritorious actions may
facilitate the up@sana that is to be performed, they are destroyed only at the time
of death.34 Vibbhala, however, takes the phrase to mean that even (tu api) in the
case of a falldown (p@te) from ones devotion to the Lord, there is no connection
(asa:sleXa$) with enjoined or prohibited action. Vibbhala cites the example of
Bharata, who, becoming deviated from his devotion by developing attachment
to a deer, became a deer in his next life but remembered his previous life, and
then in his next life became a greatly devoted saint. As a deer, Bharata was not
within the jurisdiction of scriptural injunctions and prohibitions and thus presum-
ably could experience the reactions of karman without performing further karman-
accruing action. And in his next life as a human, he played the part of a fool,
refusing scriptural instruction and thus remaining outside of the scope of enjoined
and prohibited action.35
Vibbhala follows the straightforward reading of the next s+tra (4.1.15) as exclud-
ing pr@rabdha-karmans from those which are destroyed by knowledge of Brahman.
But he interprets the reason given (tad avadhe$) not as a scripturally declared
term of ones current lifetime, but rather as the will of the Lord36: if the Lord
wants certain karmans to be destroyed by knowledge of Brahman, they will be; but
if he does not, they will not. While jn@na is more powerful than karman, Vibbhala
argues, the will of the Lord is most powerful of all.37
Finally, Vibbhala acknowledges the value of rites like the agnihotra for one on the
mary@d@-m@rga (s+tra 4.1.16), but to a different end. Other commentators read the
s+tra as stating that such acts lead to knowledge or, indirectly, to liberation.38 For
Vibbhala, however, the s+tra teaches that one on the mary@d@-m@rga who comes to
know Brahman may perform such acts to burn up pr@rabdha-karman arising from
those same acts, previously performed.39 Thus, Vibbhalas account of the extirpa-
tion of karman for those on the mary@d@-m@rga differs on a number of points of
theory and interpretation from those of his Ved@ntic predecessors. As will be
shown below, regarding his subsequent discussion of those on the puXbi-m@rga,
the most important distinction lies in the ultimately decisive role that he attri-
butes to the will of the Lord, rather than to abstract principles of karman.
In Vibbhalas discussion of the eradication of karman for those on the puXbi-m@rga
in the second sub-section (4.1.17-19), he diverges more radically from his prede-
cessors. While Vibbhala cites the same proof-text regarding the inheritance of
karman, his makes very different use of it in interpreting the first s+tra of this
subsection (4.1.17). As is often the case, Vibbhala reads the pronouns in an unpre-
cedented way: Earlier commentators take the s+tra to mean that some say (ekeX@m
[vacanam]) that there is yet another (any@pi) type of karman, other than agnihotras
and the like (ata$);40 Vibbhala instead takes it to mean that there is yet another

(any@pi) scriptural statement, other than those discussed so far (ata$), which
applies only to some (ekeX@m), namely those on the puXbi-m@rga. For Vibbhala, the
statement about karmic inheritancethat favourably disposed sons inherit ones
good karman while inimical sons inherit bad karmanis not limited in its scope by
the type of karman that may be so passed down; all karman can be transferred in
this way. But it is limited in scope in terms of who can transfer karman: only those
on the puXbi-m@rga. Thus, in contrast to those on the mary@d@-m@rga, those on the
puXbi-m@rga can be freed from all karman, including pr@rabdha-karman, without
experiencing the results. The Lord does not simply destroy pr@rabdha-karman;
the results are still experienced, albeit by someone other than the agent of the
original act. Thus the Lord does not undermine the very principle (mary@d@) that
he establishes, namely that pr@rabdha-karman must be experienced.
Vibbhala is dismissive of two obvious objections, that karman, being formless,
cannot be transferred, and that this transfer would result in people experience the
consequences of something that they did not do. Vibbhalas response: Because he is
the Lord, he can act otherwise. The puXbi-m@rga is wholly different from the
mary@d@-m@rga, and thus there is no incongruity in the Lords treating them dif-
ferently. Rather that differential treatment is a virtue. Again, the decisive factor is
the will of the Lord. Here, that will is spoken about in more emotionally-laden
language: Being unable to tolerate any delay for a devotee, a recipient of his
utmost mercy, to attain him, the Lord transfers his pr@rabdha-karman to a relative
and causes it to be experienced by that person.41
Vibbhala offers three interpretations of the following s+tra (4.1.18): First he
considers an interpretation of the UpaniXadic passage (Ch@ndogya UpaniXad
1.1.10) whereby action performed with knowledge is understood to be more
powerful in that it will not fail to cling (asleXa) even to one who knows
Brahman. Vibbhalas response is to contextualise the knowledge referred to in
this portion of the Ch@ndogya UpaniXad arguing that it refers knowledge of a par-
ticular meditation rather than to knowledge of Brahman.42 Thus, action performed
with knowledge of Brahman does not powerfully cling to its performer. If, how-
ever, the term vidy@ here is taken to refer to knowledge of Brahman, then action
performed with such knowledge is more powerful, in the sense that such action is
able to effect the destruction of pr@rabdha-karman, as suggested in the s+tra about
David Buchta 39
agni-hotras (4.1.16).43 Finally, Vibbhala explicates what he call the hidden intention
(nig+nh@saya) of the s+tra with specific reference to those on the puXbi-m@rga. The
knowledge present in the living being, he claims, is simply a portion of the Lords
power of knowledge (bhagavaj-jn@na-sakter a:sa-bh+t@). Given that the sruti speaks
of the superiority of action on account of a connection even with one who is
connected with [the Lords] property, knowledge,44 over other types of action,
Vibbhala asks, how can anyone doubt that a direct connection with the Lord him-
self, the bearer of that property of knowledge, effects a superior result, namely,
the eradication of even pr@rabdha-karman.45
The final s+tra of this section (4.1.19) presents the greatest interpretive chal-

lenge to Vibbhala, a challenge he meets by offering his most clever and novel
interpretation, albeit a rather forced one. Others read the s+tra to pick up, in
effect, where the third s+tra of the section (4.1.15) left off: After one has cast
away (kXapayitv@) the others (itare), i.e. meritorious and demeritorious pr@rabdha-
karman, by means of experiencing [their result] (bhogena), one then (atha) attains
(sampadyate) Brahman.46 Vibbhala, however, wants to deny that those on the puXbi-
m@rga must necessarily undergo the experience of their pr@rabdha-karman. Thus, he
reconstructs the sense and syntax of the s+tra to get the following: Having cast off
(kXapayitv@) the two bodiesthe gross and subtle material bodieswhich are other
(itare) than the otherworldly, spiritual body which will be attained thereafter, one
on the puXbi-m@rga then, upon attaining a body suitable for the Lords play,
achieves enjoyment (bhogena. . . sampadyate).47 Vibbhala cites as a proof text a pas-
sage from the Taittiraya UpaniXad (2.1.1): He attains every object of desire together
with the wise Brahman.48 This interpretation has obvious difficulties, including its
reading of bhoga out of its contextually relevant sense and its going against the
word order in its syntactical construction. But Vibbhalas divergent interpretations
of this section allow him to argue his cardinal point: for some special devotees,
liberation and the eradication of karman are not subject to impersonal principles,
but are directly controlled by the will of the Lord.
Baladevas Govindabh@Xya
As a Gaunaya VaiX>ava, Baladeva Vidy@bh+Xa>a is committed to a tradition that,
like the PuXbim@rga, argues that even pr@rabdha-karman can be immediately era-
dicated through bhakti, especially through the recitation of the Name. Thus, it is
not surprising that Baladeva, in his Govindabh@Xya, closely follows Vibbhalas inter-
pretation of this section of the Brahmas+tra, although he follows the A>ubh@Xya
only in isolated contexts throughout the larger text.49
Baladeva, in fact, does not follow the A>ubh@Xya consistently even throughout this
section. His brief commentaries on the first two s+tras (4.1.13-14) do not show
Vibbhalas unique readings. Even on the third s+tra (4.1.15), Baladeva appears at
first to follow the dominant interpretation of tad-avadhe$ (because of that term)
and cites the standard passage from the Ch@ndogya UpaniXad (6.14.2). However, he
immediately follows this with a citation from the Bh@gavata Pur@>a (10.87.40) inter-
preted to the effect that the limiting factor (avadhi) for the destruction of pr@rabdha-
karman is precisely the will of the Lord.50 Baladeva thus offers something of a
reconciliation between the dominant interpretation of the s+tra and Vibbhalas em-
phatic insistence on the primacy of the will of the Lord. In the following s+tra (4.1.16),
Baladeva returns to the dominant line of interpretation, and again cites the standard
proof text quoted by most commentators (BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 4.4.22).
It is in Baladevas commentary on the last three s+tras (4.1.17-19) that the
A>ubh@Xyas strongest influence can be seen. Just as Vibbhala interprets the state-
ment about karmic inheritance as pertaining only to a particular class of special

devotees (ekeX@m), namely those on the puXbi-m@rga, rather than pertaining to a
certain type of action, so Baladeva reads this passage in light of his own unique
hierarchical triad, taking the possibility of karmic transference as only open to
those who are nirapekXa, disinterested [in aught but KPX>a]. While Vallabhas triad
of paths encompasses all living beings, the triad which informs Baladevas inter-
pretive framework only includes those eligible (adhik@rin) for knowledge of
Brahman: such a candidate may be either svaniXbha (self-dedicated), pariniXbha
(completely dedicated), or nirapekXa. Earlier in his Govindabh@Xya (3.4, introduc-
tion), Baladeva characterises the three types as follows:
According to the difference of their motivations, those seeking knowledge are

of three possible types. Some, wishing to see the variety of worlds, perform
their dharmas (religious acts) of var>a and @srama with complete dedication.
They are called svaniXbhas. And some perform those [var>@srama-dharmas] only
out of a desire to uphold the world. [They are called] pariniXbhas. Both of them
are s@srama (within an @srama). But others, who are purified by previous dhar-
mas, such as truthfulness, austerity and prayers, [are called] nirapekXas. They are
nir@srama (without @srama).51
As these characterisations make clear, Vallabhas and Baladevas triads do not

directly correspond: Baladevas svaniXbha would likely be on the mary@d@-m@rga,
while the pariniXbha may be a borderline case. And unlike Vallabhas paths,
Baladeva does not explicitly say (nor does he deny) that his three types describe
the permanent ontological status of various selves, although he does note that one
attains nirapekXa status because of dharmas performed in ones past life.52
Nevertheless, Baladevas nirapekXa shares much in common with one on
Vallabhas puXbi-m@rga.53 In an extended discussion of the nirapekXa later in that
p@da (3.4.36-47), Baladeva characterises such a person as the recipient of special
grace from the Lord and as having worship of the Lord and the love achieved
thereby as his or her only object of desire.54 Aside from the nuanced distinction of
substituting one on Vallabhas puXbi-m@rga for Baladevas nirapekXa, Baladevas com-
mentary on the s+tra about karmic inheritance follows Vibbhala in most details.
The most striking exception is that Baladeva does not follow Vibbhalas reading of
David Buchta 41
ekeX@m. Rather, Baladeva follows the dominant tradition: There is another sruti
statement in the school of some. The restriction of the applicability of this state-
ment to nirapekXas is contextually assumed.55
Baladevas very brief commentary on the following s+tra (4.1.18) does not dir-
ectly follow Vibbhalas lead, but is not out of harmony with the overall thrust of the
A>ubh@Xyas argument. Baladeva paraphrases the Ch@ndogya UpaniXad passage
quoted (1.1.10) as saying that, because of a connection with the individual selfs
knowledge, there is superior power in an action. From this (hi), Baladeva argues,
one can conclude that there is nothing surprising should it sometimes happen that
a superiority manifests in the individual self, namely the absence of pr@rabdha-

karman without experiencing it, coming from the grace of the supreme Lord in the
form of the non-obstruction of the normal power of knowledge.56 In other words,
the mercy of the Lord, far more powerful than the individual selfs knowledge, can
easily allow knowledge to destroy all karman, even pr@rabdha-karman.
Finally, Baladevas commentary on the last s+tra of this p@da (4.1.19) repeats
much of Vibbhalas commentary almost verbatim:
After casting off (kXapayitv@) the two bodies, the gross and subtle bodies, other
(itare) than the body of an associate [of the Lord] which is [about] to be ob-
tained, now (atha), after obtaining the body of an associate, one becomes
endowed with the enjoyment (bhogena) spoken of in the sruti (Taittiraya
UpaniXad 2.1.1): He attains every object of desire together with the wise
Brahman. This is the meaning.57
While Baladeva does not follow every detail of Vibbhalas commentary in his
Govindabh@Xya, one central idea clearly comes through: certain special devotees,
recipient of the Lords particular grace, are not subject to the normal rules for the
eradication of karman. This emphasis on the power of devotion and grace is a
strongly distinctive feature of bhakti theology in late VaiX>ava Ved@nta.
Baladevas citation of the Brahmas+tra in his Stavam@l@bh+Xa>abh@Xya

As Vibbhalas peculiar interpretation of the Brahmas+tra allows Baladeva to recon-
cile his traditions teachings about the power of bhakti in general with the rules for
karmic extirpation spelled out in the Brahmas+tra, it also allows Baladeva to har-
monize R+pa Gosv@mins strong claim about the karman-destroying power of
KPX>as Name in the N@m@Xbaka. The N@m@Xbaka is a stotra or praise-poem, and
came to be included as the final of 43 such poems composed by R+pa and then
compiled by his nephew, Java Gosv@min, into a collection entitled Stavam@l@
(Garland of Praise-poems). Baladeva composed a commentary on the entire col-
lection, the Stavam@l@bh+Xa>abh@Xya (A Commentarial Oranment on the Stavam@l@).
Not surprisingly, his commentary on the theologically rich N@m@Xbaka is especially
detailed.
The Name plays a central role in Gaunaya VaiX>ava theology, understood as a

direct manifestation of KPX>a, no different than KPX>a himself. Yet, R+pa offers no
theological analysis of the Name in his main work on avat@ra theory, the
Laghubh@gavat@mPta. One does find verses glorifying the divinity and power of
the Name throughout R+pas writings. But his most sustained discussion of the
Name comes in the form of a poem, the N@m@Xbaka, perhaps resorting to poetry due
to the controversial nature of the doctrines he would present. Two of R+pas
claims were particularly controversial: that even the impurely uttered semblance
of the Name (n@m@bh@sa) could grant liberation, and that the appearance of the
Name destroys even pr@rabdha-karman.58 The latter claim is made most explicitly in

the poems fourth verse:
yad brahma-s@kX@t-kPti-niXbhay@pi vin@sam @y@ti vin@ na bhogai$ |

apaiti n@ma-sphura>ena tat te pr@rabdha-karmeti virauti veda$ ||
Even with contemplative focus unto the perception of Brahman,
It is not destroyed without experience.
That manifesting reaction (pr@rabdha-karman) goes away, O Name,
With your appearance. So the Veda sings.
After offering a brief paraphrase of this verse, Baladeva lays out the basic
Ved@ntic doctrine of karmic extirpation:
By knowledge of Brahman, when it is arisen, pious and impious acts that are
accumulated become destroyed and those that are being performed become
non-binding, according to the sruti statement (BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 4.4.22),
On the other hand, this one, being immortal, indeed crosses over both the good
and the bad. Pious and impious acts which have begun to give their results are
called pr@rabdha karma. That, however, is diminished only by experience [of the
results], not by knowledge of Brahma, according to the sruti statement
(Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 7.14.2), For him [it is true to say, There is] only so long
[a delay] as I am not freed [from this body].59
Baladeva then cites the first three s+tras of the Brahmas+tra section in question
(4.1.13-15), introducing them by saying, The very same is taught by the Lord who
composed the [Brahma-]s+tra.60 After the citation, Baladeva offers an expanded
paraphrase of the s+tras:
The meaning of these s+tras is as follows: When one has experience of Brahman,
there occur the non-binding of later, currently committed sins, and the de-
struction of accumulated prior sins, because of such a statement in sruti. Even of
the other, pious acts, there is similarly non-binding and destruction. But liber-
ation takes place [only] at the death of the body, which is comprised from
pr@rabdha-karman. The prior, accumulated impious and pious acts whose results
have not begun (apr@rabdha) perish by means of knowledge, but not also those
David Buchta 43
whose results have begun, because enjoyment is the term for their
destruction.61
Thus far, Baladeva is simply summarising what he says in his Govindabh@Xya, and
his explanation of the s+tras follows the dominant line of interpretation rather
than Vibbhalas.
Baladeva now proceeds to directly address R+pas claim about the special power
of the Name: And that pr@rabdha-karman goes away because of uttering the
Name.62 He offers as a proof text the following passage from the Ch@ndogya
UpaniXad (1.6.7), indentifying R+pas allusion to the Veda:

tasyod iti n@ma. sa eXa sarvebhya$ p@pmabhya udita$. udeti ha vai sarvebhya$
p@pmabhyo ya eva: veda.
Its name is Ut (up) [for] it is risen above (udita) all sins. One who knows this
rises above all sins.
Since this passage states that all sins are destroyed by the name, Baladeva argues,
the destruction of even pr@rabdha-karman is clearly entailed.
Finally, Baladeva cites the Brahmas+tra about karmic transfer (4.1.17) to justify
the claim about the possibility to getting rid of pr@rabdha-karman. His expanded
paraphrase of the s+tra follows Vibbhalas reading even more closely than his
commentary in the Govindabh@Xya. There, as noted above, Baladeva restricts the
scope of karmic transfer to nirapekXa devotees, but takes the s+tras term ekeX@m as
meaning in the school of some (ekeX@: s@kh@y@m), much as the mainstream
commentarial tradition does. In his N@m@Xbaka commentary, however, he follows
Vibbhala in taking ekeX@m as indicating that the principle of karmic transfer applies
only to some. But while the A>ubh@Xya restricts this to those on the puXbi-m@rga,
and Baladevas Govindabh@Xya restricts it to the nirapekXa devotees, here Baladeva
identifies these special selves as those who are one-pointedly devoted to the Name
and are supremely impassioned (ekeX@: n@maik@ntin@: param@nur@gi>@m).
Conclusion
We see in these passages Vibbhala and Baladeva rethinking one of the core doc-
trines of Ved@nta theology, the extirpation of karman, confronting the tension
between tradition and innovation. These thinkers pushed bhakti theology forward,
insisting on an uncompromising appeal to the Lords grace. A straightforward
reading of the Brahmas+tra, and one confirmed over the centuries by earlier com-
mentators, presents a limit to the efficacy of knowledge of Brahman for eradicat-
ing karman. Vibbhala and Baladeva, however, assert that the will of Lord is the
ultimate limit, with nothing beyond to limit it, and thus cannot accept any mini-
mization of the Lords grace, a trend in the bhakti theology of the period.
At the same time, Vibbhala and Baladeva were committed to the old canonical
authority of the Brahmas+tra. Vibbhala demonstrates a profound knowledge of the
earlier commentarial tradition, both by borrowing from it and arguing against it.
Though his interpretations of the s+tras at times seem rather forced, he is com-
mitted to accounting for every last word of the text. At the same time, he creates
an exegetical tradition of his own, predominantly influencing Baladevas comm-
nentary on the Brahmas+tra passage in question. Baladeva, too, is profoundly
learned in the earlier Ved@nta traditions. While he draws a great deal from
Madhva, with whose tradition he was first associated, he also draws from
Sankara, R@m@nuja, and, here, Vibbhala. For Baladeva, the A>ubh@Xya had become

one of the many established resources of the earlier tradition, which he could
draw upon and further develop. All the while, he remains committed to the theo-
logical priorities of the Gaunaya VaiX>ava tradition, as we see when he unpacks the
Ved@ntic implications of R+pas poetry. Addressing a new set of theological con-
cernsa theology of bhakti that placed primary emphasis on the overriding power
of the Lords will, the unique efficacy of bhatki practices, and the ultimate necessity
of divine graceVed@nta remained alive, innovative, and exegetically creative at
the eve of colonialism.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank George Cardona, who read and commented on an early,
partial draft of this article, Jonathan Edelmann and Matthew Dasti, who read
through Vibbhalas commentary with me, and Rembert Lutjeharms, who brought
a valuable paper to my attention. I am deeply indebted to the anonymous re-
viewers whose detailed critique allowed me to substantially improve the article.
References
B@kre, Mah@deva S@stra (ed.) and Laxma> S@stra Pa>sakar W@sudev (rev.). 1934. The
Brahmas+tra-Sh@nkarbh@shyam with the Commentaries Bh@shya-Ratnaprabh@, Bh@mata and
Ny@yanirnaya of Shragovind@nanda, V@chaspati and ?nandagiri (3rd edn). Bombay:
Nir>aya-S@gar Press.
Bronner, Yigal. 2002. What is new and what is Navya: Sanskrit poetics on the eve of
colonialism. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 30, 44162.
Buchta, David. 2003. Gems from the Gat@-Bh+Xa>a. Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 12, 12747.
Buchta, David. 2005. Baladeva Vidy@bh+Xa>a and the ved@ntic refutation of yoga. Journal
of Vaishnava Studies, 14, 181208.
Buchta, David. 2007. Complexity in Hindu biography: Baladeva Vidy@bh+Xa>as multi-re-
gional influences. Journal of Vaishnava Studies, 15, 8193.
Buchta, David. 2010. G@rga V@caknava as an honorary male: an eighteenth century recep-
tion of an UpaniXadic female sage. Journal of Hindu Studies, 3.3, 35470.
Buchta, David. 2014. Dependent agency and hierarchical determinism in the theology of
Madhva. In Matthew Dasti and Bryant Edwin (eds.), Free Will, Agency, and Selfhood in
Indian Philosophy. Chapter 11. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 25578.
David Buchta 45
Delmonico, Neal. 2003. First steps in Ved@nta: Vedantic texts for beginners. New York: Global
Scholarly Publications.
Dvivedin, Vindhyeshvara Pras@da (ed.). 1910. Brahma-Mam@ms@-Bh@shya, A commentary on
Brahma Sutras called Ved@nta P@rij@ta Saurabha by Nimb@rk@ch@rya. Chowkhamb@ SanskPit
Series 152. Benares: Chowkhamb@ SanskPit Book-Depot.
Dvivedin, Vindhyeshvara Pras@da (ed.) 1991. Brahmasutra with a commentary by
Bh@skar@ch@rya (2nd edn). Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series 20. Varanasi: Chowkhamba
Sanskrit Series Office.
Edelmann, Jonathan. 2013. Hindu theology as churning the latent. Journal of the American
Academy of Religion, 81.2, 42766.
Fort, Andrew O. and Mumme Patricia Y. (eds.) 1996. Living liberation in Hindu thought.
Albany: State University of New York Press.

Gosv@ma, Lalita KPX>a (ed.). 1974. Sram@dhvaved@nta (P+r>aprajnabh@Xya), Jagadguru Sraman-
Madhv@c@rya. Pray@ga [Allah@b@d]: Sra Nimb@rka Pabha.
Graheli, Alessandro. 2007. Narration and comprehension of paradox in Gaunaya literature.
Rivista di Studi Sudasiatici, 2, 181208.
Gupta, Ravi M. 2014. Where one is forever two: God and world in Java Gosv@mas
Bh@gavata-sandarbha. In Gupta Ravi M. (ed.). Caitanya vaiX>ava philosophy: tradition,
reason and devotion. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 3560.
B@b@ KPX>ad@sa (ed. & tr.). 1954. Srabrahmas+tragovindabh@Xyam: Hindabh@X@nuv@dasahitam,
Sra-Baladeva-Vidy@bh+Xa>a-viracitam. Mathur@: PuXpar@ja Presa [Press].
Mesquita, Roque. 2007. The concept of liberation while still alive in the philosophy of Madhva.
New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan.
Modi, P. M. 196061. Suddh@dvaita ved@nta interpretation of Brahmas+tra IV.1. Bh@rataya
Vidy@, 2021 (Munshi Indological Felicitation Volume), 16469.
Nicholson, Andrew. 2010. Unifying Hinduism: philosophy and identity in Indian intellectual
history. South Asia Across the Disciplines. New York: Columbia University Press.
OFlaherty, Wendy Doniger (ed.). 1980. Karma and rebirth in classical Indian traditions.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Okita, Kiyokazu. 2009. A Bengali vaishnava contribution to Ved@nta: Baladeva
Vidy@bh+Xa>a on the word Atha in the Brahmas+tra 1.1.1. Journal of Vaishnava
Studies, 18.1, 87100.
Okita, Kiyokazu. 2011. Quotation in early modern Ved@nta: an example from Gaunaya
VaiX>avism. Religions of South Asia, 6.2, 20724.
Okita, Kiyokazu. 2014. Hindu theology in early modern South Asia: the rise of devotionalism and
the politics of genealogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollock, Sheldon. 2001. New intellectuals in seventeenth-century India. The Indian
Economic and Social History Review, 38.1, 331.
Potter, Karl H. 1980. The Karma theory and its interpretation in some Indian philosoph-
ical systems. In Doniger OFlaherty Wendy (ed.) Karma and rebirth in classical Indian
traditions. Chapter 10. Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 24167.
Sanford, A. Whitney. 2002. Negotiating for Sran@thaja, Da+ja, and Jakhaiy@: narrative as
arbiter of contested sites in Vraja. International Journal of Hindu Studies, 6.1, 1945.
S@stra, Bhavadatta and P@>durang Parab K@san@th (eds.). 1903. The Stava-m@l@ of Sra-
R+padeva: with the commentary of Sra-Javadeva (sic). K@vyam@l@ 84. Bombay:
Nir>aya-S@gara Press.
Scholars of the Academy [of Sanskrit Research] (eds.). 1995. Srabh@Xyam of Bhagavad
R@m@nuja. Academy of Sanskrit Research Series 22. Melkote: Academy of Sanskrit
Research.
Sharma, B. N. K. 2000. History of the Dvaita school of Ved@nta and its literature (3rd edn).
Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Smith, Frederick M. 2011. Predestination and hierarchy: Vallabh@c@ryas discourse on the

distinctions between blessed, rule-bound, worldly, and wayward souls (the
PuXbiprav@hamary@d@bheda). Journal of Indian Philosophy, 39, 173227.
Smith, W. L. 2000. Patterns in North Indian hagiography. Stockholm: Department of Indology,
University of Stockholm.
Teliwala, Mulchandra Tulsidas (ed.). 2005. Mah@prabhu Sra Vallabh@ch@ryas A>ubh@Xya on the
Brahmas+tra with the Commentary Bh@Xyaprak@sa of Gosv@mi Sra PuruXottamaji and the
super-commentary Rasmi on the Bh@Xyaprak@sa of Gosv@mi Sra Gopesvarji. Reprint
[Originally published 1925-41]. (In four volumes). Delhi: Akshaya Prakashan.
Vaudeville, Charlotte. 1980. The Govardhan myth in Northern India. Indo-Iranian Journal,
22, 145.

Notes
1 Here, I refer to the editions of B@kre and Pa>sakar (1934), Dvivedin (1991), Scholars
of the Academy (1995), Dvivedin (1910), and Gosv@ma (1974), respectively.
2 The closest Vibbhala and Baladeva come to saying this explicitly is their statements
that the Lord transfers the pr@rabhdha-karman of some devotees to relatives because
the Lord is unable to bear any delay in their attaining him. See notes 41 and 55
below. Alternative interpretations could include a devotees being given a spiritual
or perfected body (siddha-deha) while still in the mortal world. See note 5 below.
3 See Smith (2000, pp. 27180) for a survey of some such narratives. Traditional
accounts speak of earlier religious leaders as living extraordinarily long lives,
such as R@m@nujas 120 years. By contrast, Vallabha lived for a little over 50
years, while Caitanya lived a mere 48 years.
4 It is noteworthy that Vibbhala and Baladeva do not, to my knowledge, invoke the
idiom of being navya (new) in contrast to a pr@cana (old) tradition as did a number of
scholars of their time in the fields of Ny@ya (logic), Vy@kara>a (grammar), and
Alank@ra (poetics). This idiom has been highlighted, for example, by Pollock
(2001) and Bronner (2002).
5 Bh@gavata Pur@>a 1.6.29, where N@rada speaks of the falling off of his body made of
the five elements (pancabhautika$) when he attained a pure body connected with
the Lord (suddh@m bh@gavatam tanum). A compound describing his previous body as
@rabdhakarmanirv@>a is particlularly pertinent, interpreted by some commentators
as indicating a body from which the force of pr@rabdha-karman had already been
eradicated.
6 Of course, Vibbhala and Baladeva present their interpretive innovations as explicat-
ing the true meaning of the text. In some cases, these novel interpretations are
worthy of serious consideration. Edelmann (2013) offers an important examination
of the methodology and logic of such innovative interpretation, considering an
example from Baladevas teacher, Visvan@tha Cakravartin. As for the section
under discussion here, however, it is not fully plausible to see their exegesis as
recovering the historical meaning of the s+tras. As will be discussed below, the
weakest point of Vibbhalas and Baladevas commentary is their rather forced read-
ing of the last s+tra (4.1.19).
7 While the A>ubh@Xya is commonly spoken of as Vallabhas, Teliwala provides strong
evidence in support of a tradition going back at least to PuruXottama (17th18th
David Buchta 47
century) that the fourth adhy@ya and part of the third are, in fact, authored by
Vibbhalan@tha (2005,pp. 19992000). P. M. Modi (196061) compares the k@rik@s at
the beginning of A>ubh@Xya 4.1, which he thinks may be authored by Vallabha, and
shows how they differ significantly in their interpretation of the s+tras from the
body of the A>ubh@Xya on this section, accepting a view regarding pr@rabdha-karman
more in harmony with the earlier consensus that I outline below. I am grateful to an
anonymous reviewer for bringing details of the authorship issue to my attention,
and to Rembert Lutjeharms for sharing a copy of Modis paper.
8 The most concise but comprehensive treatment of this scheme is Smith (2011)
which translates Vallabhas PuXbiprav@hamary@d@bheda. Smith calls these the paths
of flow, limitation, and grace. The term limitation (for mary@d@) does not fully

capture the idea that this path involves the strict application of the rules of karman
with its rewards and punishments. Grace is a somewhat loose translation of puXbi,
but it very effectively captures the sense that this term has in Vallabhas theology.
Thus, I have opted for the more prolix rendering nourishment through divine
grace.
9 Here, I refer to the edition of Teliwala (2005).
10 Here, I refer to the edition of KPX>ad@sa B@b@ (1954).
11 I follow here the wording of Graheli, who offers a finely nuanced explication of
what is meant by the term acintya-bhed@bheda (2007, pp. 18286).
12 For a clear and concise explanation of the Acintya-bhed@bheda ontology of the
tradition, see Delmonico (2003, p.lvi) where he highlights a key statement made
by Java Gosv@ma in his Sarvasa:v@dina commentary on his own Bhagavatsandarbha
(16). Also valuable are Gupta (2014) as well as Graheli (2007) noted above. For a
concise statement by Baladeva on what it means to be acintya (paradoxical), see his
Gat@bh+Xa>a commentary on Bhagavadgat@ 12.3.
13 For R+pas N@m@Xbaka, included in the Stavam@l@, and Baladevas commentary there-
upon, the Stavam@l@bh+Xa>abh@Xya, I refer to the edition of S@stra and Parab (1903).
14 See Vaudeville (1980) and Sanford (2002).
15 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer who provided me with two examples
where Vallabha is explicitly cited by name by Visvan@tha Cakravartin: his commen-
tary to Bh@gavata 10.29.38 and a passage from his Parakay@tvanir+pa>a.
16 While a close comparison of the A>ubh@Xya and the Govindabh@Xya remains a desid-
eratum, I have found another example of such influence, on s+tras 3.3.21-25, that I
plan to examine in detail in a future paper.
17 See especially Sharma (2000, pp. 52831, 58896).
18 Recent scholarship by Kiyokazu Okita and David Buchta offers a more nuanced
account of Baladevas influences, but does not identify Baladevas indebtedness to
Vibbhala or Vallabha. Especially relevant are Okita (2009, 2011, 2014) and Buchta
(2005, 2007, 2010, 2014)
19 Various commentators work with different readings that include slight variations in
the number of s+tras.
20 Although the previous s+tras had been interpreted as referring to meditation upon
the self aimed at achieving direct perception, Sankara assumes a shift in the topic
and interprets s+tra 12 as referring to meditation aiming at the attainment of
heaven (abhyudaya-phal@ni). Sankara thus ends up arguing against what would
appear to be a straightforward reading of the s+tra, saying that the practice of

meditation ceases upon the attainment of knowledge, just as the process of thresh-
ing grain ceases when the result is achieved. (y@ni t@vat sa:yag-darsan@rth@ny
up@san@ni t@ny avagh@t@di-vat k@rya-paryavas@n@nati jn@nam evaiX@m @vPtti-parim@>am.
na hi sa:yag-darsane k@rye niXpanne yatn@ntara: kincic ch@situ: sakyam. aniyojya-
brahm@tmatva-pratipatte$ s@strasy@viXayatv@t.) Bh@skaras and Nimbarkas commen-
taries do not explicitly specify the goal of the meditation referred to in s+tra 12,
presumably allowing the context of the previous s+tras to carry over. R@m@nujas
commentary more pointedly counters Sankaras, specifying that the meditation
referred to in s+tra 12 is that which leads to liberation. (tad idam apavarga-s@dhanam
ukta-lakXa>a: s@dhanam. . .) Madhva is similarly explicit, interpreting the s+tras

term pr@ya>a as referring to liberation rather than death. (y@van mokXas t@vad
up@san@di k@ryam). Baladevas commentary on this s+tra largely follows Madhvas.
Vibbhala offers a radically divergent interpretation of this s+tra in light of Vallabhas
typology of three m@rgas, but the details of his commentary are beyond the scope of
this paper.
21 Other terms are commonly encountered. For kriyam@>a one finds sancayam@na and
@g@min. For sancita one finds upacita. The Brahmas+tras (4.1.13-15) use, simply, p+rva
(earlier) and uttara (later) for sancita and kriyam@>a, an@rabdha-k@rya for apr@rabdha,
and agha and itara (the other) for p@pa and pu>ya. A number of scholars, including
Potter (1980, p. 249), speak of pr@rabdha not as a subcategory of sancita, but as a
completely separate category, whereby sancita would refer only to apr@rabdha-
sancita-karman. The formulation I present here, however, finds support in this sec-
tion of the Brahmas+tra and especially in commentaries thereupon.
22 It should be noted that there is no strict correspondence between claiming the
continuation of pr@rabdha-karman after the attainment of knowledge of Brahman
and accepting the notion of javan-mukti. R@m@nuja concurs with Sankara regarding
pr@rabdha-karman, but does not accept the category of javan-mukti. Particularly valu-
able for a broad perspective on this topic throughout the classical Indian thought
world are OFlaherty (1980, especially the contributions by Long, Potter, and
Halbfass), Fort and Mumme (1996, especially the contributions of Nelson, Skoog,
and Sheridan), and Mesquita (2007).
23 This chart necessarily glosses over nuanced distinctions between the commentaries.
Only some of the more significant divergences are acknowledged in the endnotes.
Further details are discussed in footnotes to the subsequent discussion of Vibbhalas
commentary.
24 Not cited by Nimbarka.
25 R@m@nuja interprets p@te tu to mean that actions whose manifest results, such as
rain and food, are favourable to cultivation of knowledge are only destroyed upon
the death of the body. (nanu viduXopi setikartavyat@kop@sana-nirvPttaye vPXby-ann@di-
phal@naXb@ny eva. katha: teX@: virodh@d vin@sa ucyate. tatr@ha p@te tu iti. sarara-p@te tu
teX@: vin@sa$. sarara-p@t@d +rdhva: tu vidy@nugu>a-dPXba-phal@ni sukPt@ni nasyantaty
artha$.) Madhva offers a radically different interpretation of the s+tra, citing a text
he attributes (dubiously) to the Agni Pur@>a, whereby the s+tra indicates that just as
there is the non-clinging and destruction of bad karman for a liberated being, there
is similarly the non-clinging of good karman for one who is fallen into darkness, and
David Buchta 49
there is no rising up therefrom. (pu>yasy@py evam asa:sleXa$ p@te. tu-

sabdonutth@nav@ca. yath@sleXo vin@sas ca muktasya tu vikarma>a$. eva: su-karma>as
c@pi patatas tamasi dhruvam.. ity @gneye.)
26 Not cited by Nimbarka or Madhva.
27 Not cited by Nimbarka. Madhva instead cites BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 1.4.15.
28 R@m@nuja interprets ubhayo$ as referring to acts performed both before and
after that attainment of knowledge (vidy@dhigam@t p+rvottarayo$). Nimbarka inter-
prets the word as referring to both meritorious and demeritorious acts (ubhayo$
pu>ya-p@payo$). Madhva interprets it as referring to actions which have not
yet manifested their result and those which are not desired (apr@rabdham
anabhaXba: ca).

29 This is the reading found in R@m@nuja and Bh@skara. Sankara gives, suhPda$ s@dhu-
kPty@m upayanti. These readings are not found in an extant text, but the KauXataki
UpaniXad (1.4), cited in Sankaras and R@m@nujas commentaries on Brahmas+tra
3.3.26, conveys the same idea with different wording.
30 Bh@skara rejects this s+tra as without purpose: yad eva vidyayeti hi s+tra: kecid
adhayate. tad anarthakam ity upekXa>ayam. The other commentators disagree as to
the actual point of the s+tra, but an analysis of the details of their disagreement is
beyond the scope of this article.
31 Cited only by Sankara and R@m@nuja.
32 Vibbhala is careful to defend and distinguish his interpretation of the asleXa of
current/future meritorious and demeritorious acts: it is not that such acts arise
but do not cling to the enlightened self; they do not arise at all.
(atrottarasyotpannasy@sleXa iti n@rthas tasy@tmany evotpattes tad-atiriktasya
sleXasy@bh@v@d atonutpattir ev@rtha$.)
Vibbhala also contributes to the interpretation of this section by spelling out, in
the voice of his p+rvapakXin, a catch-22 for eradicating karman if the results had to
be experienced: Because there arises an unending stream of similar karman on
account of the [necessarily occuring] karman suitable to the experience of [the
results of previous] karman, the absence of liberation is entailed for everyone.
(tad-bhog@nuk+la-karma>@ sva-saj@taya-tat-sant@na-janan@d anirmokXa eva sarvasya
sampadyate.)
The question is also considered if the eradication of karman through knowledge of
Brahman without the experience of its results does not undermine the mary@d@-
m@rga. After all, the regulation of karman (karma-mary@d@), whereby each act leads to
a result to be experienced by the agent of the act, is established by the Lord himself,
and thus he does not (generally) transgress such regulation. In answer, Vibbhala
defines puXbi (nourishment through divine grace) as the production of a result
simply on the strength of ones own nature without the undertaking of any effica-
cious practice. The extirpation of karman through knowledge of Brahman for one on
the mary@d@-m@rga, however, comes about by the cultivation of that knowledge,
which has the nature of being contrary to prescribed actions. ([In the voice of the
objector:] karma-mary@d@y@ api sva-kPtatv@t t@m anullanghyaiva bhagavat@ phala:
dayate. tac ca n@bhukta: kXayate. . . [Vibbhalas response:] na caiva: mary@d@-
m@rgayatva-bhanga$. s@dhana: vin@ sva-svar+pa-balenaiva k@rya-kara>e hi puXbir iha
tu niyata-karma-virodhitva-svabh@vena jn@nenaiva tath@ sampatte$.)
33 All three commentators read tu in the sense of eva (certainly). Sankara: p@te tv iti. tu-
sabdovadh@ra>@rtha$. eva: dharm@dharmayor bandha-hetvor vidy@-s@marthy@d asleXa-
vin@sa-siddher avasyambh@vina viduXa$ sarara-p@te muktir ity avadh@rayati. Bh@skara
distinguishes between javan-mukti and vimukti: tu-sabdovadh@ra>@rtha$. sarara-p@te
viduXo muktir avasyambh@vinati. dvidh@ muktir javad-avasth@y@: r@ga-dveXa-mohai$
tad-angais ca mad@dibhir vimukti$ p@tottara-k@lam @tyantikati. Nimb@rka:. . . uttara-
p+rvayor asleXa-vin@s@nantara: deha-p@te sati muktir eva.
34 See note 25.
35 Vibbhala considers the following objection: Because of being on the mary@d@-m@rga,
after [the attainment of] knowledge, when there is a falldown from devotion to the
Lord because the fault of attachment like that of Bharata, it is possible to speak of

the arising thereafter of enjoined and prohibited action, like the arising of faults
born from attachment. Thus, knowledge is not completely contrary to karman.
(atheda: sankyate. mary@d@-m@rgayatv@j jn@n@nantara: bharatavat sanga-doXe>a bhaga-
vad-bh@v@c cyutau sanga-ja-doXotpattivad agre vihita-niXiddha-karma>or apy utpattir
vaktu: sakyeti jn@nasya na sarv@tman@ karma-virodhitvam iti.) This objection is an-
swered in the s+tra by the words asa:sleXa$ p@te tu. (tatra nir>ayam @ha.) Vibbhala
defines p@ta as a fall from devotion to the Lord on the path of bhakti. (p@te. bhakti-
m@rge bhavagad-bh@v@c cyuti$ p@ta ity ucyate.) He takes tu in the sense of api (even),
but notes that the use of the word tu indicates that there is, in fact, no (real) fall
down for those on the path of bhakti, citing a verse from the Bh@gavata Pur@>a
(3.25.38) to justify this claim. (tur apy-arthe. api-sabde v@cye vyavacched@rthaka-tu-
sabdokty@smin m@rge p@tasya vyavaccheda eva. na karhicin mat-par@ iti-v@ky@t.)
Vibbhala then addresses the case of Bharata, saying that, since such a person is
on the mary@d@-m@rga, the Lord may cause an interruption in that persons devotion
in order for that person to experience their pr@rabdha-karman, as that experience
would not be possible when their devotion is fully manifest. He thus suggests that
this is not a genuine fall down from the path of devotion, but a temporary deviation
arranged by the Lord himself. Yet even during this deviation, he goes on to say,
there is no connection with subsequent karman. (parantu mary@d@-m@rgayatv@t
pr@rabdha-bhog@rtha: prabhus cet tath@ karoti tad-bh@ve p+r>e sati tad-
bhogosambh@vita iti tadaiva: bhavatati vy@s@bhipr@ya$ jn@yate. tath@ ca tasmin saty
apy uttarasya karma>osa:sleXa evety artha$.) The 17th18th century commentator
on the A>ubh@Xya, PuruXottama, cites the Bh@gavata Pur@>a (5.9.5) describing
Bharatas refusal to take instruction from his father. The full story of Bharatas
three lives (as a human, as a deer, and then again as a human) is narrated in the
Bh@gavata Pur@>a (5.7-13).
36 While Vibbhalas interpretation of the s+tra is unprecedented, R@m@nuja does bring
in the role of the Lords will in the continuation of the body after attaining know-
ledge: na ca pu>y@pu>ya-karma-janya-bhagavat-praty-aprati-vyatireke>a sarara-sthiti-
hetu-bh+ta-sa:sk@ra-sad-bh@ve pram@>am asti.
37 Vibbhala considers the objection that, since knowledge is [presumed to be] inde-
pendent of anything else and stronger than anything else, it should burn up all
karman as fire burns up all fuel, without any remainder. (nanv itaranirapekXa: hi
jn@na: sva-saktyaiv@gnir edha iva karm@>i dahatati p+rvam ukta: tath@ saty aseXam eva
tad dahatati vaktu: yukta: na tu sa-seXam. . . jn@nasya sarvato balavattv@t sa-v@sanasya
David Buchta 51
tasya n@san@t.) He sees the will of the Lord as necessary to explain the continuation
of the body, rejecting Sankaras analogy comparing the continuation of the body
after the destruction of karman to a potters wheel continuing to spin until its
momentum has run out. Vibbhala notes that, if a heavier rock (knowledge) is
placed on the potters wheel (action), the wheel cannot continue to spin (na ca
karma-n@sepi sa:sk@ra-vas@t kul@la-cakra-bhramivat tad-v@san@-vas@d deh@di-sattay@
pravacan@dy-upapattir iti v@cyam. jn@nasya sarvato balavattv@t sa-v@sanasya tasya
n@san@t. na hi mah@-sil@-niXp@te cakra-bhramir anuvartitum saknotaty @sanky@rabdha-
k@ry@dahane hetum @ha. tad avadhe$.) While other commentators take tad-avadhe$
as a compound, Vibbhala takes tat as a separate word, referring to the non-
destruction of pr@rabdha-karman through knowledge. (taj jn@nen@rabdha-

k@ry@dahanam. . .) He explains the term avadhi as referring to the will of the Lord,
which, as the cause of all causes, forms the ultimate terminus ante quem (p+rv@vadhi)
for everything. (. . .yat-tad-akhila-k@ra>a-k@ra>atvena akhilasya p+rv@vadhi-r+pa-bhaga-
vad-icch@-lakXa>@d dhetor ity artha$.) Foreshadowing his discussion in the second sub-
section of the person on the puXbi-m@rga, Vibbhala adds that, when the Lord desires
the destruction of even pr@rabdha-karman, it is destroyed. (yatra tasy@pi dahanecch@
tatra tathaiveti nig+nh@saya$. ata ev@gre tath@ vakXyate.) Vibbhala returns to the ex-
ample of Bharata, citing two passages from the Bh@gavata Pur@>a (5.8.26 and 5.10.14)
to the effect that Bharata was finishing off his pr@rabdha-karman through his ex-
perience of life as a deer. (ata eva sra-bh@gavate mPga-d@rak@bh@sena sv@rabdha-
karma>@ yog@rambha>ato vibhra:sita iti upabhogena karm@rabdha: vyapanayann
iti ca bharata: prati vacana: gayate.) Vibbhala addresses the example comparing
knowledge to fire which burns without limit, pointing out that the power of fire
to burn can be countered by magical gems and formulae. Likewise, it is the will of
the Lord, not knowledge, which, as the root cause of everything, is truly the most
powerful force of all. (eva: sati ma>i-mantr@di-pratibaddha-sakter agner iva jn@nasy@py
ad@hatve na k@cid dh@nir iti sarvam anavadyam. . . bhagavad-icch@y@ m+la-
k@ra>atvenoktes tasy@$ sarvato baliXbhatv@t.)
38 Sankara: jn@nasyaiva hi pr@paka: sat-karma pra>@ny@ mokXa-k@ra>am ity upacaryate.
Bh@skara: jn@na-k@ryam apavarga$. R@m@nuja: vidy@khya-k@ry@yaiva hi
viduXognihotr@dy-anuXbh@nam. Nimb@rka: vidy@-poXakatv@t anuXbhey@ny eva. Madhva:
agnihotr@dy api mokXenubhav@yaiva.
39 Vibbhala presents the performance of acts such as agnihotras as somehow akin to the
experience of the results of the same acts previously performed. In justifying this
idea, he cites the BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad (4.4.5) to the effect that one becomes good
by performing good acts and becomes bad by performing bad acts. That is, the
tendency to perform good or bad acts is part of the experience of the result of
having previously performed good or bad acts. Thus, the subsequent performance
of acts such as agnihotras can form a part of the process of eradicating pr@rabdha-
karmans. However, this only applies for those whose pr@rabdha-karman is a result of
the same actions. The sage Sanaka, for example, did not perform such activities
previously and thus should not engage in them to burn up pr@rabdha-karman: agni-
hotr@di-vihita-karma-kara>a: tat-k@ry@yaiva bhoga-k@ry@ya pr@rabdha-n@s@yaivety
artha$. yeX@m agni-hotr@di-k@raka: pr@rabdham asti tair eva tan-n@s@ya bhogavad tad
api kriyate. na tv at@dPsair ata eva na sanak@dan@: tath@tvam. kuta$ etat. tad-darsan@t.
yath@k@ra yath@c@ra tath@ bhavati s@dhuk@ra s@dhur bhavati p@pa-k@ra p@po bha-
vati pu>ya$ pu>ye>a karma>@ bhavati p@pa$ p@peneti sruti$ p+rva-karma>ogrima-
karma-hetutva: darsayatati n@nupatti$ k@cit.
40 Sankara: atognihotr@der nity@t karma>ony@pi hy asti s@dhu-kPty@ y@ phalam abhi-
sandh@ya kriyate tasy@ eXa viniyoga ukta ekeX@: s@khin@m suhPda$ s@dhu-kPty@m
upayanti iti. Bh@skara: atognihotr@der nity@t karma>ony@pi hy asti s@dhu-kPty@ yat
k@mya-karma-phal@ya kriyate asti ca p@pa-kPty@ yat pratiXiddham @caryate tad-viXayoyam
asleXa-vin@s@vagama$ kPtas tad-viXayas caikeX@: s@khin@: viniyoga$. R@m@nuja: ata$
agnihotr@di-s@dhu-kPty@y@$ vidyotpattyarth@y@$ any@pi vidy@dhigam@t p+rvottarayo$
pu>ya-karma>o$ prabala-karma-pratibaddha-phal@ s@dhu-kPty@nant@ sambhavaty eva.
tad-viXayam idam ekeX@: s@khin@: vacana: tasya putr@$. . . Nimb@rka: asm@t

pr@pta-viXay@t karma>o vidyotp@dak@di-r+p@d any@py alabdha-viXay@ kPty@sti tad-viXayam
ekeX@: suhPda$ s@dhu-kPty@: dviXanta$ p@pa-kPty@m ity ubhayo$ pu>ya-p@payor
vibh@ga-vacanam. Madhva: mukt@v anubhava-k@ra>@d yad anyat tat pu>yam api vina-
syati. apr@rabdham anabhaXba: ca. tath@ hy ekeX@: p@bha ubhayos ty@gena. tasya
putr@$. . .
41 ekeX@: puXbi-m@rgay@>@: bhakt@n@m ubhayo$ pr@rabdh@pr@rabdhayor bhoga: vinaiva
n@so bhavati. kuta$ etat tatr@ha. ata$. srute$ karma>o jn@na-n@syatva-nir+pik@y@$.
brahma-vida eva pravacan@di-nir+pe>a tad-an@sya-pr@rabdh@khya-karm@kXepaka-srutes
ca. any@pi sruti$. pabhyate. tasya putr@$. . . iti. . . tasm@d aty-anugraha-bh@janasya bhak-
tasya sva-pr@pti vilambam asahiX>ur bhagav@n asya pr@rabdham etat-sambandhi-gata:
kPtv@ tasya tena bhoga: k@rayati. pr@rabdha: bhogaika-n@syam iti sva-kPta-mary@d@-
p@lan@ya na n@sayati. na ca tayor am+rttatven@kPt@bhy@gama-prasangena ca naiva:
vaktum ucitam iti v@cyam. asvaratven@nyath@pi kara>a-sambhav@t. mary@d@-viparata-
svar+patv@t puXbi-m@rgasya na k@can@tr@nupapattir bh@vanay@. tasy@ atra bh+Xa>atv@t.
42 . . .ato brahma-vidy@vatopi tath@tvasyocitatv@t tad-uttarasy@sleXa iti yad ukta: tan nopa-
padyata iti pr@pte @ha. yadeveti. . . tenokta-rasatamatv@di-prak@rakop@san@n@: madhye
yad eva vidyay@ karoti tad eva varyavattara: bhavatati tad-artha iti na brahma-vidy@-
gandhopati na s@ sank@tra sambhavataty artha$..
43 yad v@. ukt@sank@-nir@s@yaiv@ha. yad eveti. brahma-vid dhi pr@rabdha-kXay@yaiva karma
kurute tat tv anya-kPt@t karma>a$ sak@s@t sa-v@sana-tan-n@san@d varyavattara: bhavaty
eveti n@nupapatti$ k@cid ity artha$.
44 That is, because of a connection with a teacher who possesses knowledge. I am
grateful to an anonymous reviewer who drew my attention to Gopesvaras Rasmi
gloss of the A>ubh@Xya on this s+tra.
45 yad v@. nanu puXbi-m@rgayasya pr@rabdhasy@pi bhoga: vinaiva n@sa iti
srutv@sambh@van@: kurv@>a: prati kaimutika-ny@yena tat-parih@ram @ha. yad evety-
@di. java-niXbh@ vidy@ hi bhagavaj-jn@na-sakter a:sa-bh+t@. eva: sati yatra dharma-sam-
bandhi-sambandh@d anyebhyotisaya: karma>i vadati srutis tatra s@kX@d-dharmi-sam-
bandhetisayita-k@rya-sampattau katham asambh@van@ kartum uciteti nig+nh@saya$.
46 Sankara: itare tv @rabdha-k@rye pu>ya-p@pe upabhogena kXapayitv@ brahma
sampadyate. . . Bh@skara: @rabdha-k@rye pu>ya-p@pe bhogena kXapayitv@ brahma sampa-
dyate. R@m@nuja: itare @rabdha-k@rye pu>ya-p@pe sv@rabdha-phala-bhogena kXapayitv@
tat-phala-bhoga-sam@pty-anantara: brahma sampadyate. Nimbarka: vidv@n @rabdha-
k@rye tu sukPta-duXkPte bhogena kXapayitv@ brahma sampadyate. Madhva: @rabdha-
pu>ya-p@pe bhogena kXapayitv@ brahma sampatsyate.
David Buchta 53
47 agre-pr@py@laukika-deh@d bhinne sth+la-linga-sarare kXapayitv@ d+ra-kPtya atha bhagaval-

lalopayogi-deha-pr@pty-anantara: bhogena sampadyate.
48 Vibbhala: sosnute sarv@n k@m@n saha brahma>@ vipasciteti-sruty-uktena bhogena
sampadyate ity artha$. As Vibbhala notes, this passage appears in a section of the
Taittiraya UpaniXad that is discussed at length in the @nanda-maya adhikara>a of the
Brahmas+tra (1.1.11-18): sruty-arthas tv @nanda-may@dhikara>e nir+pita$.
49 See note 18 regarding Baladevas various influences. In this p@da of the Brahmas+tras
(4.1), Baladeva only begins following Vibbhala in this section. His commentary on
the preceding s+tra (4.1.12) is primarily influenced by Madhva. As noted above, I
have also preliminarily identified a similar case of influence in the commentaries to
Brahmas+tra 3.3.21-25.

50 Baladeva: kuta$. tad-avadhe$. tasya t@vad eva. . . iti-srute$. tvad-avagama na vetti
bhavad-uttha-subh@subhayor gu>a-vigu>@nvay@:s tarhi deha-bhPt@: ca gira$. iti-
smPte$. paresecch@y@$ pr@rabdha-n@s@vadhi-bh+tatva-srava>@d ity artha$. etad ukta:
bhavati. atibaliXbh@ khalu vidy@ sarva-karm@>i niravaseX@>i dahati pradapta-vahnir iva
vividh@ny edh@:sati. yady api v@ky@t pratata: tath@pi brahma-vid@: deha-sthiti-darsan@t
tad-@rambhaka: karma upades@di-prac@ri>y@ tad-icchayaiva tiXbhed iti sva-k@ryam.
Baladeva also follows Vibbhalas argument that the power of knowledge to destroy
all karman can be overridden by the greater power of the Lords will as a fires
power can be counteracted by a jewel or the like and Vibbhalas argument against
Sankaras spinning potters wheel analogy, citing the immediate stopping of the
wheel when a heavy stone is placed on top: eva: ca sati ma>y-@di-pratibaddha-sakter
vahner iva vidy@y@$ kincit-karm@d@hakatvepi na k@pi kXatir iti. . . na hi gurutara-sil@-
nip@te cakra: punar bhramitum alam.
51 kratu-bhed@t vidy@rthinas tredh@ sambhavanti. kecit loka-vaicitra-didPkXavo
var>@sramadharm@n
pariniXbhay@caranta$ svaniXbh@ ucyante. kecit tu loka-sanjighPkXayaiva t@n
@caranta$ pariniXbhit@$. te caite cobhaye s@sram@$. pare tu pr@g-bhavayair dharmai$
satyatapo-
jap@dibhis ca visuddh@ nirapekX@$. I quote here the translation from Buchta (2010, p.
362). Baladeva offers a similar characterization, more focused on each types devo-
tion to KPX>a, in the opening of his Gat@bh+Xa>a commentary on the Bhagavadgat@:
The candidate [for receiving the teachings] of this s@stra is a faithful person, fixed
in the true dharma, with subdued senses. The candidate is of three kinds according
to the divisions of saniXbha, pariniXbha, and nirapekXa. Among them, the first performs,
with steadiness, his own [specific var>@srama-] dharma as worship of Hari, desiring
also to see the worlds such as svarga. The second performs those [specific duties]
with a desire to benefit the world, [but] absorbed in devotional service to Hari. Each
of them is a householder. The third is a renunciate, fully purified in heart by truth,
austerity, and repetition of prayers, [and] absorbed solely in Hari. (asya s@strasya
sraddh@lu$ sad-dharma-niXbho vijitendriyo dhik@ra. sa ca saniXbha-pariniXbhita-nirapekXa-
bhed@t tri-vidha$. teXu svarg@di-lok@n api didPkXur niXbhay@ sva-dharm@n hary-arcana-
r+p@n @caran prathama$. loka-sa:jighPkXay@ t@n @caran hari-bhakti-nirato dvitaya$. sa ca
sa ca s@srama$. satya-tapo-jap@dibhir visuddha-citto hary-eka-niratas tPtayo nir@srama$.)
I quote here the translation from Buchta (2003, p. 130). In printed editions of the
Gat@bh+Xa>a, one finds saniXbha rather than svaniXbha. I have not been able to account
for the variation or determine which is the correct reading.
52 Baladeva on Brahmas+tra 3.4.36: pr@g-bhav@nuXbhitair dharmai$ satya-tapo-jap@dibhis ca
parisuddheXu teXv api vidy@ udayate. It is not unlikely that Baladeva accepts a per-
manent ontological hierarchy of selves given the influence of Madhva. Buchta
(2014, pp. 27376) discusses Madhvas influence on Baladeva on this point and
the echoes of Madhvas hierarchy in Vallabhas triad.
53 It may be noted that R+pa Gosv@min explicitly correlates his own descriptions of
vaidha and r@g@nug@ s@dhana-bhakti with the mary@d@- and puXbi-m@rgas, respectively
in his Bhaktiras@mPta-sindhu (1.2.269, 309).
54 Baladeva on Brahmas+tra 3.4.38: teXu [nirapekXeXu] tat-[bhavagat-]kPp@-viseXo dPXba$; on

Brahmas+tra 3.4.42: eke @tharva>ik@ nirapekX@>@m upa-p+rvam up@sanam ev@bhiXba: tat-
siddha: bh@va: c@sanavad bhogya: pabhanti. I use gender neutral language here not
just out of a contemporary sense of propriety. Baladeva uses the female sage G@rga
as his example of a nirapekXa, as discussed in Buchta (2010).
55 With this exception, Baladeva follows Vibbhala in his basic reading of the s+tra:
brahmaika-rat@n@: param@tur@>@: keX@ncin nirapekX@>@: vinaiva bhogam ubhayo$
pr@rabdhayo$ pu>ya-p@payor visleXa$ sy@t. tatra hetur anyeti. hi yasm@t ata asvarecchay@
sthit@rabdha-nir+paka-sruter any@ ca srutir ekeX@: s@kh@y@: pabhyate. Baladeva follows
Vibbhalas argument against Sankaras interpretation that the scope of the passage
in question is with regard to k@mya-karmans. Compare Vibbhala (na ca k@mya-karma-
viXayeya: srutir iti v@cyam. tad-adhigama uttara-p+rv@ghayor asleXa-vin@s@v iti-
s+tre>etarasy@py evam iti-s+tr@vayavena c@viseXe>@rabdh@tirikta-karma>or akhilayor
n@sa-nir+pa>@t. p@pa-kPty@y@: k@myatv@sambhav@c ca.) with Baladeva (na caiX@
k@mya-karma-viXay@. tad-adhigam@di-s+tr@bhy@: pr@rabdh@tiriktayor nikhilayo$ p@pa-
pu>yayor vin@sa-nir+pa>@t p@pa-kPty@y@: k@myatv@bh@v@c ca.). He likewise follows
Vibbhalas comment about the Lords not being able to tolerate any delay in these
devotees reaching himself: tasm@d atipreyas@: sva: draXbum @rt@n@: keX@ncid
bhakt@n@: sv@pti-vilambam asahiX>ur asvaras tat-pr@rabdh@ni tadayebhya$ prad@ya t@n
sv@ntika: nayatati viseX@dhikara>e vakXyate. Finally, Baladeva reiterates Vibbhalas
claim that having others experience the pr@rabdha-karman of the special devotees
protects the principle, established by the Lord himself, that pr@rabdha must be
experienced, and he answers the same objections about the impossibility of the
transfer of formless karman and the impropriety of a person experiencing the
results of actions performed by someone else: tais ca teX@: bhog@t t@ni bhogya-
svabh@v@nati sva-kPta-sa:sth@ ca siddheti. nanu tayor am+rtatv@d akPt@bhy@gama-
prasang@c ca naitad yuktam iti cen na asvaratven@nyath@-vidh@ne s@marthy@t.
56 yad eva vidyay@ karoti ity-@dy@ srutir jaiva-jn@na-sambandh@t karma>i vary@tisaya: dar-
sayati. hi yasm@t ato vidy@-s@marthy@pratibandha-r+p@t p@ramesvar@t pras@d@n nirb-
hog@rabdh@bh@va-r+potisayo javepi kvacid bhaved iti na citram.
57 pr@ptavya-p@rXada-sarar@d itare sth+la-s+kXma-sarare kXapayitv@ vih@y@tha p@rXada-
vapu$-pr@pty-anantara: bhogena sosnute sarv@n k@m@n ity-@di-sruty-uktena sampa-
dyate sampanno bhavataty artha$.
58 The most striking evidence that the controversial nature of the former doctrine was
recognised within the Gaunaya VaiX>ava community is found in an account given by
KPX>ad@sa Kavir@ja in his hagiography of Caitanya, the Caitanyacarit@mPta (3.3.198).
David Buchta 55
When Caitanyas companion, Harid@sa, preaches this doctrine, one disputant threa-
tens to cut off Harid@sas nose if he cannot justify his claim. And a concern about
such controversies can be seen even in the Padma Pur@>as (3.25.16) list of offenses
against the Name, which includes teaching about the Name to a faithless, disinter-
ested person.
59 brahma-vidyay@bhyuditay@ sa:cita-kriyam@>ayo$ pu>ya-p@payor vin@s@sleXau bhavata$.
ubhe u haivaiXa ete taraty amPta$ s@dhv-as@dhuna iti srute$. phala-d@n@ya pravPtte pu>ya-
p@pe pr@rabdha: karmocyate. tat tu bhogenaiva kXayate na tu brahma-vidyay@. tasya
t@vad eva cira: y@van na vimokXye iti srute$. The citation here from the
BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad differs from the text in Olivelles edition of the UpaniXad,
although these variants are found in his notes (p. 521). Baladeva cites this passage in

his commentary on Brahmas+tra 4.1.14, while Sankara, Bh@skara, and Vibbhala each
quote an abbreviated or variant version.
60 evam eva nir>ata: bhagavat@ s+trak@re>a.
61 eX@m arth@s ca. tad-adhigame brahm@nubhave saty uttara-p+rvayo$ kriyam@>a-sa:citayor
aghayor asleXa-vin@sau sta$. tad-vyapades@c chrutau tathokte$ iti. itarasya pu>yasy@py
evam asa:sleXo vin@sas ca dehasya pr@rabdha-racitasya p@te tu mokXa$ sy@d iti. p+rve
an@rabdha-k@rye sa:cite p@pa-pu>ye vidyay@ vin@syato na tv @rabdha-k@rye ca te tan-
n@sasya bhog@vadhitv@d iti.
62 tac ca pr@rabdha: karma n@mocc@ra>@d apagacchatati.

Devotion and Karmic Extirpation in Late

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Devotion and Karmic Extirpation in Late

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Journal of Hindu Studies 2016;9:2955 doi:10.

Devotion and Karmic Extirpation in Late

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

karmic extirpation from a distinctive theological perspective that emphasized the

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

difference) Ved@ntin, Vijn@nabhikXu, addresses this lacuna. Highlighting a

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

prominent hagiography of Caitanya, KPX>ad@sa Kavir@jas Caitanyacarit@mPta (2.7),

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Brahmas+tra 4.1.13-19 in the earlier ved@nta traditions

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Brahmas+tra text, and translation Commonly cited proof texts

4.1.13: Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 4.14.324

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

4.1.14: Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 8.4.126

4.1.15: Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 6.14.2

4.1.16: BPhad@ra>yaka UpaniXad 4.4.2227

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

4.1.18: Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 1.1.10

4.1.19: Ch@ndogya UpaniXad 6.14.231

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

According to the difference of their motivations, those seeking knowledge are

As these characterisations make clear, Vallabhas and Baladevas triads do not

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Baladevas citation of the Brahmas+tra in his Stavam@l@bh+Xa>abh@Xya

The Name plays a central role in Gaunaya VaiX>ava theology, understood as a

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

yad brahma-s@kX@t-kPti-niXbhay@pi vin@sam @y@ti vin@ na bhogai$ |

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Smith, Frederick M. 2011. Predestination and hierarchy: Vallabh@c@ryas discourse on the

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

appear to be a straightforward reading of the s+tra, saying that the practice of

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

there is no rising up therefrom. (pu>yasy@py evam asa:sleXa$ p@te. tu-

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

47 agre-pr@py@laukika-deh@d bhinne sth+la-linga-sarare kXapayitv@ d+ra-kPtya atha bhagaval-

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Downloaded from http://jhs.oxfordjournals.org/ at Brown University on October 1, 2016

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi